Ȝha (yes) occurs in [l. 2843]; but we also meet with ȝhis, or yis; with reference to which Mr Morris writes:— “The latter term was not much in favour with the people of the North. Even now yes sounds offensive to a Lancashire man. ‘Hoo cou’d naw opp’n hur meawth t’ sey eigh (yea) or now (no); boh simpurt on sed iss; th’ dickons iss hur on him too. —Tim Bobbin.’” In fact, the distinction between ȝha and ȝhis, which I have pointed out in William of Palerne (Glossary, s.v. ȝis), viz., that ȝha merely assents, whilst ȝhis shews that the speaker has an opinion of his own, is in this poem observed. Thus, in [l. 2843], ȝha = “yes, I admit that I do;” but in [l. 514], yis = “yes, but you had better do so;” in [l. 1397], ȝhis = “yes, indeed I will;” and in [l. 3406], ȝis = “yes, but I cannot accept your answer.”[14] The true distinction between thou and ye (William of Palerne, Pref. p. xli) is also generally observed. Thus the Green Bird, in the Prologue, considers the poet to be a fool, and calls him thou; but the clerks, in addressing Arthur ([l. 498]) politely say ye. And again, Amytans, when rebuking Arthur, frequently calls him thou, without any ceremony. Cf. [ll. 659], [908], [921], [2839], &c.
As regards the vocabulary, we find that some Northumbrian terms have been employed, but others thrown aside. Thus, while we find the Northumbrian words thir (these), traist (trust), newis (neives, fists), radour (fear), etc., we do not, on the other hand, meet with the usual Scottish word mirk, but observe it to be supplanted by dirk ([l. 2471]). So, again, eke is used in the sense of also, instead of being a verb, as more usual in Northern works. We may note, too, the occurrence of frome as well as fra, and the Scottish form thyne-furth (thenceforth) in [l. 2196].
The spelling is very various. We find even four forms of one word, as cusynace, cusynece, cusynes, cwsynes; and, as examples of eccentric spelling, may be quoted qsquyaris (squires, [l. 3204]), whilst in [l. 3221] we find sqwar.
Both in the marginal abstract and in the notes I have chiefly aimed at removing minor difficulties by explaining sentences of which the construction is peculiar, and words which are disguised by the spelling. For the explanation of more uncommon words, recourse should be had to the Glossarial Index.
[1] The volume contains other poems besides “Sir Lancelot.”
[2] See Mr Lumby’s editions of “Early Scottish Verse” and “Ratis Raving,” both edited for the E.E.T.S. from this MS. Only the latter of these is in the hand-writing of V. de F.
[3] This refers to the edition printed in 1865. In executing the present reprint, the proof-sheets have been once more compared with the MS., and a very few insignificant errors have been thus detected and rectified.
[4] “As to the Romance of Sir Lancelot, our author [Gower], among others on the subject, refers to a volume of which he was the hero; perhaps that of Robert de Borron, altered soon afterwards by Godefroy de Leigny, under the title of Le Roman de la Charrette, and printed, with additions, at Paris by Antony Verard, in the year 1494.
For if thou wilt the bokes rede
Of Launcelot and other mo,