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.