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 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 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.
[§ 28.] On the Metre of Havelok.
The poem is written in the familiar rhythm of which I have already spoken elsewhere, viz. at p. xxxvii of the Preface to Mr Morris’s edition of Genesis and Exodus. The metre of Havelok is rather more regular, but many of the remarks there made apply to it. The chief rule is that every line shall contain four accents,[37] the two principal types being afforded (1) by the eight-syllable and nine-syllable lines—
(a) For hém | ne yé|dë góld | ne fé, 44;
(b) It wás | a kíng | bi á|rë dáwës, 27;
and (2) by the seven-syllable and eight-syllable lines—
(c) Hérk|net tó | me gó|dë men, 1;