SOURCE: "The Lambeth Version of Havelok," Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, Vol. XV, No. 1, 1900, pp. 1-16.

[In the following essay, Putnam examines the version of Havelok the Dane found in the Lambeth manuscript and considers its origin, pointing out possible debts to both French and English sources, omissions of supernatural and clearly fictitious elements, and its unusual sequence.]

Of the several abridgments of the Havelok story in the chronicles of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, that which is interpolated in the Lambeth MS. of Robert Mannyng of Brunne's translation of Peter de Langtoft, is the longest and in many respects the most noteworthy.¹ It has, however, not received the attention it merits. Madden attributes it to the scribe, who, he says, has made other changes in the MS. He describes it as "an abridged outline of the story itself, copied apparently from the French chronicle of Gaimar," but presents no arguments to support his contention. Skeat simply copies Madden. Kupferschmidt,² in his extremely valuable discussion of the relations of the various versions of Havelok one to another, accepts without investigation Madden's statement that the Interpolation is based on Gaimar. In view of the great interest attaching to the romance of Havelok a more careful investigation of this Interpolation may be of some service.

The Interpolation consists of 82 lines in rimed pairs. The meter is generally of six feet, but is not very regular. The language is such as might have been written at the end of the fourteenth century. The style is marked by extreme condensation, an entire incident often being told in a single line. As a result the story appears in a surprisingly complete form, as will be seen from the following analysis:

Gounter (the Danish king who has been fighting with Alfred and who has been baptized) goes with all his folk to Denmark (1). He has a war with a Breton king who came "out of Ingeland" to demand from Denmark the tribute "that Arthur whylom nam" (2-4). The Danes say they would rather fight (5-6). They are defeated and Gounter is killed (7-8). When he is dead the victors plan to bring his blood to shame (9). Gounter's wife was Eleyne, daughter of King Gatfere (10-11). With difficulty she escapes to the sea with her child Havelok (11-13). At the haven she meets Grym, "a wel god marinere," who knows her and promises to take her out of the land that night (14-16). On the sea they are attacked by outlaws and the queen is killed, but Grym, Havelok and five others escape (17-21). They arrive at the haven of Grymesby (22). Havelok is brought up by Grym and his wife as their own child; men do not know otherwise (23-24). He becomes large and strong and a "man of mykel cost," so that "for his grete sustinaunce, nedly serve he most" (25-26). He takes leave of Grym and Seburc "as of his sire & dame" (27-28). He goes northward to the court of King Edelsy, who holds the kingdom of Lyndeseye from the Humber to Rotland (29-30). Edelsy, who is "of Breton kynde," has married his sister Orewayn to Egelbright, a Dane, king of Northfolk, who holds the land from Colchestre to Holland. They have a daughter Argill (31-36). Egelbright and Orewayn die and therefore Edelsy is joyful. He takes "in hande" Argill and the kingdom "al at his owene will" (37-40). Havelok serves there as "quistron" and is called Coraunt (41). He is large, strong as a giant, bold, courteous, free, fair, and "god of manere." All the folk love him (42-44). The king, from a desire to disinherite Argill and because of a "chere" which he has seen her make to Coraunt, arrays them simply and weds them, although many are wroth (45-48). For a while they dwell at court in poor degree. Argill has shame and sorrow. She asks her master about his father, kin and friends. She says she would rather lead a poor life without shame than be a queen with shame (49-54). They go to Grymesby "al by his wyves red" (55). They find Grym and his wife dead (56). They find Aunger, Grym's cousin, whom Grym and his wife had told about Havelok (57-59). They³ tell Havelok who he is and advise him to go to his own country to see what grace he may find among his friends. They will arrange for the shipping (60-62). Aunger ships them and they sail for Denmark (63-64). He finds there "sire Sykar," who had been high steward of his father's property (65-66) Sykar is glad of his coming and promises to help him recover his heritage from King Edulf (67-68). They assemble great folk of his relatives and friends (69). King Edulf gathers his power, but he and his army are overcome in the battle (70-71). Havelok conquers his heritage (72). He prepares great power to go to England to win his wife's kingdom (73-74). The king of Lyndeseye hears that he has come on the coast and gathers a great host (75-76). Edelsy is beaten in the battle and by treaty gives Argill (here called Argentille) her heritage (77-78). As she is next of blood he gives her Lyndeseye after his day and makes her his heir (79-80). At the last both Northfolk and Lyndeseye fall into the hands of Havelok (81-82).

It is obvious that both the names and the incidents in the Lambeth Interpolation are closer to the French versions of the romance than to the English. Grim and Havelok are the only names common to this and to both the English and the French versions. The names in the Interpolation, however, agree very well with those in Gaimar. Thus Gounter corresponds with Gunter, Gatfere with Gaifer, Seburc with Saburc, Edelsy with Edelsi, Orewayn with Orwain, Edelbright with Adelbrict, Aunger with Alger, Sykar with Sigar, and Edulf with Edulf. Argill appears once as Argentille, the form used by Gaimar. It will be seen too that when the names in the French versions vary, the Interpolation is closer to Gaimar than to the Lay, which has the forms Alsi, Ekenbright and Hodulf, while Gaifer and Alger are not found in the Lay. The names therefore show that the Interpolation cannot be derived from the English romance and that it is closer to Gaimar than to the Lay.

The most noteworthy thing discovered by a comparison of incidents is the omission in the Interpolation of everything supernatural or extravagantly fictitious. There is no flame from Havelok's mouth, no dream, no throwing of stones from the church tower, no magic horn, no setting up of bodies on stakes to represent living men, all of which incidents are found in the French versions and the flame also in the English. Otherwise the incidents in the Interpolation agree fairly well with those which are common to Gaimar and the Lay as opposed to the English romance. Thus there is an invasion of Denmark on account of a tribute dating back to the time of Arthur. Gunter is killed, and the queen, who does not appear in the English romance, flees with Havelok. There is an attack by pirates in which the queen is killed. Instead of a king over all England and a usurping earl, as in the English version, there are two kings, one ruling over Lincoln and the other over Norfolk. Havelok is called Coraunt (Cuaran), a name which does not occur in the English romance. Havelok returns to Grimsby by his wife's advice. He does not know who he is, until told by Grim's relative. Edelsi submits after fighting and gives Argentille her heritage. In addition to the omissions noted above, the Interpolation says nothing about Grim's being a fisherman and salt merchant in Grimsby, about Cuaran's being a juggler or fool at the court, about the attack on Havelok and his bride by the six youths, nor about Havelok's fear when led into the hall before Sigar. None of these omissions need cause any surprise. It was almost inevitable that the more extraordinary incidents should be cut down by a matter-of-fact writer, such as this interpolator seems to have been, while the other omissions resulted naturally from the attempt to condense. When these allowances are made, it is evident that the general outline of the story is the same in Gaimar, the Lay and the Interpolation.

A more detailed examination reveals the following points in which the Interpolation is closer to Gaimar than to the Lay: (1) The invasion of Denmark is for tribute which had been withheld (Lamb. 2-4, Gaimar 410-411).⁴ In the Lay it is to demand tribute (lines 27-30). (2) Grim in both appears as a mariner, whereas in the Lay he is a baron (Lamb. 14, Gaimar 423, Lay 57). (3) Edulf is defeated in a general battle and not as in the Lay in a single combat (Lamb. 70-72, Gaimar 739-742, Lay 940-970). In all three cases the agreement between Gaimar and the Interpolation seems to point to an earlier form of the story than that contained in the Lay. Grim certainly has no right to be a baron. That this is a modification made by the rather late writer of the Lay is almost self-evident, but is made certain by the slip in line 135 of the Lay where we are told that Grim, when he reached Grimsby, went fishing "as he was accustomed to do."⁵ The writer forgot that he had transformed the fisherman or sailor into a baron. The change is due to the fact that the Lay has throughout a more courtly and knightly tone, approaching the form of fiction in vogue during the thirteenth century. The Interpolation, on the other hand, is simpler, and in this respect resembles Gaimar, both these versions preserving what must have been the spirit of the original.

Additional evidence for the close relationship between Gaimar and the Interpolation is furnished by the agreement in geographical details. In both, for instance, Edelsi's kingdom extends from the Humber to Rutland,⁶ and Adelbrict's from Colchester to Holland.⁷ For the first of these pairs the Lay has Rutland and Stanford, while the second is replaced by "vers les Surois," Surrey being probably intended.⁸

So far nothing has been presented to disprove Madden's assertion that the Lambeth Interpolation was derived from Gaimar. In fact the evidence has all pointed that way. But there are differences between the two which must not be overlooked or ignored. Most prominent perhaps is the fact that the order in which the events are related is not the same. Gaimar's narrative opens in England. There is no direct relation of the early events in Denmark and at Grimsby, these being recapitulated very briefly by Kelloc and others.⁹ The allusions to the early part of the story are so scattered and incoherent that they give the impression that they are echoes of a more complete original which Gaimar modified for the sake of condensation or, perhaps, to secure a sort of epic unity by plunging in medias res. The Interpolation, on the other hand, opens in Denmark and the early parts of the story are related in consecutive order. This order might be made up from the allusions in Gaimar, but that would require more skill and pains than could be expected in a scribe, even though he were clever enough to be an interpolator. The natural thing for a man of his capacity to do is to follow the order of events in his original. This alone would not prove that the Interpolation had a different original from Gaimar, but it raises a question which must be met. The matter is made the more noteworthy from the fact that the order of events is exactly the same in the Interpolation and in the Lay. For this to be accidental is possible but not very likely. Other matters being left out of consideration, it would be reasonable in such a case to suppose some sort of relation between the Interpolation and the Lay independent of Gaimar.

This relationship between the Interpolation and the Lay is made the more evident by certain details which the two have in common, but which are not found in Gaimar, such as the following: (1) Gunter's enemies plan shame for his relatives (Lamb. 9, Lay 79-82). (2) Edelsi, instead of being called merely "Breton," as in Gaimar (line 61), is said to be "of Breton kynde" (Lamb. 31) or "Bret par lignage" (Lay 200). (3) In Gaimar Edelsi forces Cuaran and Argentille to lie together without a formal marriage (lines 167-176), while in the other versions there is a marriage (Lamb. 47, Lay 377-380). (4) The Interpolation says that he brings about the marriage, though many are wroth, which seems to correspond with the account given in the Lay of the anger of the barons at the king's violation of his oath (Lamb. 48, Lay 279-376). (5) In Gaimar there is no description whatever of Havelok's departure from Grimsby for Lincoln and the only allusion to it is the statement of Havelok to Kelloc that he departed from Grimsby when Grim was dead (line 371). In both the Interpolation and the Lay Grim is alive when Havelok departs, and dead when he returns with his bride (Lamb. 27, 56; Lay 157-192, 565). (6) Gaimar introduces the fight rather abruptly after Havelok's return to England (line 767). The Interpolation and the Lay mention the gathering of a host by Edelsi (Lamb. 75-76, Lay 1007-1026). It is difficult to imagine that all these resemblances are accidental. The first two and the last might be so, but the others seem to point to details in a source common to both the Interpolation and the Lay. This common source cannot be Gaimar, because in these points Gaimar differs. Moreover, in all three points Gaimar, rather than the other versions, seems to show a change from what must have been the original form of the story. It seems reasonable to suppose that there was a marriage, that Argentille's friends should become angry at her disgrace and the seizing of the kingdom by a usurper, and that there should be some more definite statement about Havelok's departure from Grimsby. The number of important details common to the Interpolation and the Lay and the exact agreement in the order of the narrative establish a close relationship between the two and a common source independent of Gaimar. It becomes evident, therefore, that the traditional view, hitherto held without question, that the Interpolation is "copied" from Gaimar, must from now on be rejected.

In looking for the source of the Lambeth Interpolation it may be well to set aside at the outset any notion that it may be derived from a combination of two or more versions. Such a combination would of course explain anything except itself. An interpolating scribe, for the sake of inserting into a chronicle an episode of less than a hundred lines, is not likely to take the trouble to compare varying versions of a romance, perhaps in more than one language, and to make out of them a consistent whole. It was hard enough in those days for the most skilful writer of chronicles or romances to make such a combination without revealing the artifice by a botch or confusion.¹⁰ The Lambeth Interpolation tells a straightforward, consistent story, and any lack of clearness is due to nothing more than the extreme condensation. There is every reason to believe that it had a single source.

It has already been shown that this source of the Interpolation could not have been either Gaimar or the Lay. The source, however, must have been closely related to both Gaimar and the Lay, and the probabilities are all in favor of its having been in French. There is evidence for this in the fact that Havelok is called "quistron" instead of scullion. Though it is now lost there must have existed at some time a French version of the romance distinct from Gaimar and the Lay. That such a version did exist and was the common source of both Gaimar and the Lay has been effectively proved by Kupferschmidt¹¹ As the Lambeth Interpolation cannot be derived directly or indirectly from Gaimar or the Lay, about the only possible arrangement that remains is to derive it from this lost French version. This explains all the points which the Interpolation has in common with both Gaimar and the Lay. It accounts for those points in which the Interpolation agrees with one of the French versions in opposition to the other, in which case an agreement with either Gaimar or the Lay would establish the form of the romance taken in any incident by the lost French original. This arrangement further makes possible the preservation in the Interpolation of elements lacking in both Gaimar and the Lay, but which may have existed in the lost French version, or even in still earlier forms of the romance. Inasmuch as this arrangement clears up old difficulties and presents no new ones, it may be regarded as settled that the Interpolation goes back to the lost French version which was also the source of Gaimar and the Lay.

So far the Lambeth Interpolation has been examined in its relation with the French versions of Havelok. It has, however, one or more incidents in common with the English romance, while in other details it differs from all other extant forms of the story. The most striking point in common with the English romance in opposition to the French is the reason assigned for Havelok's leaving Grimsby and going to Lincoln. It will be remembered that Gaimar passes over this portion of the story and merely makes Havelok say that he left home when Grim was dead (line 371). In the Lay, Grim, believing that the boy would still regain his heritage, tells Havelok to go to the court in order to hear instruction and learn sense (lines 157-187). This sounds very much like the custom common in the romances of chivalry of sending a youth to court to learn knightly accomplishments. The Lambeth Interpolation, however, gives a different reason. It says that Havelok was brought up by Grim and his wife as their own child

Til he was mykel & mighti, and man of mykel
  cost,
That for his grete sustinaunce, nedly serue he
  most.
Lambeth, 25-26.

The next line says he took his leave and went to the court. The passage is not in itself very clear, but it certainly seems to mean that he became large and strong, that it required so much to sustain him that he must work for his living and that on this account he left Grim. The interpolator did not find any suggestion of this in Gaimar or the Lay. The incident, however, corresponds remarkably with the English version. The English writer makes constant reference to Havelok's great appetite. The boy thinks he eats too much and determines to go to work (lines 788-810). When the famine arises so that Grim does not have enough to eat for himself and his family, he advises Havelok to go to Lincoln and find work (824-852). As it is extremely improbable that the interpolator had more than one source, and as it is likewise improbable that this agreement with the English romance is accidental, it seems to be clear that this must have been an element of the story in an early form, and its preservation in the Interpolation shows that it was also found in the lost French version. Gaimar omitted it in his condensation, the Lay changed it in giving the romance its courtly tone, while the English version and the Interpolation have preserved the original.¹² It is also to be noted that in several details in which the Interpolation agrees with one of the French versions in opposition to the other, it agrees also with the English romance. Such are the humble position of Grim and the defeat of the Danish usurper in general battle, common to Gaimar, the English romance and Lambeth; and the marriage of Havelok, the finding of Grim dead, and the calling out of the host, common to the Lay, the English romance and Lambeth. This agreement with the English makes all the more positive the derivation of the Lambeth Interpolation from the common source of Gaimar and the Lay which was evident from a comparison of the French versions. Incidentally it shows the difficulties in the way of any attempt to derive the English romance from either of the extant French versions.

There are several details in which the Lambeth Interpolation is unique. (1) Gunter, Havelok's father, is identified with the Guthrun or Gormo who fought against Alfred in the ninth century, the only allusion to Arthur being the statement that the invasion of Denmark was to collect tribute which he had formerly taken. It is not safe to make much of this for the story is interpolated at this point in the chronicle merely because Langtoft, by confusion of names perhaps, called Gunter the father of Havelok. An interesting question is involved as to the historical basis of the Havelok legend, which, however, need not be discussed here. (2) When the Danish king is killed, his queen escapes to the sea with Havelok and meets Grim on the shore (lines 12-16). There is reason for believing this to be a feature going back to the original form of the story. There is nothing in Gaimar's condensed account of the early Danish events to contradict the assumption. The Lay makes an unquestionable modification here in that it calls Grim a baron, and has the queen and child entrusted to him in a castle (lines 53-68). The English version, too, shows an entire modification of the early Danish events in order to carry out an extended duplication of the English part of the story.¹³ Thus in both England and Denmark the king knows he is going to die, he summons his barons, and he entrusts his kingdom and infant heir to an earl who takes an oath and afterwards usurps the kingdom. Of the two series of events that in England must have been the original because it is also found in the French Lay. There is, therefore, little or nothing in the English romance to show what its original had to say about the early Danish part of the story. (3) The Lambeth Interpolation states definitely that Havelok was brought up by Grim and his wife as their own child and regarded himself as such (lines 23-24). This is implied in both Gaimar and the Lay, in both of which Havelok does not know who he is until told by Grim's relatives. In the English romance Havelok is apparently at all times conscious of his position, though it may be hard to reconcile this with his inaction and indifference. In this the Lambeth version seems to represent best the original form of the story. (4) The king is influenced in marrying Argentille by a "chere" which he has seen her make to Coraunt (line 46). This touch is probably an addition on the part of the scribe. (5) Edelsi, after his defeat, voluntarily makes Argentille heir to Lyndeseye (lines 79-80). These details, some of them significant, add to the importance of the Lambeth version in the discussion of Havelok, for it must be borne in mind that it is possible for this brief analysis of the story, interpolated in a late manuscript of a chronicle, to preserve elements belonging to the original legend.

This agreement with the English romance in certain details and the preservation in others of traces of a lost original make all the more conclusive the observation that the Lambeth Interpolation is derived from a form of the story earlier than Gaimar or the Lay, for in no other way could these incidents have come down to the interpolating scribe. That this early form of the story was identical with the lost source of Gaimar and the Lay has already been shown. The present investigation, therefore, may be regarded as giving the Lambeth Interpolation, for the first time, its proper place in the development of the romance.

Of the more general results obtained by the investigation the most noteworthy is the additional light thrown on the lost French version in octosyllabic rimed couplets,—the common source of Gaimar and the Lay. With merely Gaimar and the Lay to work with,¹⁴ it is not always possible to determine accurately what form of any particular incident was taken by this lost version. It is frequently evident, where the two differ, that one of the extant French versions represents the original better than the other, but to a certain extent this is inference and not proof. A third version, however, such as the Lambeth Interpolation has been shown to be, furnishes an invaluable check. Any incident common to any two of the three versions, Gaimar, the Lay and the Interpolation, may now be regarded with almost, certainty as belonging to the lost French romance. It is possible, therefore, to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the form of the story that served as a source for these three writers.

With the existence established of this lost French form of the romance, the question may be asked, Was it not also the source of the English Havelok? It was certainly more likely to be so than either Gaimar or the Lay, and its existence is a strong opposing argument to any attempt to derive the English romance in whole or in part from the extant French versions.¹⁵ But it seems extremely improbable that this lost French version could have been the source of the English. For this there are numerous and significant reasons, among which may be mentioned the complete dissimilarity of names, the fact that the English has no mention whatever of Arthur, the great variation in even the more important incidents, the difference in tone, the fact that the English appears to be closer to tradition, and the lack of convincing evidence to show that the English is a translation from the French. Against these arguments can be alleged the general presumption that every Middle English romance was translated from the French, a presumption which does not hold for Horn¹⁶ and which lacks proof in the case of Havelok. It seems likely, therefore, that the lost French version and the English romance both go back to an earlier source or sources. Into the question, however, of the original form of the story, it is not the function of the present investigation to go. Before plunging into theory it is well to make sure of what firm ground is within reach. In confirming the existence of the lost French version of Havelok and in determining the probable form of its story, one step, at least, seems to have been taken in the direction of explaining the development of the romance. Toward this step the hitherto neglected Lambeth Interpolation has rendered material aid.

Notes

The present paper has grown out of a report made by the writer to the course on Early English Metrical Romances, given at Harvard University in the spring of 1899 by Professor George Lyman Kittredge, to whom thanks are due for valuable suggestions and advice.

¹ The Lambeth version, frequently referred to as the Interpolation, is printed by Madden in his edition of Havelok for the Roxburghe Club, London, 1828, pp. xvii-xix, and again by Skeat in his reprint for the Early English Text Society, London, 1868, pp. xi-xiii. In neither case are the lines numbered, but the passage is so short that the references to lines need cause no trouble. A description of the rather interesting variations in the allusions to Havelok contained in Langtoft and Mannyng will be found in Madden, pp. xi-xix, and in Skeat, pp. v, ix-xiii. See also H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances, Vol. I, London, 1883, pp. 442-443.

² Max Kupferschmidt: "Die Haveloksage bei Gaimar und ihr Verhältniss zum Lai d'Havelok," in Böhmer's Romanische Studien, Vol. IV, pp. 411-430 (1880). On page 430, he says: "Dass die Interpolation in der Lambeth copy der Uebersetzung von Peter von Langtofts Chronik durch Robert of Brunne aus Gaimars Darstellung der Haveloksage geschöpft ist, hat schon Sir Fr. Madden gezeigt."

³ There is a slight confusion here, there being no antecedent for the pronoun "they." A comparison with the other versions shows that Aunger and his wife are probably meant.

⁴ References to the French versions of Havelok are to the edition of Gaimar in the Rolls Series, London, 1888.

⁵ "Pescher aloit si com il soloit."—Lay, 135.

⁶ Lamb. 30, Gaimar 51.

⁷ Lamb. 34, Gaimar 75.

⁸ Lay 198, 201.

⁹ Gaimar 359-454, 575-628. Lines 505-528 are related by the author, but merely as an incidental explanation.

¹⁰ An example of such confusion occurs in the abridgment of Havelok in Thomas Gray's Scala Cronica, the passage being reprinted in Madden, pp. xxxiv-xxxv. Gray failed to recognize that Havelok and Cuaran were the same person.

¹¹ Kupferschmidt's investigation, already referred to, must be regarded as settling the fact that Gaimar and the Lay had a common source written in French octosyllabic rimed couplets. Ward appears not to have read Kupferschmidt. His attempt to derive the Lay directly from Gaimar cannot be accepted. Every one of his six arguments can be used with equal force in favor of a common source for Gaimar and the Lay. Ward, Catalogue of Romances, Vol. 1, 437-440. With the exception of Madden, who thought Gaimar had merely abridged the Lay, and of Ward, practically every investigator has concluded that the two extant French versions had a common source. The early writers assumed this to have been a "Breton lay;" but the later ones have realized that this source must have been a lost French version.

It would be very hard to defend the possibility that the lost French version was derived from Gaimar, and became in turn the source of both the Lay and the Interpolation. There are too many points in which the Lay and the Interpolation, one or both, point back to a form of the story earlier than Gaimar. Kupferschmidt has mentioned some of these and might have added the narration of the early events in Denmark and Grimsby, the marriage of Cuaran and Argentille, and the opposition thereto, and Havelok's finding Grim and his wife dead when he returns with his bride. Gaimar constantly gives the impression of having been condensed from an original, and in one instance at least this seems to have resulted in confusion. Sigar, in reassuring Havelok the morning after the attack by the six youths, says:

Kore vus aim plus ke ne fis hier
Quant vus asis a mon manger.
Gaimar, 669-670.

"I love you now more than I did yesterday when I placed you at my table." But Gaimar makes no mention whatever of Sigar's placing Havelok at his table the preceding day and the allusion cannot well be explained unless it is assumed that Gaimar had an original in which there was some such mention. The Lay (lines 675-694) does tell about the entertainment of Havelok at dinner on the preceding day, an incident also found in the English romance (lines 1660-1745). This is additional evidence for the lost original of Gaimar and the Lay, and for a relationship between this lost version and the English romance.

Dr. W. H. Schofield suggests that the probable date of this lost version seems to be established by the references to Arthur in Gaimar, the Lay and the Interpolation. In each case the reference stands in connection with an invasion of Denmark to demand or collect tribute. This must have been in the lost version, which therefore could not have been written before Geoffrey of Monmouth's history, and which must have been written before Gaimar. This leaves 1136 and 1150 as the outside dates, with the probabilities in favor of a middle point, somewhere between 1140 and 1145. This mention of Arthur furnishes new evidence for the immediate popularity of Geoffrey.

¹² There are also two minor points in which the Interpolation agrees with the English romance. (1) It is said in the Interpolation that while Havelok is at the court all the folk love him (line 44). The English writer says that knights, children, young and old, all love him (lines 955-958). (2) According to the Lambeth version Edelsi hears that Havelok has come to the coast (line 75). In the English, Godrich hears that Havelok has come into England (lines 2531-2547). In the French versions nothing is said about the usurper's hearing of the return of Havelok before he sends his defiance.

¹³ This duplication of events was suggested by G. Wittenbrinck, in a dissertation, Zur Kritik und Rhythmik des altenglischen Lais von Havelok dem Dänem, Burgsteinfurt, 1891, p. 5.

¹⁴ As Kupferschmidt has suggested, additional light may be thrown on the lost version, by the Havelok episode in the Brute, but in view of the possible contamination with the English version, indicated by the name Birkabeyn, it is not here considered.

¹⁵ The tradition that the English version is derived from the Lay goes back to Madden, but even Madden seems to admit the possibility that an earlier form of the story was used as a source by both the Lay and the English romance.—Madden, p. viii. Ward (Catalogue of Romances, p. 440) says the English romance represents a popular development of the legend, but that its writer must have been acquainted with the Lay. This last statement is made necessary by Ward's unsatisfactory attempt to prove that the Lay is nothing but an expansion of Gaimar. See also ten Brink, History of English Literature, to Wyclif, translated by Kennedy, New York, 1883, pp. 150, 181, 232-234; Kupferschmidt, Romanische Studien, Vol. IV, 430; Gaston Paris, Romania, IX, 480; Korting, Grundriss der Geschichte der Eng. Lit., 2nd edition, pp. 98-99; Wohlfeil, The Lay of Havelok the Dane, a dissertation, Leipsic, 1890, p. 12.

¹⁶ Child, Ballads, Vol. I, 187; Ward, Catalogue of Romances, Vol. I, pp. 447-467.