§ 1. The English version of the Lay of Havelok, now here reprinted, is
one of the few poems that have happily been recovered, after having long
been given up as lost. Tyrwhitt, in his Essay on the Language and
Versification of Chaucer, has a footnote (No. 51) deploring the loss of
the Rime concerning Gryme the Fisher, the founder of Grymesby, Hanelok
[_read_ Havelok] the Dane, and his wife Goldborough; and Ritson, in his
Dissertation on Romance and Minstrelsy--(vol. i. p. lxxxviii. of his
Metrical Romanceës)--makes remarks to the same effect. It was at length,
however, discovered by accident in a manuscript belonging to the
Bodleian library, which had been described in the old Catalogue merely
as _Vitæ Sanctorum_, a large portion of it being occupied by metrical
legends of the Saints. In 1828, it was edited for the Roxburghe Club by
Sir F. Madden, the title-page of the edition being as follows:-- "The
Ancient English Romance of Havelok the Dane, accompanied by the French
Text: with an introduction, notes, and a glossary, by Frederick Madden,
Esq., F.A.S. F.R.S.L., Sub-Keeper of the MSS. in the British Museum.
Printed for the Roxburghe Club, London. W. Nicol, Shakspeare Press,
MDCCCXXVIII." This volume contains a very complete Introduction,
pp. i-lvi; the English version of Havelok, pp. 1-104; the French text of
the Romance of Havelok, from a MS. in the Heralds' College, pp. 105-146;
the French Romance of Havelok, as abridged and altered by Geffrei
Gaimar, pp. 147-180; notes to the English text, pp. 181-207; notes to
the French text, pp. 208-210; and a glossary, &c., pp. 211-263. But
there are sometimes bound up with it two pamphlets, viz. "Remarks on the
Glossary to Havelok," by S. W. Singer, and an "Examination of the
Remarks, &c.," by the Editor of Havelok. In explanation of this, it may
suffice to say, that the former contains some criticisms by Mr Singer
(executed in a manner suggestive of an officious wish to display
superior critical acumen), of which a few are correct, but others are
ludicrously false; whilst the latter is a vindication of the general
correctness of the explanations given, and contains, incidentally, some
valuable contributions to our general etymological knowledge, and
various remarks which have proved of service in rendering the glossary
in the present edition more exactly accurate.[1]
[Footnote 1: In particular, we find there a complete proof,
supported by some fifty examples, that, _as_ can be traced,
through the forms _ase_, _als_, _alse_, _also_, to the A.S.
_eall-swa_; a proof, that in the difficult phrase _lond and
lithe_, the word _lithe_ [also spelt _lede_, _lude_] is equivalent
to the French _tenement_, _rente_, or _fe_; and, thirdly, a
complete refutation of Mr Singer's extraordinary notion that the
adverb _swithe_ means _a sword_!]
§ 2. Owing to the scarcity of copies of this former edition, the
committee of the Early English Text Society, having first obtained the
approval of Sir Frederic Madden, resolved upon issuing a reprint of it;
and Sir Frederic having expressed a wish that the duty of seeing it
through the press should be entrusted to myself, I gladly undertook that
responsibility. He has kindly looked over the revises of the whole
work,[2] but as it has undergone several modifications, it will be the
best plan to state in detail what these are.
[Footnote 2: In the same way, _William of Palerne_ was prepared
by me for the press, subject to his advice; see _William of
Palerne_, Introduction, p. ii.]
§ 3. With respect to the text, the greatest care has been taken to
render it, as nearly as can be represented in print, an exact copy of
the MS. The text of the former edition is exceedingly correct, and the
alterations here made are few and of slight importance. Sir F. Madden
furnished me with some, the results of a re-comparison, made by himself,
of his printed copy with the original; besides this, I have myself
carefully read the proof sheets with the MS. _twice_, and it may
therefore be assumed that the complete correctness of the text is
established. It seems to me that this is altogether the most important
part of the work of a _Text_ Society, in order that the student may
never be perplexed by the appearance of words having no real existence.
For a like reason the letters þ and [w] (the latter of which I have
represented by an italic _w_) have now been inserted wherever they
occur, and the expansions of abbreviations are now denoted by italics.
For further remarks upon the text, see the description of the MS. below,
§ 26. Sidenotes and headlines have been added, but the numbering of the
lines has not been altered. The French text of the romance, the title of
which is _Le Lai de Aveloc_, and the abridgment of the story by Geffrei
Gaimar, have not been here reprinted; the fact being, that the French
and English versions differ very widely, and that the passages of the
French which really correspond to the English are few and short. _All_
of these will be found in the Notes, in their proper places, and it was
also deemed the less necessary to print the French text, because it is
tolerably accessible; for it may be found either in vol. i. of Monumenta
Historica Britannica, ed. Petrie, 1848, in the reprint by M. Michel
(1833) entitled "Le Lai d'Havelok," or in the edition by Mr T. Wright
for the Caxton Society, 1850. An abstract of it is given at p. xxiii.
The Notes are abridged from Sir F. Madden's, with but a very few
additions by myself, which are distinguished by being placed within
square brackets. The Glossarial Index is, for the most part, reprinted
from Sir F. Madden's Glossary, but contains a large number of _slight_
alterations, re-arrangements, and additions. The references have nearly
all been verified,[3] and the few words formerly left unexplained are
now either wholly or partially solved. I have now only to add that a
large portion of the remainder of this preface, especially that which
concerns the historical and traditional evidences of the story (§ 4 to
§ 18), is abridged or copied from Sir F. Madden's long Introduction,
which fairly exhausts the subject.[4] All extracts included between
marks of quotation are taken from it without alteration. But I must be
considered responsible for the rearrangement of the materials, and I
have added a few remarks from other sources.
[Footnote 3: I say _nearly_, because I have not been able to
verify _every_ reference to _every_ poem quoted. I have verified
and critically examined all the citations from the _poem itself_,
from Ritson's Romances, Weber's Romances, La[gh]amon, Beowulf,
Chaucer, Langland, and Sir Walter Scott's edition of Sir Tristrem
(3rd edition, 1811).]
[Footnote 4: To this, the reader is referred for fuller
information.]
§ 4. NOTICES OF THE STORY OF HAVELOK BY EARLY WRITERS. There can be
little doubt that the tradition must have existed from Anglo-Saxon
times, but the earliest mention of it is presented to us in the full
account furnished by the French version of the Romance. Of this there
are two copies, one of which belongs to Sir T. Phillipps; the other is
known as the Arundel or Norfolk MS., and is preserved in the Heralds'
College, where it is marked E. D. N. No. 14; the various editions of the
latter have been already enumerated in § 3. This version was certainly
composed within the first half of the twelfth century. From the fact
that it is entitled a _Lai_, and from the assertion of the poet--"Qe vn
_lai_ en firent li Breton"--"whereof the Britons made a lay"--we easily
conclude that it was drawn from a British source. From the evident
connection of the story with the Chronicle called the _Brut_, we may
further conclude that by _Breton_ is not meant Armorican, but belonging
to _Britain_. The story is in no way connected with France; the
tradition is British or Welsh, and the French version was doubtless
written in England by a subject of an English king. That the language is
French is due merely to the accident that the Norman conquerors of
England had acquired that language during their temporary sojourn in
France. From every point of view, whether we regard the British
tradition, the Anglo-Norman version, or the version printed in the
present volume, the story is wholly English. It is not to be connected
too closely with the Armorican lays of Marie _de France_.[5]
[Footnote 5: "The word Breton, which some critics refer to
Armorica, is here applied to a story of mere English birth."
Hallam; Lit. of Europe, 6th ed. 1860; vol. i. p. 36. See the whole
passage.]
§ 5. We next come to the abridgment of the same as made by Geffrei
Gaimar, who wrote between the years 1141 and 1151. In one place, Geffrei
quotes Gildas as his authority, but no conclusion can easily be drawn
from this indefinite reference. In another place, he mentions a feast
given by Havelok after his defeat of Hodulf-- _si cum nus dit la verai
estoire_-- "as the true history tells us." As this feast is not
mentioned in the fuller French version, and yet reappears in the English
text, we perceive that he had some additional source of information; and
this is confirmed by the fact that he mentions several additional
details, also not found in the completer version. That the lay of
Havelok, as found in Gaimar, is really his, and not an interpolation by
a later hand, may fairly be inferred from his repeated allusions to the
story in the body of his work. There are three MS. copies containing
Gaimar's abridgment, of which the best is the Royal MS. (Bibl. Reg. 13
A. xxi.) in the British Museum; the two others belong respectively to
the Dean and Chapter of Durham (its mark being C. iv. 27) and to the
Dean and Chapter of Lincoln (its mark being H. 18). It is curious that
the Norfolk MS. contains not only the fuller French version of the
story, but also the Brut of Wace, and the continuation of it by Gaimar.
Gaimar's abridgment, as printed in Sir F. Madden's edition, is taken
from the Royal MS., supplemented by the Durham and Lincoln MSS. See also
Monumenta Historica Britannica, vol. i. p. 764. It is important to
mention that Gaimar speaks of the Danes as having been in Norfolk since
the time that Havelok was King, after he has been relating the combats
between the Britons and the Saxons under the command of Cerdic and
Cynric. Another allusion makes Havelok to have lived long before the
year 800, according to every system of chronology.
§ 6. The next mention of Havelok is in the French Chronicle of Peter de
Langtoft, of Langtoft in Yorkshire, who died early in the reign of
Edward II., and whose Chronicle closes with the death of Edward I. Here
the only trace of the story is in the mention of "Gountere le pere
Hauelok, de Danays Ray clamez"--Gunter, father of Havelok, called King
of the Danes. The allusion is almost valueless from its evident
absurdity; for he confounds Gunter with the Danish invader defeated by
Alfred, and who is variously called Godrum, Gudrum, Guthrum, or
Gurmound. He must have been thinking, at the moment, of a very different
Gurmund, viz. the King of the Africans, as he is curiously called, whose
terrible devastations are described very fully in La[gh]amon, vol. iii.
pp. 156-177, and who may fairly be supposed to have lived much nearer to
the time of Havelok; and he must further have confounded this Gurmund
with Gunter. For the account of Robert of Brunne's translation of
Langtoft's Chronicle, see below, § 10.
§ 7. But soon after this, we come to a most curious account. In MS.
Harl. 902 is a late copy, on paper, of a Chronicle called _Le Bruit
Dengleterre_, or otherwise _Le Petit Bruit_, compiled A.D. 1310, by
Meistre Rauf de Boun, at the request of Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.
It is a most worthless compilation, put together in defiance of all
chronology, but with respect to our present inquiry it is full of
interest, as it soon becomes obvious that one of his sources of
information is the very English version here printed, which he cites by
the name of _l'estorie de Grimesby_, and which is thus proved to have
been written before the year 1310. "The Chronicler," says Sir F. Madden,
"commences, as usual, with Brute, B.C. 2000, and after taking us through
the succeeding reigns to the time of Cassibelin, who fought with Julius
Cæsar, informs us, that after Cassibelin's death came Gurmound out of
Denmark, who claimed the throne as the son of the eldest daughter of
Belin, married to Thorand, King of Denmark. He occupies the kingdom 57
years, and is at length slain at _Hunteton_, called afterwards from him
_Gurmoundcestre_. He is succeeded by his son Frederick, who hated the
English, and filled his court with Danish nobles, but who is at last
driven out of the country, after having held it for the short space of
71 years. And then, adds this miserable History-monger: 'Et si entendrez
vous, que par cel primer venue de auaunt dit Roy Gormound, et puis par
cele hountoux exil de son fitz Frederik, si fu le rancour de Daneis vers
nous enpendaunt, et le regne par cel primere accion vers nous
enchalangount plus de sept C auns apre, _iekis a la venue Haneloke, fitz
le Roy Birkenebayne de Dannemarche, q~ le regne par mariage entra de sa
femme_.' --f. 2 b.
"After a variety of equally credible stories, we come to Adelstan II.[6]
son of Edward [the Elder], who corresponds with the real king of that
name, A.D. 925-941. He is succeeded by his son [brother] Edmund, who
reigned four years [A.D. 941-946], and is said to have been _poisoned_
at Canterbury; after whom we have ADELWOLD, whose identity with the
Athelwold of the English Romance, will leave no doubt as to the source
whence the writer drew great part of his materials in the following
passage:
'Apres ceo vient Adelwold son fitz q~ reigna XVJ et demie, si
engendroit ij feiz et iij filis, dount trestoutz murrirent
frechement fors q~ sa pune file, le out a nom _Goldburgh_, del age
de VJ aunz kaunt son pere Adelwold morust. Cely Roy Adelwold quant
il doit morir, comaunda sa file a garder a vn Count de Cornewayle,
al houre kaunt il quidou~ie (sic) hountousment auoir deparagé,
quaunt fit _Haueloke_, fitz le Roy Byrkenbayne de Denmarche, esposer
le, encountre sa volunté, q~ primis fuit Roy Dengleterre et de
Denmarch tout a vn foitz, par quele aliaunce leis Daneis queillerunt
g^{e}ndr~ (sic) mestrie en Engleterre, et long temps puise le
tindrunt, _si cum vous nouncie l'estorie de Grimesby_, come _Grime_
primez nurist Haueloke en Engleterre, depuis cel houre q'il feut
chasé de Denmarche &c. deqis al houre q'il vint au chastelle de
Nichole, q~ cely auauntdit traitre _Goudriche_ out en garde, en quel
chastel il auauntdit Haueloke espousa l'auauntdit Goldeburgh, q~
fuit heir Dengleterre. Et par cel reson tynt cely Haueloke la terre
de Denmarche auxi comme son heritage, et Engleterre auxi par mariage
de sa femme; et si entendrez vous, q~ par la reson q~ ly auauntdit
Gryme ariua primez, kaunt il amena l'enfaunt Haueloke hors de
Denmarche, par meyme la reson reseut cele vile son nom, de Grime,
quel noun ly tint vnquore Grimisby.
'Apres ceo regna meyme cely Haueloke, q~ mult fuit prodhomme, et
droiturelle, et bien demenoit son people en reson et ley. Cel Roy
Haueloke reigna xlj. aunz, si engendroit ix fitz et vij filis, dount
trestoutz murrerount ainz q~ furunt d'age, fors soulement iiij de
ses feitz, dont l'un out a noum Gurmound, cely q~ entendy auoir son
heire en Engleterre; le secound out a noun Knout, quen fitz feffoit
son pere en le regne de Denmarche, quant il estoit del age de xviij
aunz, et ly mesme se tynt a la coroune Dengleterre, quel terre il
entendy al oeps son ainez fitz Gurmound auoir gardé. Mes il debusa
son col auxi comme il feu mounté vn cheval testous q~ poindre
volleyt, en l'an de son regne xxiij entrant. Le tiers fitz ont a
noun Godard, q~ son pere feffoit de la Seneschacie Dengleterre, q~
n'auo~ut (sic) taunt come ore fait ly quart. Et le puisnez fitz de
toutz out a noum Thorand, q~ espousa la Countesse de Hertouwe en
Norwey. Et par la reson q~ cely Thorand feut enherité en la terre de
Norwey, ly et ses successours sont enheritez iekis en sa p~ce (sic)
toutdis, puis y auoit affinité de alliaunce entre ceulx de Denmarche
et ceulx de Norwey, a checun venue q~ vnkes firent en ceste terre
pur chalenge ou clayme mettre, iekis a taunt q~ lour accion feut
enseyne destrut par vn noble chevallere _Guy de Warwike_, &c. Et
tout en sy feffoit Haueloke sez quatre fitz: si gist a priorie de
_Grescherche_ en Loundrez.' --f. 6 b.
"The _Estorie de Grimesby_ therefore, referred to above, is the
identical English Romance before us, and it is no less worthy of remark,
that the whole of the passage just quoted, with one single variation of
import, has been literally translated by Henry de Knyghton, and inserted
in his Chronicle.[7] Of the sources whence the information respecting
Havelok's sons is derived, we are unable to offer any account, as no
trace of it occurs either in the French or English texts of the story."
[Footnote 6: "The Chronicler writes of him, f. 6. 'Il feu le
plus beau bacheleir q{e} vnqes reigna en Engleterre, _ceo dit le
Bruit_, par quoy ly lays ly apellerunt _King Adelstane with gilden
kroket_, pour ce q'il feu si beaus.' We have here notice of
another of those curious historical poems, the loss of which can
never be sufficiently deplored. The term _crocket_ (derived by
Skinner from the Fr. _crochet_, uncinulus) points out the period
of the poem's composition, since the fashion alluded to of wearing
those large rolls of hair so called, only arose at the latter end
of Hen. III. reign, and continued through the reign of Edw. I. and
part of his successor's."]
[Footnote 7: See below, § 16.]
§ 8. "About the same time at which Rauf de Boun composed his Chronicle,
was written a brief Genealogy of the British and Saxon Kings, from
Brutus to Edward II., preserved in the same MS. in the Heralds' College
which contains the French text of the Romance. The following curious
rubric is prefixed:-- _La lignée des Bretons et des Engleis, queus il
furent, et de queus nons, et coment Brut vint premerement en Engleterre,
et combien de tens puis, et dont il vint. Brut et Cornelius furent
chevalers chacez de la bataille de Troie, M. CCCC. XVII. anz deuant qe
dieus nasquit, et vindrent en Engleterre, en Cornewaille, et riens ne
fut trouee en la terre fors qe geanz, Geomagog, Hastripoldius,
Ruscalbundy, et plusurs autres Geanz._ In this Genealogy no mention of
Havelok occurs under the reign of Constantine, but after the names of
the Saxon Kings Edbright and Edelwin, we read: 'ATHELWOLD auoit vne
fille _Goldeburgh_, et il regna vi. anz. HAUELOC esposa meisme cele
Goldeburgh, et regna iij. anz. ALFRED le frere le Roi Athelwold enchaca
Haueloc par Hunehere, et il fut le primer Roi corone de l'apostoille, et
il regna xxx. anz.' --fol. 148 b. By this account Athelwold is clearly
identified with Ethelbald, King of Wessex, who reigned from 855 to 860,
whilst Havelok is substituted in the place of Ethelbert and Ethered."
§ 9. "Not long after the same period was written a Metrical _Chronicle
of England_, printed by Ritson, Metr. Rom. V. ii. p. 270. Two copies are
known to exist,[8] the first concluding with the death of Piers
Gavestone, in 1313 (MS. Reg. 12. C. xii.), and the other continued to
the time of Edw. III. (Auchinleck MS.). The period of Havelok's descent
into England is there ascribed to the reign of King Ethelred (978-1016),
which will very nearly coincide with the period assigned by Rauf de
Boun, viz. A.D. 963-1004."
'_Haueloc_ com tho to this lond,
With gret host & eke strong,
Ant sloh the Kyng Achelred,
At Westmustre he was ded,
Ah he heuede reigned her
Seuene an tuenti fulle [gh]er.'
MS. Reg. 12. C. xii.
"This date differs from most of the others, and appears founded on the
general notion of the Danish invasions during that period."
[Footnote 8: The poems in MSS. Camb. Univ. Lib. Ff. 5. 48 and
Dd. 14. 2 resemble this Chronicle, but do not mention Havelok's
name.]
§ 10. Before proceeding to consider the _prose_ Chronicle of the Brute,
it is better to speak first of the translation of Peter de Langtoft's
Chronicle by Robert of Brunne, a translation which was completed A.D.
1338. At p. 25 of Hearne's edition is the following passage:
'[Gh]it a nother Danes Kyng in the North gan aryue.
Alfrid it herd, thidere gan he dryue.
_Hauelok_[9] fader he was, _Gunter_ was his name.
He brent citees & tounes, ouer alle did he schame.
Saynt Cutbertes clerkes tho Danes thei dred.
The toke the holy bones, about thei tham led.
Seuen [gh]ere thorgh the land wer thei born aboute,
It comforted the kyng mykelle, whan he was in doute
¶ Whan Alfrid & Gunter had werred long in ille,
Thorgh the grace of God, Gunter turned his wille.
Cristend wild he be, the kyng of fonte him lift,
& thritty of his knyghtes turnes, thorgh Godes gift.
Tho that first were foos, and com of paien lay,
Of Cristen men haf los, & so thei wend away.'
"This is the whole that appears in the original, but after the above
lines immediately follows, in the language of Robert of Brunne himself
(as noted also by Hearne, Pref. p. lxvii.), the following curious, and
to our inquiry, very important passage:"
'Bot I haf grete ferly, that I fynd no man,
That has writen in story, how Hauelok this lond wan.
Noither _Gildas_, no Bede, no Henry of Huntynton,
No William of Malmesbiri, ne Pers of Bridlynton,
Writes not in ther bokes of no kyng Athelwold,
Ne Goldeburgh his douhtere, ne Hauelok not of told,
Whilk tyme the were kynges, long or now late,
Thei mak no menyng whan, no in what date.
Bot that thise _lowed men vpon Inglish tellis_,
Right story can me not ken, the certeynte what spellis.
Men sais in Lyncoln castelle ligges [gh]it a stone,
That Hauelok kast wele forbi euer ilkone
& [gh]it the chapelle standes, ther he weddid his wife,
Goldeburgh the kynges douhter, _that saw is [gh]it rife_.
& of Gryme a fisshere, _men redes [gh]it in ryme_,
That he bigged Grymesby Gryme that ilk tyme.
Of alle stories of honoure, that I haf thorgh souht,
I fynd that no compiloure of him tellis ouht.
Sen I fynd non redy, that tellis of Hauelok kynde
Turne we to that story, that we writen fynde.'
"There cannot exist the smallest doubt, that by the 'Ryme' here
mentioned 'that lowed men vpon Inglish tellis,' the identical English
Romance, now before the reader, is referred to. It must therefore
certainly have been composed prior to the period at which Robert of
Brunne wrote,[10] in whose time the traditions respecting Havelok at
Lincoln were so strongly preserved, as to point out various localities
to which the story had affixed a name, and similar traditions connected
with the legend, as we shall find hereafter, existed also at Grimsby.
The doubts expressed by the Chronicler, as to their authenticity, or the
authority of the 'Ryme,' are curious, but only of value so far as they
prove he was ignorant of the existence of a French Romance on the
subject, or of its reception in Gaimar's historical poem."
[Footnote 9: This proof is rendered unnecessary by the citations
from it by Rauf de Boun in 1310, and by the age of our MS.
itself.]
[Footnote 10: _Hanelok_ in Hearne, throughout, but undoubtedly
_contra fidem_ MSS.]
§ 11. "But on consulting the Lambeth copy of Rob. of Brunne, in order to
verify the passage as printed by Hearne from the Inner Temple MS. we
were not a little surprised to ascertain a fact hitherto overlooked, and
indeed unknown, viz. that the Lambeth MS. (which is a folio, written on
paper, and imperfect both at the beginning and close)[11] does not
correspond with the Edition, but has evidently been revised by a later
hand, which has abridged the Prologues, omitted some passages, and
inserted others. The strongest proof of this exists in the passage
before us, in which the Lambeth MS. entirely omits the lines of Rob. of
Brunne respecting the authenticity of the story of Havelok, and in their
place substitutes an abridged outline of the story itself, copied
apparently from the French Chronicle of Gaimar. The interpolation is so
curious, and so connected with our inquiry, as to be a sufficient
apology for introducing it here."
'¶ Forth wente Gounter & his folk, al in to Denemark,
Sone fel ther hym vpon, a werre styth & stark,
Thurgh a Breton kyng, th^t out of Ingeland cam,
& asked the tribut of Denmark, th^t Arthur whylom nam.
They wythseide hit schortly, & non wolde they [gh]elde,
But rather they wolde dereyne hit, wyth bataill y the felde.
Both partis on a day, to felde come they stronge,
Desconfit were the danes, Gounter his deth gan fonge.
When he was ded they schope brynge, al his blod to schame,
But Gatferes doughter the kyng, _Eleyne_ was hure name,
Was kyng Gounteres wyf, and had a child hem bytwene,
Wyth wham scheo scapede vnethe, al to the se with tene.
The child hym highte HAUELOK, th^t was his moder dere,
Scheo mette with grym atte hauene, a wel god marinere,
He hure knew & highte hure wel, to helpe hure with his might,
To bryng hure saf out of the lond, wythinne th^t ilke night.
When they come in myd se, a gret meschef gan falle,
They metten wyth a gret schip, lade wyth outlawes alle.
Anon they fullen hem apon, & dide hem Mikel peyne,
So th^t wyth strengthe of their assaut, ded was quene Eleyne.
But [gh]yt ascapede from hem Grym, wyth Hauelok & other fyue,
& atte the hauene of Grymesby, ther they gon aryue.
Ther was brought forth child Hauelok, wyth Grym & his fere,
Right als hit hadde be ther own, for other wyste men nere.
Til he was mykel & mighti, & man of mykel cost,
Th^t for his grete sustinaunce, nedly serue he most.
He tok leue of Grym & Seburc, as of his sire & dame,
And askede ther blessinge curteysly, ther was he nought to blame.
Thenne drow he forth northward, to kynges court Edelsie,
Th^t held fro Humber to Rotland, the kyngdam of Lyndesye.
Thys Edelsy of Breton kynde, had Orewayn his sister bright
Maried to a noble kyng, of Northfolk Egelbright.
Holly for his kyngdam, he held in his hand,
Al the lond fro Colchestre, right in til Holand.
Thys Egelbright th^t was a Dane, & Orewayn the quene,
Hadden gete on Argill, a doughter hem bytwene.
Sone then deyde Egelbright, & his wyf Orewayn,
& therfore was kyng Edelsye, bothe joyful & fayn.
Anon their doughter & here Eyr, his nece dame Argill,
& al the kyngdam he tok in hande, al at his owene will.
Ther serued Hauelok as quistron, & was y-cald Coraunt,
He was ful mykel & hardy, & strong as a Geaunt.
He was bold Curteys & fre, & fair & god of manere,
So th^t alle folk hym louede, th^t auewest hym were.
But for couetise of desheraison, of damysele Argill,
& for a chere th^t the kyng sey, scheo made Coraunt till,
He dide hem arraye ful symplely, & wedde togydere bothe,
For he ne rewarded desparagyng, were manion ful wrothe.
A while they dwelt after in court, in ful pore degre,
The schame & sorewe th^t Argill hadde, hit was a deol to se.
Then seyde scheo til hure maister, of whenne sire be [gh]e?
Haue [gh]e no kyn ne frendes at hom, in [gh]oure contre?
Leuer were me lyue in pore lyf, wythoute schame & tene,
Than in schame & sorewe, lede the astat of quene.
Thenne wente they forth to Grymesby, al by his wyues red,
& founde th^t Grym & his wyf, weren bothe ded.
But he fond ther on Aunger, Grymes cosyn hend,
To wham th^t Grym & his wyf, had teld word & ende.
How th^t hit stod wyth Hauelok, in all manere degre,
& they hit hym telde & conseilled, to drawe til his contre,
Tasaye what grace he mighte fynde, among his frendes there,
& they wolde ordeyne for their schipynge, and al th^t hem nede were.
When Aunger hadde y-schiped hem, they seilled forth ful swythe,
Ful-but in til Denemark, wyth weder fair & lithe.
Ther fond he on sire Sykar, a man of gret pousté,
Th^t hey styward somtyme was, of al his fader fe.
Ful fayn was he of his comyng, & god help him behight,
To recouere his heritage, of Edulf kyng & knyght.
Sone asembled they gret folk, of his sibmen & frendes,
Kyng Edulf gadered his power, & ageyn them wendes.
Desconfyt was ther kyng Edulf, & al his grete bataill,
& so conquered Hauelok, his heritage saunz faille.
Sone after he schop him gret power, in toward Ingelond,
His wyues heritage to wynne, ne wolde he nought wonde.
Th^t herde the kyng of Lyndeseye, he was come on th^t cost,
& schop to fighte wyth hym sone, & gadered hym gret host.
But atte day of bataill, Edelsy was desconfit,
& after by tretys gaf Argentill, hure heritage al quit.
& for scheo was next of his blod, Hauelokes wyf so feyr,
He gaf hure Lyndesey after his day, & made hure his Eyr.
& atte last so byfel, th^t vnder Hauelokes schelde,
Al Northfolk & Lyndeseye, holy of hym they helde.'
MS. Lamb. 131. leaf 76.
[Footnote 11: The writing in the earlier portion (concerning
Havelok) is hardly later than A.D. 1400.]
§ 12. We now come to the prose Chronicle called The Brute, which became
exceedingly popular, and was the foundation of "Caxton's Chronicle,"
first printed by Caxton A.D. 1480, but of which Caxton was not the
author, though he may have added some of the last chapters. The original
is in French, and was probably compiled a few years _before_ Robert of
Brunne's translation of Langtoft was made, as it concludes with the year
1331, or, in some copies, with 1332. The author of it is not known, but
it was probably only regarded as a compilation from the Chronicles of
the earlier Historians. "In this Chronicle, in all its various shapes,
is contained the Story of Havelock, _engrafted on the British History of
Geoffrey of Monmouth_, and in its detail, following precisely the French
text of the Romance. The only variation of consequence is the
substitution of the name of Birkabeyn (as in the English text) for that
of Gunter, and in some copies, both of the French and English MSS. of
the Chronicle, the name of _Goldeburgh_ is inserted instead of
_Argentille_; which variations are the more curious, as they prove the
absolute identity of the story. For the sake of a more complete
illustration of what has been advanced, we are induced to copy the
passage at length, as it appears in the French Chronicle, taken from a
well-written MS. of the 14th century, MS. Reg. 20 A 3, fol. 165 b."[12]
'_Des Rois Adelbright & Edelfi_, Cap. IIIJ^xx. XIX.
Apres le Roi Constantin estoient deux Rois en graunt Brutaigne,
dount li vns out a noun Aldelbright, & fust Danois, & [tint] tut le
pais de Norff' & de Suffolk, & ly altre out a noun Edelfi, q{e} fust
Brittone, & tint Nicol & Lindesey, & tote la terre desqes a Humber,
Ceux deux Rois soi entreguerroierent, [& moult s'entrehaierent] mais
puis furent il entre acordez & soi entreamerent, taunt com s'il
vssent estee freres de vn ventre neez. Le Roi Edelfi out vne soer,
Orewenne par noun, & la dona par grant amour al Roi Aldelbright a
femme. Et il engendra de ly vne fille q{e} out a noun Argentille. En
le tierez an apres vne greue Maladie ly suruint, si deuereit morrir,
& maunda par vn iour al Roi Edelfi, soun frere en lei, q'il venist a
ly parler, & cil ly emparla volentiers. Donqe ly pria le Roi
Aldelbright et ly coniura en le noun [de] Dieu, q'il apres sa mort
preist Argentille sa fille, & sa terre, & q'il la feist honestement
garder [& nurrir] en sa chambre, & quant ele serreit de age, q'il la
feist marier al plus fort hom & plus vaillaunt q'il porroit trouer,
& q{e} a donqe ly rendist sa terre. Edelfi ceo graunta, & par
serment afferma sa priere. Et quant Adelbright fust mort, &
enterree, Edelfi prist la damoysele, & la norrist en sa chambre, si
deuynt ele la plus beale creature q{e} hom porreit trouer.
_Coment le Roi Edelfi Maria la damoisele Argentille a vn quistroun
de sa quisine._ Cap^m. C.
Le Roi Edelfi, q{e} fust vncle a la Damoysele Argentille, pensa
fausement coment il porreit la terre sa Nece auoir par touz iours, &
malueisement countre soun serment pensa a deceiure la pucelle, si la
maria a vn quistroun de sa quisyne q{e} fust apellée Curan, si
esteit il le plus haut, le plus fort, & le plus vaillaunt de corps,
q{e} hom sauoit nulle part a cel temps, & la quidoit hountousement
marier, pur auoir sa terre a remenaunt, Mais il fust deceu. Car cest
Curan fust [le Roi] Hauelok, filz le Roi Kirkebain de Denemarche, &
il conquist la terre sa femme [en Bretaigne], & occist le Roi
Edelfi, vncle sa femme, & conquist tote la terre, _si com aillours
est trouée plus pleinement_ [_en l'estorie_], & il ne regna q{e}
treis aunz. Car Saxsouns & Danoys le occirent, & ceo fust grant
damage a tote la grant Brutaigne. Et les Brutouns le porterent a
Stonhenge, & illoeqes ly enterrerent a grant honour.'
[Footnote 12: Sir F. Madden adds-- "collated with another of the
same age, MS. Cott. Dom. A. x, and a third, of the 15th century,
MS. Harl. 200." I omit the collations; the words within square
brackets are supplied from these other copies.]
§ 13. "With the above may be compared the English version, as extant in
MS. Harl. 2279, which agrees with the Ed. of Caxton, except in the
occasional substitution of one word for another."[13]
'MS. Harl. 2279, f. 47._ Of the kinges Albright & of Edelf._ Ca^o
IIII^xx. XI^o.
After kyng Constantinus deth, ther were .ij. kynges in Britaigne,
that one men callede Adelbright, that was a Danoys, and helde the
cuntray of Northfolk and Southfolk, that other hight Edelf, and was
a Britoun & helde Nichole, Lindeseye, and alle the lande vnto
Humber. Thes ij. kynges faste werred togeders, but afterward thei
were acorded, and louede togedere as thei had ben borne of o bodie.
The kyng Edelf had a suster that men callede Orewenne, and he yaf
here thurghe grete frenshipe to kyng Adelbright to wif, and he
begate on here a doughter that men callede Argentille, and in the
.iij. yeer after him come vppon a strong sekenesse that nedes he
muste die, and he sent to kyng Edelf, his brother in lawe, that he
shulde come and speke with him, and he come to him with good wille.
Tho prayed he the kyng and coniurede also in the name of God, that
after whan he were dede, he shulde take Argentil his doughter, and
the lande, and that he kepte hir wel, and noreshed in his chambre;
and whan she were of age he shulde done here be mariede to the
strongest and worthiest man that he my[gh]t fynde, and than he shulde
yelde vp her lande ayen. Edelf hit grauntid, and bi othe hit
confermede his prayer. And whan Adelbright was dede and Enterede,
Edelfe toke the damesel Argentil, and noreshid her in his chambre,
and she become the fayrest creature th^t my[gh]t lif, or eny man
finde.
_How kyng Edelf mariede the damysel Argentil to a knaue of his
kichyn._ Ca^o IIII^xx. XII.
This kyng Edelf, that was vncle to the damesel Argentil, bithought
how that he my[gh]te falsliche haue the lande from his nece for
euermore, and falsly ayens his othe thou[gh]te to desceyue the
damysel, and marie here to a knave of his kichon, that men callede
Curan, and he become the worthiest and strengest man of bodie that
eny man wist in eny lande that tho leuede. And to him he thou[gh]t
here shendfully haue mariede, for to haue had here lande afterward;
but he was clene desceyuede. For this Curan that was Hauelokis son
that was kyng of Kirkelane in Denmark, and this Curan Conquerede
his wifes landes, and slow kyng Edelf, that was his wifes vncle,
and had alle here lande, as in a-nother stede hit [MS. but] telleth
more oponly, and he ne regnede but iij. yeer, for Saxones and
Danoys him quelde, and that was grete harme to al Britaigne, and
Britouns bere him to Stonehenge, and ther thei him interede with
mochel honour and solempnite.'
"It must not be concealed, that in some copies, viz. in MSS. Harl. 1337,
6251, Digby 185, Hatton 50, Ashmole 791 and 793, the story is altogether
omitted, and Conan made to succeed to Arthur. In those copies also of
the English Polychronicon, the latter part of which resembles the above
Chronicle, the passage is not found." "Among the Harl. MSS. (No. 63) is
a copy of the same Chronicle in an abridged form, in which the name of
_Goldesburghe_ is substituted for that of Argentille." Sir F. Madden now
adds--that "the story occurs also in some interpolated copies of Higden
(the Latin text, viz. MSS. Harl. 655, Cott. Jul. E. 8, Reg. 13 E. 1). In
an earlier form it is found in a Latin Chronicle of the 13th century,
MS. Cott. Dom. A. 2, fol. 130."
[Footnote 13: I omit the collations with MSS. Harl. 24 and 753.
Sir F. Madden proves that this English version was made A.D. 1435,
by _John Maundevile_, rector of Burnham Thorp in Norfolk.]
§ 14. "It was, in all probability, to this Chronicle also, in its
original form, that Thomas Gray, the author of the _Scala Cronica_ (or
_Scale Cronicon_), a Chronicle in French prose, composed between the
years 1355 and 1362, is indebted for his knowledge of the tale." The
original MS. is No. 132 in the library of Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge, and was edited by Stevenson for the Maitland Club in 1836.
The passage relative to Havelok is translated by Leland, _Collectanea_,
vol. i. pt. 2, p. 511. This account resembles the others, and involves
no new point of interest.
§ 15. I may here introduce the remark, that the story is also to be
found in the _Eulogium Historiarum_, ed. Haydon, 1860, vol. ii. p. 378.
I here quote the passage at length, as it is not referred to in Sir F.
Madden's edition. The date of the Chronicle is about 1366. For various
readings, see Haydon's edition.
Non enim est prætermittendum de quodam Dano generoso ætate juvenili
florente, qui tempore regis Edelfridi casualiter Angliam adiit, qui
a propria patria expulsus per quendam ducem falsissimum, cui pater
ejus illum commiserat ipso moriente et ducem rogavit ut puerum
nutriret usque dum posset Denemarchiæ regnum viriliter gubernare.
Dux vero malitiam machinans juvenem hæredem rectum, Hauelok nomine,
voluit occidisse. Puer vero comperiens aufugit per latibula usque
dum quidam Anglicus et mercator in illis partibus adventaret; nomen
autem mercatoris Grym vocitabatur. Hauelok autem, Grym rogans ut
ipsum in Angliam transvectaret, ipse autem annuens, puerum secum
conduxit et cum eo per aliquot tempus apud Grymesby morabatur.
Tandem ipsum ad curiam regis Edelfridi conduxit et ibi in coquina
regis moratus est.
Rex autem Edelfridus quamdam habuit sororem nomine Orwen et illam
maritavit regi Athelberto, quod conjugium inter duos reges vinculum
amoris catenavit. Rex autem Athelbert terram citra Trentam cum regio
diademate occupavit, cum terra de Northfolk' et de Southfolk' et eis
adjacentibus. Rex vero Edelfrid comitatum Lincolniæ et Lyndeseye et
eis spectantibus. Ante maritagium puellæ Orwen illi duo reges semper
debellabant, post matrimonium factum nulla fuit divisio, nec in
familia inter eos nec in dominio.
Rex vero Ethelbert de uxore sua quamdam filiam genuit, nomine
Argentile, pulcherrimam valde. Athelberto obiente, vel ante mortem
ejus, regem rogavit Edelfridum ut filiam suam homini fortissimo ac
validiori totius sui regni in conjugium copularet, nihil doli vel
mali machinans.
Rex autem Adelfrid omnem malitiam ingeminans de conjugio puellæ
malitiose disponens, cogitans se habere unum lixam in coquina sua
qui omnes homines regni sui in vigore et fortitudine superabat, et
juxta votum patris puellæ ad illum hominem fortissimum illam
generosam juvenculam toro maritali copulavit, ob cupiditatem regni
puellæ ipsam ita enormiter maritabat. Hauelok in patria Danemarchiæ
et Argentile in Britannia æquali sorte ad custodiendum deputati
sunt, totum tamen nutu Divino cedebat eis in honorem. Nam Hauelok
post paucos annos regnum Britanniæ adoptus est, et a Saxonibus
tandem occisus et apud le Stonhenge est sepultus. Pater ejus
Kirkeban vocabatur.
This agrees closely with the accounts given above (§ 12 and § 13). The
chief point to be noticed is that this account identifies Edelfrid with
the Æthelfrith son of Æthelric who was king of the Northumbrians from
A.D. 593 to 617, according to the computation of the A.S. Chronicle, and
who was succeeded by Eadwine son of Ælle, who drove out the æthelings or
sons of Æthelfrith. It may be remarked further, that the same Æthelfrith
is called Æluric by La[gh]amon, who gives him a very bad character; see
La[gh]amon, ed. Madden, vol. iii. p. 195.
§ 16. The story is also mentioned by Henry de Knyghton, a canon of
Leicester abbey, whose history concludes with the year 1395. But his is
no fresh evidence, as it is evidently borrowed from the French Chronicle
of Rauf de Boun; see § 7. It is also alluded to in a blundering manner
in a short historical compilation extending from the time of Brutus to
the reign of Henry VI., and preserved in MS. Cotton Calig. A. 2. At fol.
107 _b_ is the passage-- "Ethelwolde, qui generavit filiam de (_sic_)
Haueloke de Denmarke, per quem Danes per cccc. annos postea fecerunt
clameum Anglie." Some omission after the word _de_ has turned the
passage into nonsense; but it is noteworthy as expressing the claim of
the Danes to the English crown by right of descent from Havelok; a claim
which is more clearly expressed in MS. Harl. 63, in which the King of
Denmark is represented as sending a herald to Æthelstan (A.D. 927)-- "to
witte wheder he wold fynde a man to fight w{i}t{h} Colbrande[14] for the
righ[t]e of the kyngdom Northumbr{e}, that the Danes had claymed byfore
by the title of kyng Haueloke, that wedded Goldesburghe the kyngis
daughter of Northumbr{e}" --fol. 19.[15] Four hundred years before this
date would intimate some year early in the sixth century. Finally, the
story is found at a later period in Caxton's Chronicle (A.D. 1480) as
above intimated in § 12; whence it was adopted by Warner, and inserted
into his poem entitled Albion's England; book iv. chap. 20, published in
1586. Warner called it the tale of "Argentile and Curan;" and in this
ballad-shape it was reprinted in Percy's Reliques of Ancient Poetry
(vol. ii. p. 261; ed. 1812) with the same title. Not long after, in
1617, another author, William Webster, published a larger poem in
six-line stanzas; but this is a mere paraphrase of Warner. The title
is-- "The most pleasant and delightful historie of Curan, a prince of
Danske, and the fayre princesse Argentile," &c. John Fabyan, in his
Concordance of Historyes, first printed in 1516, alludes to the two
kings Adelbryght and Edill, only to dismiss the "longe processe"
concerning them, as not supported by sufficient authority. See p. 82 of
the reprint by Ellis, 4to, 1811.
[Footnote 14: Colbrande is the giant defeated by Guy in the
Ballad of "Guy and Colebrande." See _Percy Folio MS._; ed. Hales
and Furnivall, vol. ii. p. 528, where _Auelocke_ means _Anlaf_.]
[Footnote 15: Quoted in a note in Sir F. Madden's preface,
p. xxiii.]
§ 17. The only other two sources whence any further light can be thrown
upon our subject are the traditions of Denmark and Grimsby. A letter
addressed by Sir F. Madden to Professor Rask elicited a reply which was
equivalent to saying that next to nothing is known about it in Denmark.
This seems to be the right place to mention a small book of 80 pages,
published at Copenhagen in the present year (1868), and entitled "Sagnet
om Havelok Danske; fortalt af Kristian Köster." It contains
(1) a version, in Danish prose, of the English poem; (2) a version of
the same story, following the French texts of the Arundel and Royal
MSS.; and (3) some elucidations of the legend. The author proposes a
theory that Havelok is really the Danish king Amlet, i.e. Hamlet; but I
have not space here to state all his arguments. As far as I follow them,
some of the chief ones are these; that Havelok ought to be found in the
list of Danish kings;[16] that Hamlet's simulation of folly or madness
is paralleled by Havelok's behaviour, as expressed in ll. 945-954 of our
poem; and that both Hamlet and Havelok succeeded in fulfilling the
revenge which they had long cherished secretly. But I am not much
persuaded by these considerations, for, even granting some resemblance
in the names,[17] the resemblance in the stories is very slight. But I
must refer the reader to the book itself.
[Footnote 16: So then ought Hamlet; but the editor of Saxo
Grammaticus says, "in antiquioribus regum Daniæ genealogiis
Amlethus non occurrit." See Saxo Gram. ed. Müller, Havniæ, 1839;
end of lib. iii. and beginning of lib. iv.; also the note on
p. 132 of the Notæ Uberiores. The idea that Havelock is Amlet is
to be found in Grundtvig, North. Myth. 1832, p. 565.]
[Footnote 17: Havelok [_or_ Hanelock, as it is sometimes read]
is quite as like Anlaf, whence the blunder noticed in note 1,
p. xviii. In the form Hablok, it is not unlike _Blecca_, who was a
great man in _Lindesey_ soon after the days of _Æthelberht_ of
Kent; see Saxon Chronicle, An. DCXXVII.]
§ 18. Turning however to local traditions, we find that Camden briefly
alludes to the story in a contemptuous manner (p. 353; ed. 8vo, Lond.
1587); but Gervase Holles is far from being disposed to regard it as
fabulous. In his MSS. collections for Lincolnshire, preserved in MS.
Harl. 6829, he thus speaks of the story we are examining.[18]
"And it will not be amisse, to say something concerning y^e Common
tradition of her first founder Grime, as y^e inhabitants (with a
Catholique faith) name him. The tradition it thus. _Grime_ (say
they) a poore Fisherman (as he was launching into y^e Riuer for fish
in his little boate vpon Humber) espyed not far from him another
little boate, empty (as he might conceaue) which by y^e fauour of
y^e wynde & tyde still approached nearer & nearer vnto him. He
betakes him to his oares, & meetes itt, wherein he founde onely a
Childe wrapt in swathing clothes, purposely exposed (as it should
seeme) to y^e pittylesse [rage] of y^e wilde & wide Ocean. He moued
with pitty, takes itt home, & like a good foster-father carefully
nourisht itt, & endeauoured to nourishe it in his owne occupation:
but y^e childe contrarily was wholy deuoted to exercises of
actiuity, & when he began to write man, to martiall sports, & at
length by his signall valour obteyned such renowne, y^t he marryed
y^e King of England's daughter, & last of all founde who was his
true Father, & that he was Sonne to y^e King of Denmarke; & for y^e
comicke close of all; that _Haueloke_ (for such was his name)
exceedingly aduanced & enriched his foster-father Grime, who thus
enriched, builded a fayre Towne neare the place where Hauelocke was
founde, & named it Grimesby. Thus say some: others differ a little
in y^e circumstances, as namely, that Grime was not a Fisherman, but
a Merchant, & that Hauelocke should be preferred to y^e King's
kitchin, & there liue a longe tyme as a Scullion: but however y^e
circumstances differ, they all agree in y^e consequence, as
concerning y^e Towne's foundation, to which (sayth y^e story)
Hauelocke y^e Danish prince, afterward graunted many immunityes.
This is y^e famous Tradition concerning Grimsby w^ch learned Mr.
Cambden gives so little creditt to, that he thinkes it onely _illis
dignissima, qui anilibus fabulis noctem solent protrudere_."
And again, after shewing that _by_ is the Danish for _town_, and quoting
a passage about Havelock's father being named Gunter, which may be found
in Weever (Ancient Funeral Monuments, fol. Lond. 1631, p. 749), he
proceeds:
"that Hauelocke did sometymes reside in Grimsby, may be gathered
from a great blew Boundry-stone, lying at y^e East ende of
Briggowgate, which retaines y^e name of _Hauelock's-Stone_ to this
day. Agayne y^e great priuiledges & immunityes, that this Towne hath
in Denmarke aboue any other in England (as freedome from Toll, & y^e
rest) may fairely induce a Beleife, that some preceding favour, or
good turne called on this remuneration. But lastly (which proofe I
take to be _instar omnium_) the Common Seale of y^e Towne, & that a
most auncient one," &c. [Here follows a description of the Seal.]
"The singular fact," adds Sir F. Madden, "alluded to by Holles, of the
Burgesses of Grimsby being free from toll at the Port of Elsineur, in
Denmark, is confirmed by the Rev. G. Oliver, in his Monumental
Antiquities of Grimsby, 8vo, Hull, 1825, who is inclined from that, and
other circumstances, to believe the story is not so totally without
foundation." There is also an absurd local story that the church at
Grimsby, which has now but one turret, formerly had four, three of which
were kicked down by Grim in his anxiety to destroy some hostile vessels.
The first fell among the enemy's fleet; the second dropped in
Wellowgate, and is now Havelock's stone; the third fell within the
churchyard, but the fourth his strength failed to move. Perhaps amongst
the most interesting notices of the story are the following words by Sir
Henry Havelock, whose family seems to have originally resided in Durham.
His own account, however, is this. "My father, William Havelock,
descended from a family which formerly resided at Grimsby in
Lincolnshire, and was himself born at Guisborough in Yorkshire."[19] And
it may at least be said with perfect truth, that if the name of
_Havelock_ was not famous formerly, it is famous now.
[Footnote 18: His account has been printed in the _Topographer_,
V. i. p. 241. sq. 8vo, 1789. We follow, as usual, the MS. itself,
p. 1.]
[Footnote 19: Quoted in Brock's Biography of Sir H. Havelock,
1858; p. 9.]
§ 19. The last evidence for the legend is the still-existing seal of the
corporation of Great Grimsby. The engraving of this seal, as it appears
in the present edition, was made from a copy kindly furnished to the
E.E.T.S. by the Mayor of Grimsby, and I here subjoin a description of
it, communicated to me by J. Hopkin, Esq., Jun., of Grimsby, which was
first printed, in a slightly different form, in Notes and Queries, 2nd
Series, vol. xi. p. 41; see also p. 216.
"The ancient Town Seal of Great Grimsby is engraven on a circular
piece of brass not very thick; and on the back, which is rather
arched, is a small projecting piece of brass, placed as a substitute
for a handle, in order when taking an impression the more easily to
detach the matrix from the Wax. This seal is in an excellent state
of preservation, and is inscribed in Saxon characters 'Sigillvm
Comunitatis Grimebye' and represents thereon Gryme ('Gryem') who by
tradition is reported to have been a native of Souldburg in Denmark,
where he gained a precarious livelihood by fishing and piracy; but
having, as is supposed, during the reign of Ethelbert,[20] been
accidentally driven into the Humber by a furious storm, he landed on
the Lincolnshire Coast near Grimsby, he being at this time miserably
poor and almost destitute of the common necessaries of life; for
Leland represents this 'poor fisschar' as being so very needy that
he was not 'able to kepe his sunne Cuaran for poverty.' Gryme,
finding a capacious haven adapted to his pursuits, built himself a
house and commenced and soon succeeded in establishing a very
lucrative Trade with Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Other Merchants
having in process of time settled near him, attracted by the
commercial advantages offered by this excellent Harbour, they
jointly constructed convenient appendages for extensive Trade, and
the colony soon rose into considerable importance, and became known
at an early period by the name of Grimsby. For not only was Grimsby
constituted a borough so early as the seventh century, but Peter of
Langtoft speaks of it as a frontier Town and the boundary of a
Kingdom erected by the conquests of Egbert in the year 827, which he
states included all that portion of the Island which lay between
'the maritime Towns of Grymsby and Dover.' So that even at that
period, Grimsby must have been a place of peculiar strength and
importance. Gryme is represented on the seal as a man of gigantic
stature with comparatively short hair, a shaven chin, and a
moustache, holding in his right hand a drawn sword and bearing on
his left arm a circular shield with an ornate boss and rim. The
sleeveless tunic above his under vest is most probably the panzar or
panzara of the Danes. Between his feet is a Conic object, possibly
intended for a helmet, as it resembles the chapelle-de-fer worn by
William Rufus on his Great Seal, and which in the laws of Gula is
distinguished as the Steel hufe. On the right hand of Gryme stands
his protégé Haveloc ('Habloc'), whom, during one of his mercantile
excursions soon after his arrival in Lincolnshire, Gryme had the
good fortune to save from imminent danger of Shipwreck, and who
proved to be the Son of Gunter, King of Denmark, and who was
therefore conveyed to the British Court, where he subsequently
received in marriage Goldburgh, the Daughter of the British
Sovereign. Above Gryme is represented a hand, being emblematical of
the hand of providence by which Haveloc was preserved, and near the
hand is the star which marks the point where the inscription begins
and ends. Haveloc made such a favourable representation of his
preserver at the British and Danish Courts, that he procured for him
many honours and privileges. From the British Monarch Gryme, who had
already realised an abundance of wealth, received a charter, and was
made the chief governor of Grimsby; and the Danish Sovereign granted
to the Town an immunity (which is still possessed by the Burgesses
of Grimsby) from all Tolls at the Port of Elsineur. Gryme afterwards
lived in Grimsby like a petty prince in his Hereditary Dominions.
Above Haveloc is represented a crown and in his right hand is a
battle axe, the favourite weapon of the Northmen, and in his right
hand is a ring which he is presenting to the British Princess
Goldburgh ('Goldebvrgh'), who stands on the left side of Gryme and
whose right hand is held towards the Ring. Over her head is a Regal
Diadem, and in her left hand is a Sceptre. Sir F. Madden states that
it is certain that this seal is at least as old as the time of
Edward I. (and therefore contemporaneous with the MS.) as the legend
is written in a character which after the year 1300 fell into
disuse, and was succeeded by the black letter, or _Gothic_."
[Footnote 20: Æthelberht of Kent reigned from A.D. 560-616 (56
years).]
§ 20. SKETCH OF THE STORY OF "Le Lai d'Aueloc."[21]
It is my intention to offer some remarks on the probable sources of the
legend, and to fix a conjectural date for the existence of Havelok. But
it is obviously convenient that a sketch of the story should first be
given. It appears, however, that the resemblance between the French and
English versions is by no means very close, and it will be necessary to
give separate abstracts of them. I begin with the French version, in
which I follow the Norfolk MS. rather than the abridgment by Gaimar.
I have already said that the former is printed in Sir F. Madden's
edition, and that it was reprinted by M. Michel with the title "Lai
d'Havelok le Danois," Paris, 1833, and by Mr Wright for the Caxton
Society in 1850.
The Britons made a lay concerning King Havelok, who is surnamed
Cuaran. His father was Gunter, King of the Danes. Arthur crossed the
sea, and invaded Denmark. Gunter perished by the treason of Hodulf,
who gained the kingdom, and held it of Arthur. Gunter had a fine
castle, where his wife and son were guarded, being committed to the
protection of Grim. The child was but seven years old; but ever as
he slept, an odorous flame issued from his mouth. Hodulf sought
to kill him, but Grim prepared a ship, and furnished it with
provisions, wherein he placed the queen and the child, and set
sail from Denmark. On their voyage they encountered pirates
("outlaghes"), who killed them all after a hard fight, excepting
Grim, who was an acquaintance of theirs, and Grim's wife and
children. Havelok also was saved. They at last arrived at the haven,
afterwards named "Grimesbi" from Grim. Grim there resumed his old
trade, a fisherman's, and a town grew up round his hut, which was
called Grimsby. The child grew up, and waxed strong. One day Grim
said to him, "Son, you will never thrive as a fisherman; take your
brothers with you, and seek service amongst the King's servants." He
was soon well apparelled, and repaired with his two foster-brothers
to Nicole [Lincoln].[22] Now at that time there was a king named
Alsi, who ruled over all Nicole and Lindesie;[23] but the country
southward was governed by another king, named Ekenbright, who had
married Alsi's sister Orewen. These two had one only daughter, named
Argentille. Ekenbright, falling ill, committed Argentille to the
care of Alsi, till she should be of age to be married to the
strongest man that can be found. At Ekenbright's death, Alsi reigned
over both countries, holding his court at Nicole. Havelok, on his
arrival there, was employed to carry water and cut wood, and to
perform all menial offices requiring great strength. He was named
Cuaran, which means--in the British language--a scullion. Argentille
soon arrived at marriageable age, and Alsi determined to marry her
to Cuaran, which would sufficiently fulfil her father's wish--Cuaran
being confessedly the strongest man in those parts. To this marriage
he compelled her to consent, hoping thereby to disgrace her for
ever. Havelok was unwilling that his wife should perceive the
marvellous flame, but soon forgot this, and ere long fell asleep.
Then had Argentille a strange vision--that a savage bear and some
foxes attacked Cuaran, but dogs and boars defended him. A boar
having killed the bear, the foxes cried for quarter from Cuaran, who
commanded them to be bound. Then he would have put to sea, but the
sea rose so high that he was terrified. Next she beheld two lions,
at seeing which she was frightened, and she and Cuaran climbed a
tree to avoid them; but the lions submitted themselves to him, and
called him their lord. Then a great cry was raised, whereat she
awoke, and beheld the miraculous flame. "Sir," she exclaimed, "you
burn!" But he reassured her, and, having heard her dream, said that
it would soon come true. The next day, however, she again told her
dream to a chamberlain, her friend, who said that he well knew a
holy hermit who could explain it. The hermit explained to Argentille
that Cuaran must be of royal lineage. "He will be king," he said,
"and you a queen. Ask him concerning his parentage. Remember also to
repair to his native place." On being questioned, Cuaran replied
that he was born at Grimsby; that Grim was his father, and Saburc
his mother. "Then let us go to Grimsby," she replied. Accompanied by
his two foster-brothers, they came to Grimsby; but Grim and Saburc
were both dead. They found there, however, a daughter of Grim's,
named Kelloc, who had married a tradesman of that town. Up to this
time Havelok had not known his true parentage, but Kelloc thought it
was now time to tell him, and said: "Your father was Gunter, the
King of the Danes, whom Hodulf slew. Hodulf obtained the kingdom as
a grant from Arthur. Grim fled with you, and saved your life; but
your mother perished at sea. Your name is HAVELOK. My husband will
convey you to Denmark, where you must inquire for a lord named
'Sigar l'estal;' and take with you my two brothers." So Kelloc's
husband conveyed them to Denmark, and advised Havelok to go to Sigar
and show himself and his wife, as then he would be asked who his
wife is. They went to the city of the seneschal, the before-named
Sigar, where they craved a night's lodging, and were courteously
entertained. But as they retired to a lodging for the night, six men
attacked them, who had been smitten with the beauty of Argentille.
Havelok defended himself with an axe which he found, and slew five,
whereupon the sixth fled. Havelok and his party fled away for refuge
to a monastery, which was soon attacked by the townsmen who had
heard of the combat. Havelok _mounted the tower_, and defended
himself bravely, _casting down a huge stone on his enemies_.[24] The
news soon reached the ears of Sigar, who hastened to see what the
uproar was about. Beholding Havelok fixedly, he called to mind the
form and appearance of Gunter, and asked Havelok of his parentage.
Havelok replied that Grim had told him he was by birth a Dane, and
that his mother perished at sea; and ended by briefly relating his
subsequent adventures. Then Sigar asked him his name. "My name is
Havelok," he said, "and my other name is Cuaran." Then the seneschal
took him home, and determined to watch for the miraculous flame,
which he soon perceived, and was assured that Havelok was the true
heir. Therefore he gathered a great host of his friends, and sent
for the horn which none but the true heir could sound, promising a
ring to any one who could blow it. When all had failed, it was given
to Havelok, who blew it loud and long, and was joyfully recognized
and acknowledged to be the true King. Then with a great army he
attacked Hodulf the usurper, whom he slew with his own hand. Thus
was Havelok made King of Denmark.
But after he had reigned four years, his wife incited him to return
to England. With a great number of ships he sailed there, and
arrived at Carleflure;[25] and sent messengers to Alsi, demanding
the inheritance of Argentille. Alsi was indeed astonished at such a
demand as coming from a scullion, and offered him battle. The hosts
met at Theford,[26] and the battle endured till nightfall without a
decisive result. But Argentille craftily advised her lord to support
his dead men by stakes, to increase the apparent number of his army;
and the next day Alsi, deceived by this device, treated for peace,
and yielded up to his former ward all the land, from Holland[27] to
Gloucester. Alsi had been so sorely wounded that he lived but
fifteen days longer. Thus was Havelok king over Lincoln and Lindsey,
and reigned over them for twenty years. Such is the lay of Cuaran.
[Footnote 21: For this latter portion of the Preface I am
entirely responsible.]
[Footnote 22: _Nicole_ is a French inversion of Lincoln. It is
not uncommon.]
[Footnote 23: The northern part of Lincolnshire is called
_Lindsey_.]
[Footnote 24: Hence the obvious origin of the legend of
"Havelok's stone," and the local tradition about Grim's casting
down stones from the tower of Grimsby church.]
[Footnote 25: Possibly Saltfleet, suggests Mr Haigh. Such, at
least, is the position required by the circumstances.]
[Footnote 26: In the Durham MS. it is Tiedfort, i.e. Tetford,
not far from Horncastle, in Lincolnshire.]
[Footnote 27: A name given to the S.E. part of Lincolnshire.]
§ 21. The chief points to be noticed in Gaimar's abridgment are the few
additional particulars to be gleaned from it. We there find that
Havelok's mother was _Alvive_, a daughter of King _Gaifer_; that the
King of Nicole and Lindeseie was a _Briton_, and was named Edelsie; that
his sister, named Orwain, was married to Adelbrit, a _Dane_, who ruled
over Norfolk; and that Edelsie and Adelbrit lived in the days of
Costentin (Constantine), who succeeded Arthur. It is also said that the
usurper Hodulf was brother to Aschis, who is the Achilles of Geoffrey of
Monmouth. Another statement, that Havelok's kingdom extended from
Holland to _Colchester_, seems to be an improvement upon "from Holland
to _Gloucester_."
The words of Mr Petrie, in his remarks upon the lay in Monumenta
Historica Britannica, vol. i., may be quoted here. "Although both
[French versions] have the same story in substance, and often contain
lines exactly alike, yet, besides the different order in which the
incidents are narrated, each has occasionally circumstances wanting in
the other, and such too, it should seem, as would leave the story
incomplete unless supplied from the other copy. Thus, the visit to the
hermit, which is omitted in Gaimar, was probably in the original
romance; for without it Argentille's dream tells for nothing; and in the
Arundel copy there is a particular account of Haveloc's defence of a
tower by hurling stones on his assailants, which in Gaimar is so
obscurely alluded to as to be hardly intelligible. On the other hand,
instead of the description of the extraordinary virtues of Sygar's ring
in Gaimar, it is merely said in the Arundel copy that Sygar would give
his _anel d'or_ to whoever could sound the horn; and, to omit other
instances, a festival is described in Gaimar on the authority of
_l'Estorie_, of which no notice whatever occurs in the Arundel MS."
§ 22. SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH POEM.
The "Lay of Havelok" has been admirably paraphrased by Professor Morley,
in his "English Writers," vol. i. pp. 459-467, a book which should be in
every reader's hands, and which should by all means be consulted. I only
intend here to give a briefer outline, for the sake of comparing the
main features of our poem with those of the French _Lai_.
Hear the tale of Havelok! There was once a good king in England,
named Athelwold, renowned and beloved for his justice. He had but
one child, a daughter named Goldborough. Knowing that his end was
approaching, he sent for all his lords to assemble at Winchester,
and there committed Goldborough to the care of Godrich, the earl of
Cornwall; directing him to see her married to the strongest and
fairest man whom he could find. But Godrich imprisoned her at Dover,
and resolved to seize her inheritance for his own son. At that time
there was also a King of Denmark, named Birkabeyn, who had one son,
Havelok, and two daughters, Swanborough and Helfled. At the approach
of death, he committed these to the care of Earl Godard. But Godard
killed the two girls, and only spared Havelok because he did not
like to kill him with his own hand. He therefore hired a fisherman,
named Grim, to drown Havelok at sea. But Grim perceived, as Havelok
slept, a miraculous light shining round the lad, whereby he knew
that the child was the true heir, and would one day be king. In
order to avoid Godard, Grim fitted up a ship, and provisioned it,
and with his wife Leve, his three sons, his two daughters, and
Havelok, put out to sea. They landed in Lindesey at the month of the
Humber, at a place afterwards named Grimsby after Grim. Grim worked
at his old trade, a fisherman's, and Havelok carried about the fish
for sale. Then arose a great dearth in the land, and Havelok went
out to seek his own livelihood, walking to Lincoln barefoot. He was
hired as a porter by the earl of Cornwall's cook, and drew water and
cut wood for the earl's kitchen. One day some men met to contend in
games and to "put the stone." At the cook's command, Havelok also
put the stone, hurling it further than any of the rest.[28] Godrich,
hearing the praises of Havelok's strength, at once resolved to
perform his oath by causing him to marry Goldborough; and carried
his design into execution. As goon as the pair were married, Havelok
suddenly quitted Lincoln with his wife, and returned to Grimsby,
where he found that Grim was dead, but that his five children are
yet alive. At night, Goldborough perceived a light shining round
about Havelok, and observed a cross upon his shoulder. At the same
time she heard an angel's voice, telling her of good fortune to
come. Then he awoke, and told her a dream; how he had dreamt that
all Denmark and England became his own. She encouraged him, and
urged him to set sail for Denmark at once. He accordingly called to
him Grim's three sons, and narrated to them his own history, and
Godard's treachery, asking them to accompany him to Denmark. To this
they assented, and sailed with him and Goldborough to Denmark. There
he sought out a former friend of his father's, Earl Ubbe, who
invited him and his friends to a sumptuous feast. After the feast,
Havelok and Goldborough and Grim's sons went to the house of one
Bernard Brown, whose house was that night attacked by sixty thieves.
By dint of great prowess, the friends at length slew all their sixty
assailants, and Ubbe was so amazed at Havelok's valour that he
resolved to dub him a knight, and invited him to sleep in his own
castle. At night, he peeped into Havelok's chamber, and beheld the
marvellous light, and saw a bright cross on his neck. Rejoiced at
heart, he did homage to Havelok, and commanded all his friends and
dependents to do the same. He also dubbed him knight, and proclaimed
him King. With six thousand men he set out to attack Godard, whom he
defeated and made prisoner, and afterwards caused to be flayed,
drawn, and hung. Then Havelok swore that he would establish at
Grimsby a priory of black monks, to pray for Grim's soul; and
Godrich, having heard that Havelok has invaded England, raised a
great army against him. An indecisive combat took place between Ubbe
and Godrich, but a more decisive one between Godrich and Havelok;
for Havelok cut off his foe's hand and made him prisoner. Then the
English submitted to Goldborough, and acknowledged her as queen; but
Godrich was condemned and burnt. Havelok rewarded both his own
friends and the English nobles; for he caused Earl Reyner of Chester
to marry Gunild, Grim's daughter, and Bertram, formerly Godrich's
cook, to marry Levive, another of Grim's daughters; bestowing upon
Bertram the earldom of Cornwall. Then were Havelok and Goldborough
crowned at London, and a feast was given that lasted forty days. The
kingdom of Denmark was bestowed upon Ubbe, who held it of King
Havelok. Havelok and Goldborough lived to the age of a hundred
years, and their reign lasted for sixty years in England. They had
fifteen children, who were all kings and queens. Such is the _geste_
of Havelok and Goldborough.
[Footnote 28: Here again is an allusion to "Havelok's stone."]
§ 23. POSSIBLE DATE OF HAVELOK'S REIGN.
The various allusions to the story of Havelok already cited naturally
lead us to consider the question as to what date we should refer such
circumstances of the story as may have some foundation in truth, or such
circumstances as may have originated the story. I do not look upon this
as altogether a hopeless or profitless inquiry, for it seems to me that
a theory may be constructed which will readily and easily fit in with
most of the statements of our authorities. In the first place, to place
Havelok's father in the time of Alfred, as is done by Peter de Langtoft
and his translators, is absurd, and evidently due to the confusion
between the names of Gunter and Godrum or Guthrum. We may even adduce
Langtoft's evidence against himself, as he alludes to Grimsby as being
the boundary of Egbert's kingdom; and indeed, the mere fact of its being
a British lay points to a time before the establishment of the
Heptarchy. As already suggested in § 16, some of the authorities point
to the sixth century. But the evidence of the French poem and of Gaimar
points still more steadily to a similar early date. There we find Gunter
appearing as the enemy, not of Alfred, but of Arthur. The French prose
chronicle of the Brute places Adelbright and Edelfi after the death of
Constantine, and it is clear that there is some close connection between
the British lay of Havelok and the British Chronicle. The _Godrich_ of
the English version is the _Alsi_ of the French poem, the _Edelsi_ of
Gaimar, the _Adelfrid_[29] or _Edelfrid_ of the Eulogium Historiarum,
the _Elfroi_ of Wace, the _Æluric_ of La[gh]amon, the _Æthelfrith_ who
succeeded to the throne of Northumbria A.D. 593, according to the Saxon
Chronicle. The _Athelwold_ of the English version is the _Adelbrict_ of
Gaimar, the _Ekenbright_ of the French poem, the _Athelbert_ of the
Eulogium Historiarum, the _Aldebar_ of Wace, and the _Æthelbert_ of
La[gh]amon, i.e. no other than the celebrated _Æthelberht_ of Kent, who
was baptized by St Augustine A.D. 596, according to the Saxon Chronicle.
This is the right clue to the _names_, from which, when once obtained,
the rest follows easily. The variations between the English and French
versions are very great, and it is clear that each poet proceeded much
as poets are accustomed to do. Taking a legend as the general guide or
thread of a narrative, it is the simplest and easiest plan to dress it
up after one's own fashion, and to draw upon the materials that are
supplied by the _general surroundings_ of the story. I feel confident
that the narrators of the Lay of Havelok must have used materials not
much unlike those used by La[gh]amon, and a mere comparison of the
French and English lays with La[gh]amon will amply suffice to elucidate
this. Æluric is first mentioned at p. 195 of vol. iii. of La[gh]amon, as
edited by Sir F. Madden; if we allow ourselves a margin on both sides of
this, we may find many things akin to the lay of Havelok between pages
150 and 282 of that volume, as I will now shew. The character of the
good king Athelwold is taken from that of Æthelberht of Kent, and his
love of justice may remind us of the ancient collection of laws which
are still extant as having been made by that king. His extensive rule,
such as is also attributed to Godrich and Havelok, may point to the
title of _Bretwalda_, which Æthelberht so long coveted, and at last
obtained. Our poet, in describing Birkabeyn, repeats this character so
exactly, and makes the circumstances of the deaths of Athelwold and
Birkabeyn so similar, that they are almost indistinguishable; a fault
which he doubles by repeating the character of Godrich in describing
that of Godard. Both of these answer to La[gh]amon's Æluric, who was
"the wickedest of all kings" (La[gh]. iii. 195). So far, perhaps, the
connection of the various stories is not very evident, but I will now
mention an obvious coincidence. The quarrel and reconciliation between
Athelbert and Edelfrid, as told in the Eulogium Historiarum, &c.,
exactly answers to the quarrel and reconciliation between Cadwan and
Æluric as told in La[gh]amon (vol. iii. p. 205); where Cadwan has come
forward in place of Æthelbert, who has by this time dropped out of
La[gh]amon's narrative. Again, the Gunter or Gurmond who was Havelok's
father reminds us of the Gurmund of La[gh]amon (p. 156), who is
curiously described as king of Africa; but the name is Danish. The
character of Grim is fairly paralleled by that of Brian, who makes
sea-voyages, and goes about as a merchant (La[gh]amon, iii. 232). In
several respects Havelok may have been drawn from Cadwalan, whose
gallant attempts to gain the king of Northumberland are recorded in
La[gh]amon (iii. 216-254); his opponent being Edwin, who has replaced
Ethelfrid as La[gh]amon's narrative proceeds. At last he overthrows him
and slays him in the great battle of Heathfield or Hatfield, which took
place, according to the Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 633. This great battle
resembles the decisive one between Havelok and Godrich. As Cadwalan was
well supported by his liegeman Penda (La[gh]amon, iii. 251), so was
Havelok by Ubbe. Again, Cadwalan marries Helen, whom he found at
--þan castle of Deoure
on þere sæ oure; (La[gh]amon, iii. 250),
which reminds us of Havelok's wife Goldborough, who was imprisoned at
--doure
þat standeth on þe seis oure; (l. 320).
The very name Helen, though not the name of Havelok's wife, was that of
his mother, who was killed by the pirates. For the connection between
La[gh]amon's Helen and pirates, see Sir F. Madden's note, vol. iii.
p. 428. There is a most curious contradiction in the English lay about
Havelok's religion; in l. 2520 he is a devout Christian, but in l. 2580
Godrich speaks of him as being a cruel pagan. Now it was just about this
very time that Paulinus preached in Lindsey, "where the first that
believed was a powerful man called _Blecca_, with all his followers"
(A.S. Chron. ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 21; A.D. 627). Havelok, according
to some, was buried at Stonehenge; but so was Constantine (La[gh]amon,
iii. 151). A dearth in mentioned in the English lay (l. 824); cf.
La[gh]amon, iii. 279. And I may here add another coincidence, of an
interesting but certainly of a very circuitous nature. A close
examination of the Lay of King Horn shews that there is no real
connection between the story therein contained and that of Havelok. Yet
there is a connection after a sort. Though by different authors, and in
different metre, both lays are found in English in the same MS.; both
versions belong to the same date; both are from French versions, written
by Englishmen from British sources; and now, if we compare King Horn
with the very part of La[gh]amon now under consideration, there is at
once seen to be a most exact resemblance in one point. The story of the
ring given by Horn to Rymenhild (K. Horn, ed. Lumby, ll. 1026-1210) is
remarkably like that of the ring whereby Brian is recognized by his
sister (La[gh]amon, iii. 234-238). But it is hardly worth while to
pursue the subject further. It may suffice to suppose that the period of
the existence of Havelok and Grim may be referred to the times of
Æthelberht of Kent and Æthelfrith and Eadwine of Northumbria.[30] It is
exceedingly probable that Havelok was never more than a chief or a petty
prince, and whether he was a Danish or only a British enemy of the
Angles is not of very great importance. If, however, more exact dates be
required, they may be found in "The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons,"
by Daniel P. Haigh, London, 8vo, 1861, pp. 363-367; where the following
dates are suggested. Havelok's father slain, A.D. 487; his expedition to
Denmark, A.D. 507; his reign in England, A.D. 511-531, or a little
later. These dates follow a system which is here about 16 years earlier
than the dates in the A.S. Chronicle. His results are obtained from
totally different considerations. On the whole, let us place Havelok in
the _sixth_ century, at _some_ period of his life.
[Footnote 29: Hence, by confusion, the placing of Havelok's
father in the time of _Ælfred_.]
[Footnote 30: Or, as I should prefer to say, earlier than those
times. The two kings spoken of in the Lay may have had names
somewhat similar to these, which may have been replaced by the
more familiar names here mentioned.]
§ 24. It is, perhaps, worthy of a passing remark that some of the
circumstances in the Lay may have been suggested by the romantic story
of Eadwine of Northumbria, who was also born at the close of the sixth
century. For he it was who really married the _daughter of Æthelberht_,
and it was the _archbishop of York_, Paulinus, who performed the
ceremony. The relation of how Eadwine was persecuted by _Æthelfrith_,
how he fled and was protected by Rædwald, king of the East Angles, how
he saw a vision of an angel who promised his restoration to the throne
and that his rule should exceed that of his predecessors, how, with the
assistance of Rædwald, he overthrew and _slew Æthelfrith_ in a terrible
battle beside the river Idle, may be found in Beda's Ecclesiastical
History, bk. II. ch. 9-16.[31] In the last of these chapters there is
again mention of _Blecca, the governor of the city of Lincoln_. Sir F.
Madden, in his note to l. 45, speaks of the extraordinary proofs of the
peaceable state of the country in the reign of Ælfred; but Beda uses
similar language in speaking of the reign of Eadwine; and the earlier
instance is even more remarkable. "It is reported that there was then
such perfect peace in Britain, wheresoever the dominion of King Edwin
extended, that, as _is still proverbially said_, a woman with her
new-born babe might walk throughout the island, from sea to sea, without
receiving any harm. That king took such care for the good of his nation,
that in several places where he had seen clear springs near the
highways, he caused stakes to be fixed, with brass dishes hanging at
them, for the conveniency of travellers; nor durst any man touch them
for any other purpose than that for which they were designed, either
through the dread they had of the king, or for the affection which they
bore him, &c."[32] Readers who are acquainted with the pleasing poem of
"Edwin of Deira," by the late Alexander Smith, will remember his
adventures; and it may be noted, as an instance of the manner in which
poets alter names at pleasure, that Mr Smith gives to Æthelfrith the
name of Ethelbert, to Eadwine's wife Æthelburh, that of Bertha, and to
his father Ælle, that of Egbert. My theory of the Lay of Havelok is then
simply this, that I look upon it as the general result of various
narratives connected with the history of Northumbria and Lindesey at the
close, or possibly the beginning, of the sixth century, gathered round
some favourite local (i.e. Lincolnshire) tradition as a nucleus. A
similar theory may be true of the Lay of Horn.
[Footnote 31: Cf. Lappenberg's History of England, tr. by
Thorpe, vol. i. pp. 145-154.]
[Footnote 32: See the same statement in Fabyan's Chronicles,
p. 112; ed. Ellis, 1811.]
§ 25. ON THE NAMES "CURAN" AND "HAVELOK."
The French version tells us that _Coaran_, _Cuaran_, or _Cuheran_ is the
British word for a scullion. This etymology has not hitherto been
traced, but it may easily have been perfectly true. A glance at
Armstrong's Gaelic Dictionary shews us that the Gaelic _cearn_ (which
answers very well to the Old English _hirne_, a corner) has the meaning
of a _corner_, and, secondly, of a _kitchen_; and that _cearnach_ is an
adjective meaning _of or belonging to a kitchen_. But we may come even
nearer than this; for by adding the diminutive ending _-an_ to the
Gaelic _cocaire_, a cook, we see that _Cuheran_ may really have conveyed
the idea of _scullion_ to a British ear, and this probably further gave
rise to the story of Havelok's degradation. It is a common custom--one
which true etymologists must always deplore--to invent a story to
account for a derivation; and such a practice is invariably carried out
with greater boldness and to a greater extent if the said derivation
chances to be false. For it is possible that Curan may be simply the
Gaelic _curan_, a brave man, and the Irish _curanta_, brave. The
derivation of Havelok is certainly puzzling. Professor Rask declared it
to have no meaning in Danish. It bears, however, a remarkable
resemblance to the Old English _gavelok_, which occurs in Weber's _Kyng
Alisaunder_, l. 1620, and which is the A.S. _gafeluc_, Icel. _gaflak_,
Welsh _gaflach_, a spear, dart, or javelin. This is an appropriate name
for a warrior, and possibly reappears in the instance of Hugh
_Kevelock_, earl of Chester (Bp. Percy's Folio MS., ed. Hales and
Furnivall, i. 128). It is remarkable that the Gaelic and Irish _corran_
has the same sense, that of _a spear_, whilst _curan_, as
above-mentioned, means _a brave man_. It is best, perhaps, to stop here;
for etymology, when pursued too far, is wont to beguile the pursuer into
every possible quagmire of absurdity.
§ 26. DESCRIPTION OF THE MS., &c.
The MS. from which the present poem is printed is in the Laudian
collection in the Bodleian Library, where its old mark is K 60, and its
present one Misc. 108. Being described in the old printed catalogue
merely as _Vitæ Sanctorum_, the romance was in consequence for a long
time overlooked. The Lives of the Saints occupy a large portion of the
volume, and are probably to be ascribed to the authorship of Robert of
Gloucester. "These Lives or Festivals," says Sir F. Madden, "are [here]
61 in number, written in long Alexandrine verse. Then succeed the
Sayings of St Bernard and the Visions of St Paul, both in six-line
stanzas; the _Disputatio inter Corpus et Animam_, the English Romance of
Havelok, the Romance of Kyng Horn, and some additions in a hand of the
15th century, including the lives of St Blaise, St Cecilia, and St
Alexius, and an alliterative poem intitled _Somer Soneday_, making in
all the Contents of the Volume to amount to 70 pieces." The lays of
Havelok and Horn are written out in the same handwriting, of an early
date, certainly not later than the end of the thirteenth century. The
Havelok begins on fol. 204, and is written in double columns, each
column containing 45 lines. A folio is lost between fol. 211 and 212,
but no notice of this has been taken in numbering the folios; hence the
catchword which should have been found at the bottom of fol. 215 _b_,
appears at the bottom of fol. 214 _b_ (see l. 2164). The poem terminates
at the 27th line on fol. 219 _b_, and is immediately followed by Kyng
Horn in the same column. The character of the handwriting is bold and
square, but the words are very close together. The initial letter of
every line is written a little way apart from the rest, as in William of
Palerne, and other MSS. Both the long and short _s_ ([s] _and_ s) are
used. The long _s_ is in general well distinguished from _f_, and on
this account I have taken the liberty of printing both _esses_ alike, as
my experience in printing the Romans of Partenay proved that the
difficulty of avoiding misprints is greater than the gain of
representing the difference between them. The chief point of interest is
that, as in _early_ MSS., the long _s_ is sometimes found at the _end_
of a word, as in "u[s]" in l. 22, and "i[s]" in l. 23. The following are
all the examples of the use of this letter in the first 26 lines; [s]o
(4), wicte[s]te (9), [s]tede (10), cri[s]t, [s]childe (16), Kri[s]t,
[s]o (17), [s]o (19), [s]chal (21), Kri[s]t, u[s] (22), i[s] (23),
[s]talworþi (24), [s]talworþe[s]te (25), [s]tede (26). With this
exception, the present reprint is a faithful representation of the
original; for, as the exact fidelity of a text is of the first
importance, I have been careful to compare the proof-sheets with the MS.
twice throughout; besides which, the original edition is itself
exceedingly correct, and had been re-read by Sir F. Madden with the MS.
His list of errata (nearly all of them of minor importance) agreed
almost exactly with my own. A great difficulty is caused by the use of
the Saxon letter _w_ ([w]). This letter, the thorn-letter (þ), and _y_,
are all three made very nearly alike. In general, the _y_ is dotted, but
the dot is occasionally omitted. Wherever the letter really appears to
be a _w_, I have denoted it by printing the _w_ as an italic letter. The
following are, I believe, the _only_ examples of it. _W_it-drow =
withdrew, l. 502; _w_e, 1058; _w_as, 1129 (cf. "him was ful wa," _Sir
Tristr._ f. iii. st. 43); ber_w_en, 1426 (written "berwen" in l. 697);
_w_at = known, 1674; _w_e, miswritten for _w_o = who, 1914; to which
perhaps we may add _w_it, 997. This evidence is interesting as shewing
that this letter was then fast going out of use, and I think that we may
safely date the final disappearance of this letter from MSS. at about
the year 1300. As regards the _th_, we may remark that at the end of a
word both þ and _th_ are used, as in "norþ and suth," l. 434; sometimes
_th_ occurs in the middle of a word, as "sithen," l. 1238, which is
commonly written "siþen," as in l. 399. The words þe, þat, þer, &c., are
hardly ever written otherwise. But the reader will remark many instances
in which _th_ final seems to have the hard sound of _t_, as in _brouth_,
57, _nouth_, 58, _lith_, 534, _þouth_, 1190, &c.; cf. § 27. The letter
_t_ is sometimes shortened so as nearly to resemble _c_, and _c_ is
sometimes lengthened into _t_. The letters _n_ and _u_ are occasionally
alike, but the difference between them is commonly well marked. The _i_
has a long stroke over it when written next to _m_ or _n_. On the whole,
the writing is very clear and distinct, after a slight acquaintance with
it. The poem is marked out into paragraphs by the use of large letters.
I have introduced a slight space at the end of each paragraph, to shew
this more clearly.
§ 27. ON THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS OCCURRING IN THE POEM.
The following peculiarities of spelling may be first noted. We
frequently find _h_ prefixed to words which it is usual to spell without
one. Examples are: _holde_ for _old_, _hete_ for _ete_ (eat), _het_ for
_et_ (ate), _heuere_ for _euere_, _Henglishe_ for _Englishe_, &c.; see
the Glossary, under the letter H. This enables us to explain some words
which at first appear puzzling; thus _her_ = _er_, ere; _hayse_ =
_ayse_, ease; _helde_ = _elde_, old age; _hore_ = _ore_, grace; _hende_
= _ende_, which in one passage means _end_, but in another _a duck_. The
forms _hof_, _hus_, _hure_, for _of_, _us_, _ure_ are such as we should
hardly have expected to find. On the other hand, _h_ is omitted in the
words _auelok_, _aueden_, _osed_, and in _is_ for _his_ (l. 2254). These
instances, and other examples such as follow, may readily be found by
help of the Glossarial Index. Again, _d_ final after _l_ or _n_ was so
slightly sounded as to be omitted even in writing. Examples are: _lon_
for _lond_, _hel_ for _held_, _bihel_ for _biheld_, _shel_ for _sheld_,
_gol_ for _gold_. But a more extraordinary omission is that of _r_ final
in _the_, _neythe_, _othe_, _douthe_, which does not seem to be
satisfactorily explained even by the supposition that the scribe may
have omitted the small upward curl which does duty for _er_ so
frequently in MSS. For we further find the omission of _l_ final, as in
_mike_ for _mikel_, _we_ for _wel_, and of _t_ final, as in _bes_ for
_best_; from which instances we should rather infer some peculiarity of
pronunciation rendering final letters indistinct, of which there are
numerous examples, as _fiel_ for _field_, in modern provincial English.
Cf. _il_ for _ilk_, in ll. 818, 1740; and _twel_ for _twelf_. "From the
same license," says Sir F. Madden, "arises the frequent repetition of
such rhythm as _riden_ and _side_, where the final _n_ seems to have
been suppressed in pronunciation. Cf. ll. 29, 254, 957, 1105, 1183,
2098, &c, and hence we perceive how readily the infinitive verbal Saxon
termination glided into its subsequent form. The broad pronunciation of
the dialect in which the poem was written is also frequently
discernible, as in _slawen_, l. 2676, and _knaue_, l. 949, which rhyme
to _Rauen_ and _plawe_.[33] So likewise, _bothe_ or _bethe_ is, in
sound, equivalent to _rede_, ll. 360, 694, 1680." Other peculiarities
will be noticed in discussing the Metre. Observe also the Anglo-Saxon
_hw_ for the modern _wh_, exemplified by _hwo_, 368, _hwan_, 474,
_hweþer_, 294, _hwere_, 549, _hwil_, 301; compare also _qual_, _qui_,
_quan_, meaning _whale_, _why_, _when_.[34] The letter _w_ (initial) is
the modern provincial _'oo_, as in _wlf_, _wluine_, _wman_; cf. _hw_,
_w_, both forms of _how_; and _lowerd_ for _louerd_. In particular, we
should notice the hard sound of _t_ denoted by _th_ in the words _with_,
_rithe_, _brouth_, _nouth_, _ricth_, _knicth_, meaning _white_, _right_,
_brought_, _naught_, _right_, _knight_; so too _douther_, daughter,
_neth_, a net, _uth_, out, _woth_, wot, _leth_, let, _lauthe_
(_laught_), caught, _nither-tale_ (_nighter-tale_), night-time.[35] On
the other hand, _t_ stands for _th_ in _hauet_, 564, _seyt_, 647,
_herknet_, 1, _wit_, 100. When _th_ answers to the modern sound, it
seems equivalent to A.S. ð rather than to A.S. þ; examples are _mouth_,
433, _oth_, 260, _loth_, 261. _Y_ and _g_ are interchangeable, as in
_yaf_, _gaf_, _youen_, _gouen_; _g_ even occurs for _k_, as in _rang_,
2561. In MSS., _e_ is not uncommonly written by mistake for _o_; this
may perhaps account for _helde_, 2472, _meste_, 233, _her_, 1924, which
should rather be _holde_, 30, _moste_, and _hor_, 235; there is a like
confusion of _weren_ and _woren_; and perhaps _grotinde_ should be
_gretinde_.[36] The vowel _u_ is replaced by the modern _ou_ in the
words _prud_, 302, _suth_, 434, _but_, 1040, _hus_, 740, _spusen_, 1123;
cf. _hws_ in l. 1141. Mr Ellis shews, in his Early English
Pronunciation, chap. v, that in pure specimens of the _thirteenth_
century, there is no _ou_ in such words, and in the _fourteenth_
century, no simple _u_. This furnishes a ready explanation of the
otherwise difficult _sure_, in l. 2005; it is merely the adverb of
_sour_, _sourly_ being used in the sense of _bitterly_; to _bye it
bitterly_, or _bye it bittre_, is a common phrase in Piers Plowman.
Other spellings worth notice occur in _ouerga_, 314, _stra_, 315 (spelt
_strie_ in l. 998), _hawe_, 1188, _plawe_, 950, _sal_, 628 (commonly
spelt _shal_). Note also _arum_ for _arm_, _harum_ for _harm_, _boren_
for _born_, 1878, and _koren_ for _corn_, 1879. There are several
instances of words joined together, as _haui_, 2002, _biddi_, 484;
_shaltu_, 2186, _wiltu_, 905, _wenestu_, 1787; _wilte_, 528,
_thenkeste_, 578, _shaltou_, 1800; _thouthe_, 790, _hauedet_, _youenet_,
_hauenet_; _sawe_, 338; _latus_, 1772; where the personal pronouns _i_,
_þu_, _he_, _it_, _we_, _us_ are added to the verb. Hence, in l. 745, it
is very likely that _calleth_ is written for _callet_, i.e. call it; and
on the same principle we can explain _dones_; see _Es_ in the Glossary.
In like manner _goddot_ is contracted from _God wot_; and _þerl_ from
_þe erl_.
_Nouns._ As regards the nouns employed, I may remark that the final _e_
is perhaps always sounded in the oblique cases, and especially in the
dative case; as in _nedè_, _stedè_, &c. (see ll. 86-105), _willè_, 85,
_gyuè_, 357, _blissè_, 2187, _cricè_, 2450; cf. the adjectives _longè_,
2299, _wisè_, 1713; also the nominatives _rosè_, 2919, _newè_, 2974.
_Frend_ is a pl. form; cf. _hend_, which is both a plural (2444) and a
dat. sing. (505). In the plural, the final _e_ is fully pronounced in
the adjectives _allè_, 2, _hardè_, 143, _starkè_, 1015, _fremdè_, 2277,
_bleikè_, 470, and in many others; cf. the full form _boþen_, 2223. Not
only does the phrase _none kines_, of no kind, occur in ll. 861, 1140,
but we find the unusual phrase _neuere kines_, of never a kind, in
l. 2691. Among the numerals, we find not only _þre_, but _þrinne_.
_Pronouns._ The first personal pronoun occurs in many forms in the
nominative, as _i_, _y_, _hi_, _ich_, _ic_, _hic_, and even _ihc_; the
oblique cases take the form _me_. For the second person, we have _þu_,
_þou_, in the nominative, and also _tu_, when preceded by _þat_, as in
l. 2903. We may notice also _hijs_ for _his_, l. 47; _he_ for _they_;
_sho_, 112, _scho_, 126, _sche_, 1721, for _she_; and, in particular,
the dual form _unker_, of you two, 1882. The most noteworthy possessive
pronouns are _minè_, pl. 1365, _þinè_, pl. 620; _his_ or _hise_, pl.
_hisè_, 34; _ure_, 606; _youres_, 2800; _hirè_, 2918, with which cf. the
dat. sing. _hirè_ of the personal pronoun, 85, 300. _þis_ is plural, and
means _these_, in l. 1145. As in other old English works, _men_ is
frequently an impersonal pronoun, answering to the French _on_, and is
followed by a singular verb; as in _men ringes_, 390, _men seyt and
suereth_, 647, _men fetes_, 2341, _men nam_, 900, _men birþe_, 2101,
_men dos_, 2434; cf. _folk sau_, 2410; but there are a few instances of
its use with a plural verb, as _men haueden_, 901, _men shulen_, 747.
The former is the more usual construction.
_Verbs._ The infinitives of verbs rarely have _y-_ prefixed; two
examples are _y-lere_, 12, _y-se_, 334. Nor is the same prefix common
before past participles; yet we find _i-gret_, 163, _i-groten_, 285, and
_i-maked_, 5, as well as _maked_, 23. Infinitives end commonly in _-en_
or _-e_, as _riden_, 26, _y-lere_; also in _-n_, as _don_, 117, _leyn_,
718; and even in _-o_, as _flo_, 612, _slo_, 1364. The present singular,
3rd person, of the indicative, ends both in _-es_ or _-s_, and _-eth_ or
_-th_, the former being the more usual. Examples are _longes_, 396,
_leues_, 1781, _haldes_, 1382, _fedes_, 1693, _bes_, 1744, _comes_,
1767, _glides_, 1851, _þarnes_, 1913, _haues_, 1952, _etes_, 2036,
_dos_, 1913; also _eteth_, 672, _haueth_, 804, _bikenneth_, 1269,
_doth_, 1876, _liþ_, 673. The full form of the 2nd person is _-est_, as
_louest_, 1663; but it is commonly cut down to _-es_, as _weldes_, 1359,
_slepes_, 1283, _haues_, 688, _etes_, 907, _getes_, 908; cf. _dos_,
2390, _mis-gos_, 2707, _slos_, 2706. The same dropping of the _t_ is
observable in the past tense, as in _reftes_, 2394, _feddes and
claddes_, 2907. Still more curious is the ending in _t_ only, as in _þu
bi-hetet_, 677, _þou mait_, 689; cf. ll. 852, 1348. In the subjunctive
mood the _-st_ disappears as in Anglo-Saxon, and hence the forms _bute
þou gonge_, 690, _þat þu fonge_, 856, &c.; cf. _bede_, 668. In the 3rd
person, present tense, of the same mood, we have the _-e_ fully
pronounced, as in _shildè_, 16, _yeuè_, 22, _leuè_, 334, _redè_, 687;
and in l. 544, _wreken_ should undoubtedly be _wrekè_, since the _-en_
belongs to the plural, as in _moten_, 18. The plural of the indicative
present ends in _-en_, as, _we hauen_, 2798, _ye witen_, 2208, _þei
taken_, 1833; or, very rarely, in _-eth_, as _ye bringeth_, 2425, _he_
(they) _strangleth_, 2584. Sometimes the final _-n_ is lost, as in _we
haue_, 2799, _ye do_, 2418, _he_ (they) _brenne_, 2583. There is even a
trace of the plural in _-es_, as in _haues_, 2581. The _present_ tense
has often a _future_ signification, as in _etes_, 907, _eteth_, 672,
_getes_, 908.
_Past tense._ Of the third person singular and plural of the past tense
the following are selected examples. WEAK VERBS: _hauede_, 770,
_sparedè_, 898, _yemedè_, 975, _semedè_, 976, _sparkëdè_, 2144,
_þankedè_, 2189; pl. _loueden_, 955, _leykeden_, 954, _woundeden_, 2429,
_stareden_, 1037, _yemede_ (rather read _yemeden_), 2277, _makeden_,
554, _sprauleden_, 475; also _calde_, 2115, _gredde_, 2417, _herde_,
2410, _kepte_, 879, _fedde_, 786, _ledde_, 785, _spedde_, 756, _clapte_,
1814, _kiste_, 1279; pl. _herden_, _brenden_, 594, _kisten_, 2162,
_ledden_, 1246; and, thirdly, of the class which change the vowel,
_aute_, 743, _laute_, 744, _bitauhte_, 2212. Compare the past
participles _osed_, 971, _mixed_, 2533, _parred_, 2439, _gadred_, 2577;
_reft_, 1367, _wend_, 2138, _hyd_, 1059; _told_, 1036, _sold_, 1638,
_wrouth_ = _wrout_, 1352. There are also at least two past participles
in _-et_, as _slenget_, 1923, _grethet_, 2615, to which add _weddeth_,
_beddeth_, 1127, In l. 2057, _knawed_ seems put for _knawen_, for the
rime's sake.
STRONG VERBS: third person singular, past tense, _bar_, 815, _bad_,
1415, _yaf_, or _gaf_, _spak_; _kam_, 766 (spelt _cham_, 1873), _nam_,
_kneu_, _hew_, 2729, _lep_, 1777, _let_, 2447 (spelt _leth_, 2651),
_slep_, 1280, _wex_, 281: _drou_, 705, _for_, 2943, _low_, 903, _slow_,
1807, _hof_, 2750, _stod_, 986, _tok_; 751, _wok_, 2093; pl. _beden_,
2774, _youen_, or _gouen_; _comen_, 1017 (spelt _keme_, 1208), _nomen_,
2790 (spelt _neme_, 1207), _knewen_, 2149, _lopen_, 1896, _slepen_,
2128; _drowen_, 1837, _foren_, 2380, _lowen_, 1056, _slowen_, 2414, &c.
And secondly, of the class which more usually change the vowel in the
_plural_ of the preterite, we find the singular forms _bigan_, 1357,
_barw_, 2022, _karf_, 471, _swank_, 788, _warp_, 1061, _shon_, 2144,
_clef_, 2643, _sau_, 2409, _grop_, 1965, _drof_, 725, _shof_, 892; pl.
_bigunnen_, 1011, _sowen_, 1055, _gripen_, 1790, _driue_, for _driuen_,
1966; also _bunden_, 2436, _scuten_, 2431 (spelt _schoten_, 1864,
_shoten_, 1838), _leyen_, 2132, &c. Compare the past participles
_boren_, 1878, _youen_ or _gouen_, _cumen_, 1436, _nomen_, 2265 (spelt
_numen_, 2581), _laten_, 1925, _waxen_, 302, _drawen_, 1925, _slawen_,
2000, which two last become _drawe_, _slawe_ in ll. 1802, 1803.
We should also observe the past tenses _spen_, 1819, _stirt_, 812,
_fauth_ for _faut_ or _fauht_, 1990, _citte_, 942, _bere_, 974, _kipte_,
1050, _flow_, 2502, _plat_, 2755; and the past participles _demd_ for
_demed_, 2488, _giue_ for _giuen_, 2488, _henged_, 1429, _keft_, 2005.
_Imperative Mood._ Examples of the imperative mood singular, 2nd person,
are _et_, _sit_, 925, _nim_, 1336, _yif_, 674; in the plural, the usual
ending is _-es_, as in _liþes_, 2204, _comes_, 1798, _folwes_, 1885,
_lokes_, 2292, _bes_, 2246, to which set belong _slos_, 2596, _dos_,
2592; but there are instances of the ending _-eth_ also, as in _cometh_,
1885, _yeueþ_, 911, to which add _doth_, 2037, _goth_, 1780. Indeed both
forms occur in one line, as in _Cometh swiþe, and folwes me_ (1885).
Instead of _-eth_ we even find _-et_, as in _herknet_, 1. These
variations afford a good illustration of the unsettled state of the
grammar in some parts of England at this period; we need not suppose the
scribe to be at fault in all cases where there is a want of uniformity.
Of reflexive verbs, we meet with _me dremede_, 1284, _me met_, 1285, _me
þinkes_, 2169, _him hungrede_, 654, _him semede_, 1652, _him stondes_,
2983, _him rewede_, 503. The present participles end most commonly in
_-inde_, as _fastinde_, 865, _grotinde_ (? _gretinde_), 1390,
_lauhwinde_, 946, _plattinde_, 2282, _starinde_, 508; but we also find
_gangande_, 2283, _driuende_, 2702. Compare the nouns _tiþande_, 2279,
_offrende_, 1386, which are Norse forms, _tíðindi_ (pl.) being the
Icelandic for _tidings_, and _offrandi_ the present participle of
_offra_, to offer. But the true Icelandic equivalent of the substantive
_an offering_ is _offran_, and the old Swedish is _offer_; and hence we
see at how very early a date the confusion between the noun-ending and
the ending of the present participle arose; a confusion which has
bewildered many generations of Englishmen. Yet this very poem in other
places has _-ing_ as a noun-ending _only_, never (that I remember) for
the present participle. Examples of it are _greting_, 166, _dreping_,
i.e. slaughter, 2684, _buttinge_, _skirming_, _wrastling_, _putting_,
_harping_, _piping_, _reding_; see ll. 2322-2327. Such words are
frequently called _verbal nouns_, but the term is very likely to
mislead. I have found that many suppose it to imply _present participles
used as nouns_, instead of _nouns of verbal derivation_. If such nouns
could be called by some new name, such as _nouns of action_, or by any
other title that can be conventionally restricted to signify them, it
would, I think, be a gain. Amongst the auxiliary verbs, may be noted the
use of _cone_, 622, as the subjunctive form of _canst_; _we mone_, 840,
as the subjunctive of _mowen_; cf. _ye mowen_, 11; but especially we
should observe the use of the comparatively rare verbs _birþe_, it
behoves, pt. t. _birde_, it behoved, and _þurte_, he need, the latter of
which is fully explained in the Glossary to William of Palerne, s.v.
_þort_.
The prefix _to-_ is employed in _both_ senses, as explained in the same
Glossary, s.v. _To-_. In _to-brised_, _to-deyle_, &c., it is equivalent
to the German _zer-_ and M[oe]so-Gothic _dis-_; of its _other_ and
_rarer_ use, wherein it answers to the German _zu-_ and M[oe]so-Gothic
_du-_, there is but _one_ instance, viz. in the word _to-yede_, 765,
which signifies _went to_; cf. Germ. _zugehen_, to go to, _zugang_ (A.S.
_to-gang_), access, approach. There are some curious instances of a
peculiar syntax, whereby the infinitive mood active partakes of a
passive signification, as in _he made him kesten, and in feteres
festen_, he caused him to be cast in prison (_or perhaps_, overthrown),
and to be fastened in fetters; l. 81. But it is probable that this is to
be explained by considering it as a phrase in which we should _now_
supply the word _men_, and that we may interpret it by "he caused [men]
to cast him in prison, and to fasten him with fetters;" for in ll. 1784,
1785, the phrase is repeated in a less ambiguous form. See also l. 86.
So also, in ll. 2611, 2612, I consider _keste_, _late_, _sette_, to be
in the infinitive mood. Such a construction is at once understood by
comparing it with the German _er liess ihn binden_, he caused him to be
bound. In l. 2352, appears the most unusual form _ilker_, which is
literally _of each_, and hence, _apiece_; cf. _unker_, which also is a
genitive plural. It will be observed that the verb following is in the
plural, the real nominative to it being _þei þre_. In l. 2404, the
expression _þat þer þrette_, "that there threat," recalls a
colloquialism which is still common. The word _þrie_, 730, is,
apparently, the O.E. adverb _thrie_, thrice; _liues_, 509, is an adverb
ending in _-es_, originally a genitive case. _Þus-gate_ is, according to
Mr Morris, unknown to the Southern dialect; it occurs in ll. 785, 2419,
2586. I may add that Havelok contains as many as five expressions, which
seem to refer to _proverbs_ current at the time of writing it. See ll.
307, 648, 1338, 1352, 2461.
[Footnote 33: "Cf. K. Horn, 1005, where _haue_ rhymes with
plawe." --M. Mr A. J. Ellis would consider _slawen_, _knaue_, &c.,
as assonances-- "Do not think of the pronunciation of modern
_drawen_. Read _sla-wen_, _kna-ue_, an assonance. _Beþe_ does
_not_ rhyme to _reden_; it is only an assonance." --Ellis. On the
other hand, we find the spellings _rathe_, _rothe_ instead of
_rede_ in ll. 1335 and 2817.]
[Footnote 34: "_Qual_ = _quhal_, the aspirate being omitted; and
_quhal_ = _whal_." --Ellis.]
[Footnote 35: The use of _th_ for _t_ is not uncommon. In the
_Romans of Partenay_, we have _thown_, _thaken_, _thouchyng_, &c.,
for _town_, _taken_, _touching_; see Preface, p. xvi. In the copy
of Piers Plowman in MS. Camb. Univ. Lib. Dd l. 17, I have observed
several similar examples. Cf. Eng. _tea_, Ital. _tè_, Span. _té_,
with Fr. _thé_, Swed. _the_, G. Du. Dan. _thee_.]
[Footnote 36: "Is _e_ for _o_ a mistake, or may it be compared
with _preue_ for _prove_, &c.?" --Ellis. I would observe that
_greting_ is the spelling of the _substantive_ in l. 166.]
§ 28. ON THE METRE OF HAVELOK.
The poem is written in the familiar rhythm of which I have already
spoken elsewhere, viz. at p. xxxvii of the Preface to Mr Morris's
edition of Genesis and Exodus. The metre of Havelok is rather more
regular, but many of the remarks there made apply to it. The chief rule
is that every line shall contain four accents,[37] the two principal
types being afforded (1) by the eight-syllable and nine-syllable lines--
(_a_) For hém | ne yé|dë góld | ne fé, 44;
(_b_) It wás | a kíng | bi á|rë dáwës, 27;
and (2) by the seven-syllable and eight-syllable lines--
(_c_) Hérk|net tó | me gó|dë men, 1;
(_d_) Al|lë thát | he mícth|ë fyndë, 42.
To one of these four forms every line can be reduced, by the use of that
slighter utterance of less important syllables which is so very common
in English poetry. It is not the number of _syllables_, but of
_accents_, that is essential. In _every_ line throughout the poem there
are four accents, with only two or three exceptions, viz. ll. 1112,
1678, &c, which are defective. In a similar manner, we may readily scan
any of the lines, as e.g. ll. 2-4;
(_c_) Wi|uës, mayd|nës, and al|lë men
(_b_) Of a ta|lë þat | ich you | wile tellë[38]
(_b_) Wo-so | 't wil' her' | and þer|to duellë, &c.
Here the syllables _-nes and_ in l. 3, _of a_ in l. 4, and _it wile_ in
l. 5, are so rapidly pronounced as to occupy only the room of one
unaccented syllable in lines of the strict type. However awkward this
appears to be in theory, it is very easy in practice, as the reciter
readily manages his voice so as to produce the right rhythmical effect;
and, indeed, this variation of arrangement is a real improvement,
preventing the recitation from becoming monotonous. Those who have a
good ear for rhythm will readily understand this, and it seems
unnecessary to dwell upon it more at length. But it may be remarked,
that the three lines above quoted are rather _more irregular than
usual_, and that the metre is such as to enable us to fix the instances
in which the final _-e_ is pronounced with great accuracy, on which
account I shall say more about this presently. I would, however, first
enumerate the rimes which seem to be more or less inexact or peculiar,
or otherwise instructive.
I. _Repetitions._ Such are _men, men_; _holden, holde_, 29;[39] _erþe,
erþe_, 739; _heren, heren_, 1640; _nithes, knithes_, 2048; _youres,
youres_, 2800. To this class belong also _longe, londe_, 172, _heye,
heie_, 1151, 2544; where _longe, londe_ is, however, only an assonance.
II. _Assonant rimes._ Here the rime is in the vowel-sound; the
consonantal endings differ. Such are _rym, fyn_, 21; _yeme, quene_, 182;
_shop, hok_, 1101 (where _shop_ is probably corrupt); _odrat, bad_,
1153; _fet, ek_, 1303; _yer, del_, 1333; _maked, shaped_, 1646; _beþe,
rede_, 1680; _riche, chinche_, 1763, 2940; _feld, swerd_, 1824, 2634;
_seruede, werewed_, 1914; _wend, gent_, 2138; _þank, rang_, 2560;
_boþen, ut-drowen_, 2658. To the same class belong _name_, _rauen_,
1397, _grauen, name_, 2528; _slawen, rauen_, 2676. _Henged, slenget_,
1922, should rather be called an imperfect rime.[40] There is also found
the exact opposite to this, viz., an agreement or _consonance_ at the
end, preceded by an apparent diversity in the vowel; as _longe, gange_,
795 (but see _longe, gonge_, 843), _bidde, stede_, 2548, _open, drepen_,
1782, _gres, is_, 2698, _boþe, rathe_, 2936 (but see _rathe, bathe_,
1335, 2542), _fet_ (long _e_), _gret_, 2158; and not unlike these are
some instances of loose rimes, as _beþe, rede_, 360, _knaue, plawe_,
949, _sawe, hawe_ (where _hawe_ is written for _haue_), 1187, _sawe,
wowe_, 1962 (but see _wowe, lowe_, 2078, _lowe, sawe_, 2142, _wawe,
lowe_, 2470). Observe also _bouth, oft_ (read _vt_ or _ut_ = _out_?),
883, _tun, barun_, 1001 (cf. _toun, brun_, 1750, _champiouns, barouns_,
1032); _plattinde, gangande_, 2282, &c. _Eir, toþer_, 410, _harde,
crakede_, 567, are probably due to mistakes.[41]
III. Rimes which shew that the final _-en_ was pronounced so slightly as
to be nearly equivalent to _-e_. Examples: _holden, holde_, 29; _gongen,
fonge_, 855; _bringe, ringen_, 1105; _mouthen, douthe_, 1183; _riden,
side_, 1758; _wesseylen, to-deyle_, 2098; _slawen, drawe_, 2476. In the
same way _hon_ rimes to _lond_, 1341, owing to the slight pronunciation
of the final _d_.[42]
IV. Rimes which appear imperfect, but may be perfect. _Riche_ answers to
_like_, 132, but the true spelling is _rike_, answering to _sike_, 290.
_Mithe_, 196, should probably be _moucte_, as in l. 257, and it would
thus rime with _þoucte_. _Blinne_, 2670, should certainly be _blunne_;
cf. A.S. _blinnan_, pt. t. s. _ic blan_, pt. t. pl. _we blunnon_; and
thus it rimes to _sunne_. _Misdede_, 993, is clearly an error for
_misseyde_, as appears from the parallel passage in ll. 49, 50; and it
then rimes with _leyde_. So in l. 1736, for _deled_ read _deyled_, as in
l. 2098. _Boþe_, 430, has no line answering to it, and a line may have
been lost. _Nicth, lict_, 575, is a perfect rime. _Halde, bolde_, 2308,
may also be perfect. _For-sworen_ answers to _for-lorn_ (pronounced
_for-loren_), 1423; _bitawte_ to _authe_ (pronounced _aute_), 1409;
_yemede_ (pronounced _yem-dè_) is not an improper rime to _fremde_,
2276; _anon_ rimes with _iohan_ (if pronounced _ion_ or _John_, as
indicated by the spelling _ion_ in l. 177), 2562, 2956. Yet in another
instance it seems to be two syllables, _Jo-han_; see _wimman, iohan_,
1720.[43] Speche should be _speke_, and thus rimes to _meke_, 1065.
_Stareden_ should perhaps be _stradden_, or some such form, rightly
riming to _ladden_, 1037. Under this head we may notice some rimes which
throw, possibly, some light on the pronunciation. Thus, for the sound of
_ey, ei_, observe _hayse, preyse_, 60; _leyke, bleike_, 469; _laumprei,
wei_, 771; _deye_ rimes to _preye_, 168; _day_ to _wey_, 663; _seyd_ to
_brayd_, 1281; but we also find _hey, fri_, 1071; _hey, sley_, 1083,
_heye, heie_, 1151; _heye, eie_, 2544; _leye, heye_, 2010; _heye,
fleye_, 2750. _Fram_ rimes to _sham_, 55; yet the latter word is really
_shame_, 83; _gange_ is also spelt _gonge_, _halde_ rimes with _bolde_,
2308. The pronunciation of _ware_, _were_, or _wore_, seems ambiguous;
we find _sore, wore_, 236; _wore, more_, 258; _ware, sare_, 400; _wore,
sore_, 414; _were, þere_, 741; _more, þore_, 921. For the sound of _e_,
observe _suere, gere_, 388; _suereth, dereth_, 648; _eten, geten_, 930;
_yet, fet_, 1319; _stem, bem_, 592; _glem, bem_, 2122; also _yeue,
liue_, 198; _liue, gyue_, 356; _lyue, yeue_, 1217; _her, ther_, 1924;
_fishere, swere_, 2230. For that of _i_, observe _cri, merci_, 270;
_sire, swire_, 310; _swiþe, vnbliþe_, 140; _fir, shir_, 587; _sire,
hire_, 909; _rise, bise_, 723; _fyr, shir_, 915; _lye, strie_, 997;
_hey, fri_, 1071; _for-þi, merci_, 2500. For that of _o_, observe _two,
so_, 350; _do, so_, 713; _shon, on_, 969; _hom, grom_, 789; _lode,
brode_, 895; _anon, ston_, 927; _ston, won_, 1023; _do, sho_ (shoe),
1137; _do, sho_ (she), 1231; _stod, mod_, 1702; _ilkon, ston_, 1842;
_shon_ (shoon), _ston_, 2144; _croud, god_, 2338; _don, bon_, 2354;
_sone_ (soon), _bone_, 2504; _bole, hole_, 2438.[44] Only in a few of
these instances would the words rime in modern standard English. For the
_ou_ and _u_ sounds, observe _couþe, mouþe_, 112; _yow, now_, 160;
_wolde, fulde_, 354; _yw, nou_, 453; _bounden, wnden_, 545; _sowel,
couel_, 767; _low, ynow_, 903; _sowen, lowe_, 957; _strout, but_, 1039;
_þou, nou_, 1283; _doun, tun_, 1630; _crus, hous_, 1966; _wounde,
grunde_, 1978; _bowr, tour_, 2072; _spuse, huse_, 2912. _Lowe_, 1291,
2431, 2471, should rather be _lawe_, as in l. 2767. These hints will
probably suffice for the guidance of those who wish to follow up the
subject. It is evident that full dependence cannot be placed upon the
_exactness_ of the rimes.
[Footnote 37: "This _four accents_ I consider to be a wrong way
of stating the fact. . . The metre consists of four measures, each
generally, not always, of _two_ syllables, the first often _one_
syllable, the others often of _three_ syllables, and each measure
has generally more stress on the last than on any other, but the
accents or principal stresses in the verse are usually 2,
sometimes 3, perhaps never 4." --A. J. Ellis. I need hardly add
that such a statement is more exact, and that I here merely use
the word _accent_ in the loose sense it often bears, viz. as
denoting the "stress," more or less heavy, and sometimes
imperceptible, which is popularly supposed to belong to the last
syllable in a measure. I must request the reader to remember that
this present sketch of the metre is very slight and imperfect,
and worded in the usual not very correct popular language. For
more strict and careful statements the reader is referred to Mr
A. J. Ellis's work on Early English Pronunciation. Until readers
have made themselves acquainted with that work, they will readily
understand what I _here_ mean by "accents;" afterwards, they can
easily adopt a stricter idea of its meaning.]
[Footnote 38: "You cannot scan this line in any way. This method
of doing it is quite impossible; it is a mere chopping to make a
verse like this. The line is corrupt. Omit _þat_, and you have