[MS. Addit. 25478, fol. 3, r^o]
1 Whanne eorthe hath eorthe wiþ wrong igete,
And eorthe in eorthe biginneþ to alete,
And eorthe i{n} eorthe wiþ wormes is afrete,
Thanne eorthe is on eorthe sone for[gh]ete. 4
2 Wanne eorthe ouer eorthe þorw p{r}ude styeþ,
And eorthe toward eorthe þorw coueytise wryeþ,
& eorthe into eorthe toward þe deþ hyeþ,
Þanne eorthe a[gh]eyn eorthe toward heuene c{r}ieþ.[6] 8
3 Whan eorthe juynt eorthe so luþ{er}[7] to awelden,
& eorthe on þ{a}t eorthe allewey[8] bi helden,
& eorthe on eorthe sone bigynneþ for to elden,
Hou may þat[14] eorthe on eorthe wo[14] belden? 12
4 What haueþ eorthe on eorthe bote pou[gh]t[15] and[15] wo,
Whan eorthe iseoþ[16] eorthe his dedliche fo,
& eorthe into eorthe so sone gynneþ guo,
& eorthe iworthe to eorthe alle we sullen so? 16
5 Alas why naþ eorthe[17] in eorthe is þou[gh]t,
Hou eorthe is on eorthe wiþ synnes of-sou[gh]t,
& eorthe was in eorthe so mychfulliche ibou[gh]t,
Þ{a}t eorthe þorw eorthe ne foelle[18] to nou[gh]t? 20
(in right column, below French)
6 Whan eorthe iseoþ eorthe to endinge drawe,
& eorthe on eorthe wiþ deþ is islawe,
& eorthe on eorthe wiþ wormes in ignawe,
Þanne eorthe may eorthe hi{m} seluen iknawe. 24
[MS. Addit. 25478, fol. 3, v^o]
7 Wan eorthe ssal of eorthe netfulliche aryse,
& eorthe on eorthe ihere þilke assise
Þer eorthe ne may eorthe noþer[24] lere ne wise,
Þanne eorthe sal on eorthe g{r}imliche agrise. 28
8 Þa{n}ne eorthe sal to eorthe holden gret cheste,
& eorthe asken eorthe were is hiere byheste
Þ{a}t eorthe byhet eorthe allewey to leste,
Wanne eorthe t{ur}neþ to eorthe toward Helle feste. 32
9 Houre Lou{er}d þ{a}t on eorthe for eorthe was iboren,
On eorthe of eorthe wiþ wounden to-toren,
Wyte eorthe fro{m} eorthe þ{a}t ne be furloren,
& b{r}inge eorthe to þ{a}t eorthe þer beþ his icoren. 36
Amen.
It will be seen that the Latin and French versions do not correspond
exactly with the English text, the French in particular being a mere
paraphrase of it, but this was, no doubt, largely due to the exigencies
of the rime. The French text has ten stanzas as against nine in the
English poem, and the Latin has eleven, the additional stanzas being an
expansion of the theme after the manner of Anglo-Latin poems of the
kind. It is evident both from the variant attempts at expansion of the
text in the Latin and French, and from the greater freshness and more
skilful use of the play on the word _erthe_ of the English text, that
the latter is the original, and this supports the view already expressed
(Introd. p. xxxiii) as to the relation of the English and Latin versions
in MS. Harl. 913. It is improbable, at least, that the _Erthe upon
Erthe_ poems should all be derived from two Latin poems, the differences
between which are too great to admit of a common original, but which
were both translated into English verse, and became, in course of time,
modified and popularized. On the other hand, the fact that one
fourteenth-century poem of the kind had been supplied with a Latin
rendering might easily account for an attempt at Latin and French
translations in the case of a second, and there seems to be reason for
believing that the author of the latter text was acquainted with the
poem in MS. Harl. 913. As has been already noted in the Introduction
(p. xxxii), the first line of the English version corresponds in idea
with that of the text in MS. Harl. 913:
Whan erþ haþ erþ iwanne wiþ wow.
and in actual wording with that of the _Song on the Times_:
When erthe hath erthe i-gette.
Otherwise no verbal connexion can be traced with any of the texts of
_Erthe upon Erthe_, though the phrase _eorthe on eorthe_ recurs four
times, and there is, of necessity, some similarity of treatment and
idea. Thus the remainder of verse 1 contains a reference to the
destruction by worms, mentioned in MS. Harl. 913, v. 2, and in the
Cambridge text, vv. 7 and 13, as well as to the proverb that the dead
are soon forgotten, cf. MS. Harl. 913, v. 4 (Introd. p. xxxi); verse 5
exhorts man to think of death, as does v. 6 of the B Version; and the
poem ends with a prayer, as do MSS. Harl. 4486, Lambeth, Laud, Titus,
and Rawl. P., as well as Rawl. C., and the Cambridge text. But the
wording, and, in the two latter cases, the treatment, is different, and
the general similarity is less than might he expected from the triteness
of the theme. Both the A and the B Version lay stress on the contrast
between man's present earthly glory and his future mingling with the
dust, whereas the text in the Appendix dwells on the inevitableness of
death, the pains of death, and the future judgement (only mentioned here
and in MS. Harl. 913). The poem appears to represent an individual
treatment of the subject, suggested perhaps by the text in MS. Harl.
913, with its Latin rendering, and possibly also influenced by the _Song
on the Times_ in the same MS. It may be regarded as being ultimately
based, like MS. Harl. 913, on the short stanzas current at the beginning
of the fourteenth century, and as furnishing additional evidence of the
early popularity of the theme, a popularity which gave rise at first to
individual poems like this and MS. Harl. 913, and later to the
repetition and expansion of one common type as in the B Version. But,
unlike MS. Harl. 913, this text stands apart from the more popular types
of the poem, and has no connexion with either the B Version or the
Cambridge text. It must therefore have been written before the short
normal type of the B Version became current, and probably before it took
shape as a poem of several stanzas, that is before 1400. The want of
close connexion between it and the more usual types of the poem given
above, makes the omission of it from the text the less to be regretted,
since it represents a side-issue rather than a link in the development
of the poem as here treated.
[Footnote 1: Ex^r. K. R. Parl. Proceedings, Bdle. 1 (Old No.
645/21).]
[Footnote 2: Joseph Hunter, the antiquary (1783-1861),
Sub-Commissioner of the Public Records 1833, Assistant-Keeper of
the Records 1838.]
[Footnote 3: MS. _aterrens_ as one word.]
[Footnote 4: MS. _wlt_.]
[Footnote 5: this word is very obscure, and is omitted by Hunter;
portions of _nt_ and the second _t_ can be seen.]
[Footnote 6: H. _b^{i}reþ_.]
[Footnote 7: H. _luþ_.]
[Footnote 8: the MS. has a gap after _allewey_ with space for a
word of five or six letters, but there is no erasure nor trace of
any omission.]
[Footnote 9: inserted above the line.]
[Footnote 10: MS. has _ils_, surely a scribal error; the original
had probably _u{er}s_ = _vers 'towards'_, with the MS. compendium
for _er_, written over and confused with the second stroke of the
_u_ so as to look like _il_.]
[Footnote 11: H. _e'teyne_.]
[Footnote 12: H. _peisez_.]
[Footnote 13: H. _foilment_.]
[Footnotes 14, 15: _in fresher ink above the line._]
[Footnote 16: MS. _isoeþ_.]
[Footnote 17: above the line.]
[Footnote 18: MS. _foelle_; ? _falle_.]
[Footnote 19: All words marked [19] are omitted in H.'s transcript,
the MS. at this point being stained and obscure.]
[Footnote 20: Professor Robinson Ellis suggests _obiu{r}gabit_
here, which would fit the space: there is room for 2-3 letters,
and possibly a trace of an _r_ contraction.]
[Footnote 21: H. _urgabit_.]
[Footnote 22: obscure, H. _fuit_; MS. might be _ffinit_.]
[Footnote 23: H. _t'roe_.]
[Footnote 24: H. _neþer_.]
[Footnote 25: H. _mo ert_.]
[Footnote 26: inserted in margin; H. omits.]
[Footnote 27: H. _aler_.]
[Footnote 28: H. _le_.]
[Footnote 29: H. _sayt cydaunt_.]
[Footnote 30: H. _. . . . . . eyne_.]
[Footnote 31: H. _t^{r}menti_.]
[Footnote 32: H. _ou_.]