Produced by Louise Hope, Robert Cicconetti and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
[Transcriber’s Note:
This e-text includes characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file
encoding, including:
ſ (long “s”)
Ȝȝ (yogh)
m̅ (m with over-line; the equivalent “n” form is shown as
ñ with tilde for better font support)
ǽ (æ with accent, only in the Glossary)
There are also a few letters with macron (“long” mark). If any of these
characters do not display properly--in particular, if the diacritic
does not appear directly above the letter--or if the apostrophes and
quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your text
reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8).
You may also need to change the default font. As a last resort, use the
Latin-1 version of the file instead.
Unlike most EETS productions, this book was printed with long “s” (ſ).
The editor’s Introduction says:
We find, in the MS., both the long and the twisted _s_ (ſ and s).
These have been noted down as they occur, though I do not observe
any law for their use. The letter “ß” has been adopted as closely
resembling a symbol in the MS., which apparently has the force of
double _s_, and is not unlike the “_sz_” used in modern German
hand-writing.
An italic form of þ (thorn) was apparently not available to the printer.
In the modern parts of this e-text, the letter has been italicized when
context seems to warrant it. In the poem, all italics--representing
expanded contractions or abbreviations--are shown with {braces} as
“se{n}t” or “{and}”. Other italics are shown conventionally with
_lines_. To reduce visual clutter, italics in folio numbers (“1 _b_”)
are unmarked. The change in labeling from “21, 21b” to “22a, 22b”
appears to be accidental.
Large initial letters in the primary texts are marked with leading
double ++ as “++Messire”, “++Maist{er}”. The random variation between
capital and lower-case letters after an initial is as in the original.
Superscripts are shown with ^ alone. Unless otherwise noted, the
superscripting continues to the end of the word.
In the Glossary, ȝ (yogh) is alphabetized as z.
In the printed book, some line numbers were moved or omitted for reasons
of space; they have been silently regularized. Sidenotes giving folio
numbers are shown as printed. Other sidenotes have been moved to the
nearest convenient sentence break or major punctuation. Where practical,
footnotes are grouped together, preferably before headnotes, stanza
breaks (random) or decorative capitals. Headnotes have been moved to
agree with the text, and will generally not coincide with printed page
breaks.
Except for footnotes and similar, all brackets [] are in the original.
Conversely, except for the indented stanzas at ll. 699-719, all blank
lines within the poem were added by the transcriber.]
The Romans
of
Lancelot of the Laik.
Dublin: William Mcgee, 18, Nassau Street.
Edinburgh: T. G. Stevenson, 22, South Frederick Street.
Glasgow: Ogle & Co., 1, Royal Exchange Square.
Berlin: Asher & Co., Unter Den Linden, 11.
Boston, U.S.: Dutton & Co.
New York: C. Scribner & Co.; Leypoldt & Holt.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.
LANCELOT OF THE LAIK:
A Scottish Metrical Romance,
(About 1490-1500 A.D.)
re-edited
From a Manuscript in the Cambridge University Library,
with an
Introduction, Notes, and Glossarial Index,
by
THE REV. W. W. SKEAT, M.A.,
Late Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge;
and Translator of the Songs and Ballads of Uhland.
[Second and Revised Edition, 1870.]
LONDON:
Published for the Early English Text Society,
By N. Trübner & Co., 60, Paternoster Row.
MDCCCLXV.
6
John Childs and Son, Printers.
PREFACE.
I.--DESCRIPTION OF THE MS., ETC.
A former edition of the present poem was printed for the Maitland Club,
in 1839, and edited by Joseph Stevenson, Esq. It has saved me all
trouble of transcription, but by no means, I am sorry to say, that of
correction. Those who possess the older edition will readily perceive
that it differs from the present one very frequently indeed, and that
the variations are often such as considerably to affect the sense. Many
of the errors in it (such as _casualtyee_ for _casualytee_, _grone_, for
_gone_, _reprent_ for _repent_) are clearly typographical, but there are
others which would incline me to believe that the transcription was too
hastily executed; several passages being quite meaningless. Near the
conclusion of Mr Stevenson’s preface we read: “The pieces which have
been selected for the present volume[P1] are printed with such errors of
transcription as have crept into them by the carelessness of the
scribe;” a statement which certainly implies that there was no intention
on his part of departing from the original. Yet that he sometimes
unconsciously did so to such an extent as considerably to alter (or
destroy) the sense, the reader may readily judge from a few examples:--
[Footnote P1: The volume contains other poems besides “Sir
Lancelot.”]
LINE. EDITION OF 1839. TRUE READING OF THE MS.
26. fatil (_fatal_), fatit (_fated_).
285. unarmyt (_unarmed_), enarmyt (_fully armed_).
682. can here, cam nere.
700. rendit (_rent_), vondit (_wounded_).
764. refuse (_refusal?_), reprefe (_defeat_).
861. felith (_feeleth_), ſetith (_setteth_).
1054. vyt, ry{ch}t.
1084. speiris, spuris.
1455. cumyng (_coming_), cunyng (_skill_).
1621. he war, be war (_beware_).
1641. promyß, punyß (_punish_).
2010. ane desyne, medysyne.
2092. born, lorn (_lost_).
2114. havin, harm.
2142. Hymene (!), hyme (_him_).
2219. such, furth (_forth_).
2245. al so y-vroght, al foly vroght.
2279. chichingis (!), thithingis (_tidings_).
2446. love, lore (_teaching_). Etc.
Several omissions also occur, as, _e.g._, of the word “off” in l. 7, of
the word “tressore” in l. 1715, and of four whole lines at a time in two
instances; viz., lines 1191-4, and 2877-80. It will be found, in fact,
that the former text can seldom be safely quoted for the purposes of
philology; and I cannot but think Mr Stevenson’s claim of being accurate
to be especially unfortunate; and the more so, because the genuine text
is much simpler and more intelligible than the one which he has given.
The original MS. is to be found in the Cambridge University Library,
marked Kk. 1. 5. It formerly formed part of a thick volume, labelled
“Tracts;” but these are now being separated, for greater convenience,
into several volumes. The MS. of “Lancelot” has little to do with any of
the rest as regards its subject, but several other pieces are in the
same hand-writing; and, at the end of one of them, an abstract of
Solomon’s proverbs, occur the words, “Expliciunt Dicta Salamonis, per
manum V. de F.”[P2] This hand-writing, though close, is very regular,
and my own impression certainly is that the scribe has almost always
succeeded in preserving the sense of the poem, though there is much
confusion in the dialectal forms, as will be shewn presently.
[Footnote P2: See Mr Lumby’s editions of “Early Scottish Verse”
and “Ratis Raving,” both edited for the E.E.T.S. from this MS.
Only the latter of these is in the hand-writing of V. de F.]
The present text is as close a fac-simile of the MS. as can be
represented by printed letters, every peculiarity being preserved as far
as practicable, even including the use of _y_ for _þ_ (or _th_); so that
the reader must remember that _yow_ in l. 94 stands for _thow_, and
_yis_ in l. 160 for _this_, and so on; but this ought not to cause much
difficulty. The sole points of difference are the following:
1. In the MS. the headings “Prologue,” “Book I.” etc., do not occur.
2. The lines do not always begin (in the MS.) with a capital letter.
3. The letters _italicized_ are (in the MS.) represented by signs of
contraction. One source of difficulty is the flourish over a word, used
_sometimes_ as a contraction for _m_ or _n_. I have expanded this
flourish as an _m_ or _n_ wherever such letter is manifestly required;
but it also occurs where it is best to attach to it no value. In such
instances, the flourish occurs most frequently over the last word in a
line, and (except very rarely) only over words which have an _m_ or _n_
in them. It would thus seem that their presence is due to the fact of
the scribe wanting employment for his pen after the line had been
written, and that the flourish therefore appears over certain words, not
so much because the _n_ is _wanting_ in them, as because it is _there
already_. Such words have a special attraction for the wandering pen.
Still, in order that the reader may know wherever such flourishes occur,
they have all been noted down; thus, in l. 46, the stroke over the _n_
in “greñ” means that a long flourish occurs drawn over the whole word,
and the reader who wishes to expand this word into “gren{e}” or
“gren{n}” may easily do it for himself, though he should observe that
the most usual form of the word is simply “gren,” as in lines 1000,
1305.
In a few nouns ending in _-l_, the plural is indicated by a stroke drawn
through the doubled letter; as in _perillis_, _sadillis_, etc.; and even
the word _ellis_ (else) is thus abbreviated.
4. I am responsible for all hyphens, and letters and words between
square brackets; thus, “with-outen” is in the MS. “with outen;” and
“knych[t]ly” is written “knychly.” Whenever a line begins with a capital
letter included between two brackets, the original has a blank space
left, evidently intended for an illuminated letter. Wherever illuminated
letters actually occur in the MS., they are denoted in this edition by
large capitals.
5. We find, in the MS., both the long and the twisted _s_ (ſ and s).
These have been noted down as they occur, though I do not observe any
law for their use. The letter “ß” has been adopted as closely resembling
a symbol in the MS., which apparently has the force of double _s_, and
is not unlike the “_sz_” used in modern German hand-writing. It may be
conveniently denoted by _ss_ when the type “ß” is not to be had, and is
sometimes so represented in the “Notes.”
6. The MS. is, of course, not punctuated. The punctuation in the present
edition is mostly new; and many passages, which in the former edition
were meaningless, have thus been rendered easily intelligible. I am also
responsible for the headings of the pages, the abstract at the sides of
them, the numbering of the folios in the margin, the notes, and the
glossary; which I hope may be found useful. The greatest care has been
taken to make the text accurate, the proof-sheets having been compared
with the MS. _three times_ throughout.[P3]
[Footnote P3: This refers to the edition printed in 1865. In
executing the present reprint, the proof-sheets have been once
more compared with the MS., and a very few insignificant errors
have been thus detected and rectified.]
II.--DESCRIPTION OF THE POEM.
The poem itself is a loose paraphrase of not quite fourteen folios of
the first of the three volumes of the French Romance of Lancelot du Lac,
if we refer to it as reprinted at Paris in 1513, in three volumes, thin
folio, double-columned.[P4] The English poet has set aside the French
Prologue, and written a new one of his own, and has afterwards
translated and amplified that portion of the Romance which narrates the
invasion of Arthur’s territory by “le roy de oultre les marches, nomme
galehault” (in the English _Galiot_), and the defeat of the said king by
Arthur and his allies.
[Footnote P4: “As to the Romance of Sir Lancelot, our author
[Gower], among others on the subject, refers to a volume of which
he was the hero; perhaps that of Robert de Borron, altered soon
afterwards by Godefroy de Leigny, under the title of _Le Roman de
la Charrette_, and printed, with additions, at Paris by Antony
Verard, in the year 1494.
For if thou wilt the bokes rede
Of Launcelot and other mo,
Then might thou seen how it was tho
Of armes,” etc. (GOWER: _Confessio Amantis_, Book iv.)
_Quoted from_ Warton’s English Poetry, vol. ii., p. 234, _ed._ 1840.
I quote this as bearing somewhat on the subject, though it should be
observed that _Le Roman de la Charrette_ is not the same with _Lancelot
du Lac_, but only a romance of the same class. Chaucer also refers to
Lancelot in his Nonnes Prestes Tale, l. 392; and it is mentioned in the
famous lines of Dante (_Inf._ v. 127)--
“Noi leggevamo un giorno per diletto
Di Lancilotto, come amor lo strinse,” &c.]
The Prologue (lines 1-334) tells how the author undertook to write a
romance to please his lady-love; and how, after deciding to take as his
subject the story of Lancelot as told in the French Romance, yet finding
himself unequal to a close translation of the whole of it, he determined
to give a paraphrase of a portion of it only. After giving us a brief
summary of the earlier part by the simple process of telling us what he
will _not_ relate, he proposes to begin the story at the point where
Lancelot has been made prisoner by the lady of Melyhalt, and to take as
his subject the wars between Arthur and Galiot, and the distinction
which Lancelot won in them; and afterwards to tell how Lancelot made
peace between these two kings, and was consequently rewarded by Venus,
who
“makith hyme his ladice grace to have” (l. 311).
The latter part of the poem, it may be observed, has not come down to
us. The author then concludes his Prologue by beseeching to have the
support of a very celebrated poet, whose name he will not mention, but
will only say that
“Ye fresch enditing of his laiting toung
Out throuch yis world so wid is yroung,” etc.[P5] (l. 328.)
[Footnote P5: He does not necessarily imply that the poet invoked
was still alive; and we might almost suppose Petrarch to be meant,
who was more proud of his Latin poem called “Africa” than of his
odes and sonnets. See Hallam’s Literary History (4 vols.), vol.
i., p. 85. But this is pure conjecture.]
The first Book introduces us to King Arthur at Carlisle.[P6] The king is
visited by dreams, which he imagines to forebode misfortune; he
therefore convokes all his clerks, and inquires of them the meaning of
the dreams, proposing to hang them in the event of their refusal. Thus
strongly urged, they tell him that those on whom he most relies will
fail him at his need; and when he further inquires if this evil fate can
be averted, they answer him very obscurely that it can only be remedied
by help of the water-lion, the leech, and the flower; a reply which the
king evidently regards as unsatisfactory. Soon after an aged knight,
fully armed, enters the palace, with a message from King Galiot,
requiring him to give “tribute and rent.” Arthur at once refuses,
somewhat to the astonishment of the knight, who is amazed at his
hardihood. Next arrives a message from the lady of Melyhalt, informing
Arthur of the actual presence of Galiot’s army. We are then momentarily
introduced to Lancelot, who is pining miserably in the lady’s custody.
Next follows a description of Galiot’s army, at sight of the approach of
which King Arthur and his “niece,” Sir Gawain, confer as to the best
means of resistance. In the ensuing battle Sir Gawain greatly
distinguishes himself, but is at last severely wounded. Sir Lancelot,
coming to hear of Sir Gawain’s deeds, craves leave of the lady to be
allowed to take part in the next conflict, who grants him his boon on
condition that he promise to return to his prison. She then provides for
him a red courser, and a complete suit of red armour, in which guise he
appears at the second battle, and is the “head and comfort of the
field;” the queen and Sir Gawain beholding his exploits from a tower.
The result of the battle convinces Galiot that Arthur is not strong
enough at present to resist him sufficiently, and that he thus runs the
risk of a too easy, and therefore dishonourable, conquest; for which
excellent reason he grants Arthur a twelvemonth’s truce, with a promise
to return again in increased force at the expiration of that period. Sir
Lancelot returns to Melyhalt according to promise, and the lady is well
pleased at hearing the reports of his famous deeds, and visits him when
asleep, out of curiosity to observe his appearance after the fight.
[Footnote P6: But the French has “Cardueil.” See l. 2153.]
In the Second Book the story makes but little progress, nearly the whole
of it being occupied by a long lecture or sermon delivered to Arthur by
a “master,” named Amytans, on the duties of a king; the chief one being
that a king should give presents to everybody--a duty which is insisted
on with laborious tediousness. Lines 1320-2130 are almost entirely
occupied with this subject, and will be found to be the driest part of
the whole narrative. In the course of his lecture, Amytans explains at
great length the obscure prophecy mentioned above, shewing that by the
water-lion is meant God the Father, by the leech God the Son, and by the
flower the Virgin Mary. Though the outline of a similar lecture exists
in the old French text, there would seem to be a special reason for the
length to which it is here expanded. Some lines certainly seem to hint
at events passing in Scotland at the time when the poem was composed.
Thus, “kings may be excused when of tender age” (l. 1658); but when they
come to years of discretion should punish those that have wrested the
law. Again we find (l. 1920) strong warnings against flatterers,
concluding (l. 1940) with the expression,
“Wo to the realme that havith sich o chans!”
Such hints may remind us of the long minorities of James II. and James
III.; and, whilst speaking on this subject, I may note a somewhat
remarkable coincidence. When King Arthur, as related in Book I., asks
the meaning of his dream, he is told that it signifies that “they in
whom he most trusts will fail him” (l. 499); and he afterwards laments
(l. 1151) how his “men fail him at need.” Now when we read that a story
is current of a prophetess having told James III. that he was destined
to “fall by the hands of his own kindred,”[P7] and that that monarch was
in the habit of consulting _astrologers_[P8] (compare l. 432) as to the
dangers that threatened him, it seems quite possible that the poem was
really composed about the year 1478; and this supposition is consistent
with the fact that the hand-writing of the present MS. copy belongs to
the very end of the fifteenth century.
[Footnote P7: Tytler’s History of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1841), vol.
iv., p. 216.]
[Footnote P8: The French text does not say anything about
“astronomy.” We may especially note the following lines, as _not_
being in the French, viz., lines 1473-1496, 1523-1542, 1599-1644,
1658-1680, and the long passage 1752-1998.]
Towards the end of the Second Book, we learn that the twelvemonth’s
truce draws near its end, and that Sir Lancelot again obtains permission
from the lady to be present in the approaching combat, choosing this
time to be arrayed in “armys al of blak” (l. 2426).
In the Third Book Galiot returns to the fight with a host thrice as
large as his former one. As before, Gawain distinguishes himself in the
first encounter, but is at length so “evil wounded” that he was “the
worse thereof evermore” (l. 2706). In the second combat, the black
knight utterly eclipses the red knight, and the last thousand (extant)
lines of the poem are almost wholly occupied with a description of his
wonderful prowess. At the point where the extant portion of the poem
ceases, the author would appear to be just warming with his subject, and
to be preparing for greater efforts.
In continuance of the outline of the story, I may add that the French
text[P9] informs us how, after being several times remounted by Galiot,
and finding himself with every fresh horse quite as fresh as he was at
the beginning of the battle, the black knight attempted, as evening
fell, to make his way back to Melyhalt secretly. Galiot, however, having
determined not to lose sight of him, follows and confronts him, and
earnestly requests his company to supper, and that he will lodge in his
tent that night. After a little hesitation, Lancelot accepts the
invitation, and Galiot entertains him with the utmost respect and
flattery, providing for him a most excellent supper and a bed larger
than any of the rest. Lancelot, though naturally somewhat wearied,
passes a rather restless night, and talks a good deal in his sleep. Next
day Galiot prays him to stay longer, and he consents on condition that a
boon may be granted him, which is immediately acceded to without further
question. He then requests Galiot to submit himself to Arthur, and to
confess himself vanquished, a demand which so amazes that chieftain that
he at first refuses, yet succeeds in persuading Lancelot to remain with
him a little longer. The day after, preparations are made for another
battle, on which occasion Lancelot wears Galiot’s armour, and is at
first mistaken for him, till Sir Gawain’s acute vision detects that the
armour really encases the black knight. As Lancelot now fights on
Galiot’s side, it may easily be imagined how utter and complete is the
defeat of Arthur’s army, which was before victorious owing to his aid
only; and we are told that Arthur is ready to kill himself out of pure
grief and chagrin, whilst Sir Gawain swoons so repeatedly, for the same
reason, as to cause the most serious fears to be entertained for his
life. At this sorrowful juncture Lancelot again claims his boon of
Galiot, who, in the very moment of victory, determines at last to grant
it, and most humbly sues for mercy at the hands of Arthur, to that
king’s most intense astonishment. By this very unexpected turn of
affairs, the scene of dolour is changed to one of unalloyed joy, and
peace is immediately agreed upon, to the satisfaction of all but some
true-bred warriors, who preferred a battle to a peace under all
circumstances. Not long after, Galiot discovers Lancelot with eyes red
and swollen with much weeping, and endeavours to ascertain the reason of
his grief, but with small success. After endeavouring to comfort
Lancelot as much as possible, Galiot goes to visit King Arthur, and a
rather long conference takes place between them as they stand at Sir
Gawain’s bedside, the queen being also present. In the course of it,
Galiot asks Arthur what price he would pay to have the black knight’s
perpetual friendship; to which Arthur replies, he would gladly share
with him half of everything that he possessed, saving only Queen
Guinevere. The question is then put to Gawain, who replies that, if only
his health might be restored, he would wish to be the most beautiful
woman in the world, so as to be always beloved by the knight. Next it is
put to Guinevere, who remarks that Sir Gawain has anticipated all that a
lady could possibly wish, an answer which is received with much
laughter. Lastly, Arthur puts the question to Galiot himself, who
declares that he would willingly, for the black knight’s sake, suffer
that all his honour should be turned into shame, whereat Sir Gawain
allows himself to be outbidden. The queen then obtains a brief private
conference with Galiot, and prays him to obtain for her an interview
with the black knight, who promises to do what he can to that end. He
accordingly sounds the black knight upon the subject, and, finding him
entirely of the same mind, does all he can to promote their
acquaintance, and is at last only too successful; and at this point we
may suppose the Scottish Romance to have stopped, if indeed it was ever
completed. For some account of the Romance of Lancelot, I may refer the
reader to Professor Morley’s English Writers, vol. i., pp. 568-570, and
573; to “Les Romans de la Table Ronde,” par M. Paulin Paris; and to the
Prefaces to the “Seynt Graal,” edited by Mr Furnivall for the Roxburghe
Club, 1861, and “La Queste del Saint Graal,” also edited by the same for
the same club in 1864. In the last-named volume short specimens are
given from thirteen MSS. at Paris, ten of which contain the Romance of
Lancelot. There are also manuscript copies of it in the British Museum,
viz., MSS. Harl. 6341 and 6342, Lansdowne 757, and MS. Addit. 10293.
[Footnote P9: See Appendix.]
III.--THE DIALECT OF THE POEM.
In coming to discuss the dialect, we find everywhere traces of
considerable confusion; but it is not at all easy to assign a
satisfactory reason for this.[P10] Certain errors of transcription soon
shew that the scribe had before his eyes an older copy, which he
mis-read. Thus, in l. 433, we find “set,” where the older copy must have
had “fet,” and which he must have mis-read as “ſet;” and again, in lines
2865, 2883, he has, by a similar confusion between “f” and “ſ,” written
“firſt” instead of “fift.” It is most probable that the older copy was
written in the Lowland Scottish dialect (the whole tone of the poem
going to prove this), as shewn by the use of _ch_ for _gh_, as in
_bricht_ for _bright_, (unless this be wholly due to the scribe); by the
occurrence of plurals in _-is_, of verbal preterites and passive
participles in _-it_, and of words peculiarly Scottish, such as _syne_
(afterwards), _anerly_ (only), _laif_ (remainder), _oft-syss_
(oft-times), etc. Moreover, the Northern _r_ is clearly indicated by the
occurrence of such dissyllables as _gar-t_, 2777, _lar-g_, 2845,
_fir-st_, 2958, 3075; with which compare the significant spellings
_harrmful_, 1945, and _furrde_, 2583. But, on the other hand, it would
appear as if either the author or the copyist had no great regard for
pure dialect, and continually introduces Southern and Midland forms,
mixing them together in an indiscriminate and very unusual manner. We
find, for example, in line 1765,
“Be{ith} larg and iff{is} frely of thi thing,”
the Scottish form _iffis_ (give) and the Southern _beith_ in close
conjunction; and we find no less than six or seven forms of the plural
of the past tense of the verb “to be;” as, for example, _war_ (3136),
_veir_ (818), _ware_ (825), _waren_ (3301), _veryng_ (2971), _waryng_
(443), etc. If we could suppose that the scribe was not himself a
Scotchman, we might in some measure account for such a result; but the
supposition is altogether untenable, as the peculiar character of the
handwriting (resembling that found, not in English, but in _French_
MSS.) decides it to be certainly Scottish; as is also evident from the
occurrence, in the same hand-writing, of a Scotticised version of
Chaucer’s “Flee from the press.”
[Footnote P10: For many valuable remarks upon the dialect of the
poem I am indebted to Mr R. Morris.]
The best that can be done is to collect a few instances of
peculiarities.
1. The broad Northumbrian forms _a_, _ane_, _baith_, _fra_, _ga_,
_haill_, _hame_, _knaw_, _law_, _sa_, _wat_, although occasionally
retained, are also at times changed into _o_, _one_, _boith_, _fro_,
_go_, _holl_, _hom_, _know_, _low_, _so_, and _wot_. Thus, at the end of
l. 3246, we find _haill_, which could not have been altered without
destroying the rime; but in l. 3078, we find it changed, in the middle
of the line, into _holl_. In l. 3406, we find _sa_, but only three lines
further on we find _so_ twice.
So, too, we not only find _tane_ (taken), _gais_ (goes), but also the
forms _tone_ and _goß_. See lines 1071, 1073.
2. The true plural form of the verb is shewn by lines 203, 204,
“Of quhois fame and worschipful dedis
Clerkis into diuerß bukis _redis_,”
where alteration would have ruined the rime utterly; and the same
termination (_-is_) is correctly used in the imperative mood, as,
----“ſo _giffis_ ws delay” (l. 463);
“And of thi wordis _beis_ trew and stable” (l. 1671);
but the termination _-ith_ is continually finding its way into the poem,
even as early as in the fourth line,
“_Uprisith_ arly in his fyre chare;”
and in the imperative mood also, as,
“_Remembrith_ now it stondith one the poynt” (l. 797).
The most singular point of all, however, is this--that, not content with
changing _-is_ into _-ith_ in the 3rd person singular, the scribe has
done the same even in the 2nd person, thus producing words which belong
to no pure example of any distinct dialect. Observe the following
lines:--
“O woful wrech, that _levis_ in to were!
To schew the thus the god of loue me sent,
That of thi seruice no thing is content,
For in his court yhoue [= thou] _lewith_ in disspar,
And vilfully _sustenis_ al thi care,
And _schapith_ no thinge of thine awn remede,
Bot _clepith_ ay and _cryith_ apone dede,” etc. (ll. 84-90).
Here _levis_ is altered into _lewith_, not only unnecessarily, but quite
wrongly. For similar mistakes, see ll. 1019, 1369, 1384, 2203. For
examples of correct usage, see ll. 1024, 1337, 1796, 2200, 2201.
3. But the terminations which are used in the most confused manner of
all are _-en_, _-yne_, and _-ing_ or _-yng_. Thus we find the
non-Scottish infinitives, _telen_ (494), _makine_ (191); the constant
substitution of _-ing_ for _-and_ in the present participle;[P11]
a confusion between the past participial ending _-ine_ (more correctly
_-yn_), and the present ending _-and_, thus producing such forms as
_thinkine_ (34), and _besichyne_ (418); and also a confusion between
_-ing_ and the past participial ending _-en_, as _fundyng_ for _funden_
(465), _fallyng_ for _fallen_ (1217, 1322, 3267), _swellyng_ for
_swollen_ (1222), and _halding_ for _halden_ (2259). We even find _-ing_
in the infinitive mood, as in _awysing_ (424), _viting_ (to know, 410),
_smyting_ (1326), _warnnyng_ (1035), _passing_ (2148), _ſchewing_
(2736), etc.; and, lastly, it occurs in the plural of the indicative
present, instead of the Midland _-en_; as in _passing_ (1166), _biding_
(2670), and _levyng_ (3304).[P12]
[Footnote P11: We find the true forms occasionally, as _obeisand_
(641), _plesand_ (1731), _thinkand_ (2173), _prekand_ (3089), and
_fechtand_ (3127). Compare the form _seruand_ (122).]
[Footnote P12: “The Scottish pronunciation of _-ing_ was already,
as it still is, _-een_; and the writer, knowing that the correct
spelling of _dwellin_, for example, was _dwelling_, fancied also
that _fallen_, _halden_ (Sc. _fallyn_, _haldyn_) were _fallyng_,
_haldyng_. Lyndesay and Gawain Douglas often do the same. Compare
_gardinge_ (l. 50), _laiting_ (l. 327).” --J. A. H. Murray.]
It may safely be concluded, however, that the frequent occurrence of
non-Scottish infinitives must not be attributed to the copyist, since
they are probably due rather to the author; for in such a line as
“Of his desir to viting the sentens” (l. 410),
the termination _-ing_ is required to complete the rhythm of the line.
In the same way we must account for the presence of the prefix _i-_, as
in the line
“Quharwith that al the gardinge was I-clede” (l. 50).
This prefix never occurs in vernacular Scottish; but we may readily
suppose that this and other numerous Southern forms of words are due (as
in Gawain Douglas and Lyndesay) to the author’s familiarity with
Chaucer’s poems, as evinced by the similarity of the rhythm to
Chaucer’s, and by the close resemblance of several passages. Compare,
for instance, the first seventy lines of the Prologue with the opening
passages of “The Flower and the Leaf,” and “The Complaint of the Black
Knight;” and see notes to ll. 432, 1608. Indeed, this seems to be the
only satisfactory way of accounting for the various peculiarities with
which the poem abounds.
Mr J. A. H. Murray, in his remarks printed in the preface to Mr Lumby’s
edition of “Early Scottish Verse,” comes to a similar conclusion, and I
here quote his words for the reader’s convenience and information.
“There is no reason, however, to suspect the scribe of _wilfully_
altering his original; indeed, the reverse appears manifest, from the
fact that the ‘Craft of Deyng’ has not been assimilated in orthography
to ‘Ratis Raving,’ but distinctly retains its more archaic character;
while in ‘Sir Lancelot,’ edited by Mr Skeat for the Early English Text
Society, from the handwriting of the same scribe, we have a language in
its continual Anglicisms quite distinct from that of the pieces
contained in this volume, of which the Scotch is as pure and unmixed as
that of the contemporary Acts of Parliament. With regard to the
remarkable transformation which the dialect has undergone in Sir
Lancelot, there seems reason, therefore, to suppose that it was not due
to the copyist of the present MS., but to a previous writer, if not to
the author himself, who perhaps affected _southernism_, as was done a
century later by Lyndesay and Knox, and other adherents of the English
party in the Reformation movement. The Southern forms are certainly
often shown by the rhyme to be original, and such a form as _tone_ for
_tane_ = taken, is more likely to have been that of a Northerner trying
to write Southern, than of a Southern scribe, who knew that no such word
existed in his dialect. The same may be said of the _th_ in the second
person singular. A Scotch writer, who observed that Chaucer said _he
liveth_, where he himself said _he lyves_, might be excused for
supposing that he would also have said _thou liveth_ for the Northern
_thow lyves_; but we can hardly fancy a Southern copyist making the
blunder.”
4. We find not only the Northumbrian forms _sall_ and _suld_, but also
_shall_, _shalt_, and _shuld_.
5. As regards pronouns, we find the Scottish _scho_ (she) in l. 1169;
but the usual form is _sche_. We find, too, not only the broad forms
_thai_, _thair_, _thaim_, but also _thei_ (sometimes _the_), _ther_, and
_them_. As examples of forms of the relative pronoun, we may quote
_who_, _quho_, _whois_, _quhois_ (whose), _quhom_, _qwhome_ (whom),
_quhat_, _qwhat_ (what), and _whilk_, _quhilk_, _quhich_, _quich_,
_wich_ (which). _Wich_ is used instead of _who_ (l. 387), and we also
find _the wich_, or _the wich that_, similarly employed. The nominative
_who_ does not perhaps occur as a _simple_ relative, but has the force
of _whoso_, or _he who_, as _e.g._, in l. 1102; or else it is used
interrogatively, as in l. 1172.
6. Many other peculiarities occur, which it were tedious to discuss
fully. It may suffice, perhaps, to note briefly these following. We find
both the soft sound _ch_, as in _wich_, _sich_, and the hard sound _k_,
as in _whilk_, _reke_ (reach), _streke_ (stretch), etc.; which are the
true Northern forms.
_Mo_ is used as well as _more_.
_Tho_ occurs for _then_ in l. 3184; and for _the_ in l. 247.
_At_ occurs as well as _that_; _atte_ as well as _at the_, 627, 1055.
The short forms _ma_ (make), _ta_ (take), _sent_ (sendeth), _stant_
(standeth), are sometimes found; the two former being Northumbrian.
_Has_ is used twice as a _plural_ verb (ll. 481, 496).[P13]
[Footnote P13: “The plural in Scottish always ends in _-s_ after a
noun or when the verb is separated from its pronoun; we still say
_the men hes_, _the bairns sings_, _them ’at cums_, not _have_,
_sing_, _come_. Notice the frequent use of _th_ for _t_, as in
l. 497, _Presumyth_ = _presumit_, presumed, it being presumed.”
--J. A. H. Murray. [Or, _presumyth_ may be the pl. imperative, as
in _Remembrith_ (l. 797), already noticed. --ED.] ]
_Ȝha_ (yes) occurs in l. 2843; but we also meet with _ȝhis_, or _yis_;
with reference to which Mr Morris writes:-- “The latter term was not
much in favour with the people of the North. Even now _yes_ sounds
offensive to a Lancashire man. ‘Hoo cou’d naw opp’n hur meawth t’ sey
_eigh_ (yea) or _now_ (no); boh simpurt on sed _iss_; th’ dickons iss
hur on him too. --_Tim Bobbin._’” In fact, the distinction between _ȝha_
and _ȝhis_, which I have pointed out in _William of Palerne_ (Glossary,
s.v. _ȝis_), viz., that _ȝha_ merely assents, whilst _ȝhis_ shews
that the speaker has an opinion of his own, is in this poem observed.
Thus, in l. 2843, _ȝha_ = “yes, I admit that I do;” but in l. 514, _yis_
= “yes, but you had better do so;” in l. 1397, _ȝhis_ = “yes, indeed I
will;” and in l. 3406, _ȝis_ = “yes, but I cannot accept your
answer.”[P14] The true distinction between _thou_ and _ye_ (_William of
Palerne_, Pref. p. xli) is also generally observed. Thus the Green Bird,
in the Prologue, considers the poet to be a fool, and calls him _thou_;
but the clerks, in addressing Arthur (l. 498) politely say _ye_. And
again, Amytans, when rebuking Arthur, frequently calls him _thou_,
without any ceremony. Cf. ll. 659, 908, 921, 2839, &c.
[Footnote P14: “This _ȝis_ is the common form in the Scottish
writers, though _ay_ is largely the modern vernacular.” --J. A. H.
Murray.]
As regards the vocabulary, we find that some Northumbrian terms have
been employed, but others thrown aside. Thus, while we find the
Northumbrian words _thir_ (these), _traist_ (trust), _newis_ (neives,
fists), _radour_ (fear), etc., we do not, on the other hand, meet with
the usual Scottish word _mirk_, but observe it to be supplanted by
_dirk_ (l. 2471). So, again, _eke_ is used in the sense of _also_,
instead of being a verb, as more usual in Northern works. We may note,
too, the occurrence of _frome_ as well as _fra_, and the Scottish form
_thyne-furth_ (thenceforth) in l. 2196.
The spelling is very various. We find even four forms of one word, as
_cusynace_, _cusynece_, _cusynes_, _cwsynes_; and, as examples of
eccentric spelling, may be quoted _qsquyaris_ (squires, l. 3204), whilst
in l. 3221 we find _sqwar_.
Both in the marginal abstract and in the notes I have chiefly aimed at
removing minor difficulties by explaining sentences of which the
construction is peculiar, and words which are disguised by the spelling.
For the explanation of more uncommon words, recourse should be had to
the Glossarial Index.
[Transcriber’s Note:
Most of the French text was printed as a single continuous block, except
where decorative initials mark new paragraphs. It has been broken up to
accommodate the sidenotes.]
APPENDIX.
EXTRACTS FROM THE FRENCH ROMANCE OF “LANCELOT DU LAC.”
As it seems impossible to do justice to the story of Lancelot without
giving due attention to the famous French Romance, and since a portion
of the French text is really necessary to complete even that fragment of
it which the Scottish author proposed to write, the following extracts
have been made with the view of shewing (1) the general outline of the
earlier part of the story, (2) the method in which the Scottish author
has expanded or altered his original, and (3) the completion of the
story of the wars between Arthur and Galiot.[A1]
[Footnote A1: The extracts are from the Paris edition of 1513,
3 vols. folio, a copy of which is in the King’s Library in the
British Museum. There are also two other editions in the Museum,
one in the Grenville Library, 3 vols. Paris, 1494, folio; the
other in one folio volume, Paris, 1520.]
I. Headings of the chapters of the French Romance, from its commencement
to the end of the wars with Galiot.
[The commas are inserted by the present editor, and the expansions
marked by italics.]
¶ Cy commence la table du premier volume de la table ro{n}de
lancelot du lac.
[Sidenote: Claudas, king of Scotland, deprives king Ban and king Boort
of their lands.]
¶ Comment apres la mort de vterpandragon roy du royaulme de
logres, & apres la mort aramon, roy de la petite bretaigne, le roy
claudas de la terre Descosse mena guerre contre le roy ban de benoic
et le roy boort de gauues ta{n}t quil les desherita[A2] de leurs
terres. Fueillet. i.
[Footnote A2: See ll. 1447-1449.]
[Sidenote: Claudas besieges Ban in the Castle of Trible.]
¶ Comment le roy claudas assiegea le chasteau de trible
auquel estoit le roy ban de benoic, et comment ilz parlementerent
ensemble. f. i.
[Sidenote: King Ban, his wife, and his son Lancelot repair to the court
of Arthur.]
¶ Comment le roy ban de benoic, accompaigne de sa femme et
de son filz lancelot, auecq{ue}s vng seul escuyer, se partirent du
chasteau de trible pour aller querir secours deuers le roy Artus a
la grant bretaigne. Fueillet ii.
[Sidenote: The Castle of Trible is treacherously given up to Claudas.]
¶ Comment apres ce que le roy ban fut party de son chasteau
de trible, le seneschal a qui il auoit baille la garde trahit ledit
chasteau, et le liura es mains du roy claudas. Fueillet. ii.
[Sidenote: King Ban dies of grief, and Lancelot is taken away by the
lady of the lake.]
¶ Comment le roy ban mourut de dueil quant il veit son
chasteau ardoir et brouyr. Et comment la dame du lac emporta son
filz lancelot.[A3] Fueillet. iiii.
[Footnote A3: Lines 215, 220.]
¶ Comme{n}t la royne helaine, apres que le roy fut mort et
elle eut perdu son filz, se rendit nonnain en labbaye du monstier
royal. Fueillet. v.
[Sidenote: The two sisters, widows of kings Ban and Boort, retreat to a
monastery.]
¶ Comment le roy de gauues mourut | & co{m}ment la Royne sa
femme, pour paour de claudas, sen partit de son chasteau pour aller
au monstier royal, ou sa seur estait rendue, et comment ses enfans
Lyonnel et Boort luy furent ostez. Fueillet vi.
¶ Comment la royne de Gauues, apres que son seigneur fut
mort et que elle eut perdu ses deux enfans, se vint rendre au
monastere ou estoit sa seur la royne de benoic. Fueillet vi.
[Sidenote: Merlin’s love for the lady of the lake.]
¶ Comment merlin fut engendre du dyable: Et comment il fut
amoureux de la dame du lac. Fueillet vii.
[Sidenote: Sir Farien secretly nourishes the two sons of king Boort, and
is made seneschal to king Claudas.]
¶ Comme{n}t le cheualier farien, qui auoit tollu a la royne
de Gauues ses deux enfans, les emporta en sa maison | et les feist
nourrir vne espace de temps. Et comment le roy claudas fut amoureux
de la femme du dict Farien | et pource le fist son seneschal.
Fueillet viii.
[Sidenote: Claudas accuses Sir Farien of treason.]
¶ Comment le roy claudas fist appeller son cheualier farien
de trahison par ladmonnesteme{n}t de sa femme, disant quil gardoit
les deux enfans du roy boort de gauues. Fueillet. viii.
[Sidenote: Claudas, in disguise, visits Arthur’s court.]
¶ comment le roy claudas en maniere de cheualier estrange, se partit
du royaulme de gauues pour aller en la grant bretaigne a la court du
roy artus pour veoir sa puissa{n}ce & son gouuernement.
Fueillet x.
[Sidenote: The lady of the lake informs Lancelot that he is a king’s
son.]
¶ Comment la dame du lac bailla a lancelot vng maistre pour
linstruyre comme il appartenoit a filz de roy. Fueillet xii.
¶ Comme{n}t la royne helaine alloit faire chascun io{u}r son
dueil au lieu ou son seigneur mourut | et de la alloit au lac ou
elle perdit son filz. Fueillet xv.
¶ Comment le bon Religieux qui auoit dit nouuelles a la
royne helaine de son filz lancelot, print conge de elle, et sen vint
au roy artus en la grant bretaigne. Fueillet xvi.
[Sidenote: The lady of the lake seeks to deliver the sons of king
Boort.]
¶ Comment la dame du lac enuoya sa damoyselle a la court du
roy claudas, pour delyurer les deux enfans au roy boort que claudas
tenoit en prison. Fueillet xvii.
¶ Comment farien, seneschal du roy claudas par le
comma{n}dement de son seigneur, alla querir en prison les deux filz
au roy de Gauues. Fueillet xviii.
[Sidenote: Lyonnel and Boort wound king Claudas, and slay his son
Dorin.]
¶ Comment les deux enfans au roy de gauues blecerent le roy
claudas, & occire{n}t dorin son filz | et comment la damoyselle du
lac les emmena en semblance de deux leuriers. fueil. xix.
¶ De la grant ioye et du grant honneur que la dame du lac
fist aux deux enfans quant elle les veit en sa maison.
Fueillet xx.
[Sidenote: Claudas bewails his son’s death.]
¶ Comment le roy claudas mena tres grant dueil pour la mort
de dorin son filz que boort auoit occis. Fueillet xx.
¶ Comment farien et le peuple de la cyte de gauues
sesmeure{n}t contre le roy claudas a cause que il vouloit faire
mourir les deux filz au roy boort de gauues. Fueillet. xxi.
[Sidenote: Farien saves Claudas’ life.]
¶ Comment le roy claudas se partit de gauues | et comment
ceulx dudit lieu le vouloient occire, se neust este farien le bo{n}
cheualier. f. xxiii.
¶ Comment le roy claudas se deffendit vaillamment contre
ceulx de Gauues qui le vouloyent occire. Fueillet. xxv.
¶ Comment lyonnel et boort perdirent le boire et le manger
pource quilz ne scauoyent nouuelles de leur maistres | lesquelz
estoyent demourez auec le roy claudas | & comment la dame du lac
enuoya vne sie{n}ne damoyselle a gauues pour les amener.
Fueillet. xxvii.
[Sidenote: Leonce and Lambegues go to seek Lyonnel and Boort.]
¶ Comment, par le conseil des baro{n}s de gauues: leonce &
lambegues sen allerent auecques la damoyselle pour veoir leurs
seigneurs lyonnel et boort. Fueillet xxviii.
¶ Comment la dame du lac sen retourna apres ce quelle eut
monstre a leonce et a lambegues les enfa{n}s du roy de gauues leurs
seign{eu}rs, et comment lesditz cheualiers sen retournere{n}t a
gauues. Fueillet xxx.
[Sidenote: Claudas meditates revenge.]
¶ Comment le roy claudas retourna a gauues, po{u}r soy
venger de la honte quon luy auoit faicte, et pour la mort de son
filz. Fueil. xxxi.
¶ Comment lappointement fut fait entre le roy claudas et les
barons, par le moyen de farien et lambegues son nepueu.
fueillet. xxxiii.
[Sidenote: Death of Farien.]
¶ Comme{n}t farien | sa femme, et son nepueu lambegues sen
partirent pour aller veoir lyonnel et boort, qui estoyent au lac | &
comment farien mourut. Fueillet xxxv.
[Sidenote: The widow of king Boort sees her children and Lancelot in a
vision, and dies.]
¶ Comment les deux roynes menerent saincte vie au monstier
royal | et comment celle de gauues veit ces deux enfans & lancelot
en aduision | et comment elle trespassa de ce siecle.
Fueillet. xxxv.
[Sidenote: Arthur holds a tournament, and Banin, son of king Ban, is the
victor.]
¶ Comment le roy artus assembla le iour de pasques tous ses
barons, & tint grant court a karahes, et comment banin le filleul au
Roy ban emporta le pris du behourdys celluy iour.
Fueillet. xxxvi.
[Sidenote: The lady of the lake sends Lancelot to Arthur to be knighted,
and provides for him white armour.]
¶ Comment la dame du lac se pourpensa de mener lancelot au
roy artus pour le faire cheualier,[A4] et elle luy bailla armes
blanches, et partit du lac a tout quarante cheualliers pour le
conuoyer. Fueillet xxxvii.
[Footnote A4: Line 223.]
[Sidenote: Of the wounded knight who came to Arthur’s court.]
¶ Comment vng cheuallier naure, lequel auoit vne espee
fichee en la teste et deux tronco{n}s de lance parmy le corps,[A5]
vint a la court du roy artus | et comment la dame du lac le mena
deuant le roy artus, et luy prya quil le fist cheualier.
Fueillet xxxix.
[Footnote A5: Lines 237-245.]
[Sidenote: Lancelot is knighted.]
¶ Comment messire yuain, a qui le roy Artus auoit
recomma{n}de lancelot, alla faire sa requeste audit roy artus, que
le lendemain il fist ledit lancelot cheualier, et comment ledit
lancelot defferra le cheualier naure.[A6] Fueillet. xli.
[Footnote A6: Lines 249-252.]
[Sidenote: How the white knight defended the lady of Nohalt,]
¶ Comment la dame de noehault[A7] enuoya deuers le roy
artus, luy supplier q{u}il luy enuoyast secours contre le Roy de
norhombellande qui luy menoit guerre. Et comment Lancelot requist au
roy artus quil luy donnast congie dy aller | & il luy octroya.
Fueillet xlii.
[Footnote A7: Line 255.]
[Sidenote: and won the battle for her.]
¶ Co{m}ment le nouueau cheualier aux armes blanches vainquit
la bataille pour la dame de noehault. Fueillet xliii.
¶ Comment lancelot apres ce quil se fut party de la dame de
noehault, se co{m}batit auec vng cheualier qui lauoit mouille.
Fueillet xlv.
[Sidenote: How Lancelot conquered the “Sorrowful Castle.”]
¶ Comment lancelot conquist vaillamme{n}t par sa force et
proesse le chasteau de la douloureuse garde q{ue} nul aultre ne
pouoit conquerre.[A8] Fueillet xlv.
[Footnote A8: Lines 257-259.]
[Sidenote: How Arthur hears of it, and sends Gawain to see if it is
true.]
¶ Comment les nouuelles vindrent au roy artus que la
douloureuse garde estoit conquise par la cheualier aux armes
blanches | Et le roy y enuoya messire gauuain pour en scauoir la
verite. Fueillet xlviii.
[Sidenote: Gawain is imprisoned, and supposed to be dead.]