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]--
Southern. Midland. Northern.
1st pers. Hop-_eth_. Hop-_en_. Hop-_es_. (we) hope.
2nd „ Hop-_eth_. Hop-_en_. Hop-_es_. (ye) hope.
3rd „ Hop-_eth_. Hop-_en_. Hop-_es_. (they) hope.
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:--
1st pers. hope (I) hope.
2nd „ hop-_est_ (thou) hopest.
3rd „ hop-_eth_ (he) hopes.
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:--
1st pers. hope (I) hope.
2nd „ hop-_es_ (thou) hopest.
3rd „ hop-_es_ (he) hopes.
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:--
Singular. Plural.
1st pers. hope hopen.
2nd „ hopes hopen.
3rd „ hopes hopen.
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.
Inflected. Uninflected.
1st pers. hopede hoped (I) hoped.
2nd „ hoped_es_ hoped (thou) hopedest.
3rd „ hopede hoped (he) hoped.
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:--
“---- þay _schin_ knawe sone,
Þere is no bounté in burne lyk Baltaȝar þewes.”[41] --(B. l. 1435.)
“& þose þat seme arn & swete _schyn_ se his face.”[42]
--(_Ibid._ l. 1810.)
“Pekokys and pertrikys perboylyd _schyn_ be.”[43]
--(Liber Cure Cocorum, p. 29.)
“For þer bene bestes þat _schyn_ be rost.”[44] --(_Ibid._ p. 34.)
“Alle _schun_ be draȝun, Syr, at þo syde.”[45] --(_Ibid._ p. 35.)
“Seche ferlies _schyn_ falle.”[46]
--(Robson’s Met. Rom. p. 12, l. 4.)
III. Nothing is more common in the present poems than the use of _hit_
as a genitive = its, which is also found in the Lancashire romances.
“Forþy þe derk dede see hit is demed ever more,
For _hit_ dedeȝ of deþe duren þere ȝet.”[47] --(Patience, l. 1021.)
“And, as hit is corsed of kynde & _hit_ coosteȝ als,
Þe clay þat clenges þer-by arn corsyes strong.”[48]
--(_Ibid._ l. 1033.)
“For I wille speke with the sprete,
And of _hit_ woe wille I wete,
Gif that I may _hit_ bales bete.”[49]
--(Robson’s Met. Romances, p. 5, ll. 3, 4.)
The present dialect of Lancashire still retains the uninflected
genitive:--
“So I geet up be strike o’ dey, on seet eawt; on went ogreath tilly
welly coom within two mile oth’ teawn; when, os tha dule woud
height, o tit wur stonning ot an ale heawse dur; on me kawve (the
dule bore eawt _it_ een for me) took th’ tit for _it_ mother, on
woud seawk her.”[50] (Tummus and Meary).
Thus much for the dialectical peculiarities of our author. The scanty
material at our disposal must be a sufficient excuse for the very meagre
outline which is here presented to the reader. As our materials
increase, the whole question of Early English dialects will no doubt
receive that attention from English philologists which the subject
really demands, and editors of old English works will then be enabled to
speak with greater confidence as to the language and peculiarities of
their authors. Something might surely be done to help the student by a
proper classification of our manuscripts both as to date and place of
composition. We are sadly in want of unadulterated specimens of the
Northumbrian and East-Midland idioms during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries. There must surely be some records of these dialects in our
university libraries which would well repay editing.[51]
[Footnote 25: Polychronicon R. Higdeni, ap. Gale, p. 210, 211. See
Garnett’s Philological Essays, p. 43, and Specimens of Early
English, p. 338.]
[Footnote 26: It is to be regretted that Garnett did not enter
upon details, and give his readers some tests by which to
distinguish the “five distinctly marked forms.”]
[Footnote 27: In English works of the fourteenth century the _-en_
of the Midland, and the _-es_ of the Northumbrian is frequently
dropped, thus gradually approximating to our modern conjugation.]
[Footnote 28: We are here speaking of works written in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.]
[Footnote 29: Robert of Brunne, in his “Handlyng Synne,” often
employs it instead of _-en_, but only for the sake of the rhyme.]
[Footnote 30: The Midland dialect is a very difficult one to deal
with, as it presents us with no uniform type; and, moreover, works
written in this idiom are marked by Northern or Southern
peculiarities, which have led many of our editors altogether
astray in determining the locality of their composition.]
[Footnote 31: Published by the Camden Society, 1842.]
[Footnote 32: Edited by Mr. Halliwell for the Percy Society.]
[Footnote 33: Edited by me for the Philological Society, 1862.]
[Footnote 34: _-us_ and _-ud_ for _-es_ and _-ed_, as well as
_hom_, _hor_, do occasionally occur in the MS. containing our
poems.]
[Footnote 35: The Romance of William and the Werwolf is written in
the West-Midland dialect as spoken probably in Shropshire.]
[Footnote 36: Robson’s Metrical Romances, p. 54, l. 9.]
[Footnote 37: _Woldus_ = _woldes_ = _wouldst_, appears in
Audelay’s poems (in the Shropshire dialect of the fifteenth
century), p. 32, l. 6.]
[Footnote 38: The so-called Northumbrian records of the ninth and
tenth centuries frequently use _-es_ instead of _-est_, in the 2nd
pers. preterite of regular verbs, _e.g._,
_ðu forcerdes usic on-bec_ = Thou turnedst us hindward.
--(Ps. xliii. 11.)
_ðu saldes usic_ = Thou gavest us. --(Ps. xliii. 12.)
_ðu bi-bohtes folc ðin butan weorðe_ = Thou soldest thy folk
without price. --(Ps. xliii. 12.)
ðu _ge-hiowades_ me & _settes_ ofer me hond ðine = Thou madest me
and settest over me thy hand. --(Ps. cxxxviii. 5.)
ðu _ðreades ða_ ofer-hygdan = Thou hast rebuked the proud.
--(Ps. cxviii. 21.)
Ic ondeto ðe fader drihten heofnes forðon ðu _gedeigeldes_ ðas
ilco from snotrum & hogum & _ædeaudes_ ða ðæm lytlum = I thank
thee, O father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid
these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them
unto babes. --(Matt. xi. 25).]
[Footnote 39: Þou _torned_ us hindward. --(Early English Nn.
Psalter, xliii. 11.)
Þou _salde_ þi folk. --(_Ibid._ xliii. 12.)
Þou _meked_ us. --(_Ibid._ xliii. 20.)
Þou _made_ me and set þi hand over me. --(_Ibid._ cxxxviii. 5.)
Þou _snibbed_ proude. --(_Ibid._ cxviii. 21.)]
[Footnote 40: I am informed by a Shropshire friend that it
prevails in his county under the form _shinneh_.
_Win_ = will, in _winnot_, _wunnot_ = will not, is still heard in
the West-Midland districts. It is found in Robson’s Romances and
in Liber Cure Cocorum.]
[Footnote 41: They _shall_ know soon there is no goodness in man
like Belshazzar’s virtues.]
[Footnote 42: And those that seemly are and sweet _shall_ see His
(God’s) face.]
[Footnote 43: Peacocks and partriches parboiled _shall_ be.]
[Footnote 44: For þer are beasts þat _shall_ be roasted.]
[Footnote 45: All _shall_ be drawn (have the entrails removed),
Sir, at the side.]
[Footnote 46: Such marvels _shall_ happen.]
[Footnote 47:
Wherefore the dark dead sea it is called ever more.
For _its_ deeds of death endure there yet.]
[Footnote 48:
And as it is cursed of kind and _its_ properties also,
The clay that clings thereby are corrosives strong.]
[Footnote 49:
I will speak with the spirit,
And of _its_ woe will I wit (know),
If that I may _its_ bales (grief) abate.]
[Footnote 50: So I got up by break of day and set out; and went
straight till I well nigh came within two miles of the town, when,
as the devil would have it, a horse was standing at an ale-house
door; and my calf (the devil bore out _its_ eyes for me) took the
horse for _its_ mother, and would suck her.]
[Footnote 51: Three specimens of the East-Midland dialect have
come to light since writing the above. Harl. MS. 3909; Troy Book,
ed. Donaldson, E. E. T. Soc.; The Lay-folks Mass-Book, ed.
Simpson, E. E. T. Soc.]