and both it and MS. Porkington begin _erthe upon erthe_ like the later
texts, as opposed to the more usual _erthe owte of erthe_, so that there
is no clear evidence of a closer relationship between these three texts.
In verse 4, again, an inversion of the customary order of the second or
third lines is common to MSS. Rawl. C., Porkington, Maitland, Reidpeth,
and the Stratford-on-Avon inscription, but the verse easily lends itself
to transposition of the kind, and in MS. Rawl. C. the usual first line
is also put third, so that the order of lines as compared with the
normal arrangement becomes 2. 3. 1. 4. Beyond the self-evident fact that
the Maitland and Reidpeth MSS. must be grouped together, no relationship
of the MSS. can be deduced from this transposition, though it may point
to a second popular version with inversion of lines 2 and 3.
One of the most important differences of reading in the common stanzas
occurs in the first line of the poem, where twelve of the eighteen MSS.
read _erthe out of erthe_, while the remaining six, as well as the
Cambridge text, have _erthe upon erthe_. Three of these six are
definitely later transcripts: MS. Porkington is obviously a later
modification of the original four-lined stanza, and MSS. Maitland and
Reidpeth belong to the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries
respectively; the beginning of MS. Harl. 984 is not preserved, and the
remaining two texts, MSS. Selden and Harl. 1671, belong to c. 1450,
while the Cambridge text, as will be shown later, cannot be regarded as
original. Evidently _erthe owt of erthe_ was the original reading, but
the version _erthe upon erthe_ was introduced early, and appears to have
survived the other. A similar change occurs in the last line of verse 2,
where MS. Harl. 1671 and the Stratford text substitute _erth upon erth_
for _out of_, _from_, _of_, of the other texts, and again in the third
line of verse 4 (l. 2 in the texts mentioned above as transposing these
lines) where the same two MSS. read _erth upon erth_ for the normal
_erth unto_ (_into_, _to_) _erthe_; also in the fourth line of verse 7,
where MSS. Harl. 4486, Lamb., Laud, Maitland, and Reidpeth read _upon_
for _owte of_. Now the last two lines of the first verse of the poem
invariably use the phrase _erth upon erthe_, and it occurs repeatedly
throughout the poem as a synonym for _man_: e.g. verse 2, line 1; 3, ll.
1, 3; 4, ll. 1, 2 (or 3); 5, l. 3; 6, ll. 1, 3; 7, l. 1. It was very
natural that the common phrase, and the one best adapted to serve as a
title to the poem, should tend to replace others, but it seems probable
that wherever the substitution occurs it may be taken as due to a later
tradition, and consequently as a proof of non-originality or comparative
lateness in the text in which it is found. A similar change, and one to
be explained in a similar way, is the introduction of _wonderly_ for
_wyckydly_ in the first line of verse 7 on the analogy of the first line
of the poem, which occurs in MSS. Harl. 1671 and Stratford, and also in
the late MSS. Maitland and Reidpeth.
Other variations of reading are less noteworthy. In the second line of
verse 1, ten MSS., ranging from the early Thornton and Lambeth to the
late Maitland and Reidpeth, read _dignite_, while the others vary
between _nobley_ (MS. Brighton, cf. the Cambridge text), _nobul þyng_
(Billyng), _worschyp_ (Selden), and _an abbey_, perhaps an error for
_nobley_ (Harl. 4486). The remaining three MSS. omit the line. In the
fourth line of verse 2, the alliterative _piteous parting_ of MSS.
Billyng, Egerton, Brighton, Harl. 4486, Lamb., Laud, Titus, and Rawl.
P., is replaced by _hard parting_ not only in the Stratford text and in
the later MSS. (Porkington, Balliol, Maitland, Reidpeth), but also in
MSS. Thornton and Rawl. C., while other readings are _dolful_
(MS. Selden, cf. the Cambridge text) and _heuy_ (MS. Harl. 1671). It is
difficult here to decide between _piteous_ and _hard_, but the
preference should probably rest with the alliterative phrase. In the
fourth line of verse 3, the alliterative _scharpe schowres_ is evidently
the original reading, and it occurs in all texts except Stratford, Rawl.
P., and Balliol.
In the first line of verse 4, _erthe goeth upon erthe as moulde upon
moulde_ occurs in thirteen texts, and two others (Stratford and Balliol,
cf. also the Cambridge text) keep the rime _mould_ while altering the
line. The other two readings found, _colde opon colde_ (Rawl. C.), and
_golde appone golde_ (Thornton), are obviously non-original,
particularly the latter, which repeats the rime-word _gold_ in two
successive lines.
Other variations and occasional transpositions of lines occur in
individual MSS., but are unimportant.
It will thus be seen that the popular traditional version of the poem
tended to become modified, and even corrupt, already in the fifteenth
century, and that such modifications are usually more apparent in the
later texts. It is also evident that individual transcribers felt
themselves at liberty to expand the traditional version, and that many
tried their hand at such variations on the original theme, but the
striking absence of proof of relationship outside the seven stanzas of
the normal version, as well as the frequent unimportant variations found
in the common stanzas, seems to point clearly to the conclusion that the
original was a popular poem of seven, or possibly only five, stanzas,
widely known over England, and that the more simple and naïve of the
seventeen texts extant are also more genuine, and nearer to the
original.
Many of the texts are accompanied by a short prefatory or concluding
verse in English or Latin. The English verse--
_When lyffe is most loued, and deth is moste hated,
Then dethe draweth his drawght and makyth man full naked_
occurs as a preface in MSS. Harl. 4486 and 1671, Lambeth, Laud, Rawl.
P., and Egerton, and as a conclusion in Billyng's text. The Latin
_Memento homo quod cinis es et in cinerem reverteris_ occurs, in full or
in part, in MSS. Harl. 4486, Egerton, Rawl. C., Lambeth, and Billyng,
and _De terra plasmasti me_ in MSS. Harl. 1671, Lambeth, and Rawl.
P. The two stanzas in rime royal on the _Procese of Dethe_ which
immediately precede _Erthe upon Erthe_ in the Porkington MS. are
transcribed as a separate poem, and if not separate, would rather belong
to the preceding text, a translation of the Latin _Visio Philiberti_ in
rime royal, than to _Erthe upon Erthe_. The latter poem often
accompanies either a _Dance of Death_ or one of the numerous _Soul and
Body_ dialogues, no doubt because of the similarity of the theme, but it
is not necessary to regard these kindred poems as forming an essential
part of each other. So in the Balliol MS., _Erthe upon Erthe_ is
preceded by an eight-lined Latin stanza on the theme _vado mori_, which
is probably part of a _Dance of Death_. Here again no basis for a
grouping of the MSS. can be found.
The two late texts--MSS. Maitland and Reidpeth--represent a Lowland
Scots version of the poem, and are obviously copies of the same
original. Probably the Reidpeth text is a transcription of the Maitland,
but it contains some obvious misreadings of it, as in verse 3, line 3,
_bowris_ (Maitl.), _towris_ (Reidpeth) repeating the rime-word; 5,
l. 20, _within_ (Maitl.), _with_ (Reidpeth). The Maitland MS., compiled
c. 1555-1585, adds the colophon _quod Marsar_. The later Reidpeth MS.,
1622-1623, concludes with the words _quod Dumbar_. Mersar, or Marsar, is
mentioned in Dunbar's _Lament for the Makaris_, and is usually
identified with a William Mersar of the household of James IV, mentioned
1500 to 1503. In any case, if he were a contemporary of Dunbar, he could
scarcely be assigned to a sufficiently early date to account for the
widespread popularity of _Erthe upon Erthe_ all over England in 1450,
and the fact that the two MSS. assign the poem to different authors, of
whom Dunbar is manifestly impossible, and Mersar at least improbable,
may be explained as an instance of that readiness of posterity to attach
a known name to a work of unknown origin, of which other examples are
not wanting. It is, however, of interest to find that the poem had made
its way to Scotland by 1550 or thereabouts.
As regards dialect, the majority of the MSS. of the B version show
traces of Northern dialect, most of them preserving the Nth. plural in
_-is_ in the rimes _touris_, _schowrys_, &c. In verse 3 also the
majority of the texts have the Nth. _bigged_ or _biggid_, but six (MSS.
Billyng, Egerton, Rawl. P., Porkington, Balliol, and the Stratford text)
use the Midl. or Sth. _bilded_ or _billed_. In verse 4 the rime requires
the form _wold_ rather than the common Nth. _wald_, and even the
Maitland MS. retains _wold_ for the sake of the rime, whereas MS.
Reidpeth substitutes _wald_, sacrificing the rime. MSS. Thornton and
Rawl. C. show distinct Nth. features, such as the verb-endings _-is_
(pres. ind. 3 sg.), _-and_ (pres. part.), _-id_, _-it_, _-in_ (past
part.), and MS. Rawl. C. has the Nth. _whate gates at þu gase_ riming
with _fase_ (_foes_). But few of the MSS. represent pure dialect-forms,
and an investigation of the dialect of the texts is of little assistance
towards determining that of the original poem. Such evidence as exists
points, on the whole, to the North Midland district, and a widespread
popularity in the North, which led to the later knowledge of the poem
across the Border, but the popularity was evidently not confined to the
North, and Southern as well as Northern forms may be traced in both
early and late transcripts.