§ 1. The English version of the Lay of Havelok, now here reprinted, is one of the few poems that have happily been recovered, after having long been given up as lost. Tyrwhitt, in his Essay on the Language and Versification of Chaucer, has a footnote (No. 51) deploring the loss of the Rime concerning Gryme the Fisher, the founder of Grymesby, Hanelok [read Havelok] the Dane, and his wife Goldborough; and Ritson, in his Dissertation on Romance and Minstrelsy—(vol. i. p. lxxxviii. of his Metrical Romanceës)—makes remarks to the same effect. It was at length, however, discovered by accident in a manuscript belonging to the Bodleian library, which had been described in the old Catalogue merely as Vitæ Sanctorum, a large portion of it being occupied by metrical legends of the Saints. In 1828, it was edited for the Roxburghe Club by Sir F. Madden, the title-page of the edition being as follows:— “The Ancient English Romance of Havelok the Dane, accompanied by the French Text: with an introduction, notes, and a glossary, by Frederick Madden, Esq., F.A.S. F.R.S.L., Sub-Keeper of the MSS. in the British Museum. Printed for the Roxburghe Club, London. W. Nicol, Shakspeare Press, MDCCCXXVIII.” This volume contains a very complete Introduction, pp. i-lvi; the English version of Havelok, pp. 1-104; the French text of the Romance of Havelok, from a MS. in the Heralds’ College, pp. 105-146; the French Romance of Havelok, as abridged and altered by Geffrei Gaimar, pp. 147-180; notes to the English text, pp. 181-207; notes to the French ii text, pp. 208-210; and a glossary, &c., pp. 211-263. But there are sometimes bound up with it two pamphlets, viz. “Remarks on the Glossary to Havelok,” by S. W. Singer, and an “Examination of the Remarks, &c.,” by the Editor of Havelok. In explanation of this, it may suffice to say, that the former contains some criticisms by Mr Singer (executed in a manner suggestive of an officious wish to display superior critical acumen), of which a few are correct, but others are ludicrously false; whilst the latter is a vindication of the general correctness of the explanations given, and contains, incidentally, some valuable contributions to our general etymological knowledge, and various remarks which have proved of service in rendering the glossary in the present edition more exactly accurate.1

§ 2. Owing to the scarcity of copies of this former edition, the committee of the Early English Text Society, having first obtained the approval of Sir Frederic Madden, resolved upon issuing a reprint of it; and Sir Frederic having expressed a wish that the duty of seeing it through the press should be entrusted to myself, I gladly undertook that responsibility. He has kindly looked over the revises of the whole work,2 but as it has undergone several modifications, it will be the best plan to state in detail what these are.

§ 3. With respect to the text, the greatest care has been taken to render it, as nearly as can be represented in print, an exact copy of the MS. The text of the former edition is exceedingly correct, and the alterations here made are few and of slight importance. Sir F. Madden furnished me with some, the results of a re-comparison, made by himself, of his printed copy with the original; besides this, I have myself carefully read the proof sheets with the MS. twice, and it may therefore be assumed that the complete correctness of the text is established. It seems to me that this is altogether the most important part of the work iii of a Text Society, in order that the student may never be perplexed by the appearance of words having no real existence. For a like reason the letters þ and ƿ (the latter of which I have represented by an italic w) have now been inserted wherever they occur, and the expansions of abbreviations are now denoted by italics. For further remarks upon the text, see the description of the MS. below, § 26. Sidenotes and headlines have been added, but the numbering of the lines has not been altered. The French text of the romance, the title of which is Le Lai de Aveloc, and the abridgment of the story by Geffrei Gaimar, have not been here reprinted; the fact being, that the French and English versions differ very widely, and that the passages of the French which really correspond to the English are few and short. All of these will be found in the Notes, in their proper places, and it was also deemed the less necessary to print the French text, because it is tolerably accessible; for it may be found either in vol. i. of Monumenta Historica Britannica, ed. Petrie, 1848, in the reprint by M. Michel (1833) entitled “Le Lai d’Havelok,” or in the edition by Mr T. Wright for the Caxton Society, 1850. An abstract of it is given at p. xxiii. The Notes are abridged from Sir F. Madden’s, with but a very few additions by myself, which are distinguished by being placed within square brackets. The Glossarial Index is, for the most part, reprinted from Sir F. Madden’s Glossary, but contains a large number of slight alterations, re-arrangements, and additions. The references have nearly all been verified,3 and the few words formerly left unexplained are now either wholly or partially solved. I have now only to add that a large portion of the remainder of this preface, especially that which concerns the historical and traditional evidences of the story (§ 4 to § 18), is abridged or copied from Sir F. Madden’s long Introduction, which fairly exhausts the subject.4 All extracts included between marks of quotation are taken from it without alteration. But I must be considered responsible for the iv rearrangement of the materials, and I have added a few remarks from other sources.

§ 4. Notices of the Story of Havelok by early writers. There can be little doubt that the tradition must have existed from Anglo-Saxon times, but the earliest mention of it is presented to us in the full account furnished by the French version of the Romance. Of this there are two copies, one of which belongs to Sir T. Phillipps; the other is known as the Arundel or Norfolk MS., and is preserved in the Heralds’ College, where it is marked E. D. N. No. 14; the various editions of the latter have been already enumerated in § 3. This version was certainly composed within the first half of the twelfth century. From the fact that it is entitled a Lai, and from the assertion of the poet—“Qe vn lai en firent li Breton”—“whereof the Britons made a lay”—we easily conclude that it was drawn from a British source. From the evident connection of the story with the Chronicle called the Brut, we may further conclude that by Breton is not meant Armorican, but belonging to Britain. The story is in no way connected with France; the tradition is British or Welsh, and the French version was doubtless written in England by a subject of an English king. That the language is French is due merely to the accident that the Norman conquerors of England had acquired that language during their temporary sojourn in France. From every point of view, whether we regard the British tradition, the Anglo-Norman version, or the version printed in the present volume, the story is wholly English. It is not to be connected too closely with the Armorican lays of Marie de France.5

§ 5. We next come to the abridgment of the same as made by Geffrei Gaimar, who wrote between the years 1141 and 1151. In one place, Geffrei quotes Gildas as his authority, but no conclusion can easily be drawn from this indefinite reference. In another place, he mentions a feast given by Havelok after his defeat of Hodulf— si cum nus dit la verai estoire— “as the true v history tells us.” As this feast is not mentioned in the fuller French version, and yet reappears in the English text, we perceive that he had some additional source of information; and this is confirmed by the fact that he mentions several additional details, also not found in the completer version. That the lay of Havelok, as found in Gaimar, is really his, and not an interpolation by a later hand, may fairly be inferred from his repeated allusions to the story in the body of his work. There are three MS. copies containing Gaimar’s abridgment, of which the best is the Royal MS. (Bibl. Reg. 13 A. xxi.) in the British Museum; the two others belong respectively to the Dean and Chapter of Durham (its mark being C. iv. 27) and to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln (its mark being H. 18). It is curious that the Norfolk MS. contains not only the fuller French version of the story, but also the Brut of Wace, and the continuation of it by Gaimar. Gaimar’s abridgment, as printed in Sir F. Madden’s edition, is taken from the Royal MS., supplemented by the Durham and Lincoln MSS. See also Monumenta Historica Britannica, vol. i. p. 764. It is important to mention that Gaimar speaks of the Danes as having been in Norfolk since the time that Havelok was King, after he has been relating the combats between the Britons and the Saxons under the command of Cerdic and Cynric. Another allusion makes Havelok to have lived long before the year 800, according to every system of chronology.

§ 6. The next mention of Havelok is in the French Chronicle of Peter de Langtoft, of Langtoft in Yorkshire, who died early in the reign of Edward II., and whose Chronicle closes with the death of Edward I. Here the only trace of the story is in the mention of “Gountere le pere Hauelok, de Danays Ray clamez”—Gunter, father of Havelok, called King of the Danes. The allusion is almost valueless from its evident absurdity; for he confounds Gunter with the Danish invader defeated by Alfred, and who is variously called Godrum, Gudrum, Guthrum, or Gurmound. He must have been thinking, at the moment, of a very different Gurmund, viz. the King of the Africans, as he is curiously called, whose terrible devastations are described very fully in Laȝamon, vol. iii. pp. 156-177, and who may fairly be supposed to have lived much nearer to the time of Havelok; and he must further vi have confounded this Gurmund with Gunter. For the account of Robert of Brunne’s translation of Langtoft’s Chronicle, see below, § 10.

§ 7. But soon after this, we come to a most curious account. In MS. Harl. 902 is a late copy, on paper, of a Chronicle called Le Bruit Dengleterre, or otherwise Le Petit Bruit, compiled A.D. 1310, by Meistre Rauf de Boun, at the request of Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln. It is a most worthless compilation, put together in defiance of all chronology, but with respect to our present inquiry it is full of interest, as it soon becomes obvious that one of his sources of information is the very English version here printed, which he cites by the name of l’estorie de Grimesby, and which is thus proved to have been written before the year 1310. “The Chronicler,” says Sir F. Madden, “commences, as usual, with Brute, B.C. 2000, and after taking us through the succeeding reigns to the time of Cassibelin, who fought with Julius Cæsar, informs us, that after Cassibelin’s death came Gurmound out of Denmark, who claimed the throne as the son of the eldest daughter of Belin, married to Thorand, King of Denmark. He occupies the kingdom 57 years, and is at length slain at Hunteton, called afterwards from him Gurmoundcestre. He is succeeded by his son Frederick, who hated the English, and filled his court with Danish nobles, but who is at last driven out of the country, after having held it for the short space of 71 years. And then, adds this miserable History-monger: ‘Et si entendrez vous, que par cel primer venue de auaunt dit Roy Gormound, et puis par cele hountoux exil de son fitz Frederik, si fu le rancour de Daneis vers nous enpendaunt, et le regne par cel primere accion vers nous enchalangount plus de sept C auns apre, iekis a la venue Haneloke, fitz le Roy Birkenebayne de Dannemarche, q~ le regne par mariage entra de sa femme.’ —f. 2 b.

“After a variety of equally credible stories, we come to Adelstan II.6 son of Edward [the Elder], who corresponds with vii the real king of that name, A.D. 925-941. He is succeeded by his son [brother] Edmund, who reigned four years [A.D. 941-946], and is said to have been poisoned at Canterbury; after whom we have Adelwold, whose identity with the Athelwold of the English Romance, will leave no doubt as to the source whence the writer drew great part of his materials in the following passage:

‘Apres ceo vient Adelwold son fitz q~ reigna XVJ et demie, si engendroit ij feiz et iij filis, dount trestoutz murrirent frechement fors q~ sa pune file, le out a nom Goldburgh, del age de VJ aunz kaunt son pere Adelwold morust. Cely Roy Adelwold quant il doit morir, comaunda sa file a garder a vn Count de Cornewayle, al houre kaunt il quidou~ie (sic) hountousment auoir deparagé, quaunt fit Haueloke, fitz le Roy Byrkenbayne de Denmarche, esposer le, encountre sa volunté, q~ primis fuit Roy Dengleterre et de Denmarch tout a vn foitz, par quele aliaunce leis Daneis queillerunt g^endr~ (sic) mestrie en Engleterre, et long temps puise le tindrunt, si cum vous nouncie l’estorie de Grimesby, come Grime primez nurist Haueloke en Engleterre, depuis cel houre q’il feut chasé de Denmarche &c. deqis al houre q’il vint au chastelle de Nichole, q~ cely auauntdit traitre Goudriche out en garde, en quel chastel il auauntdit Haueloke espousa l’auauntdit Goldeburgh, q~ fuit heir Dengleterre. Et par cel reson tynt cely Haueloke la terre de Denmarche auxi comme son heritage, et Engleterre auxi par mariage de sa femme; et si entendrez vous, q~ par la reson q~ ly auauntdit Gryme ariua primez, kaunt il amena l’enfaunt Haueloke hors de Denmarche, par meyme la reson reseut cele vile son nom, de Grime, quel noun ly tint vnquore Grimisby.

‘Apres ceo regna meyme cely Haueloke, q~ mult fuit prodhomme, et droiturelle, et bien demenoit son people en reson et ley. Cel Roy Haueloke reigna xlj. aunz, si engendroit ix fitz et vij filis, dount trestoutz murrerount ainz q~ furunt d’age, fors soulement iiij de ses feitz, dont l’un out a noum Gurmound, cely q~ entendy auoir son heire en Engleterre; le secound out a noun Knout, quen fitz feffoit son pere en le regne de Denmarche, quant il estoit del age de xviij aunz, et ly mesme se tynt a la coroune Dengleterre, quel terre il entendy al oeps son ainez fitz Gurmound viii auoir gardé. Mes il debusa son col auxi comme il feu mounté vn cheval testous q~ poindre volleyt, en l’an de son regne xxiij entrant. Le tiers fitz ont a noun Godard, q~ son pere feffoit de la Seneschacie Dengleterre, q~ n’auo~ut (sic) taunt come ore fait ly quart. Et le puisnez fitz de toutz out a noum Thorand, q~ espousa la Countesse de Hertouwe en Norwey. Et par la reson q~ cely Thorand feut enherité en la terre de Norwey, ly et ses successours sont enheritez iekis en sa p~ce (sic) toutdis, puis y auoit affinité de alliaunce entre ceulx de Denmarche et ceulx de Norwey, a checun venue q~ vnkes firent en ceste terre pur chalenge ou clayme mettre, iekis a taunt q~ lour accion feut enseyne destrut par vn noble chevallere Guy de Warwike, &c. Et tout en sy feffoit Haueloke sez quatre fitz: si gist a priorie de Grescherche en Loundrez.’ —f. 6 b.

“The Estorie de Grimesby therefore, referred to above, is the identical English Romance before us, and it is no less worthy of remark, that the whole of the passage just quoted, with one single variation of import, has been literally translated by Henry de Knyghton, and inserted in his Chronicle.7 Of the sources whence the information respecting Havelok’s sons is derived, we are unable to offer any account, as no trace of it occurs either in the French or English texts of the story.”

§ 8. “About the same time at which Rauf de Boun composed his Chronicle, was written a brief Genealogy of the British and Saxon Kings, from Brutus to Edward II., preserved in the same MS. in the Heralds’ College which contains the French text of the Romance. The following curious rubric is prefixed:— La lignée des Bretons et des Engleis, queus il furent, et de queus nons, et coment Brut vint premerement en Engleterre, et combien de tens puis, et dont il vint. Brut et Cornelius furent chevalers chacez de la bataille de Troie, M. CCCC. XVII. anz deuant qe dieus nasquit, et vindrent en Engleterre, en Cornewaille, et riens ne fut trouee en la terre fors qe geanz, Geomagog, Hastripoldius, Ruscalbundy, et plusurs autres Geanz. In this Genealogy no mention of Havelok occurs under the reign of Constantine, but after the names of the Saxon Kings Edbright and Edelwin, we read: ‘Athelwold auoit vne fille Goldeburgh, et il regna vi. anz. Haueloc esposa meisme ix cele Goldeburgh, et regna iij. anz. Alfred le frere le Roi Athelwold enchaca Haueloc par Hunehere, et il fut le primer Roi corone de l’apostoille, et il regna xxx. anz.’ —fol. 148 b. By this account Athelwold is clearly identified with Ethelbald, King of Wessex, who reigned from 855 to 860, whilst Havelok is substituted in the place of Ethelbert and Ethered.”

§ 9. “Not long after the same period was written a Metrical Chronicle of England, printed by Ritson, Metr. Rom. V. ii. p. 270. Two copies are known to exist,8 the first concluding with the death of Piers Gavestone, in 1313 (MS. Reg. 12. C. xii.), and the other continued to the time of Edw. III. (Auchinleck MS.). The period of Havelok’s descent into England is there ascribed to the reign of King Ethelred (978-1016), which will very nearly coincide with the period assigned by Rauf de Boun, viz. A.D. 963-1004.”

MS. Reg. 12. C. xii.

“This date differs from most of the others, and appears founded on the general notion of the Danish invasions during that period.”

§ 10. Before proceeding to consider the prose Chronicle of the Brute, it is better to speak first of the translation of Peter de Langtoft’s Chronicle by Robert of Brunne, a translation which was completed A.D. 1338. At p. 25 of Hearne’s edition is the following passage:

“This is the whole that appears in the original, but after the above lines immediately follows, in the language of Robert of Brunne himself (as noted also by Hearne, Pref. p. lxvii.), the following curious, and to our inquiry, very important passage:”

“There cannot exist the smallest doubt, that by the ‘Ryme’ here mentioned ‘that lowed men vpon Inglish tellis,’ the identical English Romance, now before the reader, is referred to. It must therefore certainly have been composed prior to the period at which Robert of Brunne wrote,10 in whose time the traditions respecting Havelok at Lincoln were so strongly preserved, as to xi point out various localities to which the story had affixed a name, and similar traditions connected with the legend, as we shall find hereafter, existed also at Grimsby. The doubts expressed by the Chronicler, as to their authenticity, or the authority of the ‘Ryme,’ are curious, but only of value so far as they prove he was ignorant of the existence of a French Romance on the subject, or of its reception in Gaimar’s historical poem.”

§ 11. “But on consulting the Lambeth copy of Rob. of Brunne, in order to verify the passage as printed by Hearne from the Inner Temple MS. we were not a little surprised to ascertain a fact hitherto overlooked, and indeed unknown, viz. that the Lambeth MS. (which is a folio, written on paper, and imperfect both at the beginning and close)11 does not correspond with the Edition, but has evidently been revised by a later hand, which has abridged the Prologues, omitted some passages, and inserted others. The strongest proof of this exists in the passage before us, in which the Lambeth MS. entirely omits the lines of Rob. of Brunne respecting the authenticity of the story of Havelok, and in their place substitutes an abridged outline of the story itself, copied apparently from the French Chronicle of Gaimar. The interpolation is so curious, and so connected with our inquiry, as to be a sufficient apology for introducing it here.”

MS. Lamb. 131. leaf 76.

§ 12. We now come to the prose Chronicle called The Brute, which became exceedingly popular, and was the foundation of “Caxton’s Chronicle,” first printed by Caxton A.D. 1480, but of which Caxton was not the author, though he may have added some of the last chapters. The original is in French, and was probably compiled a few years before Robert of Brunne’s translation of Langtoft was made, as it concludes with the year 1331, or, in some copies, with 1332. The author of it is not known, but it was probably only regarded as a compilation from the Chronicles of the earlier Historians. “In this Chronicle, in all its various shapes, is contained the Story of Havelock, engrafted on the British History of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and in its detail, following precisely the French text of the Romance. The only variation of consequence is the substitution of the name of Birkabeyn (as in the English text) for that of Gunter, and in some copies, both of the French and English MSS. of the Chronicle, the name of xiv Goldeburgh is inserted instead of Argentille; which variations are the more curious, as they prove the absolute identity of the story. For the sake of a more complete illustration of what has been advanced, we are induced to copy the passage at length, as it appears in the French Chronicle, taken from a well-written MS. of the 14th century, MS. Reg. 20 A 3, fol. 165 b.”12

Apres le Roi Constantin estoient deux Rois en graunt Brutaigne, dount li vns out a noun Aldelbright, & fust Danois, & [tint] tut le pais de Norff’ & de Suffolk, & ly altre out a noun Edelfi, qe fust Brittone, & tint Nicol & Lindesey, & tote la terre desqes a Humber, Ceux deux Rois soi entreguerroierent, [& moult s’entrehaierent] mais puis furent il entre acordez & soi entreamerent, taunt com s’il vssent estee freres de vn ventre neez. Le Roi Edelfi out vne soer, Orewenne par noun, & la dona par grant amour al Roi Aldelbright a femme. Et il engendra de ly vne fille qe out a noun Argentille. En le tierez an apres vne greue Maladie ly suruint, si deuereit morrir, & maunda par vn iour al Roi Edelfi, soun frere en lei, q’il venist a ly parler, & cil ly emparla volentiers. Donqe ly pria le Roi Aldelbright et ly coniura en le noun [de] Dieu, q’il apres sa mort preist Argentille sa fille, & sa terre, & q’il la feist honestement garder [& nurrir] en sa chambre, & quant ele serreit de age, q’il la feist marier al plus fort hom & plus vaillaunt q’il porroit trouer, & qe a donqe ly rendist sa terre. Edelfi ceo graunta, & par serment afferma sa priere. Et quant Adelbright fust mort, & enterree, Edelfi prist la damoysele, & la norrist en sa chambre, si deuynt ele la plus beale creature qe hom porreit trouer.

Le Roi Edelfi, qe fust vncle a la Damoysele Argentille, pensa fausement coment il porreit la terre sa Nece auoir par touz iours, & malueisement countre soun serment pensa a deceiure la pucelle, si la maria a vn quistroun de sa quisyne qe fust apellée Curan, si esteit il le plus haut, le plus fort, & le plus vaillaunt de corps, qe hom sauoit nulle part a cel temps, & la quidoit hountousement marier, pur auoir sa terre a remenaunt, Mais il fust deceu. Car xv cest Curan fust [le Roi] Hauelok, filz le Roi Kirkebain de Denemarche, & il conquist la terre sa femme [en Bretaigne], & occist le Roi Edelfi, vncle sa femme, & conquist tote la terre, si com aillours est trouée plus pleinement [en l’estorie], & il ne regna qe treis aunz. Car Saxsouns & Danoys le occirent, & ceo fust grant damage a tote la grant Brutaigne. Et les Brutouns le porterent a Stonhenge, & illoeqes ly enterrerent a grant honour.’

§ 13. “With the above may be compared the English version, as extant in MS. Harl. 2279, which agrees with the Ed. of Caxton, except in the occasional substitution of one word for another.”13

After kyng Constantinus deth, ther were .ij. kynges in Britaigne, that one men callede Adelbright, that was a Danoys, and helde the cuntray of Northfolk and Southfolk, that other hight Edelf, and was a Britoun & helde Nichole, Lindeseye, and alle the lande vnto Humber. Thes ij. kynges faste werred togeders, but afterward thei were acorded, and louede togedere as thei had ben borne of o bodie. The kyng Edelf had a suster that men callede Orewenne, and he yaf here thurghe grete frenshipe to kyng Adelbright to wif, and he begate on here a doughter that men callede Argentille, and in the .iij. yeer after him come vppon a strong sekenesse that nedes he muste die, and he sent to kyng Edelf, his brother in lawe, that he shulde come and speke with him, and he come to him with good wille. Tho prayed he the kyng and coniurede also in the name of God, that after whan he were dede, he shulde take Argentil his doughter, and the lande, and that he kepte hir wel, and noreshed in his chambre; and whan she were of age he shulde done here be mariede to the strongest and worthiest man that he myȝt fynde, and than he shulde yelde vp her lande ayen. Edelf hit grauntid, and bi othe hit confermede his prayer. And whan Adelbright was dede and Enterede, Edelfe toke the damesel Argentil, and noreshid her in his chambre, and she become the fayrest creature th^t myȝt lif, or eny man finde.

This kyng Edelf, that was vncle to the damesel Argentil, bithought how that he myȝte falsliche haue the lande from his nece xvi for euermore, and falsly ayens his othe thouȝte to desceyue the damysel, and marie here to a knave of his kichon, that men callede Curan, and he become the worthiest and strengest man of bodie that eny man wist in eny lande that tho leuede. And to him he thouȝt here shendfully haue mariede, for to haue had here lande afterward; but he was clene desceyuede. For this Curan that was Hauelokis son that was kyng of Kirkelane in Denmark, and this Curan Conquerede his wifes landes, and slow kyng Edelf, that was his wifes vncle, and had alle here lande, as in a-nother stede hit [MS. but] telleth more oponly, and he ne regnede but iij. yeer, for Saxones and Danoys him quelde, and that was grete harme to al Britaigne, and Britouns bere him to Stonehenge, and ther thei him interede with mochel honour and solempnite.’

“It must not be concealed, that in some copies, viz. in MSS. Harl. 1337, 6251, Digby 185, Hatton 50, Ashmole 791 and 793, the story is altogether omitted, and Conan made to succeed to Arthur. In those copies also of the English Polychronicon, the latter part of which resembles the above Chronicle, the passage is not found.” “Among the Harl. MSS. (No. 63) is a copy of the same Chronicle in an abridged form, in which the name of Goldesburghe is substituted for that of Argentille.” Sir F. Madden now adds—that “the story occurs also in some interpolated copies of Higden (the Latin text, viz. MSS. Harl. 655, Cott. Jul. E. 8, Reg. 13 E. 1). In an earlier form it is found in a Latin Chronicle of the 13th century, MS. Cott. Dom. A. 2, fol. 130.”

§ 14. “It was, in all probability, to this Chronicle also, in its original form, that Thomas Gray, the author of the Scala Cronica (or Scale Cronicon), a Chronicle in French prose, composed between the years 1355 and 1362, is indebted for his knowledge of the tale.” The original MS. is No. 132 in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and was edited by Stevenson for the Maitland Club in 1836. The passage relative to Havelok is translated by Leland, Collectanea, vol. i. pt. 2, p. 511. This account resembles the others, and involves no new point of interest.

§ 15. I may here introduce the remark, that the story is also to be found in the Eulogium Historiarum, ed. Haydon, 1860, vol. ii. p. 378. I here quote the passage at length, as it is not referred to in Sir F. Madden’s edition. The date of the Chronicle is about 1366. For various readings, see Haydon’s edition.

Non enim est prætermittendum de quodam Dano generoso ætate juvenili florente, qui tempore regis Edelfridi casualiter Angliam adiit, qui a propria patria expulsus per quendam ducem falsissimum, cui pater ejus illum commiserat ipso moriente et ducem rogavit ut puerum nutriret usque dum posset Denemarchiæ regnum viriliter gubernare. Dux vero malitiam machinans juvenem hæredem rectum, Hauelok nomine, voluit occidisse. Puer vero comperiens aufugit per latibula usque dum quidam Anglicus et mercator in illis partibus adventaret; nomen autem mercatoris Grym vocitabatur. Hauelok autem, Grym rogans ut ipsum in Angliam transvectaret, ipse autem annuens, puerum secum conduxit et cum eo per aliquot tempus apud Grymesby morabatur. Tandem ipsum ad curiam regis Edelfridi conduxit et ibi in coquina regis moratus est.

Rex autem Edelfridus quamdam habuit sororem nomine Orwen et illam maritavit regi Athelberto, quod conjugium inter duos reges vinculum amoris catenavit. Rex autem Athelbert terram citra Trentam cum regio diademate occupavit, cum terra de Northfolk’ et de Southfolk’ et eis adjacentibus. Rex vero Edelfrid comitatum Lincolniæ et Lyndeseye et eis spectantibus. Ante maritagium puellæ Orwen illi duo reges semper debellabant, post matrimonium factum nulla fuit divisio, nec in familia inter eos nec in dominio.

Rex vero Ethelbert de uxore sua quamdam filiam genuit, nomine Argentile, pulcherrimam valde. Athelberto obiente, vel ante mortem ejus, regem rogavit Edelfridum ut filiam suam homini fortissimo ac validiori totius sui regni in conjugium copularet, nihil doli vel mali machinans.

Rex autem Adelfrid omnem malitiam ingeminans de conjugio puellæ malitiose disponens, cogitans se habere unum lixam in coquina sua qui omnes homines regni sui in vigore et fortitudine superabat, et juxta votum patris puellæ ad illum hominem fortissimum illam generosam juvenculam toro maritali copulavit, ob cupiditatem regni puellæ ipsam ita enormiter maritabat. Hauelok in patria Danemarchiæ et Argentile in Britannia æquali sorte ad custodiendum deputati sunt, totum tamen nutu Divino cedebat eis in honorem. Nam Hauelok post paucos annos regnum Britanniæ adoptus est, et a Saxonibus tandem occisus et apud le Stonhenge est sepultus. Pater ejus Kirkeban vocabatur.

This agrees closely with the accounts given above (§ 12 and § 13). The chief point to be noticed is that this account identifies Edelfrid with the Æthelfrith son of Æthelric who was king of the Northumbrians from A.D. 593 to 617, according to the xviii computation of the A.S. Chronicle, and who was succeeded by Eadwine son of Ælle, who drove out the æthelings or sons of Æthelfrith. It may be remarked further, that the same Æthelfrith is called Æluric by Laȝamon, who gives him a very bad character; see Laȝamon, ed. Madden, vol. iii. p. 195.

§ 16. The story is also mentioned by Henry de Knyghton, a canon of Leicester abbey, whose history concludes with the year 1395. But his is no fresh evidence, as it is evidently borrowed from the French Chronicle of Rauf de Boun; see § 7. It is also alluded to in a blundering manner in a short historical compilation extending from the time of Brutus to the reign of Henry VI., and preserved in MS. Cotton Calig. A. 2. At fol. 107 b is the passage— “Ethelwolde, qui generavit filiam de (sic) Haueloke de Denmarke, per quem Danes per cccc. annos postea fecerunt clameum Anglie.” Some omission after the word de has turned the passage into nonsense; but it is noteworthy as expressing the claim of the Danes to the English crown by right of descent from Havelok; a claim which is more clearly expressed in MS. Harl. 63, in which the King of Denmark is represented as sending a herald to Æthelstan (A.D. 927)— “to witte wheder he wold fynde a man to fight with Colbrande14 for the righ[t]e of the kyngdom Northumbre, that the Danes had claymed byfore by the title of kyng Haueloke, that wedded Goldesburghe the kyngis daughter of Northumbre” —fol. 19.15 Four hundred years before this date would intimate some year early in the sixth century. Finally, the story is found at a later period in Caxton’s Chronicle (A.D. 1480) as above intimated in § 12; whence it was adopted by Warner, and inserted into his poem entitled Albion’s England; book iv. chap. 20, published in 1586. Warner called it the tale of “Argentile and Curan;” and in this ballad-shape it was reprinted in Percy’s Reliques of Ancient Poetry (vol. ii. p. 261; ed. 1812) with the same title. Not long after, in 1617, another author, William Webster, published a larger poem in six-line stanzas; but this is a mere paraphrase of Warner. The title is— “The most xix pleasant and delightful historie of Curan, a prince of Danske, and the fayre princesse Argentile,” &c. John Fabyan, in his Concordance of Historyes, first printed in 1516, alludes to the two kings Adelbryght and Edill, only to dismiss the “longe processe” concerning them, as not supported by sufficient authority. See p. 82 of the reprint by Ellis, 4to, 1811.

§ 17. The only other two sources whence any further light can be thrown upon our subject are the traditions of Denmark and Grimsby. A letter addressed by Sir F. Madden to Professor Rask elicited a reply which was equivalent to saying that next to nothing is known about it in Denmark. This seems to be the right place to mention a small book of 80 pages, published at Copenhagen in the present year (1868), and entitled “Sagnet om Havelok Danske; fortalt af Kristian Köster.” It contains (1) a version, in Danish prose, of the English poem; (2) a version of the same story, following the French texts of the Arundel and Royal MSS.; and (3) some elucidations of the legend. The author proposes a theory that Havelok is really the Danish king Amlet, i.e. Hamlet; but I have not space here to state all his arguments. As far as I follow them, some of the chief ones are these; that Havelok ought to be found in the list of Danish kings;16 that Hamlet’s simulation of folly or madness is paralleled by Havelok’s behaviour, as expressed in ll. 945-954 of our poem; and that both Hamlet and Havelok succeeded in fulfilling the revenge which they had long cherished secretly. But I am not much persuaded by these considerations, for, even granting some resemblance in the names,17 the resemblance in the stories is very slight. But I must refer the reader to the book itself.

§ 18. Turning however to local traditions, we find that Camden briefly alludes to the story in a contemptuous manner xx (p. 353; ed. 8vo, Lond. 1587); but Gervase Holles is far from being disposed to regard it as fabulous. In his MSS. collections for Lincolnshire, preserved in MS. Harl. 6829, he thus speaks of the story we are examining.18

“And it will not be amisse, to say something concerning y^e Common tradition of her first founder Grime, as y^e inhabitants (with a Catholique faith) name him. The tradition it thus. Grime (say they) a poore Fisherman (as he was launching into y^e Riuer for fish in his little boate vpon Humber) espyed not far from him another little boate, empty (as he might conceaue) which by y^e fauour of y^e wynde & tyde still approached nearer & nearer vnto him. He betakes him to his oares, & meetes itt, wherein he founde onely a Childe wrapt in swathing clothes, purposely exposed (as it should seeme) to y^e pittylesse [rage] of y^e wilde & wide Ocean. He moued with pitty, takes itt home, & like a good foster-father carefully nourisht itt, & endeauoured to nourishe it in his owne occupation: but y^e childe contrarily was wholy deuoted to exercises of actiuity, & when he began to write man, to martiall sports, & at length by his signall valour obteyned such renowne, y^t he marryed y^e King of England’s daughter, & last of all founde who was his true Father, & that he was Sonne to y^e King of Denmarke; & for y^e comicke close of all; that Haueloke (for such was his name) exceedingly aduanced & enriched his foster-father Grime, who thus enriched, builded a fayre Towne neare the place where Hauelocke was founde, & named it Grimesby. Thus say some: others differ a little in y^e circumstances, as namely, that Grime was not a Fisherman, but a Merchant, & that Hauelocke should be preferred to y^e King’s kitchin, & there liue a longe tyme as a Scullion: but however y^e circumstances differ, they all agree in y^e consequence, as concerning y^e Towne’s foundation, to which (sayth y^e story) Hauelocke y^e Danish prince, afterward graunted many immunityes. This is y^e famous Tradition concerning Grimsby w^ch learned Mr. Cambden gives so little creditt to, that he thinkes it onely illis dignissima, qui anilibus fabulis noctem solent protrudere.”

And again, after shewing that by is the Danish for town, and quoting a passage about Havelock’s father being named Gunter, which may be found in Weever (Ancient Funeral Monuments, fol. Lond. 1631, p. 749), he proceeds:

“that Hauelocke did sometymes reside in Grimsby, may be gathered from a great blew xxi Boundry-stone, lying at y^e East ende of Briggowgate, which retaines y^e name of Hauelock’s-Stone to this day. Agayne y^e great priuiledges & immunityes, that this Towne hath in Denmarke aboue any other in England (as freedome from Toll, & y^e rest) may fairely induce a Beleife, that some preceding favour, or good turne called on this remuneration. But lastly (which proofe I take to be instar omnium) the Common Seale of y^e Towne, & that a most auncient one,” &c. [Here follows a description of the Seal.]

“The singular fact,” adds Sir F. Madden, “alluded to by Holles, of the Burgesses of Grimsby being free from toll at the Port of Elsineur, in Denmark, is confirmed by the Rev. G. Oliver, in his Monumental Antiquities of Grimsby, 8vo, Hull, 1825, who is inclined from that, and other circumstances, to believe the story is not so totally without foundation.” There is also an absurd local story that the church at Grimsby, which has now but one turret, formerly had four, three of which were kicked down by Grim in his anxiety to destroy some hostile vessels. The first fell among the enemy’s fleet; the second dropped in Wellowgate, and is now Havelock’s stone; the third fell within the churchyard, but the fourth his strength failed to move. Perhaps amongst the most interesting notices of the story are the following words by Sir Henry Havelock, whose family seems to have originally resided in Durham. His own account, however, is this. “My father, William Havelock, descended from a family which formerly resided at Grimsby in Lincolnshire, and was himself born at Guisborough in Yorkshire.”19 And it may at least be said with perfect truth, that if the name of Havelock was not famous formerly, it is famous now.

§ 19. The last evidence for the legend is the still-existing seal of the corporation of Great Grimsby. The engraving of this seal, as it appears in the present edition, was made from a copy kindly furnished to the E.E.T.S. by the Mayor of Grimsby, and I here subjoin a description of it, communicated to me by J. Hopkin, Esq., Jun., of Grimsby, which was first printed, in a slightly different form, in Notes and Queries, 2nd Series, vol. xi. p. 41; see also p. 216.

“The ancient Town Seal of Great Grimsby is engraven on a circular piece of brass not very thick; and on the back, which is rather arched, is a small projecting piece of brass, placed as a substitute for a handle, in order when taking an impression the more easily to detach the matrix from the Wax. This seal is in an excellent state of preservation, and is inscribed in Saxon characters ‘Sigillvm Comunitatis Grimebye’ and represents thereon Gryme (‘Gryem’) who by tradition is reported to have been a native of Souldburg in Denmark, where he gained a precarious livelihood by fishing and piracy; but having, as is supposed, during the reign of Ethelbert,20 been accidentally driven into the Humber by a furious storm, he landed on the Lincolnshire Coast near Grimsby, he being at this time miserably poor and almost destitute of the common necessaries of life; for Leland represents this ‘poor fisschar’ as being so very needy that he was not ‘able to kepe his sunne Cuaran for poverty.’ Gryme, finding a capacious haven adapted to his pursuits, built himself a house and commenced and soon succeeded in establishing a very lucrative Trade with Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Other Merchants having in process of time settled near him, attracted by the commercial advantages offered by this excellent Harbour, they jointly constructed convenient appendages for extensive Trade, and the colony soon rose into considerable importance, and became known at an early period by the name of Grimsby. For not only was Grimsby constituted a borough so early as the seventh century, but Peter of Langtoft speaks of it as a frontier Town and the boundary of a Kingdom erected by the conquests of Egbert in the year 827, which he states included all that portion of the Island which lay between ‘the maritime Towns of Grymsby and Dover.’ So that even at that period, Grimsby must have been a place of peculiar strength and importance. Gryme is represented on the seal as a man of gigantic stature with comparatively short hair, a shaven chin, and a moustache, holding in his right hand a drawn sword and bearing on his left arm a circular shield with an ornate boss and rim. The sleeveless tunic above his under vest is most probably the panzar or panzara of the Danes. Between his feet is a Conic object, possibly intended for a helmet, as it resembles the chapelle-de-fer worn by William Rufus on his Great Seal, and which in the laws of Gula is distinguished as the Steel hufe. On the right hand of Gryme stands his protégé Haveloc (‘Habloc’), whom, during one of his mercantile excursions soon after his arrival in Lincolnshire, Gryme had the good fortune to save xxiii from imminent danger of Shipwreck, and who proved to be the Son of Gunter, King of Denmark, and who was therefore conveyed to the British Court, where he subsequently received in marriage Goldburgh, the Daughter of the British Sovereign. Above Gryme is represented a hand, being emblematical of the hand of providence by which Haveloc was preserved, and near the hand is the star which marks the point where the inscription begins and ends. Haveloc made such a favourable representation of his preserver at the British and Danish Courts, that he procured for him many honours and privileges. From the British Monarch Gryme, who had already realised an abundance of wealth, received a charter, and was made the chief governor of Grimsby; and the Danish Sovereign granted to the Town an immunity (which is still possessed by the Burgesses of Grimsby) from all Tolls at the Port of Elsineur. Gryme afterwards lived in Grimsby like a petty prince in his Hereditary Dominions. Above Haveloc is represented a crown and in his right hand is a battle axe, the favourite weapon of the Northmen, and in his right hand is a ring which he is presenting to the British Princess Goldburgh (‘Goldebvrgh’), who stands on the left side of Gryme and whose right hand is held towards the Ring. Over her head is a Regal Diadem, and in her left hand is a Sceptre. Sir F. Madden states that it is certain that this seal is at least as old as the time of Edward I. (and therefore contemporaneous with the MS.) as the legend is written in a character which after the year 1300 fell into disuse, and was succeeded by the black letter, or Gothic.”

It is my intention to offer some remarks on the probable sources of the legend, and to fix a conjectural date for the existence of Havelok. But it is obviously convenient that a sketch of the story should first be given. It appears, however, that the resemblance between the French and English versions is by no means very close, and it will be necessary to give separate abstracts of them. I begin with the French version, in which I follow the Norfolk MS. rather than the abridgment by Gaimar. I have already said that the former is printed in Sir F. Madden’s edition, and that it was reprinted by M. Michel with the title “Lai d’Havelok le Danois,” Paris, 1833, and by Mr Wright for the Caxton Society in 1850.

The Britons made a lay concerning King Havelok, who is surnamed Cuaran. His father was Gunter, King of the Danes. Arthur crossed the sea, and invaded Denmark. Gunter perished by the treason of Hodulf, who gained the kingdom, and held it of Arthur. Gunter had a fine castle, where his wife and son were guarded, being committed to the protection of Grim. The child was but seven years old; but ever as he slept, an odorous flame issued from his mouth. Hodulf sought to kill him, but Grim prepared a ship, and furnished it with provisions, wherein he placed the queen and the child, and set sail from Denmark. On their voyage they encountered pirates (“outlaghes”), who killed them all after a hard fight, excepting Grim, who was an acquaintance of theirs, and Grim’s wife and children. Havelok also was saved. They at last arrived at the haven, afterwards named “Grimesbi” from Grim. Grim there resumed his old trade, a fisherman’s, and a town grew up round his hut, which was called Grimsby. The child grew up, and waxed strong. One day Grim said to him, “Son, you will never thrive as a fisherman; take your brothers with you, and seek service amongst the King’s servants.” He was soon well apparelled, and repaired with his two foster-brothers to Nicole [Lincoln].22 Now at that time there was a king named Alsi, who ruled over all Nicole and Lindesie;23 but the country southward was governed by another king, named Ekenbright, who had married Alsi’s sister Orewen. These two had one only daughter, named Argentille. Ekenbright, falling ill, committed Argentille to the care of Alsi, till she should be of age to be married to the strongest man that can be found. At Ekenbright’s death, Alsi reigned over both countries, holding his court at Nicole. Havelok, on his arrival there, was employed to carry water and cut wood, and to perform all menial offices requiring great strength. He was named Cuaran, which means—in the British language—a scullion. Argentille soon arrived at marriageable age, and Alsi determined to marry her to Cuaran, which would sufficiently fulfil her father’s wish—Cuaran being confessedly the strongest man in those parts. To this marriage he compelled her to consent, hoping thereby to disgrace her for ever. Havelok was unwilling that his wife should perceive the marvellous flame, but soon forgot this, and ere long fell asleep. Then had Argentille a strange vision—that a savage bear and some foxes attacked Cuaran, but dogs and boars defended him. A boar having killed the bear, the foxes cried for quarter from Cuaran, xxv who commanded them to be bound. Then he would have put to sea, but the sea rose so high that he was terrified. Next she beheld two lions, at seeing which she was frightened, and she and Cuaran climbed a tree to avoid them; but the lions submitted themselves to him, and called him their lord. Then a great cry was raised, whereat she awoke, and beheld the miraculous flame. “Sir,” she exclaimed, “you burn!” But he reassured her, and, having heard her dream, said that it would soon come true. The next day, however, she again told her dream to a chamberlain, her friend, who said that he well knew a holy hermit who could explain it. The hermit explained to Argentille that Cuaran must be of royal lineage. “He will be king,” he said, “and you a queen. Ask him concerning his parentage. Remember also to repair to his native place.” On being questioned, Cuaran replied that he was born at Grimsby; that Grim was his father, and Saburc his mother. “Then let us go to Grimsby,” she replied. Accompanied by his two foster-brothers, they came to Grimsby; but Grim and Saburc were both dead. They found there, however, a daughter of Grim’s, named Kelloc, who had married a tradesman of that town. Up to this time Havelok had not known his true parentage, but Kelloc thought it was now time to tell him, and said: “Your father was Gunter, the King of the Danes, whom Hodulf slew. Hodulf obtained the kingdom as a grant from Arthur. Grim fled with you, and saved your life; but your mother perished at sea. Your name is Havelok. My husband will convey you to Denmark, where you must inquire for a lord named ‘Sigar l’estal;’ and take with you my two brothers.” So Kelloc’s husband conveyed them to Denmark, and advised Havelok to go to Sigar and show himself and his wife, as then he would be asked who his wife is. They went to the city of the seneschal, the before-named Sigar, where they craved a night’s lodging, and were courteously entertained. But as they retired to a lodging for the night, six men attacked them, who had been smitten with the beauty of Argentille. Havelok defended himself with an axe which he found, and slew five, whereupon the sixth fled. Havelok and his party fled away for refuge to a monastery, which was soon attacked by the townsmen who had heard of the combat. Havelok mounted the tower, and defended himself bravely, casting down a huge stone on his enemies.24 The news soon reached the ears of Sigar, who hastened to see what the uproar was about. Beholding xxvi Havelok fixedly, he called to mind the form and appearance of Gunter, and asked Havelok of his parentage. Havelok replied that Grim had told him he was by birth a Dane, and that his mother perished at sea; and ended by briefly relating his subsequent adventures. Then Sigar asked him his name. “My name is Havelok,” he said, “and my other name is Cuaran.” Then the seneschal took him home, and determined to watch for the miraculous flame, which he soon perceived, and was assured that Havelok was the true heir. Therefore he gathered a great host of his friends, and sent for the horn which none but the true heir could sound, promising a ring to any one who could blow it. When all had failed, it was given to Havelok, who blew it loud and long, and was joyfully recognized and acknowledged to be the true King. Then with a great army he attacked Hodulf the usurper, whom he slew with his own hand. Thus was Havelok made King of Denmark.

But after he had reigned four years, his wife incited him to return to England. With a great number of ships he sailed there, and arrived at Carleflure;25 and sent messengers to Alsi, demanding the inheritance of Argentille. Alsi was indeed astonished at such a demand as coming from a scullion, and offered him battle. The hosts met at Theford,26 and the battle endured till nightfall without a decisive result. But Argentille craftily advised her lord to support his dead men by stakes, to increase the apparent number of his army; and the next day Alsi, deceived by this device, treated for peace, and yielded up to his former ward all the land, from Holland27 to Gloucester. Alsi had been so sorely wounded that he lived but fifteen days longer. Thus was Havelok king over Lincoln and Lindsey, and reigned over them for twenty years. Such is the lay of Cuaran.

§ 21. The chief points to be noticed in Gaimar’s abridgment are the few additional particulars to be gleaned from it. We there find that Havelok’s mother was Alvive, a daughter of King Gaifer; that the King of Nicole and Lindeseie was a Briton, and was named Edelsie; that his sister, named Orwain, was married to Adelbrit, a Dane, who ruled over Norfolk; and that Edelsie and Adelbrit lived in the days of Costentin (Constantine), who xxvii succeeded Arthur. It is also said that the usurper Hodulf was brother to Aschis, who is the Achilles of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Another statement, that Havelok’s kingdom extended from Holland to Colchester, seems to be an improvement upon “from Holland to Gloucester.”

The words of Mr Petrie, in his remarks upon the lay in Monumenta Historica Britannica, vol. i., may be quoted here. “Although both [French versions] have the same story in substance, and often contain lines exactly alike, yet, besides the different order in which the incidents are narrated, each has occasionally circumstances wanting in the other, and such too, it should seem, as would leave the story incomplete unless supplied from the other copy. Thus, the visit to the hermit, which is omitted in Gaimar, was probably in the original romance; for without it Argentille’s dream tells for nothing; and in the Arundel copy there is a particular account of Haveloc’s defence of a tower by hurling stones on his assailants, which in Gaimar is so obscurely alluded to as to be hardly intelligible. On the other hand, instead of the description of the extraordinary virtues of Sygar’s ring in Gaimar, it is merely said in the Arundel copy that Sygar would give his anel d’or to whoever could sound the horn; and, to omit other instances, a festival is described in Gaimar on the authority of l’Estorie, of which no notice whatever occurs in the Arundel MS.”

The “Lay of Havelok” has been admirably paraphrased by Professor Morley, in his “English Writers,” vol. i. pp. 459-467, a book which should be in every reader’s hands, and which should by all means be consulted. I only intend here to give a briefer outline, for the sake of comparing the main features of our poem with those of the French Lai.

Hear the tale of Havelok! There was once a good king in England, named Athelwold, renowned and beloved for his justice. He had but one child, a daughter named Goldborough. Knowing that his end was approaching, he sent for all his lords to assemble at Winchester, and there committed Goldborough to the care of Godrich, the earl of Cornwall; directing him to see her married xxviii to the strongest and fairest man whom he could find. But Godrich imprisoned her at Dover, and resolved to seize her inheritance for his own son. At that time there was also a King of Denmark, named Birkabeyn, who had one son, Havelok, and two daughters, Swanborough and Helfled. At the approach of death, he committed these to the care of Earl Godard. But Godard killed the two girls, and only spared Havelok because he did not like to kill him with his own hand. He therefore hired a fisherman, named Grim, to drown Havelok at sea. But Grim perceived, as Havelok slept, a miraculous light shining round the lad, whereby he knew that the child was the true heir, and would one day be king. In order to avoid Godard, Grim fitted up a ship, and provisioned it, and with his wife Leve, his three sons, his two daughters, and Havelok, put out to sea. They landed in Lindesey at the month of the Humber, at a place afterwards named Grimsby after Grim. Grim worked at his old trade, a fisherman’s, and Havelok carried about the fish for sale. Then arose a great dearth in the land, and Havelok went out to seek his own livelihood, walking to Lincoln barefoot. He was hired as a porter by the earl of Cornwall’s cook, and drew water and cut wood for the earl’s kitchen. One day some men met to contend in games and to “put the stone.” At the cook’s command, Havelok also put the stone, hurling it further than any of the rest.28 Godrich, hearing the praises of Havelok’s strength, at once resolved to perform his oath by causing him to marry Goldborough; and carried his design into execution. As goon as the pair were married, Havelok suddenly quitted Lincoln with his wife, and returned to Grimsby, where he found that Grim was dead, but that his five children are yet alive. At night, Goldborough perceived a light shining round about Havelok, and observed a cross upon his shoulder. At the same time she heard an angel’s voice, telling her of good fortune to come. Then he awoke, and told her a dream; how he had dreamt that all Denmark and England became his own. She encouraged him, and urged him to set sail for Denmark at once. He accordingly called to him Grim’s three sons, and narrated to them his own history, and Godard’s treachery, asking them to accompany him to Denmark. To this they assented, and sailed with him and Goldborough to Denmark. There he sought out a former friend of his father’s, Earl Ubbe, who invited him and his friends to a sumptuous feast. After the feast, Havelok and Goldborough and Grim’s sons went to the house of one Bernard Brown, whose house was that night attacked by sixty thieves. By dint of xxix great prowess, the friends at length slew all their sixty assailants, and Ubbe was so amazed at Havelok’s valour that he resolved to dub him a knight, and invited him to sleep in his own castle. At night, he peeped into Havelok’s chamber, and beheld the marvellous light, and saw a bright cross on his neck. Rejoiced at heart, he did homage to Havelok, and commanded all his friends and dependents to do the same. He also dubbed him knight, and proclaimed him King. With six thousand men he set out to attack Godard, whom he defeated and made prisoner, and afterwards caused to be flayed, drawn, and hung. Then Havelok swore that he would establish at Grimsby a priory of black monks, to pray for Grim’s soul; and Godrich, having heard that Havelok has invaded England, raised a great army against him. An indecisive combat took place between Ubbe and Godrich, but a more decisive one between Godrich and Havelok; for Havelok cut off his foe’s hand and made him prisoner. Then the English submitted to Goldborough, and acknowledged her as queen; but Godrich was condemned and burnt. Havelok rewarded both his own friends and the English nobles; for he caused Earl Reyner of Chester to marry Gunild, Grim’s daughter, and Bertram, formerly Godrich’s cook, to marry Levive, another of Grim’s daughters; bestowing upon Bertram the earldom of Cornwall. Then were Havelok and Goldborough crowned at London, and a feast was given that lasted forty days. The kingdom of Denmark was bestowed upon Ubbe, who held it of King Havelok. Havelok and Goldborough lived to the age of a hundred years, and their reign lasted for sixty years in England. They had fifteen children, who were all kings and queens. Such is the geste of Havelok and Goldborough.

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. We xxx may 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. The Godrich of the English version is the Alsi of the French poem, the Edelsi of Gaimar, the Adelfrid29 or Edelfrid of the Eulogium Historiarum, the Elfroi of Wace, the Æluric of Laȝamon, the Æthelfrith who succeeded to the throne of Northumbria A.D. 593, according to the Saxon Chronicle. The Athelwold of the English version is the Adelbrict of Gaimar, the Ekenbright of the French poem, the Athelbert of the Eulogium Historiarum, the Aldebar of Wace, and the Æthelbert of Laȝamon, i.e. no other than the celebrated Æthelberht of Kent, who was baptized by St Augustine A.D. 596, according to the Saxon Chronicle. This is the right clue to the names, 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 the general surroundings of 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 Havelok xxxi 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 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 of Bretwalda, 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

(Laȝamon, iii. 250),

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

(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 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 (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.30 It is exceedingly probable that Havelok was never more than a chief or a petty prince, and xxxiii 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.

§ 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 the daughter of Æthelberht, and it was the archbishop of York, Paulinus, who performed the ceremony. The relation of how Eadwine was persecuted by Æthelfrith, 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 and slew Æthelfrith 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 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, 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 brass dishes hanging xxxiv 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 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 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. xxxv 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.

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 Vitæ 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 intitled 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 xxxvi 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 (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 “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 letter w (ƿ). This letter, the thorn-letter (þ), 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. 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 for wo = who, 1914; to which perhaps we may add wit, 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 þ and th are used, as in “norþ and suth,” xxxvii l. 434; sometimes th occurs 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 which th final seems to have the hard sound of t, as in brouth, 57, nouth, 58, lith, 534, þouth, 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 space at the end of each paragraph, to shew this more clearly.

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; hore = ore, grace; hende = ende, which in one passage 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 xxxviii instances we should rather infer some peculiarity of pronunciation 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 repetition of such rhythm as riden and side, where the final n seems 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 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, hweþer, 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. ð rather than to A.S. þ; 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 xxxix 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 Pronunciation, 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 pronouns i, þu, 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 goddot is contracted from God wot; and þerl from þe 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 nedè, stedè, &c. (see ll. 86-105), willè, 85, gyuè, 357, blissè, 2187, cricè, 2450; cf. the adjectives longè, 2299, wisè, 1713; also the nominatives rosè, 2919, newè, 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 pronounced in the adjectives allè, 2, hardè, 143, starkè, 1015, fremdè, 2277, bleikè 470, and in many others; cf. the full form boþen, 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 xl never a kind, in l. 2691. Among the numerals, we find not only þre, but þrinne.

Pronouns. The first personal pronoun 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 þu, þou, in the nominative, and also tu, when preceded by þat, 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 pronouns are minè, pl. 1365, þinè, pl. 620; his or hise, pl. hisè, 34; ure, 606; youres, 2800; hirè, 2918, with which cf. the dat. sing. hirè of the personal pronoun, 85, 300. þis is plural, and means these, in l. 1145. As in other old English works, men is frequently an impersonal pronoun, 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 birþe, 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, þarnes, 1913, haues, 1952, etes, 2036, dos, 1913; also eteth, 672, haueth, 804, bikenneth, 1269, doth, 1876, liþ, 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 þu bi-hetet, 677, þou mait, 689; cf. ll. 852, 1348. In the subjunctive mood the -st disappears as in Anglo-Saxon, xli and hence the forms bute þou gonge, 690, þat þu fonge, 856, &c.; cf. bede, 668. In the 3rd person, present tense, of the same mood, we have the -e fully pronounced, as in shildè, 16, yeuè, 22, leuè, 334, redè, 687; and in l. 544, wreken should undoubtedly be wrekè, 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, þei 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, sparedè, 898, yemedè, 975, semedè, 976, sparkëdè, 2144, þankedè, 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 class 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 class which more usually change the vowel in the plural of the preterite, we find the singular forms bigan, 1357, barw, 2022, karf, 471, swank, 788, warp, 1061, shon, 2144, clef, 2643, sau, 2409, grop, 1965, drof, 725, shof, xlii 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, cumen, 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 liþes, 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, yeueþ, 911, to which add doth, 2037, goth, 1780. Indeed both forms occur in one line, as in Cometh swiþe, and folwes me (1885). Instead of -eth we even find -et, as in herknet, 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 with me 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, as fastinde, 865, grotinde (? gretinde), 1390, lauhwinde, 946, plattinde, 2282, starinde, 508; but we also find gangande, 2283, driuende, 2702. Compare the nouns tiþande, 2279, offrende, 1386, which are Norse forms, tíðindi (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 xliii greting, 166, dreping, i.e. slaughter, 2684, buttinge, 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 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 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 birþe, it behoves, pt. t. birde, it behoved, and þurte, he need, the latter of which is fully explained in the Glossary to William of Palerne, s.v. þort.

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 Mœso-Gothic dis-; of its other and rarer use, wherein it answers to the German zu- and Mœso-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 passive 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 þei þre. In l. 2404, the expression þat þer þrette, “that there threat,” recalls a colloquialism xliv which is still common. The word þrie, 730, is, apparently, the O.E. adverb thrie, thrice; liues, 509, is an adverb ending in -es, originally a genitive case. Þus-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.

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,37 the two principal types being afforded (1) by the eight-syllable and nine-syllable lines—

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

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, xlv 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;

Here the syllables -nes and in l. 3, of a in l. 4, and it wile in l. 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 rather more irregular than usual, and that the metre is such as to enable us to fix the instances in which the final -e is 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 are men, men; holden, holde, 29;39 erþe, erþe, 739; heren, heren, 1640; nithes, knithes, 2048; youres, youres, 2800. To this class belong also longe, londe, 172, heye, heie, 1151, 2544; where longe, londe is, however, only an assonance.

II. Assonant rimes. Here the rime is in the vowel-sound; the consonantal endings differ. Such are rym, fyn, 21; yeme, quene, 182; shop, hok, 1101 (where shop is 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 belong name, rauen, xlvi 1397, grauen, name, 2528; slawen, rauen, 2676. Henged, slenget, 1922, should rather be called an imperfect rime.40 There is also found the exact opposite to this, viz., an agreement or consonance at the end, preceded by an apparent diversity in the vowel; as longe, gange, 795 (but see longe, gonge, 843), bidde, stede, 2548, open, drepen, 1782, gres, is, 2698, boþe, rathe, 2936 (but see rathe, bathe, 1335, 2542), fet (long e), gret, 2158; and not unlike these are some instances of loose rimes, as beþe, rede, 360, knaue, plawe, 949, sawe, hawe (where hawe is written for haue), 1187, sawe, wowe, 1962 (but see wowe, lowe, 2078, lowe, sawe, 2142, wawe, lowe, 2470). Observe also bouth, oft (read vt or ut = 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 -en was 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 way hon rimes to lond, 1341, owing to the slight pronunciation of the final d.42

IV. Rimes which appear imperfect, but may be perfect. Riche answers to like, 132, but the true spelling is rike, answering to sike, 290. Mithe, 196, should probably be moucte, as in l. 257, and it would thus rime with þoucte. Blinne, 2670, should certainly be blunne; cf. A.S. blinnan, pt. t. s. ic blan, pt. t. pl. we blunnon; and thus it rimes to sunne. Misdede, 993, is clearly an error for xlvii misseyde, as appears from the parallel passage in ll. 49, 50; and it then rimes with leyde. So in l. 1736, for deled read deyled, 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-sworen answers to for-lorn (pronounced for-loren), 1423; bitawte to authe (pronounced aute), 1409; yemede (pronounced yem-dè) is not an improper rime to fremde, 2276; anon rimes with iohan (if pronounced ion or John, as indicated by the spelling ion in l. 177), 2562, 2956. Yet in another instance it seems to be two syllables, Jo-han; see wimman, iohan, 1720.43 Speche should be speke, and thus rimes to meke, 1065. Stareden should perhaps be stradden, or some such form, rightly riming to ladden, 1037. Under this head we may notice some rimes which throw, possibly, some light on the pronunciation. Thus, for the sound of ey, ei, observe hayse, preyse, 60; leyke, bleike, 469; laumprei, wei, 771; deye rimes to preye, 168; day to wey, 663; seyd to brayd, 1281; but we also find hey, fri, 1071; hey, sley, 1083, heye, heie, 1151; heye, eie, 2544; leye, heye, 2010; heye, fleye, 2750. Fram rimes to sham, 55; yet the latter word is really shame, 83; gange is also spelt gonge, halde rimes with bolde, 2308. The pronunciation of ware, were, or wore, seems ambiguous; we find sore, wore, 236; wore, more, 258; ware, sare, 400; wore, sore, 414; were, þere, 741; more, þore, 921. For the sound of e, observe suere, gere, 388; suereth, dereth, 648; eten, geten, 930; yet, fet, 1319; stem, bem, 592; glem, bem, 2122; also yeue, liue, 198; liue, gyue, 356; lyue, yeue, 1217; her, ther, 1924; fishere, swere, 2230. For that of i, xlviii observe cri, 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 of o, observe two, 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, 2438.44 Only in a few of these instances would the words rime in modern standard English. For the ou and u sounds, observe couþe, 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 be lawe, 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 the exactness of the rimes.

There can be little doubt that the final -e is, 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 letter h, as is usual in old English poetry. In the following remarks, I shall use an apostrophe to signify that e is written, but not pronounced; thus “wil’” signifies that “wile” is the MS. form, but “wil” the apparent pronunciation. I shall use an italic e to signify that the e is elided because followed by a vowel or h, as “cuppe” (l. 14); and in the same way, “riden,” “litel,” &c, signify that the syllables -en, -el are slurred over in a like manner. It will be seen that such syllables are, in general, slurred over when they occur before a vowel or h; 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 -e is fully 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 -e represents one of the final vowels a, 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 (miswritten curteyse), 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 the dative case 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) the definite form of 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 of dissyllabic superlatives; as, þe wictest’, 8, þe fairest, þe strangest, 1081, 1110; cf. 199, 200.

(b) the plural number. 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) the vocative case, 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 -en is found quite as often, and they rime together, as in 254, 255, cf. 29, 30. But it is well worth remarking that -en is slurred over exactly where -e would 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 -en not 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 -e follows -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 the first person, as, late, 509, lepe (not elided), 2009, speke, 2079; and for the second person, as, understonde, 1159, fare, 2705, cone, 622, 623.

(f) other parts of a few verbs; thus, the 1st person singular present, as, liue, 301, ete, 793, rede, 1660, wille, 388, where wille is equivalent to wish.

(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 -e denotes—

(a) an older vowel-ending; as, sone (A.S. sóna), 136, sone, 218, li 251, yete (A.S. géta, as well as gét), 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 read neye.

(c) an older termination in -en or -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, both the ees are sounded; cf. feblelike, 418. When the final -e is slurred over before an h in Chaucer, h is found commonly to begin the pronoun he, or its cases, the possessive pronouns his, hire, or their cases, a part of the verb to have, or else the adverbs how or heer. The same rule seems to hold in Havelok. Observe, that e often forms a syllable in the middle of 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 the h in he or haue, not only when it is the termination of the infinitive mood, but in many other cases. One striking example may suffice:

A still more striking peculiarity is that the same rule often holds for the ending -es. We find it, of course, forming a distinct syllable in plurals; as, limes, 86; and in adverbs, as, liues, 509. But observe such instances as maydnes, 2, prestes, 33, vtlawes, 41, siþes, 213, &c.

In the same way, when rapid final syllables such as -el, -er, -ere, &c., are slurred over, it will generally be found that a vowel or h follows them. Examples: litel, 6, woneth, 105, bedels, 266, bodi, 345, deuel, 446, hunger, 449. Compare oueral, 38, 54. There are many other peculiarities which it would take long to enumerate, such as, that sworn is pronounced sworen, 204; that the final -e is sometimes preserved before a vowel, as in dedë am, 167; that the word ne is very frequently not counted, as it were, in the scansion, as in 57, 113, 220, 419, the second ne in l. 547, and in several other places. But it must suffice to state merely, that when the above rules (with allowance of a few exceptions) lii are carefully observed, it will be found that the metre of Havelok is very regular, and valuable on account of its regularity.

It would therefore be easy to correct the text in many places by help of an exact analysis of the rhythm. But this, except in a very few places, has not been attempted, because the imperfect, but unique, MS. copy is more instructive as it stands. In l. 19, e.g. wit should be wite; in l. 47, red should be rede; in l. 74, his soule should be of his soule, &c. The importance of attending to the final -e may be exemplified by the lines—

Mr Ellis writes— “These final examples suggested to me to compose the following German epitaph, which contains just as many final e’s, and which I think no German would find to have anything peculiar in the versification:

I think Havelok may be well compared with Goethe’s ballad,

and the end:—

The italicised trisyllabic measures are fine. Observe also the elisions of final -e before a following vowel (Städt’ being very unusual), and the omission of the dative -e in im Reich, to rhyme with zugleich.”

I have only to add that my special thanks are due to Sir F. Madden for his permission to make use of his valuable notes, glossary, and preface, and for his assistance; as also to Mr Ellis for his notes, which, however, reached me only at the last moment, when much alteration of the proofs was troublesome. There are many things probably which Mr Ellis does not much approve of in this short popular sketch of the metre, in which attention is drawn only to some of the principal points. In particular, he disapproves of the term slurring over, though I believe that I mean precisely the same thing aa he does, viz. that these light syllables are really fully pronounced, and not in any way forcibly suppressed; but that, owing to their being light syllables, and occurring before vowel sounds, the full pronunciation of them does not cause the verse to halt, but merely imparts to it an agreeable vivacity. As I have already said elsewhere46— “A poet’s business is, in fact, to take care that the syllables which are to be rapidly pronounced are such as easily can be so; and that the syllables which are to be heavily accented are naturally those that ought to be. If he gives attention to this, it does not much matter whether each foot has two or three syllables in it.”

Skip to Emendations

This section is shown as printed. The editor’s corrections were variously handled. Minor changes to the primary text are shown in brackets and marked with mouse-hover popups. The more complicated or tentative emendations are given as supple­mentary footnotes, separately outlined. Additions to the Glossary are marked in the same way. The following paragraph is part of the original text.

Some emendations have been made in the text by inserting letters and words within square brackets. A few more may be noticed here.

p. 2, l. 47. The MS. has red; but it should be rede.

p. 3, l. 66. For the MS. reading here Mr Garnett proposed to read othere, which is clearly right.

p. 3, l. 74. For his soule (as in the MS.) we should probably read of his soule.

p. 3, l. 79. For wo diden (as in the MS.) we should read wo so dide.

p. 6, l. 177. Read— “Bi [ihesu] crist,” &c, to fill up; but this is doubtful; see l. 1112.

p. 18, l. 560. For with, Mr Garnett proposed to read wilt.

p. 20, l. 640. For ney (as in MS.) read neye, the adverbial form.

p. 21, l. 660. Perhaps there should be a comma after Slep, making the sense to be sleep, son, not sleep soon.

p. 23, l. 746. For alle, Mr Garnett proposed to read shalle.

p. 24, l. 784. Perhaps we should, however, read se-weren, and the note on the line (p. 93) may be wrong. See Weren in the Glossary. See Endnote.

p. 32, l. 1037. For stareden we should perhaps read stradden; see the Glossary.

p. 33, l. 1080. For hexte we should rather read hexte [man]; cf. l. 199.

p. 38, l. 1233. Mr Garnett suggested that cloþen may mean clothes. If so, dele the comma after it.

p. 43, l. 1420. For wolde we should rather read [he] wolde.

p. 46, l. 1687. þarned is an error of the scribe for þoled; see the Glossary.

p. 47, l. 1720. Perhaps we should rather read—is womman [non].

p. 47, l. 1733. Bidde must mean offer, rather than bid (as in the Glossary); unless it be miswritten for bide = tarry.

p. 47, l. 1736. The MS. reading deled should be deyled; cf. l. 2099.

p. 76, l. 2670. The MS. reading blinne should clearly be blunne. A few other suggestions of emendations will be found in the Glossarial Index. See the words Arwe, Birþe, Felde, Sor, Tauhte, Þenne, Thit, Werewed, Wreken, &c. See also the suggestions in the preface, pp. xxxix, xli, xlvi, xlvii.

p. 132, s.v. Loken. The reference to the Ancren Riwle is to MS. Titus D 18, fol. 17; cf. the edition by Morton (Camd. Soc. 1853), p. 56.

In the Glossary, Dunten is wrongly placed after Dint.

See Endnote for following items.

Also, Greting is wrongly placed before Gres.

Hal, more probably, is shortened from half, like twel from twelue.

Shoten, in l. 1838, means rushed, darted, flew.

Teyte may mean lively. My explanation is not generally accepted.

Bise occurs in l. 724.