Part 5

§ 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 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.

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

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

§ 25. ON THE NAMES “CURAN” AND “HAVELOK.”

The French version tells us that _Coaran_, _Cuaran_, or _Cuheran_ is the British word for a scullion. This etymology has not hitherto been traced, but it may easily have been perfectly true. A glance at Armstrong’s Gaelic Dictionary shews us that the Gaelic _cearn_ (which answers very well to the Old English _hirne_, a corner) has the meaning of a _corner_, and, secondly, of a _kitchen_; and that _cearnach_ is an adjective meaning _of or belonging to a kitchen_. But we may come even nearer than this; for by adding the diminutive ending _-an_ to the Gaelic _cocaire_, a cook, we see that _Cuheran_ may really have conveyed the idea of _scullion_ to a British ear, and this probably further gave rise to the story of Havelok’s degradation. It is a common custom--one which true etymologists must always deplore--to invent a story to account for a derivation; and such a practice is invariably carried out with greater boldness and to a greater extent if the said derivation chances to be false. For it is possible that Curan may be simply the Gaelic _curan_, a brave man, and the Irish _curanta_, brave. The derivation of Havelok is certainly puzzling. Professor Rask declared it to have no meaning in Danish. It bears, however, a remarkable resemblance to the Old English _gavelok_, which occurs in Weber’s _Kyng Alisaunder_, l. 1620, and which is the A.S. _gafeluc_, Icel. _gaflak_, Welsh _gaflach_, a spear, dart, or javelin. This is an appropriate name for a warrior, and possibly reappears in the instance of Hugh _Kevelock_, earl of Chester (Bp. Percy’s Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, i. 128). It is remarkable that the Gaelic and Irish _corran_ has the same sense, that of _a spear_, whilst _curan_, as above-mentioned, means _a brave man_. It is best, perhaps, to stop here; for etymology, when pursued too far, is wont to beguile the pursuer into every possible quagmire of absurdity.

§ 26. DESCRIPTION OF THE MS., &c.

The MS. from which the present poem is printed is in the Laudian collection in the Bodleian Library, where its old mark is K 60, and its present one Misc. 108. Being described in the old printed catalogue merely as _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 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. _W_it-drow = withdrew, l. 502; _w_e, 1058; _w_as, 1129 (cf. “him was ful wa,” _Sir Tristr._ f. iii. st. 43); ber_w_en, 1426 (written “berwen” in l. 697); _w_at = known, 1674; _w_e, miswritten for _w_o = who, 1914; to which perhaps we may add _w_it, 997. This evidence is interesting as shewing that this letter was then fast going out of use, and I think that we may safely date the final disappearance of this letter from MSS. at about the year 1300. As regards the _th_, we may remark that at the end of a word both þ and _th_ are used, as in “norþ and suth,” 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.

§ 27. ON THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS OCCURRING IN THE POEM.

The following peculiarities of spelling may be first noted. We frequently find _h_ prefixed to words which it is usual to spell without one. Examples are: _holde_ for _old_, _hete_ for _ete_ (eat), _het_ for _et_ (ate), _heuere_ for _euere_, _Henglishe_ for _Englishe_, &c.; see the Glossary, under the letter H. This enables us to explain some words which at first appear puzzling; thus _her_ = _er_, ere; _hayse_ = _ayse_, ease; _helde_ = _elde_, old age; _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 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 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 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, 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_, 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.