HOW MOSES DEFEATED THE ETHIOPIANS.
| Bi ðat time ðat he was guð, | By that time that he was a youth (young man), |
| Wið faigered and ſtrengthe kuð, | For beauty and strength renowned, |
| folc ethiopienes on egipte cam, | Ethiopian folk on Egypt came, |
| And brende, & ſlug, & wreche nam, | And burnt, and slew, and vengeance took, |
| Al to memphin ðat riche cite, | All to Memphis that rich city, |
| And a-non to ðe reade ſe; | And anon to the Red Sea; |
| ðo was egipte folc in dred, | Then was Egypt's folk in dread, |
| And aſkeden here godes red; | And asked their gods' advice; |
| And hem ſeiden wið anſweren, | And they said to them in answer, |
| ðat on ebru cude hem wel weren. | That one Hebrew could them well defend. |
| Moyſes was louered of ðat here, | Moses became leader of that (Egyptian) army, |
| ðor he wurð ðane egyptes were; | There he became then Egypt's protector; |
| Bi a lond weige he wente rigt, | By a land-way he went right, |
| And brogte vn-warnede on hem figt; | And brought unwarned on them fight; |
| He hadden don egipte wrong, | They had done Egypt wrong, |
| He bi-loc hem & ſmette a-mong, | He compassed them and smote among, |
| And ſlug ðor manige; oc ſumme flen, | And slew there many; but some fled |
| Into ſaba to borgen ben. | Into Sheba to be saved. |
| Moyſes bi-ſette al ðat burg, | Moses beset all that borough (city), |
| Oc it was riche & ſtrong ut-ðhurg; | But it was rich and strong out-thorough (throughout); |
| Ethiopienes kinges dowter tarbis, | Tarbis, the Ethiopian king's daughter, |
| Riche maiden of michel priſ, | Rich maiden of great renown, |
| Gaf ðiſ riche burg moyſi; | Gave this rich city to Moses; |
| Luue-bonde hire ghe it dede for-ði. | As love-bond's hire she did it, therefore. |
| ðor iſe fon he leide in bonde, | There his foes he laid in bond, |
| And he wurð al-migt-ful in ðat lond; | And he became all-powerful in that land; |
| He bi-lef ðor(.) tarbis him ſcroð, | He remained there, Tarbis him urged, |
| ðog was him ðat ſurgerun ful loð; | Yet was to him that sojourn full loath; |
| Mai he no leue at hire taken | May he no leave of her take |
| but-if he it mai wið crafte maken: | Unless he it may with craft make: |
| He waſ of an ſtrong migt [&] wiſ, | He was of a strong might and wise, |
| He carf in two gummes of priſ | He carved in two gems (stones) precious, |
| Two likeneſſes, ſo grauen & meten, | Two likenesses alike carved and depicted, |
| ðis doð ðenken, & ðoðer forgeten; | This one causes to remember, and the other to forget; |
| He feſt is in two ringes of gold, | He fastened them in two rings of gold, |
| Gaf hire ðe ton, he was hire hold; | Gave her the one, he was dear to her; |
| [And quan awei nimen he wolde | [And when depart he would |
| Gaf hire ðe toðer, he was hire colde] | Gave her the other, and was distasteful to her] |
| Ghe it bered and ðiſ luue iſ for-geten, | She it beareth and this love is forgotten, |
| Moyſes ðus haued him leue bi-geten; | Moses thus hath for himself leave begotten; |
| Sone it migte wið leue ben, | Soon it might with leave be, |
| Into egypte e wente a-gen. | Into Egypt he went again. |
| —(ll. 2665-2708.) |
THE PLAGUE OF FROGS.
| And aaron held up his hond | And Aaron held up his hand |
| to ðe water and ðe more lond; | To the water and the greater land; |
| ðo cam ðor up ſwilc froſkes here | Then came there up such host of frogs |
| ðe dede al folc egipte dere; | That did all Egypt's folk harm; |
| Summe woren wilde, and ſumme tame, | Some were wild, and some tame, |
| And ðo hem deden ðe moſte ſame; | And those caused them the most (greatest) shame; |
| In huſe, in drinc, in metes, in bed, | In house, in drink, in meats, in bed, |
| It cropen and maden hem for-dred; | They crept and made them in great dread; |
| Summe ſtoruen and gouen ſtinc, | Some died and gave (out) stink, |
| And vn-hileden mete and drinc; | And (others) uncovered meat and drink; |
| Polheuedes, and froſkes, & podes ſpile | Tadpoles and frogs, and toad's venom |
| Bond harde egipte folc un-ſile.[[8]] | Bound hard Egypt's sorrowful folk. |
| —(ll. 2967-2978.) |
The reader must not be disappointed if he fails to find many traces in this work of our pious author's poetic skill; he must consider that the interest attaching to so early an English version of Old Testament History, as well as the philological value of the poem, fully compensates him for the absence of great literary merit, which is hardly to be expected in a work of this kind. And, moreover, we must recollect that it is to the patriotism, as well as piety, of such men as our author, that we owe the preservation of our noble language. The number of religious treatises written in English during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries proves that the dialect of religion approached more closely to the speech of the people than did the language of history or romance. And it is a curious fact that the most valuable monuments of our language are mostly theological, composed for the lewed and unlearned, who knew no other language than the one spoken by their forefathers, and who clung most tenaciously to their mother tongue, notwithstanding the changes consequent upon the Norman invasion, and the oppression of Norman rule, which, inasmuch as it fostered and kept up a patriotic spirit, exercised a most important and beneficial influence upon Early English literary culture and civilization.
DATE AND DIALECT OF THE POEM.
The mere examination of an Early English work with respect to its vocabulary and grammatical forms, will not enable us (as Price asserts) to settle satisfactorily the date at which it was written. The place of composition must also be taken into consideration, and a comparison, if possible, must be made with other works in the same dialect, the date of which is known with some degree of certainty. The date of the text before us must not, therefore, be confounded with that of the manuscript, which is, perhaps, a few years earlier than A.D. 1300. A careful comparison of the poem with the Bestiary, written in the same dialect, and most probably by the same author[[9]] (and printed by Mr Wright in the Reliquiæ Antiquæ, p. 208, and by myself in an Old English Miscellany), leads me to think that the present poem is not later than A.D. 1250.[[10]]
The vocabulary, which contains very few words of Romance origin,[[11]] is not that of Robert of Gloucester, or of Robert of Brunne, but such as is found in Laȝamon's Brut, or Orm's paraphrases, and other works illustrating the second period of our language, i.e. the twelfth and earlier part of the thirteenth centuries.
The employment of a dual for the pronouns of the first and second persons marks an early date (certainly not much later than the time of Henry III.) even in works composed in the Southern dialect, which, it is well known, retained to a comparatively late period those Anglo-Saxon inflections that had long previously been disused in more Northern dialects.
The Corpus manuscript is evidently the work of a scribe, to whom the language was more or less archaic, which accounts for such blunders as ðrosing for ðrosem, waspene for wastme, lage for vn-lage, insile for vn-sile, grauen for ðrauen, etc.