[This e-text] is based on the 1869 (second) edition of the Alliterative Poems. A few apparent misprints were checked against the 1864 edition, but the texts as a whole were not closely compared.

The text includes characters that will only display in UTF-8 (Unicode) text readers, primarily Ȝ ȝ (yogh). There are also a few Greek words in the Index, and a handful of letters with overline or macron, such as ī. If these characters do not display properly, or if the quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable fonts. First, make sure that your browser’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font.

All brackets are in the original.

Typographical errors are shown with mouse-hover popups. Quotation-mark errors—especially orphaned open quotes—are similarly marked. In some cases it may be possible to guess where the missing quotation mark belongs, but it seemed safer to leave the text as printed. No quotation marks disappeared between the 1864 and 1869 editions.

[Full Contents]
[Preface]
[The Pearl] (separate file)
[Cleanness] (separate file)
[Patience] (separate file)
[Glossarial Index] (separate file)
[Sidenotes]
[Details of Text and Layout]

EDITED FROM
THE UNIQUE MANUSCRIPT
BRITISH MUSEUM MS. COTTON
NERO A. x

BY

RICHARD MORRIS

Published for
THE EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY
by the
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON NEW YORK TORONTO

FIRST PUBLISHED 1864
SECOND EDITION 1869
REPRINTED (1869 VERSION) 1965

Original Series, No. 1

ORIGINALLY PRINTED BY STEPHEN AUSTIN, HERTFORD
AND NOW REPRINTED LITHOGRAPHICALLY IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
BY VIVIAN RIDLER, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

[ Contents]
(added by transcriber)

Items in italics do not have headings in the body text.

[PREFACE.]

All page references in Arabic numerals refer to the main text, located in a separate file. Parenthetical Roman numerals do not correspond to the editor’s section headings, but the text summary is generally similar to the appropriate headnote.

The following poems are taken from a well known manuscript in the Cottonian collection, marked Nero A. x, which also contains, in the same handwriting and dialect, a metrical romance,[1] wherein the adventures of Sir Gawayne with the “Knight in Green,” are most ably and interestingly described.

Unfortunately nothing can be affirmed with any certainty concerning the authorship of these most valuable and interesting compositions. The editor of “Syr Gawayn and the Green Knight” considers that Huchowne, a supposed[2] Scotch maker of the fourteenth century, has the best claims to be recognised as the author, inasmuch as he is specially referred to by Wyntown as the writer of the Gret gest of Arthure and the Awntyre of Gawayne.

I do not think that any certain conclusions are to be drawn from the Scotch historian’s assertion. It is well known that more versifiers than one during the fourteenth century attempted romance composition in the English language, having for their theme the knightly deeds of Arthur or Sir Gawayne. These they compiled from French originals, from which they selected the most striking incidents and those best suited to an Englishman’s taste for the marvellous. We are not surprised, then, at finding so many romance poems treating of the exploits of the same hero, and laying claim to be considered as original productions. In Scotland, Huchowne’s works might no doubt have been regarded as the standard romances of the period, but that they were the only English gests is indeed very doubtful.

The Early English alliterative romance, entitled the Morte Arthure, published from a manuscript in Lincoln Cathedral by Mr. Halliwell,[3] is considered by Sir F. Madden to be the veritable gest of Arthure composed by Huchowne. An examination of this romance does not lead me to the same conclusion, unless Huchowne was a Midland man, for the poem is not written in the old Scotch dialect,[4] but seems to have been originally composed in one of the Northumbrian dialects spoken South of the Tweed.[5]

The manuscript from which Mr. Halliwell has taken his text is not the original copy, nor even a literal transcript of it. It exhibits certain orthographical and grammatical peculiarities unknown to the Northumbrian dialect which have been introduced by a Midland transcriber, who has here and there taken the liberty to adapt the original text to the dialect of his own locality, probably that one of the North Midland counties, where many of the Northumbrian forms of speech would be intelligible.[6]

A comparison of the Arthurian romance with the following poems throws no light whatever upon the authorship of the poems. The dialect of the two works is altogether different, although many of the terms employed are common to both, being well known over the whole of the North of England. The grammatical forms (the best test we can have) in the poems are quite distinct from those in the Morte Arthure, and of course go far to prove that they do not proceed from the pen of the same writer.

The Editor of “Syr Gawayn and the Green Knight” acknowledges that the poems in the present volume, as now preserved to us in the manuscript, are not in the Scottish dialect, but he says “there is sufficient internal evidence of their being Northern,[7] although the manuscript containing them appears to have been written by a scribe of the Midland counties, which will account for the introduction of forms differing from those used by writers beyond the Tweed.”

Now, with regard to this subsequent transcription of the poems from the Scotch into a Midland dialect,—it cannot be said to be improbable, for we have abundant instances of the multiplication of copies by scribes of different localities, so that we are not surprised at finding the works of some of our popular Early English writers appearing in two or three forms; but, on the other hand, a comparison of the original copy with the adapted transcriptions, or even the reading of a transcribed copy, always shows how the author’s productions have suffered by the change. Poetical works, especially those with final rhymes, of course undergo the greatest amount of transformation and depreciation. The changes incident upon the kind of transcription referred to are truly surprising, and most perplexing to those who make the subject of Early English dialects a matter of investigation.

But, in the present poems, the uniformity and consistency of the grammatical forms is so entire, that there is indeed no internal evidence of subsequent transcription into any other dialect than that in which they were originally written. However, the dialect and grammatical peculiarities will be considered hereafter.

Again, in the course of transcription into another dialect, any literary merit that the author’s copy may have originally possessed would certainly be destroyed. But the poems before us are evidently the work of a man of birth and education; the productions of a true poet, and of one who had acquired a perfect mastery over that form of the English tongue spoken in his own immediate locality during the earlier part of the fourteenth century. Leaving out of consideration their great philological worth, they possess an intrinsic value of their own as literary compositions, very different from anything to be found in the works of Robert of Gloucester, Manning, and many other Early English authors, which are very important as philological records, but in the light of poetical productions, cannot be said to hold a very distinguished place in English literature. The poems in the present volume contain many passages which, as Sir F. Madden truly remarks, will bear comparison with any similar ones in the works of Douglas or Spenser.

I conclude, therefore, that these poems were not transcribed from the Scotch dialect into any other, but were written in their own West-Midland speech in which we now have them.

Mr. Donaldson, who is now editing for the Early English Text Society the Troy Book, translated from Guido di Colonna, puts forward a plea for Huchowne as its author, to whom he would also assign the Morte Arthure (ed. Perry) and the Pistel of Sweet Susan.[8] But Mr. Donaldson seems to have been misled by the similarity of vocabulary, which is not at all a safe criterion in judging of works written in a Northumbrian, West or East Midland speech. The dialect, I venture to think, is a far safer test. A careful examination of the Troy Book compels me to differ in toto from Mr. Donaldson, and, instead of assigning the Troy Book to a Scotchman, say that it cannot even be claimed, in its present form, by any Northumbrian south of the Tweed; moreover, it presents no appearance of having been tampered with by one unacquainted with the dialect, though it has perhaps been slightly modernised in the course of transcription.

The work is evidently a genuine West-Midland production,[9] having most of the peculiarities of vocabulary and inflexions that are found in these Alliterative Poems.[10] I feel greatly inclined to claim this English Troy Book as the production of the author of the Alliterative Poems; for, leaving out identical and by no means common expressions, we find the same power of description,[11] and the same tendency to inculcate moral and religious truths on all occasions where an opportunity presents itself.[12] Without dwelling upon this topic, which properly falls to the Editor of the Troy Book, it may not be out of place to ask the reader to compare the following description of a storm from the Troy Book, with that selected from the present volume on pp. 14 and 18.

The poems in the present volume, three in number, seem to have been written for the purpose of enforcing, by line upon line and precept upon precept, Resignation to the will of God; Purity of life as manifested in thought, word, and deed; Obedience to the Divine command; and Patience under affliction.

In [the first poem], entitled by me “The Pearl”, the author evidently gives expression to his own sorrow for the loss of his infant child, a girl of two years old, whom he describes as a

Perle plesaunte to prynces paye

Pearl pleasant to princes’ pleasure,

To clanly clos in golde so clere

Most neatly set in gold so clear.

Of her death he says:

Allas! I leste hyr in on erbere

Alas! I lost her in an arbour,

Þurȝ gresse to grounde hit fro me yot

Through grass to ground it from me got. —([p. 1].)

The writer then represents himself as visiting his child’s grave (or arbour) in the “high season of August,” and giving way to his grief ([p. 2]). He falls asleep, and in a dream is carried toward a forest, where he saw rich rocks gleaming gloriously, hill sides decked with crystal cliffs, and trees the leaves of which were as burnished silver. The gravel under his feet was “precious pearls of orient,” and birds “of flaming hues” flew about in company, whose notes were far sweeter than those of the cytole or gittern (guitar) ([p. 3]). The dreamer arrives at the bank of a stream, which flows over stones (shining like stars in the welkin on a winter’s night) and pebbles of emeralds, sapphires, or other precious gems, so

Þat all the loȝe lemed of lyȝt

That all the deep gleamed of light,

So dere watȝ hit adubbement

So dear was its adornment. —([p. 4].)

Following the course of the stream, he perceives on the opposite side a crystal cliff, from which was reflected many a “royal ray” ([p. 5]).

At þe fote þer-of þer sete a faunt

At the foot thereof there sat a child,

A mayden of menske, ful debonere

A maiden of honour, full debonnair;

Blysnande whyt watȝ hyr bleaunt

Glistening white was her robe,

(I knew hyr wel, I hade sen hyr ere)

(I knew her well, I had seen her before)

At glysnande golde þat man con schore

As shining gold that man did purify,

So schon þat schene an-vnder schore

So shone that sheen (bright one) on the opposite shore;

On lenghe I loked to hyr þere

Long I looked to her there,

Þe lenger I knew hyr more & more

The longer I knew her, more and more. —([pp. 6, 7].)

The maiden rises, and, proceeding along the bank of the stream, approaches him. He tells her that he has done nothing but mourn for the loss of his Pearl, and has been indeed a “joyless jeweller” ([p. 8]). However, now that he has found his Pearl, he declares that he is no longer sorrowful, but would be a “joyful jeweller”

were he allowed to cross the stream ([p. 8]). The maiden blames her father for his rash speech, tells him that his Pearl is not lost, and that he cannot pass the stream till after death ([p. 10]). The dreamer is in great grief; he does not, he says, care what may happen if he is again to lose his Pearl. The maiden advises him to bear his loss patiently, and to abide God’s doom ([p. 11]). She describes to him her blissful state in heaven, where she reigns as a queen ([p. 12]). She explains to him that Mary is the Empress of Heaven, and all others kings and queens ([p. 13]). The parable of the labourers in the vineyard[15] ([pp. 15-18]) is then rehearsed at length, to prove that “innocents” are admitted to the same privileges as are enjoyed by those who have lived longer upon the earth ([p. 18]). The maiden then speaks to her father of Christ and his one hundred and forty thousand brides ([p. 24]), and describes their blissful state ([p. 26]). She points out to him the heavenly Jerusalem, which was “all of bright burnished gold, gleaming like glass” ([p. 29]). Then the dreamer beholds a procession of virgins going to salute the Lamb, among whom he perceives his “little queen” ([p. 33]). On attempting to cross the stream to follow her, he is aroused from his dream ([p. 35]), laments his rash curiosity in seeking to know so much of God’s mysteries, and declares that man ever desires more happiness than he has any right to expect ([p. 35]).

The [second poem], entitled “Cleanness,” is a collection of Biblical stories, in which the writer endeavours to enforce Purity of Life, by showing how greatly God is displeased at every kind of impurity, and how sudden and severe is the punishment which falls upon the sinner for every violation of the Divine law.

After commending cleanness and its “fair forms,” the author relates (I.) The Parable of the Marriage Feast ([p. 39]); (II.) the Fall of the Angels ([p. 43]); (III.) The wickedness of the antediluvian world ([p. 44]),

He watȝ famed for fre þat feȝt loued best

He was famous as free that fight loved best,

& ay þe bigest in bale þe best watȝ halden

And ever the biggest in sin the best was held; ([p. 45].)

(IV.) The destruction of mankind by the Flood. When all were safely stowed in the ark,

Thenne sone com þe seuenþe day, when samned wern alle

Then soon came the seventh day when assembled were all,

& alle woned in þe whichche þe wylde & þe tame.

And all abode in the ark (hutch), the wild and the tame.

Þen bolned þe abyme & bonkeȝ con ryse

Then swelled the abyss and banks did rise,

Waltes out vch walle-heued, in ful wode stremeȝ

Bursts out each well-head in full wild streams,

Watȝ no brymme þat abod vnbrosten bylyue

There was no brim (stream) that abode unburst by then,

Þe mukel lauande loghe to þe lyfte rered

The much (great) flowing deep (loch) to the loft (sky) reared.

Mony clustered clowde clef alle in clowteȝ

Many a clustering cloud cleft all in clouts (pieces),

To-rent vch a rayn-ryfte & rusched to þe vrþe

Rent was each a rain-rift and rushed to the earth;

Fon neuer in forty dayeȝ, & þen þe flod ryses

Failed never in forty days, and then the flood rises,

Ouer-walteȝ vche a wod and þe wyde feldeȝ

Over-flows each wood and the wide fields;

..............

Water wylger ay wax, woneȝ þat stryede

Water wildly ever waxed, abodes that destroyed,

Hurled in-to vch hous, hent þat þer dowelled

Hurled into each house, seized those that there dwelt.

Fyrst feng to þe flyȝt alle þat fle myȝt

First took to flight all that flee might,

Vuche burde with her barne þe byggyng þay leueȝ

Each bride (woman) with her bairn their abode they leave,

& bowed to þe hyȝ bonk þer brentest hit wern

And hied to the high bank where highest it were,

& heterly to þe hyȝe hilleȝ þay [h]aled on faste

And hastily to the high hills they rushed on fast;

Bot al watȝ nedleȝ her note, for neuer cowþe stynt

But all was needless their device, for never could stop

Þe roȝe raynande ryg [&] þe raykande waweȝ

The rough raining shower and the rushing waves,

Er vch boþom watȝ brurd-ful to þe bonkeȝ eggeȝ

Ere each bottom (valley) was brim-ful to the banks’ edges,

& vche a dale so depe þat demmed at þe brynkeȝ

And each dale so deep that dammed at the brinks. —([pp. 47, 48]).

The ark is described as “heaved on high with hurling streams.”

Kest to kyþeȝ vncouþe þe clowdeȝ ful nere

Cast to kingdoms uncouth the clouds ful near,

Hit waltered on the wylde flod, went as hit lyste

It tossed on the wild flood, went as it list,

Drof vpon þe depe dam, in daunger hit semed

It drove upon the deep dam, in danger it seemed,

With-outen mast, oþer myke, oþer myry bawe-lyne

Without mast, or mike, or merry bow-line,

Kable, oþer capstan to clyppe to her ankreȝ

Cable or capstan to clip to their anchors,

Hurrok, oþer hande-helme hasped on roþer

Oar or hand-helm hooked on rudder,

Oþer any sweande sayl to seche after hauen

Or any swinging sail to seek after haven,

Bot flote forthe with þe flyt of þe felle wyndeȝ

But floated forth with the force of the fell winds.

Wheder-warde so þe water wafte, hit rebounde

Whither-ward so (as) the water waft, it rebounded,

Ofte hit roled on-rounde & rered on ende

Oft it rolled around and reared on end,

Nyf our lorde hade ben her lodeȝ-mon hem had lumpen harde

Had our Lord not been their (pilot) leader hardship had befallen them. —([p. 49].)

(V.) The Visit of Three Angels to Abraham ([p. 54]).

(VI.) The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ([pp. 64, 65]), including a description of the Dead Sea, the tarn (lake) of traitors ([p. 66]).

(VII.) The invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar ([p. 71]), and the captivity of Judah ([p. 74]).

The following is a paraphrase of the fourth and fifth verses in the twenty-fifth chapter of the second book of Kings.[17]

Þenne þe kyng of þe kyth a counsayl hym takes

Then the king of the kingdom a counsel him takes,

Wyth þe best of his burnes, a blench for to make

With the best of his men a device for to make;

Þay stel out on a stylle nyȝt er any steuen rysed

They stole out on a still night ere any sound arose,

& harde hurles þurȝ þe oste, er enmies hit wyste

And hard hurled through the host, ere enemies it wist,

Bot er þay at-wappe ne moȝt þe wach wyth oute

But ere they could escape the watch without,

Hiȝe skelt watȝ þe askry þe skewes an-vnder

High scattered was the cry, the skies there under,

Loude alarom vpon launde lulted was þenne

Loud alarm upon land sounded was then;

Ryche, ruþed of her rest, ran to here wedes,

Rich (men) roused from their rest, ran to their weeds,

Hard hattes þay hent & on hors lepes

Kettle hats they seized, and on horse leap;

Cler claryoun crak cryed on-lofte

Clear clarion’s crack cried aloft.

By þat watȝ alle on a hepe hurlande swyþee

By that (time) was all on a heap, hurling fast,

Folȝande þat oþer flote, & fonde hem bilyue

Following that other fleet (host), and found them soon,

Ouer-tok hem, as tyd, tult hem of sadeles

Over-took them in a trice, tilted them off saddles,

Tyl vche prynce hade his per put to þe grounde

Till each prince had his peer put to the ground;

& þer watȝ þe kyng kaȝt wyth calde prynces

And there was the king caught with crafty princes,

& alle hise gentyle for-iusted on Ierico playnes

And all his nobles vanquished on Jericho’s plains. —([pp. 71, 72].)

(VIII.) Belshazzar’s impious feast ([pp. 76-80]), and the handwriting upon the wall ([pp. 80, 81]).

In þe palays pryncipale vpon þe playn wowe

In the palace principal upon the plain wall,

In contrary of þe candelstik þat clerest hit schyned

Opposite to the candlestick that clearest there shone.

Þer apered a paume, with poyntel in fyngres

There appeared a palm with a pointel in its fingers,

Þat watȝ grysly & gret, & grymly he wrytes

That was grisly and great, and grimly it writes,

None oþer forme bot a fust faylaynde þe wryst

None other form but a fist failing the wrist

Pared on þe parget, purtrayed lettres

Pared on the plaister, pourtrayed letters.

When þat bolde Baltaȝar blusched to þat neue

When that bold Belshazzar looked to that fist,

Such a dasande drede dusched to his hert

Such a dazzling dread dashed to his heart.

Þat al falewed his face & fayled þe chere

That all paled his face and failed the cheer;

Þe stronge strok of þe stonde strayned his ioyntes

The strong stroke of the blow strained his joints,

His cnes cachcheȝ to close & cluchches his hommes

His knees catch to close, and he clutches his hams,

& he with plat-tyng his paumes displayes his lers

And he with striking his palms displays his fears,

& romyes as a rad ryth þat roreȝ for drede

And howls as a frightened hound that roars for dread,

Ay biholdand þe honde til hit hade al grauen,

Ever beholding the hand till it had all graven,

& rasped on þe roȝ woȝe runisch saueȝ

And rasped on the rough wall uncouth saws (words).

(IX.) The story of Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and its punishment ([pp. 84, 85]), and the interpretation of the handwriting by Daniel ([p. 86]).

(X.) The invasion of Babylon by the Medes ([pp. 87, 88]).

Baltaȝar in his bed watȝ beten to deþe

Belshazzar in his bed was beaten to death,

Þat boþe his blood & his brayn blende on þe cloþes

That both his blood and his brains blended on the clothes;

Þe kyng in his cortyn watȝ kaȝt by þe heles

The king in his curtain was caught by the heels,

Feryed out bi þe fete & fowle dispysed

Ferried out by the feet and foully despised;

Þat watȝ so doȝty þat day & drank of þe vessayl

He that was so doughty that day and drank of the vessels,

Now is a dogge also dere þat in a dych lygges

Now is as dear (valuable) as a dog that in a ditch lies. —([p. 88].)

The [third poem], entitled “Patience,” is a paraphrase of the book of Jonah. The writer prefaces it with a few remarks of his own in order to show that “patience is a noble point though it displease oft.”

The following extract contains a description of the sea-storm which overtook Jonah:—

Anon out of þe norþ est þe noys bigynes

Anon out of the north east the noise begins,

When boþe breþes con blowe vpon blo watteres

When both breezes did blow upon blue waters:

Roȝ rakkes þer ros with rudnyng an-vnder

Rough clouds there arose with lightning there under,

Þe see souȝed ful sore, gret selly to here

The sea sobbed full sore, great marvel to hear;

Þe wyndes on þe wonne water so wrastel togeder,

The winds on the wan water so wrestle together,

Þat þe wawes ful wode waltered so hiȝe

That the waves full wild rolled so high,

& efte busched to þe abyme þat breed fyssches

And again bent to the abyss that bred fishes;

Durst nowhere for roȝ arest at þe bothem.

Durst it nowhere for roughness rest at the bottom.

When þe breth & þe brok & þe bote metten

When the breeze and the brook and the boat met,

Hit watȝ a ioyles gyn þat Ionas watȝ inne

It was a joyless engine that Jonah was in,

For hit reled on round vpon þe roȝe yþes

For it reeled around upon the rough waves.

Þe bur ber to hit baft þat braste alle her gere

The bore (wave) bear to it abaft that burst all her gear,

Þen hurled on a hepe þe helme & þe sterne

Then hurled on a heap the helm and the stern,

Furste to murte mony rop & þe mast after

First marred* many a rope and the mast after.

Þe sayl sweyed on þe see, þenne suppe bihoued

The sail swung on the sea, then sup behoved

Þe coge of þe colde water, & þenne þe cry ryses

The boat of the cold water, and then the cry rises;

Ȝet coruen þay þe cordes & kest al þer-oute

Yet cut they the cords and cast all there-out.

Mony ladde þer forth-lep to laue & to kest

Many a lad there forth leapt to lave and to cast,

Scopen out þe scaþel water, þat fayn scape wolde

To scoop out the scathful water that fain escape would;

For be monnes lode neuer so luþer, þe lyf is ay swete

For be man’s lot never so bad, the life is aye sweet. —([p. 93].)

The writer, in concluding the story of Jonah, exhorts his readers to be “patient in pain and in joy.”

For he þat is to rakel to renden his cloþeȝ,

Mot efte sitte with more vn-sounde to sewe hem togeder.

For he that is too rash to rend his clothes,

Must afterwards sit with more unsound (worse ones) to sew them together. ([p. 104].)

This [brief outline] of the poems, together with the short extracts from them, will, it is hoped, give the reader stomach to digest the whole. It is true that they contain many “uncouth” terms; but this will be their highest merit with the student of language, as is shown, by Dr. Guest’s testimony, that they are “for several reasons curious, and especially so to the philologist.”[22] To those readers who do not appreciate the importance of such a very large addition to the vocabulary of our Early Language as is made by these treatises, let Sir Frederic Madden’s opinion of their literary merit suffice. That distinguished editor says, of the author’s “poetical talent, the pieces contained in the MS. afford unquestionable proofs; and the description of the change of the seasons, the bitter aspect of winter, the tempest which preceded the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sea storm occasioned by the wickedness of Jonas, are equal to any similar passages in Douglas or Spenser.”[23] Moreover, as to the hardness of the language—inasmuch as the subject matter of the poem will be familiar to all who may take up the present volume, the difficulty on the word-point will not be such as to deter the reader from understanding and appreciating the production of an old English poet, who—though his very name, unfortunately, has yet to be discovered—may claim to stand in the foremost rank of England’s early bards.

The Editor of the present volume has endeavoured to do justice to his author by giving the text, with some few exceptions, as it stands in the manuscript.[24] The contractions of the scribe have been expanded and printed in italics, a plan which he hopes to see adopted in every future edition of an early English author.

The [Glossary] has been compiled not only for the benefit of the reader, but for the convenience of those who are studying the older forms of our language, and who know how valuable a mere index of words and references sometimes proves.

In conclusion, I take the present opportunity of acknowledging the kind assistance of Sir Frederic Madden and E. A. Bond, Esq., of the British Museum, who, on every occasion, were most ready to render me any help in deciphering the manuscript, in parts almost illegible, from which the poems in the present volume are printed.

[ REMARKS UPON THE DIALECT AND GRAMMAR.]

Higden, writing about the year A.D. 1350, affirms, distinctly, the existence of three different forms of speech or dialects, namely, Southern, Midland, and Northern;[25] or, as they are sometimes designated, West-Saxon, Mercian, and Northumbrian. Garnett objects to Higden’s classification, and considers it certain “that there were in his (Higden’s) time, and probably long before, five distinctly marked forms, which may be classed as follows:— 1. Southern or standard English, which in the fourteenth century was perhaps best spoken in Kent and Surrey by the body of the inhabitants. 2. Western English, of which traces may be found from Hampshire to Devonshire, and northward as far as the Avon. 3. Mercian, vestiges of which appear in Shropshire, Staffordshire, and South and West Derbyshire, becoming distinctly marked in Cheshire, and still more so in South Lancashire. 4. Anglian, of which there are three sub-divisions—the East Anglian of Norfolk and Suffolk; the Middle Anglian of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and East Derbyshire; and the North Anglian of the West Riding of Yorkshire—spoken most purely in the central part of the mountainous district of Craven. 5. Northumbrian,” spoken throughout the Lowlands of Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, and nearly the whole of Yorkshire.

Garnett’s division is based upon peculiarities of pronunciation, which will be found well marked in the modern provincial dialects, and not upon any essential differences of inflexion that are to be found in our Early English manuscripts.[26]

The distinction between Southern and Western English was not at all required, as the Kentish Ayenbite of Inwyt (A.D. 1340) exhibits most of the peculiarities that mark the Chronicles of Robert of Gloucester (Cottonian MS. Calig. A. xi.) as a Southern (or West-Saxon) production. The Anglian of Norfolk, Lincolnshire, and Nottinghamshire may be referred to one group with the Mercian of Lancashire, as varieties of the Midland dialect.

A careful examination of our early literature leads us to adopt Higden’s classification as not only a convenient but a correct one.

There is, perhaps, no better test for distinguishing these dialects from one another than the verbal inflexions of the plural number in the present tense, indicative mood.

To state this test in the briefest manner, we may say that the Southern dialect employs -eth, the Midland -en, and the Northumbrian -es as the inflexion for all persons of the plural present indicative:[27]—

It is the constant and systematic employment of these inflexions, and not their occasional use that must be taken as the criterion of dialectical varieties.

In a pure specimen of the Southern dialect, we never find the Northumbrian -es. We do occasionally meet with the Midland -en, but only in those works written in localities where, from their geographical position, Southern and Midland forms would be intelligible.[28] We might look in vain for the Southern plural -eth in a pure Northumbrian production, but might be more successful in finding the Midland -en in the third person plural; as, “thay arn” for “they ar”, or “thay er.”

In a work composed in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, or Lancashire, we should be sure to find the occasional use of the Northumbrian plural -es.[29]

The inflexions of the verb in the singular are of value in enabling us to discriminate between the several varieties of the Midland dialect.[30] The Southern and Midland idioms (with the exception of the West-Midland of Lancashire, Cheshire, etc.) conjugated the verb in the singular present indicative, as follows:—

The West-Midland, corresponding to Garnett’s Mercian, instead of -est and -eth employs the inflexions that are so common in the so-called Northumbrian documents of the ninth and tenth centuries:—

The Northumbrian dialect takes -es in all three persons; but mostly drops it in the first person.

The peasantry of Cheshire and Lancashire still preserve the verbal inflexions which prevailed in the fourteenth century, and conjugate their verbs in the present indicative according to the following model:—

Inasmuch as the poems in the present volume exhibit the systematic use of these forms, we cannot but believe that they were originally composed in one of those counties where these verbal inflexions were well known and extensively used. We have to choose between several localities, but if we assign the poems to Lancashire we are enabled to account for the large number of Norse terms employed. It is true that the ancient examples of the Lancashire dialect contained in Mr. Robson’s Metrical Romances,[31] the Boke of Curtasye,[32] and Liber Cure Cocorum,[33] present us with much broader forms, as -us for -es in the plural number and possessive case of nouns, -un for -en in the plural present indicative mood, in passive participles of irregular (or strong) verbs, -ud (-ut) for -ed in the past tense and passive participle of regular (or weak) verbs, and the pronominal forms hor (their), hom (them), for her and hem.[34]

These forms are evidence of a broad pronunciation which, at the present time, is said to be a characteristic of the northwestern division of Lancashire, but I think that there is good evidence for asserting that this strong provincialism was not confined, formerly, to the West-Midland dialect, much less to a division of any particular county. We find traces of it in Audelay’s Poems (Shropshire), the Romance of William and the Werwolf,[35] and even in the Wickliffite version of the Scriptures.

Formerly, being influenced by these broad forms, I was led to select Cheshire or Staffordshire as the probable locality where the poems were written; but I do not, now, think that either of these counties ever employed a vocabulary containing so many Norse terms as are to be found in the Lancashire dialect. But although we may not be able to fix, with certainty, upon any one county in particular, the fact of the present poems being composed in the West-Midland dialect cannot be denied. Much may be said in favour of their Lancashire origin, and there are one or two points of resemblance between our poems, the Lancashire Romances, and Liber Cure Cocorum, that deserve especial notice.

I. In Sir Amadace,[36] lxviii. 9, there occurs the curious form miȝtus = miȝtes = mightst.[37] As it appears only once throughout the Romances we might conclude that it is an error of the scribe for miȝtest, but when we find in the poems before us not only myȝteȝ = myȝtes (mightst), but woldeȝ = woldes (wouldst), coutheȝ = couthes (couldst), dippteȝ (dippedest), travayledeȝ (travelledst), etc., we are bound to consider miȝtus as a genuine form.[38] In no other Early English works of the fourteenth century have I been able to find this peculiarity. It is very common in the Wohunge of Ure Lauerd (xiiith cent.). See O.E. Homilies, p. 51. The Northumbrian dialect at this period rejected the inflexion in the second person preterite singular, of regular verbs,[39] and in our poems we find the -es often dropped, so that we get two conjugations, which may be called the inflected and the uninflected form.

Originally the inflected form may have prevailed over the whole of the North of England, but have gradually become confined to the West-Midland dialect.

II. The next point of resemblance is the use of the verb SCHIN or SCHUN = schal = shall. It is still preserved in the modern dialect of Lancashire in combination with the adverb not, as schunnot[40] = shall not. The following examples will serve to illustrate the use of this curious form:—