Alexander and Dindimus/Introduction
INTRODUCTION
§ 1. In An Essay on Alliterative Poetry, written by myself, and prefixed to vol. iii of the Percy Folio MS, ed. Hales and Furnivall, I have explained that there are no less than three poems (all fragmentary) in alliterative verse on the subject of the Romance of Alexander the Great. These I denote by the letters A, B, and C; they are as follows.[1]
A. A fragment preserved in MS. Greaves 60, in the Bodleian library, beginning—"Yee þat lengen in londe · Lordes and ooþer." This was edited by me for the E.E.T.S. in 1867, being printed in the same volume with William of Palerne, pp. 177-218. It has never been printed elsewhere.
B. A fragment preserved in MS. Bodley 264, beginning—"Whan þis weith at his wil · weduring hadde." This was edited by Mr. Stevenson for the Roxburghe Club in 1849, and is now reprinted in the present volume.
C. A fragment preserved in MS. Ashmole 44, in the Bodleian library, of which a portion is also found in MS. Dublin D. 4.12. It begins—"When folk ere festid & fed · fayn͏̄ wald þai here," and was also printed by Mr. Stevenson at the same time and in the same volume; without, however, collation with the Dublin MS., which is of later date than the Ashmole MS.
It will be understood that the remarks I have now to make relate to fragment B only, unless the contrary be expressed.
§ 2. There is but one copy of fragment B, and it is imperfect both at the beginning and the end. The portion preserved has been handed down to us in rather a curious way. The MS. in which it occurs (Bodley 264) is the well known copy of the French Romans d'Alixandre, to which is appended a copy, in another hand, of Marco Polo's travels. It is remarkable for the number and beauty of the illuminations contained in it, which have been frequently admired. Nine similar illustrations (of a later date) refer to the present poem, and are described particularly in § 17.
§ 3. The text of the French Romance is largely the same as that printed in Li Romans d'Alixandre par Lambert li Tors et Alixandre de Bernay, edited by H. Michelant, and published by the Literary Society of Stuttgart in 1846. The French version of the story varies from the English one, and out three English fragments have, I believe, little to do with it. But the condition of fol. 67 of the French MS. is very remarkable. The page is divided, as usual, into two columns. Of these, the first ends with the line—'Li veillant lieue sus si li vuet affier;" followed by the rubric—"Comment les gens alixandre firunt noies pur le moure des femmes demorant en le lew." But the second column of the page, originally left blank, contains the following note in a later hand—"Here fayleþ a prossesse of þis rommance of alixander, þe wheche prossesse þat fayleþ ȝe schulle fynde at þe ende of tthis bok y-wrete in engelyche ryme; and whanne ȝe han radde it to þe ende, turneþ hedur aȝen, and turneþ ouyr þis lef, and bygynneþ at þis reson: Che fu el mois de may que li tans renouele; and so rede forþ þe rommance to þe ende whylis þe frenche lasteþ."[2] This note of course only occupies a few lines of the second column of the page, the rest being blank. The verso of fol. 67 is also blank. Fol. 68, col. 1, begins, as the above note states, with the line: "Che fu el mois de may que li tans renouele."
§ 4. But the really remarkable point is, that, notwithstanding the three vacant columns in the MS., there is not a "failing of a process;" there is nothing omitted whatever. At p. 333 of Michelant's edition above referred to, we read as follows:—
Ce fuè l'mois de Mai que li tans renovele."
§ 5. The truth is, that the English fragment and the French romance belong to different versions of the story. And even if the English fragment could have been introduced, it is not introduced in quite the best place; neither does it fit properly either at the beginning or the end. If the English scribe had before him a long English poem, we should have been more obliged to him if he had preserved for us more of it; but, as it is, we are thankful that he has given us a part of it. It is not difficult, by a probable conjecture, to account for the present state of things. It would appear that the English scribe, for some reason or other, set some store by the portion of the story which includes the letters of Alexander to Dindimus, and of Dindimus to Alexander. Now he could not find these epistles in the French romance, not because a "process" had "failed", but because that particular romance does not, in any case, include them. Turning to the point where he expected to find them, he observed, not a great way from the most fitting place (but still not quite at the fittest place), a blank page and a half. From this he concluded that the French scribe had omitted the epistles, and thought that the best way of supplying the defect was by copying out a sufficient portion of the English version which he possessed. At the same time, he wished to preserve further a short account of the Gymnosophists, because of the similarity between these philosophers and those of which Dindimus was the king or master. Hence the result which we have in the present poem. It contains just the whole account of the Gymnosophists, and the whole account of the letters between Alexander and Dindimus, but purposely omits a portion of the narrative which comes between these, as pointed out by the footnote on p. 5. This is, however, not quite all. The scribe was determined not to lose the curious account of the trees which grew every day while daylight lasted, but disappeared every night; and, thinking that this short account would seem out of place if merely added at the end of the Letters, boldly inserted it in the middle; at ll. 111–136. If this be not quite the right history of the matter, it is perhaps as nearly so as we can guess, and is quite sufficient for the purpose of understanding the present state of the text.
§ 6. I have said that the French romance follows, in the main, one form of the story, and the English romances another. The French romance is all printed, as explained above, and may now be dismissed, as we have nothing more to do with it. The three English fragments are all connected, and are founded mainly on the same Latin version. Repeating from p. xxxvii of my Introduction to William of Palerne and Alisaunder, I may remind the reader that the principal basis of these fragments is the Greek text known as the Pseudo-Callisthenes, whence three principal Latin versions are derived. These are (1) that by Julius Valerius; (2) the Itinerarium Alexandri (relating to Alexander's wars); and (3) that by the Archpresbyter Leo, which is also known as the "Historia de preliis." It is with the third of these that the English fragments have most to do. This version begins with the words—"Sapientissimi egiptii scientes mensuram terre;" and an edition of it was printed in 1490, which has been my guide throughout, and from which I have given numerous citations. It is from this edition that the Latin text is quoted which appears at the foot of pages 1–42.
§ 7. All three English fragments are founded mainly on this Latin version, but the manner of translation is not the same in all. Fragment C may be taken first, as it is much the easiest to understand. This is a close translation of the Latin, with a brief original prologue of 22 lines only. It is of great length, extending to 5680[3] and is only slightly imperfect at the end.[4] As a result, it contains both of the passages which exist also in fragments in A and B. Fragment A corresponds to ll. 23–722 of C; and fragment B to ll. 4020–4067 and 4188–4715 of C. It is clear from this and from the manner of translation of C that it is independent of A and B, in the sense that it was made by a different translator.
§ 8. The next question is, whether there were two translators or three. As fragments A and B do not cover the same ground, but are taken, the former from a portion of the story near the beginning and the latter from a portion near the end, there is a chance that they may belong to the very same translation, and may have come from the same hand. In my Essay on Alliterative Poetry, I have observed that "the language of fragment B approaches that of fragment A, although I hardly think that they belong to the same poem. In my Preface to William of Palerne, I have observed that fragments A, B, and C, seem to be distinct from each other, and by different authors, the last bearing traces of a northern, the former two of a western dialect. That is to say, although I had observed a similarity, both of language and dialect, between fragments A and B, I had not, at that time, made myself so closely acquainted with them as to feel sure that they could be definitely pronounced to be from the same hand. This hesitation gave rise to a paper by Dr. Moritz Trautmann, entitled Ueber Versaffer und Entstehungszeit einiger Alliterirender Dedichte des Altenglischen,"[5] in which a great number of resemblances between these fragments are insisted upon, and there can now be little doubt about the matter. The result is satisfactory, as it introduces a simplification, reducing the number of independent versions from three to two. It may henceforth be understood that fragments A and B are by the same author, and that they are taken, presumably, from one and the same poem, which must, when complete, have been of very great length. It is, possibly, partly owing to this circumstance that only two fragments of it have come down to us.
The following are a few of the more striking resemblances between fragments A and B, as pointed out by Dr. Trautmann.
| Fragment A | Fragment B |
þat all þe gomes were agrise · of his grim sight 986 |
þei were a-grisen of his grym 50 |
§ 10. But though these coincidences are striking and of considerable force, the argument from them is less conclusive than the argument derived from the peculiarities of alliteration. This point is well and carefully worked out by Dr. Trautmann, and we may, I think, accept his conclusion, against which there is no antecedent probability. I ought to add here that another result of his more careful investigation is to shew that these two Alexander-fragments are not by the author of William of Palerne, as was supposed by Sir F. Maddej, and as, at one time, believed by myself. Dr. Trautmann also expresses an opinion that the date of these fragments is later than I should put it; but here I am not convinced.
§ 11. It appears to me that there is another argument which is also of weight. I have said that fragment C is a close translation from one Latin text, but the others are not so. In both of them, however, the same treatment of the Latin version is observed. The text of the "Alexander de preliis" is taken as a general guide, on which account it is here printed at the foot of every page of the English text, with a summary of the later chapters on p. 43. It is, however, supplemented from other sources, and the author seems to have aimed at telling the story in his own way, plainly with the intention of making it more interesting and attractive.[6] Even where he follows the text "de prelii," he by no means translates closely, but gives rather the general sense of the passage, with poetical interpolations ad libitum. Take, for example, a couple of lines from the Latin text printed at the foot of p. 6; and observe the result.
- Latin text. "Deinde amoto exercituvenit ad fluuium bragmanorum magnum, vocatum ga[n]gei; et castra metata sunt ibi."
- Fragment C, ll. 4188, 4189, close translation.
"Þen rade he in aray · remowis his ostis,
To þe grete flode off gangem · and graythid þer his tents."
- Fragment B, ll. 137-142; free translation.
"As sone þe king sai · þat it so ferde,
He dide him forþ to flod · þat phison is called,
TThhat writen is in holi wriht · & wrouht so to name.
From perlese paradis · passeþ þe stronde;[7]
In cost þere þe king was · men called it gena,
As was þe langage of þe lond · wiþ ludus of inde."
It is evident that our author has here had further access to some other text, whence he acquired the notion if identity between the rivers Phison and Ganges. The following passage from Palladius de Bragmanibus (of which more hereafter) shews the source of his knowledge. In speaking of Alexander's approach to the Ganges, the remark is made:-"Fluvius vero Ganges iste est qui nobis vocatur Phison, ferturque in S. Literis fluviorum quator Paradiso exentium unus;" ed. Bisse, p. 2.
§ 12. This point being perceived, we next proceed to consider the supplemental sources of information possessed by our author. I have already pointed out that, for fragment A, he used a compilation by Radulphus of St. Alban's extant in MS. no. 219 in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and also the history of Orosius. I now point out that, for fragment C, he made use of certain Latin texts, of which three were printed by E. Bisse in 1665. These tracts, all of which bear more or less on hte matter in hand, are as follows.
- (1) Palladius de Gentibus Indiae et Bragmanibus; begins—"Ἡ πολλὴ φιλοπονία σου, καὶ φιλομαθία", with a Latin version—"Tua indefatigabili industria."
- (2) S. Ambrosius de Moribus Brachmanorum; begins—"Desiderium mentis tuae, Palladi," &c., being a letter to Palladius from St. Ambrose.
- (3) Anonymus de Bragmanis; begins—"Saepius ad aures meas fando pervenit."
The last gives the text of the letters between Alexander and Dindimus, of which there are five, viz. these.
- (a) First letter of Alexander to Dindimus; see l. 191–242 of our English poem.
- (b) First answer of Dindimus to Alexandere; see ll. 249–811
- (c) Second letter of Alexander; see ll. 822–966.
- (d) Second answer of Dindimus; see ll. 973–1071.
- (e) Third letter of Alexander; see ll. 1078–1127.
There is a MS. copy of these letters in the MS. C.C.C. no. 219, just mentioned above; and there are other MS. copies in the same library viz. in MS. 370 at fol. 38, back, and in MS. no. 450, p. 279;[8] but these copies are imperfect. As Bisse's printed edition is a convenient one for reference, I take the opportunity of recording here the contents of a sentence which, owing to the imperfect state of the MS. used by him, he was unable to give properly. The gap occurs in col. 2 of p. 102, as indicated by dots, and may be filled up by help of the following. "Nonnumquam etiam suauitate odoris uel gustu dulcedinis aut contactus blanda mollicie refouemur. Quorum omnium suggerunt nobis elementa materiarum, que eciam uite nostre creduntur esse principia. Quorum permixtione contraria humani generis structura conditur," &c.[9] By the help of these tracts, I have been able to find, as far as can be found, the original of almost every sentence in our poem, nad I have pointed out the principal results of this research in the Notes.
§ 13. For further information, see Zacher, Pseudo-Callisthenes, Halle, 1867, the editions of Julius Valerius by Angelo Mai (Milan, 1817) and Karl Müller (Paris, 1846); the Old High-German version edited by H. Weismann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1850), the second volume of which, in particular, contains much information; the introduction to Kyng Alisander in Weber's Metrical Romances; the remarks on the Alexander Romances in Col. Yule's edition of Marco Polo, p. cxxxvii; Vincent of Beauvais, Spec. Hist. iv. 66–71, &c. I give two passages, by way of example, for comparison with the English poem. The former, from Julius Valerius, answers to ll. 1–22. The latter, from the Old High-German Romance, written by Lamprecht in the twelfth century, and edited by Weismann, corresponds to ll. 111–136. From Julius Valerius, De Rebus Gestis Alexandri, ed. Mai; Milan, 1817, lib. iii. cc. xvi–xxii.
"xvi. Quare domitis hostibus avectaque praeda, ad Oxydracontas, quae gens exim colit, iter suum dirigit. Non illam quidem gentem hosticam intercursatur (neque enim illis studia sunt armorum) sed quod celebre esset, Indos, quos gymnosophistas appellant, hisce in partibus versari, opum quidem omnium et cuiusque pretii negelegentes, solis vero diversoriis sapientissimi, quae humi manu exhauriunt aditibus perangusta, enimvero subter capacibus spaciata, quod id genus aedium neque pretii scilicet indigens, ed ad flagrantiam solis aestivam aptius habeatur. Ii igitur cum conperissent Alexandrum ad sese contendere, primates suos, quos scilicet a sapientae modo censent obviare adventati iubent cum litteris huiuscemodi."
From the Old High-German Romance, beginning at l. 4946
"Do sluge wir unze gezelt dar under blumen unde gras. |
Then we pitched our tent |
Abstract of the contents of fragment B.
§ 14. The general contents of fragment B may be briefly described. After Alexander had slain Porus, king of India, he came to the country of the Oxydracae, the people of which go naked, and are called Gymnosophists. Their king sends a letter to Alexander, representing that he has nothing to gain by subduing them. Alexander offers them peace, and promises to grant them a boon; upon which they ask him, by way of taunt, to give them everlasting life. He replies that he cannot do that, but must fulfill his destiny. Next he sees the wonderful trees which only grew during sunlight, and at sundown disappear. These trees were guarded by birds that spat deadly fire. He next comes to the Ganges, a river impassable except in July and August. He sees men on the other side of the river, and sends a message by boat to their king, who is called Dindimus. The rest of the poem concerns the five letters which pass betweeen him and Alexander.
- First letter; Alexander to Dindimus (p. 8–10). Tell me some of your customs; it is good to impart knowledge; for a torch whence another is lighted loses none of its own brilliance thereby.
- Second letter; from Dindimus (p. 10–30). I comply with your request. We live a simple life; we neither plough, fish, nor hunt. We live frugally, and die at a fixed age. We use no fire, avoid lusts, eat fruit, drink milk or water, speak truth, and never covet nor make war. Our wives neither paint their faces nor use gay apparel. We dwell in caves; we dislike mirth. We admire the sun, stars, and sea, feed on the scent of flowers, and love the woods. But ye are evil; ye sacrifice your children and make war. Your gods likewise are evil; Jupiter was lecherous; ye have as many false gods as the body of man has members. Each one presides over some member; thus Mercury is the god of the tongue, Bacchus of the throat, and so the rest. Your idols lead you into sins, for which ye shall suffer hereafter endless torment. Ye are like Cerberus or Hydra, and are born to sorrow.
- Third letter; from Alexander (pp. 31–36). Why do you blame us? Your account of yourselves is a miserable one, neither to be envied nor imitated. Ye are as beasts, but we as men. We intersperse hard work with well-earned pleasure. Ye lose many joys, and dishonour the Creator. Your deeds are but folly.
- Fourth letter; from Dindimus. We are but pilgrims upon earth. Your boastful deeds only make you proud. The gold which you prize cannot satisfy thirst, and we are wiser in treading it under foot. Ye know not how much ye err, and it is a kindness to tell you. The man who lives as if there were no death deserves to be struck down, as was Salmoneus.
- Fifth letter; from Alexander. Ye are so set in an island that no strangers can come to you; ye are like wretched prisoneres. God has decreed for you misery in this life, and pain hereafter. Your deeds are a woe to you.
After the letters are ended, Alexander erects a pillar of marble to mark the furthest spot which he had succeeded in reaching. His men then begin their homeward journey; and the fragment ends.
§ 15. It thus appears that the poem is principally concerned with the correspondence that passed between Alexander and the king of the Brahmans. This correspondence really has nothing to do with the story of Alexander's adventures, but is a mere execrescence. It is easy to see that it originated with an ecclesiastic, and was introduced with a moral purpose. There are two leading ideas in it, both of them theological. The former is, the common and favourite contrast between the Active Life and the Contemplative Life, which so often meets us in medieaval literature; and the latter, the contrast betweeen the Christian life and that of the heathen worship of idols. The arguments are so managed that the bias of one counteracts the bias of the other. We are led, on the one hand, to favour the Active Life as being more Useful than the Contemplative; but, lest the scale should preponderate in its favour, it is linked with Heathenism as opposed to Christianity. The life of Dindimus, in as far as it is assimilated to that of a Christian, is preferabe to that of Alexander. The life of Alexander, in its Active aspect, enlists our sympathies rather than that of Dindimus. The author of this ingenious arrangement strove rather for oratorical effect than sought to inculcate a lesson. To regard the various arguments in this light is to regard them rightly. It is merely a question of seeing what can be said on both sides. There is nothing else to be learnt from the story of it.
On the name "Dindimus"
§ 16. Though the poem deals with India, and attempts an account of the Brahmans, there is little that is eastern about it. Bisse has pointed out the references to the Gymnosophists that occur in Strabo, lib. 15; in Plutarch's Life of Alexander; in Arrian, De Expedit. Alexandri, lib. 7; in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, lib. 3; in Porphyrius, De Abstinentia, lib. 4; in Philostratus, Vita Apollonii lib. 3, capp. 4 and 5; and in other authors. The chief point of interest is in the name Dindimus;[10] given to the supposed king of the Brahmans. It should rather be Dandamis, answering to Dandamis in the Latin, and Δανδαμις in the Greek texts. It is not really a proper name, but a sort of title. It is the Sanskrit dandin, signifying 'bearing a staff,' or, as a sb. 'mace-bearer.' It occurs in the sense of 'warder' or 'door-keeper' in the Tale of Nala, iv. 25. It is an adj. formed from teh sb. danda, a staff, mace, sceptre of justice; and this again is from the root dand, to chastise. It thus has the sense of 'sceptre-bearer' or 'dispenser of justice.' Even in Sanskrit it is used as an epithet of Yama, and also as a proper name. This compound tri-dandin. lit. 'three-staves-bearing,' was applied in particular to an ascetic, as being one who has command over the three seats of action, viz. mind, speech, and body; see Benfey's Dict. p. 385. Hence the particular application of the epithet to a chief of ascetics is very appropriate However, the simple form of dandin was likewise used to signify an ascetic; and Prof. Cowell kindly refers me to a passage showing that it was, in fact, a name for a man in the fourth (and highest) stage of Brahmanical life—the religious devotee. "His nails, hair, and beard being clipped, bearing with him a dish, a staff, and a waterpot, his whole mind being fixed on God, let him wander about continually, without giving pain to any living thing."—Manu, vi. 32.
Account of the pictures
§ 17. I here attempt an account of the illustrations or coloured pictures which occur in the MS. There are nine of these, viz. at'll. 137, 249, 355, 568, 681, 822, 973, 1078, and 1139, as indicated in the text itself. The subjects of them are as follows.
I. King Alexander stands just before his tent. At his feet flows a stream, in which swims a large ell, to represent the 'hound-fish' (l. 164), and just on the further bank stand two dragons (156). A man is rowing across the stream in a boat (168); two others, both naked, stand a little back from the stream, one of them bearing an offering of fruits (165).
II. A tent. Alexander receiving a letter from a man who kneels before him (248).
III. Two naked men, of whom one is Dindimus, who bears a crown, and sits at the mouth of a cave, writing. The other, half hid in the cave, is the messenger to whom he is to entrust his letter.
IV. King Alexander before his tent. Before him stand four naked men, of whom the foremost, bearing a crown, is Dindimus.
V. In the middle of the pictures is an idol, seated on a pillar or pedestal. The idol is in a constrained posture, pointing, apparently, towards its stomach. It probably represents Cupid (686). On the right of the idol stands Alexander. On the left of it stands Dindimus, naked but crowned, who is administering a reproof.
VI. Dindimus, naked but crowned, is receiving a letter presented to him by Alexander's messenger.
VII. Alexander is seated before his tent. He receives a letter from a naked messenger.
VIII. Alexander's page is kneeling down and offering a letter to Dindimus, behind whom are four men, one of whom is issuing from the mouth of the cave. In this picture, Dindimus and his men are apparently naked, but are curiously tattoeed or marked all over with something that alost gives them the appearance of wearing coats of mail.
IX. Alexander is setting up a large white pillar (1135).
The conjectural date of the poem
§ 18. The chief value of the poem is in the language of it. It is a good specimen of Alliterative English, and contains, in common, with all other such poems, a number of curious and characteristic words. My original impression was that it might be referred to about the year 1340; Dr. Trautmann argues that the date should rather be about 1370. It is hardly possible to decide the matter either way; and, if it may be argued on the one hand, that there are reasons for putting it earlier than William of Palerne (written about 1350), it may be said, on the other, that alliterative poems, by their retention of archaic forms, have an appearance of antiquity which is rather deceptive.[11] It is not of much consequence either way; and it is quite sufficient to know the date approximately. The dialect, which is more particularly discussed in § 22, is apparently that of the West of England. On account of the usefulness of references to good specimens of Middle English, I have attempted, in the Glossarial Index, to make a list of all the words in the poem, but omitting multiplication of references in the case of every word. See the note prefixed to the Glossarial Index on p. 61.
Edition for the Roxburghe Club
§ 19. The poem has been printed before, as I have said, by Mr. Stevenson, for the Roxburghe Club, in 1849; but the number of copies printed was limited, and the book is scarce; for which reason it is now reprinted for the Early English Text Society. Mr. Stevenson's text is not free from faults; it would seem to have been printed from an imperfect transcript without collation of the proofs wit the MS. itself. The MS. itself also has several faults.[12] In the following list of the variations from the MS. in Mr. Stevenson's edition, the former of the two forms gives the word as it stands in the MS.; the latter the word as it stands in his edition; the numbers referring to the lines. It does not include the editor's numerous substitutions of v for u, of th for þ, and of capital letters for small ones. 1. MS. weduring; Stevenson prints wedering. 2. rommede—roumede. 4. wondurful—wonderful. 31. miȝht—might. 32. wele—wel. 39. werrede—wercede. 44. sikurede—sikured. 51. hiddem—hidden hem (evidently an editorial correction; but no notice is given). 55. Aftur—After. 65. speche—speeche. 74. my silf—myselfe. 81. skile—skill. 82. kinguus—kingus. 88. wrecheli—wretheli. 100. seruauntus—servantus. 106. Whan—When. 107. enchesoun—enchesson; oþure—other; kinguus—kingus. 108, &c. ouur—over. 109. oþure—othur. 124. &—In. grouuede—grounede. 127.&—In. 136. spilden—spildin. 142. ludus—ludis. 143. mascedonius—Mascodomus; (cf. l. 1073). 145. mascedonius—Mastredomus (sic). 148. hem—him. 150. miche—muche. 151. ouur—over; romme—rounne. 152. watir—water. 155. aftyr—after. 164. þer inne—there inne. 176. &—In. 177. þi—the. 179. couaited-covaited. 180. ich—Ic. 185. þanne whitli—Than whith; ouur—over; watur—water. 187. say—saye. 193. graciouce—gracious. 194. onurable—onerable. 200. fram oþur—from other. 203. sesoun—sasoun. 207. tyinge (error for tyþinge)—tyninge. 210. meruailouse—marvailouse. 213. ȝour—your. 215. ich—Ic. 222. þinguus—thingus. 230. hit—it; oþure—other. 236. vn-wasteþ—onwasteth. 245. write—writte. 248. manere—manner. 250. lond—loud. 251. princis—princes. 281. time—tune. 294. forwes—forues. 307. modur—moder. 336. mihte—miht. 345. ouurcomen—overcomen. 347. nol-ne of; procre—prince. 351. keuered—keverid. 364. wiþ oute—without. 366. procred—proceed. 395. y punched—ypiniched. 396. ȝour—ȝoure. 405. þei—thai. 420. sauiour—Savioure. 431. coruen—comen. 438. oþur—othir. 440. owen—usen. 442. any—ony. 443. wedures—wederes. 460. luþurly—lutherly. 467. storrius—stormus. 470. game—gaine. 478. þe skiuus—skurus. 480. &—An. 483. wawus—wavus. 496. sauouron—saveron. 514. maner—manir. 517. lowe—lothe. 521. alle0all. 533. ouur—over. 534. mihtest—mihhest. 541. quedfulle—qued fulle. 542. souorain—soverain. 543. vnblisful—unblissful. 545. gret—grett. 547. prouede—proude. 549. miht—might. 554. lechourus—lechurous. 565. hole—hol. 568. aftur—after. 569. luþur—luther. 570. auaunt—avaunte. 573. Miche—Swiche. 574. beture—betere. 575. geduren—gederen. 578. keture—kecere. 580. othur—other. mirthe—in irthe. 583. ouur-comeþ—overcometh. 597. leuen—liven. 605. For þei—For thi. 609. vndurstonde—understonde. 612. noþur—nothir (twice). 629. &—in; luþur—luther. 632. sinne—synne. 633. oþur—othir. 638, 639. No-Ne. 659. iaudewin—jandewin; ioiful—joyful. 662. rink—renk; wraþþe—wraythe. 663. main—mani. 664. foundur—founderer. 674. ȝiue—give. 682. fur—full. 685. soþ—sothe. 692. ellus—elles. 698. weihuus—weihus. 700. oþur—othir. 702.minstralus—minstrelus. 717. vn-on. 722. oþur—othir. 729. spraiuus— sprainus. 740. fauure—favere. 742. maistrie—maistire. 763. kun not—kunnot. 764. graunte—graunt. 769. any—an y. 772. wreche—wirche. 775. ar—are. 776. turment—tourment. 777. wreche—wrethe. 786. wirchen—worchen. 797. ȝour—ȝoure. 799. yydra—Thydra. 810. dindimus—Dindunus. 816. anon riht anied—anonriht amed. 825. onorable—honorable. 834. ne—no (which is better). 836. seye-seth. 840. dedes—dede. 846. tulye—tulthe. 855, 865, &c. othhur—othir. 856. For-þi—Forthei. 863, 866. hungur—hungurus. 884, 887. lechurie—lecherie. 894. chariteuus—chariteus. 921. ioie—joie. 928. dimme—dunne. 929. siht—riht. 930. alse—alle. 936. Whan—When. 947. siht—riht. & sauur—saver. 958. þo—the. 986. kinus nie—kinusme[n]. 1012. grete—Grece. 1017. burnus—turnus. dedeus—dedus. 1030. houngur—hounger. 1036. hit—it. 1037. cofly—coflye. 1067. with—what. 1074. seye—sethe. 1075. bragmanye brouht—Bragman ye brouht. 1082. graciose—graciouse. 1091. you—thou. 1097. ȝour—ȝoure. 1100. & skile—in skile. 1118. iuge, ioie, iugged—juge, joye, jugged. 1121. þouh—Though. 1131. romme—roume. 1131. ich—Ic. 1138. graie—grie.
§ 20. In several of these instances the MS. may, no doubt be read either way. In particular, the scribe often makes but little difference between y and þ, or between c and t, and sometimes none at all between u and n, or between m and in or ni. Yet in most cases there can be no doubt about the matter, and I think the reader will in general be able to tell for himself why the readings in the present edition are preferable to those in the former. Thus, in l. 88, we must read wrecheli, i.e. wretchedly, miserably, not wretheli, i.e. wrathfully. In l. 124, grouuede=growede, i.e. grow; but grounede cannot be well explained. In l. 250, lond = land; but loud makes no sense. In l. 281, we must of course read time, not tune. In l. 467, the sense is ' to read the stories,' not 'to read storms.' In l. 478, the sun and stars are visible on þe skiuus, in the skies; but not on þe skurus, which is explained to mean 'in the tempests.' In l. 578, keture, not an uncommon word, must be preferred to kecere, which does not exist. In l. 659, iaudewin can be explained, but jaudewin cannot. In l. 729, spraius, sprays, is better than sprainus, giving no meaning. In l. 816, anied means 'annoyed;' the sense of amed we are not told, whilst the alliteration is then lost. In l. 846, the M.E. word for 'to till' is, of course, to tulye, not to tulthe. In l. 875 comine peple means 'common people', but comme peple makes no sense. In l. 928, days are dimme, i.e. dim, rather than dunne or brown. In l. 1074, seye means seen, i.e. read over; sethe does not exist as a past participle, but means 'to boil.' In some cases the alliteration is a guide to the right reading, giving us, in l. 573, Miche for Swiche; in l. 929 and 947, siht for riht; and in l. 1017, burnus for turnus. In all four of these places, the MS. is quite right. Perhaps the most curious variation is in l. 347, where the MS. reading nol no gome procre (= will procure no man) appears as ne of no gome prince. And in l. 769 the reading of the former edition an y is explained in the glossary to mean 'an egg;' that is to say, "when the gods are loath to hear your prayers, the fact that they will not hatches[13] an egg for you." The reading in the MS. is any, i.e. annoyance, vexation; and the right sense is "breeds annoyance for you."
§ 21. A glossary is appended to Mr. Stevenson's edition, but it is not a very full one. The number of words explained in it is 63; and, for the reader's convenience, I here reprint it, with the references, as given.
Aldurfadur, an ancestor, 1050. Atlede, attempted to go, 15. Auht, increased, 936. Bakke, a bat, 723. Bliken, to make fair, 411. Boller, a drunkard, 675. Bourd, a jest, 469. Brigg, strife, 393. Cof, quickly, 452; Cofli, Cofliche, quikcly, 48, 64, 1076. Dreche, to drench, 1032. Dreie [drie in the text], to suffer, 857. Englayme, to cloy, 676. Ferk, to go, 300. Fon, foes, 339, 341. Fulsum, satisfied, 497. Galfull, lustful, 389. Gaynes us, it avails us, 181, 1028. Giour, a guide, 703. Grith, protection, 764. He, she, 654, 698. Here, to honour, 1046. Hery, to praise, 358. Hihten, to honour, adorn, 406, 408, 418. Hue, she, 656. Jandewin (?), 659. Karre, to turn, 886 [read 986]. Laike, to play, 465/ Licham, the body, 492 [read 592]. Lileth (?), 474. Lin, to remain, 441, 448. Lisse, to please, 476. Lite, to mock (?), 732 [read 932]. Lose, praise, 221. Lud, a man, 205, 645. Ludene, human, 773. Menskliche, honorably, 1073. Minegeth, mentions, 573, 614. Muniȝe, to teach, 514. Namecouthe, celebrated, 823, 979. Norcheth, paineth not, 769. Quedfulle, full of wickedness, 541. Reke, extended, 594. Sake, contention, 388. Schalk, a man, 432. Sichus, sighs, 1115. Side, long, wide, 481. Skurus, tempests, 478. Snelle, keen, 437. Solow, a ploughshare, 295. Sote, sweet, 128, 496. Spousebreche, adultery, 885. Tacchus, manners, 463. Taried harmed, 132. Tendeth, inflameth, 684. Tenful, sorrowful, 793. Traie, difficult, 710. Whon, a quantity, 353. Wikke, wicked, 537. Wilnede, desired, 150. Won, abundance, 499, 557, 575, 678, 891, 957. Wond, to depart from, 886, 957, 990. Y, an egg, 769.
In the references given here three corrections must be made; karre occurs in l. 986; licham in l. 592; and lite in l. 932; as noted above. And teh explanations may, I think, be impreoved in at least 13 instances. Dreche = to afflict. Jandewin should rather be jaudewin; see my Glossary. Laik in l. 465 is a sb., not a verb. For lileth (the MS. reading) read liketh. Lisse is a sb. signifying joy. Lite means 'little;' ille can lite = knows little ill; or, more strictly, knows evil (but a) little. Ludene is not an adj., but the genitive plural. Norcheth = nourishes. Sake is simply sake. Skurus is an error for skiuus = skius, skies. Traie is a sb., meaning 'a vexation.' Wond is rather 'to shun, avoid.' Y is due to an error; the word is any. The explanation of reke is, besides, hardly satisfactory; if 'extended' be meant, the form should have been rauht or rauȝt.
On the dialect of the poem
§ 22. One difficulty in the way of studying the dialect of an old poem is that, when it presents mixed forms, we cannot well tell whether some of its peculiarities may not have been due merely to the scribe. We want to know which forms are original and which have crept into the poem in course of transcription. Singularly enough, we have in the present instance a short sentence by the scribe himself, which tells us, at any rate, something. I allude to the note mentioned in § 3, which gives us the following hints. The scribe writes fayleþ, lasteþ, in the 3rd person singular of the present tense; turneþ, bygynneþ, but also rede, in the 2nd person plural of the imperative mood; y-wrete and radde appear as past participles of strong verbs; and we have also the phrases ȝe schulle and ȝe han. These indications are not to be disregarded; but point to a southern dialect, or to a midland dialect strongly marked by southern forms. It seems fair to infer that the numerous western forms found in the poem, such as the suffix -us for the present singular or for the imperative plural, are not due to the scribe, but to the original which he had before him; which makes some observations on the form in the poem all the more necessary and useful, as well as trustworthy. The bias of the scribe towards southern forme being ascertained, we can see our way more clearly than we could have done otherwise.
§ 23. For convenience, I consider the various peculiarities of the text in much the same order as I have done in William of Palerne; the present remarks may therefore be compared to with those in my Preface to that poem, p. xxxviii. For references to the words cited below, see the Glossarial Index.
The plurals of nouns generally end in -us, as wynterus, somerus, holus, answerus, ludus, costomus, &c.; but this ending is also curiously varied to to -uus, as in skiuus, kinguus, weihuus, foliuus; or else to -eus, as in seggeus, dedeus; or even to -ous, as in þouhtous (767), godous (772). In some cases, we find plurals in -ys, as in heuys (hues), cauys (caves), stormys; rarely in -es as in lettres, weies, dedes; very rarely in -is as in holis (57). Other plurals worth notice are oxen (296), hous (434), fon (foes), tren (trees, 853), erene = eren (ears), eldrene, eldren (elders), breþeren, soulen (souls). The pl. of 'fish' appears as fihs, fihcs, fihch, and fihches. The genitive singular also commonly ends in -us, as in godus (315), catelus (370), licamus (555). The genitive plural is found ending in -ene, as in haþelene, briddene, bestene, ludene; cf. wommenus (1016).
As regards adjectives, we find plurals in -e, as meke, pore; and e is commonly added to past participles in the plural, as in clene-mindede, corsede, bannede; though it is also wrongly added to past participles of weak verbs in the singular, a mark of the lateness of the transcription or of ignorance of spelling. We find the comparatives bliþure, schenure, beture, keture, comelokur; as also lasse, werse; and the superlatives kiddeste, egrest, grymmest, grettest (see 975, 976). The endings -ly, -li, and -liche are both used for adverbs and adjectives without distinction; thus we have cofliche, cofli, and cofly.
As to pronouns, for I the forms are i, y, and ich (1137); for thou, we have þou; pl. ȝe in the nominative, ȝou, ȝow, in the dative and accusative; see l. 540. The third personal pronoun is he, gen. his, is, dat. and acc. him; though in one instance (l. 703) the acc. is written hin, more likely by an error of the scribe than by a preservation of the n in the A.S. hine. The feminine of the third person is hue (as in Alexander A.), but sche occurs once in l. 309; acc. hure. The neuter is commonly hit. The plural nom. is þey or þei; gen. hure, hur; dat. and acc. hem. We find euerych a = every (86). Huo, used for who, occurs interrogatively (941); huo-so or ho-so occurs for who-so (1001, 1060).
In the case of verbs, the infinitive ends in -en, as reden, maken, forleten; in -e, as in bereue, tine; in -ien, as tilien; in -ie, as þolie, or -ye, as tulye; very rarely in -yn, as helyn (320). In the present tense, 2nd pers. sing., we find -est, as in berest, bringest, lettest, sentest(e), wilnest; cf. the contracted form wost (516). In the 3rd pers. sing., we most often find -us, as farus, kairus, lepus, wendus, romwus; but also -es, as fondes; and even -eþ, as seseþ, askeþ, with which compare the contracted forms biclipth and et (= eteth, 862). The plural ends in -en or -e; rarely in -in, as wetin (99), worchin, 361; once in -on, as sauouron (496), probably by an error of the scribefor sauouren; see numerous examples in ll. 712–733.
The imperative plural (2nd person) ends in -us, as in giuus (972); in -es, as in ȝernes (67); but also in -eþ (190), which is possibly due to the scribe. Of past tenses, we may not the use of sai and sie, in the sense of saw, in the singular; and saien and sihen, in the same sense, in the plural; sew (sing.) in the sense of sowed seed; and wreten (pl.) in the sense of wrote. The 2nd person singular of strong verbs ends in -e, as þou bade (511). Examples of weak verbs are, in the singular, helde, wente, brente, wiste, with the fuller forms askede, biggede, and buskede; and, in the plural, tendide, spatten, spilden. Of past participles, those of strong verbs properly end in -en, as holden (16), coren (chosen), doluen, i-boren; but the final n often drops off, as in holde (13), graue, i-ȝoulde, schape, i-founde, smite (smitten). Examples of past participles of weak verbs are listned, i-eged, y-sustained, ydemed, ending in -ed; wastid, ending in -id; also i-kid, tend, iput, iset, kild, maad, contracted forms. In two cases we actually find the ending -eþ; viz. in yhanteþ, 988, unwasteþ, 236; these are probably errors. The prefix i- or y- is by no means uncommon, especially in weak verbs, as i-kid, i-said, iput, i-set, i-eged, y-kid, y-maad, y-sustained, y-demed; it is even found in strong verbs, as i-ȝoulde, i-boren, ifounde. Cf. iset (454) with set (481). The present participles end in -inge, as rydinge, likinge, wastinge. Substantives of verbal origin also end in -inge, as wachinge, housinge, lesinge, swaginge, handlinge, heringe, queminge; see ll. 948–952. We once find -in for -inge, as in offrin, ;. 718. It is, perhaps, worthy of remark, that in the plural of the present tense of the verb signifying to be, we find both arn and ben. Both forms are due to the author, as is proved by the alliteration. In ll. 333, 423, 904, we find ben, as the alliteration requires; whilst in ll. 338, 345, 506, 1007, we find arn, also as required. A similar peculiarity occurs in Piers the Plowman. In ll. 446, 634, we have examples of the verb worþen, to become. Some peculiarities of spelling may be noted. For fish, we have the curious forms, fihcs, fihs, fihch, fihches. For strength, we find strenke; for strengthen, strenkþen; for drinking, drinkinke; for nought, noukt. In the word world, the l is frequently dropped, giving word or worde; but we also find the curious form wordle as in some MSS. of Piers the Plowman. This form is still found in Somersetshire, as in the phrase bĕeyaen aul the daiz een dhu wuurdl (beyond all the days of the world), to quote from the representation of Somersetshire speech in glossic spelling, given by Mr. Elworthy in his Grammar of the Dialect of West Somerset, p. 103. We may also note the loss of d after l, as in gol for gold; as well as the use of scl for sl, as in sclepe, sclowpe, sclain, all in l. 344. Also the use of sch for ch, as in schast for chast (894), suggesting that ch had occasionally the sound of sh. The aspirate is sometimes misused, as in holde for old, l. 327; hauter for altar, l. 728. The number of curious words in the poem is not considerable, not the least remarkable being the word done in l. 999, on which see the note. We also see that to punch is short for punish. It hence appears that the dialect is much the same as that of William of Palerne, the chief difference being that there are no present participles in -aude as well as in -inge; but there are not many examples to judge from. I think the dialect is plainly West Midland, but not so far north as Lancashire; rather in the direction of Shropshire or Gloucestershire, as in William of Palerne.
On the alliteration of the poem
§ 24. I note here a few peculiarities of alliteration.[14] Perhaps the most remarkable is the run upon vowels, which is also a marked feature of the Alexander A-fragment; see'll.22, 27, 230, 240, 268, 290, 415, 461, 498, 500, &c. of that text. So here, we find an alliteration of different vowels in'll. 3, 15, 24, 157, 251, 338, 343, 345, 440, 442, 468, 506, 526, 568, 718, 720, 754, 812, 851, 936, 975, &c. We also find alliteration of the same vowel in many instances. Ex: a, a, a; 55, 63, 170, 198, 244, 377, 701, 822, 1007; e, e, e; 86, 201, 262, 360, 539, 744, 757, 862, 981, 1008; o, o, o; 327, 533, 711, 743. To these add l. 588, in which there are but two vowels, both e; also 153, in which we have o, e (in eight = viij.), a; also 518, in which a rimes with the diphthongs au and eu. The most remarkable instance is in'll. 1007, 1008, in which two consecutive lines have the vowel-rime. The letter h is also sometimes associated with vowels, as in these instances; 155, 219 (where haþel is for aþel), 277 (where haþel is again for aþel), 320 (haþelene for aþelene), 348 (haþel for aþel), 669, 728, 799, 842, 856 (haþel for aþel), 1137. This is the more remarkable, because h is also found as an alliterative letter, as in l. 16, 51, &c.
C of course answers to k; as in 13, 26, 29, 38, 42, 48, &c. Also ph to f; as in 457, 1070. Also soft c to s; as in the word Ceres, 724; cf. syte, written for cyte, i.e. city, in l. 9; see the note. Also soft g to i (=j); 656. Scarce rimes are those with i (=j); 462, 553, 659, 697, 1118: with qu; 541, 608, 950, 1047: and with u; 671, 693.[15] Examples of double rime-letters are numerous; examples are bl, 411, 523, 543, 624; br, 134, 287, 393, 430, 503, 521, 586, &c.; ch, 107, 110, 417, 727, 894,[16] 941, 1080; cl, 489, 625, 636, 899, &c.; dr, 156, 529, 1032; gl, 676, 790; gr, 7, 87, 124, 133, 252, 254, 447, 502, &c.; pl, 296, 495, 847, 853; pr, 5, 161, 225, 280, 366, 509, 547, &c.; sch, 294, 330, 401, 412, 416, 421, 432, &c., especially the consecutive lines 959 and 960; scl=sl, 344; sk, 159, 871, 1020; sm, 1063; sp, 136, 172, 367, 699; st, 97, 114, 429, 487, 609, 686; sw, 310, 493, 719, 855, 921; tr, 513, 829; wr, 139, 660, 777, 814, 1136. There are even examples of triple rime-letters, as spr, 123, 729; and str, 756; but we must not include amongst these sch and scl, already mentioned, since these are merely ways of writing sh and sl respectively. But it was not thought at all necessary that, if a double consonant began one rime-word, the same sound should occur throughout the line. We have br riming with b, 175, 683, 714, 723; fr with f, 352; gl with g, 391; gr with g, 193, 274, 525, 824, 1025; sp with spr, 623; st with str, 530; and numerous other examples. The strongest example is an apparent rime of br with pr, 1075; but the word prest may be wrong.
We sometimes find four rime letters in the linel as in 499, 544, 546; these lines are not very common, and the fourth letter is not needed.
Occasionally there is a failure of one of the sub-letters, as in l. 11,[17] 22 (where it is easy to supply tid); 81, where k seems to answer (by poetical license) to sk; 290; 302 (where refe should be bruten, see note); 558; 782 (where ȝou lif should perhaps be ȝou silf); 793 (unless the t in Tricerberus is counted in); 815. One of other of the sub-letters is often out of place, as in ll. 12, 47, 67, 106, &c.; but a certain amount of variation of this character is rather a beauty than a blemish, as it prevents the metre from becoming too painfully regular. Yet this licence is sometimes carried too far; in ll. 12, 47, 130, and some others, the accent has to be rather forced to bring out the rime. The worst is when the chief-letter fails, as in ll. 6, 1046; in the latter case, their is something wrong. Other unmusical lines are those where the chief-letter is ill placed, as in ll. 54, 163, 904, where the word bi is too weak to bear the whole weight of the verse. Similarly, l. 363 is bad. In l. 73, we may excuse the strong emphasis upon not, by supposing that Alexander meant to express his refusal unmistakeably. We may not ll. 31, 50, 394, 971, as examples in which the chief-letter comes nearer than usual to the end of the line.
As usual, prefixes are commonly neglected in the alliteration; thus, in ;. 19, the accent is on the syllable beginning with s in forsaide, the prefix for being neglected. Other examples are: ther rime with m in amongus, 28; h in bi-holden, 46; and with the italicized letters in the following, viz. aboute, 54; bi-reue, 82; agayn, 83; isaid, 100; a-pere, 104; enchesoun, 107; astored, 114; fordon, 118; askape, 159; aspien, 172; aloweþ, 212; vnharmed, 227; vnwasteþ, 236; enditinge, 243; alosed, 250; rihtewisenesse, 258 (an odd instance); alowe, 259; inpossible, 268; vnlich, 271; bileue, 272; &c., &c.
This neglect of the prefix is, of course, right; as it brings the accented syllable into play. But we sometimes find a very objectionable variation, viz. cases in which, contrary to the whole spirit of alliterative poetry, the rime-letter begins an unaccented syllable.. Examples of this occur, not only in the present poem, but (as I have before observed) in other alliterative poems also. As this point probably presents a difficulty to such as do not clearly apprehend the fact, I cite some instances.
And saide, seg to us silf · sofísen þis cauus; 61.
That us derye no deþ · desíre we nouþe; 71.
Bigat on olímpias · þe onurable quene; 194.
That we discórden of dede · in many done þinguus; 222.
Alle þe dedes þat ȝe don · discórden til oure; 273.
No oþir dainteys dere · desíre we none; 306.
To him þat schop us to schap · schal fáre to blisse; 330.
And delíten in no dede · þat doþ men to sinne; 505.
Michel holde ȝe of miht · Minérua þe falce; 653; cf. 722.
Diuísede here on his day · a dosain of wondrus; 670.
That han no rewárd to riht · but redlese wirchen; 907.
Þis sonde þat y said haue · sire álixandre riche; 967.
A crucial test is furnished by ll. 74, 75.
Of mé þat míȝhteles am · my-sílf to kepe;
I am síkur of my-sílf · to súffre min ende.
Here, in the same word, viz. my-silf, without any change of accent, we have a change in the alliterative letter.[18]
No doubt our pronunciation has changed greatly since the four-teenth century, but accent is a much more persistent thing. No one will be so hardy as to maintain that such accentuations as désire, ólimpias, déliten, mínerua, díuised, réward could ever have been possible; and, for this reason, I refuse to believe in sófisen, or díscorden either. And I am prepared to maintain, as always, that even the chief-letter in the alliterative poetry of our forefathers sometimes fell on wholly unaccented and unimportant syllables, such as schal in l. 330 adn sire in l. 967l So much the worse for the poetry, no doubt, but we must not shut our eyes to plain facts by pretending that poets could not err. Besides, it is easy to see why these unimportant syllables sometimes received the rime-letter. What the poet really wanted was a help to the memory, and this was attained quite as easily (now and then) by help of an unimportant syllable as by close attention to rule. The use of the word schal in l. 330 (as of sire in l. 967) was to give the reciter a start for his second half-line. The cue was quite sufficient for this purpose, and thus the line, though slip-shod, was allowed to pass. This is the simple explanation of the whole matter.
§ 25. I add a list (perhaps imperfect) of the principal words of French or Latin origin in the poem; omitting proper names. The list is as follows; the references to the lines where they occur will be found in the Glossarial Index.[19] Acorde, age, air, alowe, auterus (altars), amende, anied (annoyed), apere, armus, araie, asent, asingned, auowen. Obsolete: adouted, alosed, aseled, askape, aspien, astored, auaunt. Bal, best (beast), bochours (butchers). Obs.: bourde. Carien, cache, catel, cauys (caves), sese (cease), sertaine, sertefied, chalis, chaunce (chance), changede, chase, chaste, chere, chef (chief), chois, syte (city), claimen, clergie, closeþ, cost (coast), colour, comaundede, comine (coomon), conquerour, conscience, contre (country), cours, cortais (courteous), couaite, couaitous, cocodrillus (crocodiles), corone (crown), crye, costom. Obs.: sertus (certes), chariteuus, cheue, couaitise. Dainte, damned, degre, deliten, desire, dispit, destene, dstroie, diuisede, discorden, dismembre, dite (ditty), diuerse, doctour, dolfinus, doute, dosain (dozen), dragonus, duk, dure. Obs.: defoule, dul (dool). Egre, ese, emperour, endite, endure, enemis, enforceþ, engendreþ, enquere, ensample, enuie (envy), erren, errours, echue (eschew), exkused. Obs.: enchesoun, englaymed, enoine (anoint). Fablus, face, failede, falce, faute (fault), fauure (favour), figure, fin (fine), flourus (flowers), folie, fol (fool), fourme (form), frut. Obs.: fenked, folliche; and cf. faiþ. Gay, gentil, gin (a trap), glose, glotenye, glotounius, grace, graciouce, graunt, sb., graunte, vb., grauntinge, gref (grief), greue, gruche, gile, gise. Obs.: gien, giour, gouernance. Hardy, haste, hastiliche, haunte, eritage, ypotamus, onurable, ost, huge. Idolus, inpossible, innocent, yle (isle). Iangle, iargoun, (with ioiful, ioiles), iuge, sb,, iuggen, iuggement. Obs.: iaudewin. Langage, large, lecherie, lechour, lechourus, lettres. Obs.: los. Mentaine (maintain), manere, marbyl or marbre, meruailous, maistrus, maistrie (mastery), matere, maugre, megre, men (mean), mesure (measure), medle, medisine, membrys, mercy, message, minstralus, mischef, meven (move). Obs.: maumentrie. Nacion, nisete (nicety), noble, noblete, norscheþ. Obs.: noy, nien (or nye). Oxian (ocean), ordre. (Add offren, offringus, from a Latin root.) Pacen, paine, sb. painede, paradis, part, sb., parte, vb., passe, pay, sb., paieþ, pes (peace), perles (peerless), penance, peple, peril, perichen, philozofrus, pilegrimus, piler, pinchen (?), place, plain, plaunte, plente, point, pore, pouerte, poudur, power, praisen, praien, praiere, pres, praie (prey), prince, prented, presoun, preuey, procre (procure), profre, profit, profiteþ, proud (?), prove, pulle, punched, purchas, purpre. Obs.: prest, prestly, prow, pris or prys. (Add preche, of Latin origin.) Quainte. Obs.: quaintise. Resoun, regne, remewid, renoun, reproue, reward, riche, richesse, rommede (roamed), robbed, romauncus, rout, reule. Sacrifice, saue, sauiour, sauur, sb., sauoren, scole, sience, scorpionus, sel (seal), sesoun, seruantis, serue, simple, sengle, soile, solas, solempne, soueraine, space, spirit, spouce, stable, stat, somak, storie, straiten, stidie (study), sodainly, sofisen, suffre (soffre), somme (sum), sur (sure), sustaine (sostaine). Obs.: swaginge. Taried, tariginge, tast, tastinge, tempren, tempest, templus, temted, tende, tendere, tentus, titelid, torche, turment, touche, touchinge, tribit (tribute), trye, turnen. Obs.: tache, tende. Vse (use), sb. and vb. Obs.: vndigne. Varied, verrai, vertue, vois. Werre (war), werrede (warred), wasten.
An inspection of these words may teach us some useful lessons. It is remarkable to what extent, in some cases, the language from which an English word is derived is indicated merely by its initial letter. Imperfect as this list is, and unsafe as it may be to generalise from so short a list of words as those which are included in the present glossary, I yet believe that the proportion of French to Anglo-Saxon words in Middle English is, approximately, capable of being ascertained from the above list. Thus the different words in the Glossarial Index beginning with the letter A are, roughly speaking, about 72; whilst the French words in the above list beginning with the same letter are 20. This gives a percentage of 27, neglecting fractions. Following out a similar calculation for the other letters, we obtain, merely as a rough guide, the following results.
Percentage of French words for each letter.
| A | 27 |
| B | 3 |
| C | 46[20] |
| D | 29 |
| E | 43 |
| F | 16 |
| G | 25 |
| H | 8 |
| I | 28 |
| J | 100 |
| K | 0 |
| L | 6 |
| M | 18 |
| N | 16 |
| O | 12 |
| P | 80 |
| Q | 12 |
| R | 22 |
| S | 15 |
| T | 20 |
| U | 7 |
| V | 100 |
| W | 2 |
Without insisting much on the accuracy of these figures, we may still see clearly that the letters under which we may most expect to find French words in fourteenth-century Englis are, J, V, P, C, and E; after which, probably, come D, I, A, and G. On the other hand, we may least expect to find French words under K, W, B, L, U, and H; after which, probably, come Q, O, F, N, and M. If we further take into account initial combinations, we may observe that SCH, SE, TH, WR, and WH are surely indicative of English origin, whilst CH is indicative of a French one.
I have little doubt that, in modern English, the precentage of French and Latin words under each letter has, in some cases, undergone a considerable change. To take an example, this is particularly the case with the letter A. Whilst the number of English words beginning with A remains much the same as it was, we have received a large number of additions to the French and Latin ones; the result being that the latter are now in a considerable majority. This change is due, in particular, to the very great influence of the Latin ad as a prefix. An investigation of this particular question is not without a certain interest, and it is of some use to the young to be told that K, W, TH, and SH, regarded as beginning a word, are essentially English, whilst J, V, P, and CH are essentially un-English. And the remark, as regards K, W, and TH, is almost equally true, in whatever part of the words those letters[21] be found. It is a good plan, with beginners, to learn the alphabet; which is not quite so easy a matter as it is commonly said to be.
Footnotes
[edit]- ↑ See also p. xxx of my Preface to William of Palerne, &c.
- ↑ The first half of this note, down to "ryme", is printed in Warton's Hist. of Eng. Poetry, ii. 103, ed. 1840. The whole note appears, with four errors, in Weber's Metrical Romances,, i. xxxi; and again, with the same four errors and six more, at p. iv of Mr. Stevenson's edition.
- ↑ Only 5678 lines in Mr. Stevenson's edition, which omits two lines.
- ↑ That is, at first sight. But there is a gap after l. 722, where some leaves of the MS. have been lost.
- ↑ I have to thank Dr. Trautmann for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his paper.
- ↑ For numerous examples of this in fragment A, see the Notes in my edition of it.
- ↑ I.t. stream; not strand.
- ↑ Described in Nasmith's Catalogue, p. 414, as "Epistola Originaniorum (sic) ad Alexandrum magnum;" certainly an odd rendering of the Bragmanorum" of the MS.
- ↑ MS. C.C.C. 370 fol. 47 back; cf. MS. C.C.C. 219, fol. 70.
- ↑ Printed Duidimus, in five placrs, in Warton's Hist. of Eng. Poetry, ed. 1840, p. 104; this misspelling is not corrected in the edition of 1871.
- ↑ The French romance, in MS. Bodley 264, was written out in 1338, and illuminated in 1344. The English copy was written out perhaps about a century later, but then it was evidently copied from an older original.
- ↑ The chief of these are pointed out in the margin of the present edition; see ll. 51, 69, &c. Some others are discussed in the Notes.
- ↑ The glossary to the former edition explains norcheth by paineth not. This is hardly fair; and even then, the sense comes out just the opposite of what it should do. Besides, norscheþ occurs again, in l. 309.
- ↑ I may further refer the reader to a careful dissertation entitled Die Alliteriende Englische Langzeile im xiv. Jahrundert, by F. Rosenthal; Halle, 1877. This contains an analysis of the alliterations in the three texts of Piers Plowman, a work of great labour. Most of the remarks here made were written before I received a copy of this dissertation, which was kindly forwareded to me by the author.
- ↑ No example of the rime of u with f, as in Piers Plowman and Richard the Redeles.
- ↑ The writing of schast for chast is a mere freak of the scribe.
- ↑ A bad line; the g in genosophistiens is soft, and does not well rime with gomes.
- ↑ We cannot shift the accent of a word like mysilf, as Chaucer does in the case of French words like honour and fortune. The case is quite different.
- ↑ The order of such words as are still in use is the alphabetical order of them in modern English; the obsolete words follow these, letter by letter.
- ↑ Uncertain to some extent, because some words are written with initial s. Similarly, the percentage of S-words is not quite clear.
- ↑ TH is really a letter, not a diagraph. Add, that GH is a purely English combination, introduced into the word delight by a sheer blunder.