SOURCE: An introduction to The Ancient English Romance of William and the Werwolf, Burt Franklin, 1832, pp. i-xvii.

[In the essay below, Madden reviews the circumstances surrounding the composition of William of Palerne, discussing in particular the likely date of composition, the patron for whom this translation of the French poem Guillaume de Palerne was written, and what is known about the origins of Guillaume de Palerne.]

The Romance of William and the Werwolf, contained in the present volume, is printed from an unique Ms. preserved in the library of King's College, Cambridge, and its literary history renders it of more than common interest to the poetical antiquary. It is to the memorable Rowleian controversy we are indebted for the first notice of this poem in its English dress. In that singular dispute, in which Jacob Bryant, Fellow of King's College, and the Rev. Jeremiah Milles, D. D. Dean of Exeter, so notably distinguished themselves in defence of the pseudo-Rowley and his writings, the former, by a piece of good fortune, stumbled on the Romance, and, still more fortunately for us, resolved to force it into his service in support of the antiquity of Chatterton's forgeries. Accordingly, in his “Observations,” 8vo. Lond. 1781. pp. 14-23. he gives a short account of the poem, with a few extracts from it. His argument tends to prove it written in a provincial dialect, and for this purpose he produces a list of words, which he pronounces of a local nature. But however profound Bryant may have been as a classic scholar, he possessed very little, or rather, no knowledge of the formation or genius of the old English language. Indeed, his attempt to prove Chatterton's poetry the production of the 15th century, is quite sufficient to acquit him of any such pretensions. The consequence is natural. Nearly all the words considered by him provincial, are to be met with in every other writer of the period, and even those of rarer occurrence are for the most part, found in the Scottish alliterative Romances of the same century.¹ But the citations made by Bryant from this Ms. were sufficient at a somewhat later period to attract the attention of the kennel of ‘black-letter hounds’ then in full cry after the pothooks of Shakspeare's prompter's book, and George Steevens, I believe, applied for permission to inspect it. The volume was then in the hands of Dr. Glynne, Senior Fellow of King's College, who, like Bryant, was a sturdy Rowleian,² and he, fancying that an examination of the book might not assist the claims of Rowley to originality, very prudently locked the treasure up, and there it slumbered till it was once more brought to light by the Rev. C. H. Hartshorne, about the year 1824.³ By permission of the Provost, about 560. lines of the commencement were copied, and they form a portion of a volume intitled “Ancient Metrical Tales,” published in 1829. 8vo. pp. 256-287. Of the inaccuracy of this transcript I shall say nothing, as it will sufficiently appear by comparison with the text now printed.

Having thus briefly stated the mode in which this Ms. became known to the public, the next point of inquiry will be the author of the poem in its present shape; and here, I regret to add, no information can be gained. All we know on the subject is derived from the writer himself, who tells us, he translated it from the French at the command of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford. These are his words, at the end of the first fytte or passus:

Thus passed is the first pas of this pris tale,
And ze that loven and lyken to listen ani more,
Alle wizth on hol hert to the heiz king of hevene,
Preieth a pater noster prively this time,
For the hend Erl of Herford, sir Humfray de
Bowne,
The king Edwardes newe, at Glouseter that ligges,
For he of Frensche this fayre tale ferst dede
translate,
In ese of Englysch men, in Englysch speche.

—f. 3.

And at the end of the poem, in similar but in fuller terms:

But faire frendes, for Goddes love, and for zour own mensk,
Ze that liken in love swiche thinges to here,
Preizeth for that gode Lord that gart this do
make,
The hende Erl of Hereford, Humfray de Boune;
The gode king Edwardes douzter was his dere
moder;
He let make this mater in this maner speche,
For hem that knowe no Frensche, ne never understo[nd]:
Biddith that blisful burn that bouzt us on the rode,
And to his moder Marie, of mercy that is welle,
Zif the Lord god lif, whil he in erthe lenges,
And whan he wendes of this world, welthe withoute
ende,
To lenge in that liking joye, that lesteth ever more.

—f. 82.

It has been the more necessary to quote these passages at length, in order to correct the absurd mistakes of Bryant, who, not understanding the phrases, “at Glouseter that ligges,” and “ferst dede translate,” nor the import of the line “Zif the Lord god lif,” &c. has supposed, first, that the Earl himself had made a prior translation to the one before us, and secondly, that he was dead and buried at Gloucester, when the second version was undertaken! It is scarcely necessary to point out, that the words “ferst dede translate,” only mean first caused to be translated, and are strictly synonymous with “gart this do make,” and “let make.” Then, as to the Earl's lying dead at Gloucester, the Poet can have no such meaning, for at the conclusion of the Romance he begs his hearers to pray to God and the Virgin to give the Earl ‘good life,’ and after his decease, eternal felicity. The line simply means, resident or dwelling at Gloucester,⁴ and although the term to ligge was in subsequent times more often used in the sense understood by Bryant, yet there is no reason, in the above instance, to depart from its original and obvious meaning.

The nobleman thus alluded to was the sixth Earl of Hereford of the name of Bohun, and third son of Humphrey de Bohun, fourth Earl of Hereford, and Elizabeth Plantagenet, seventh daughter of King Edward the First; consequently he was nephew to King Edward the Second, as intimated in the poem, and first cousin to King Edward the Third. He succeeded to the earldom at the age of twenty-four, on the death of his brother John without issue, 20th Jan. 1335-6. and died, unmarried, 15th Oct. 1361.⁵ We are, therefore, enabled to fix the date of the composition of the English Romance with sufficient accuracy, nor shall we greatly err, if we refer it to the year 1350. This will agree extremely well with the scanty notices transmitted to us of De Bohun's life, which, like most of those relating to the belted barons of this chivalric period, are chiefly of a military character.⁶ Yet it may be doubted whether, as a soldier, the Earl of Hereford was at any time distinguished, and whether he may not have been confounded by Froissart with his brother, the Earl of Northampton. And this conjecture corresponds with the instrument preserved in Rymer,⁷ dated 12th June, 1338. by which the King ratifies Humphrey de Bohun's resignation of his hereditary office of Constable of England, in favor of his brother, “tam ob corporis sui inbecillitatem, quàm propter infirmitatem diuturnam qua detinetur, ad officium Constabulariœ exercendum,” &c. We may, therefore, with great probability conclude, that the Earl's weak state of bodily health exempted him from taking an active part in the warfare of the time, although he might have assisted the King with his counsels. To the same cause we may doubtless ascribe that love for literature which induced him to cause the Romance of William and the Werwolf to be translated from the French,—not, as is evident, for his own use, since French was then the language of the Court, but for the benefit of those persons of the middle class, to whom the French language was unknown. By the influence of a similar motive we possess the translations made by Robert of Brunne at the commencement of this century:

“Not for the lerid bot the lewed,
For tho that in this land wonn,
That the Latyn no Frankys conn,
For to haf solace and gamen,
In felawschip whanne thai sitt samen.”(8)

Higden's testimony to the prevalence of French in the education of gentlemen's children at that period is very precise, and it became so much the fashion towards the middle of the century, that a proverb was made of inferior persons who attempted to imitate the practice of the higher classes: “Jack wold be a gentylman yf he coude speke Frensshe.”⁹ Trevisa adds, that “this was moche used tofore the grete deth [1349] but syth it is somdele chaunged;” which was, doubtless, accelerated by the Act passed in 1362. ordering all pleadings to be in the English tongue, and much more by the popular compositions of Gower, Chaucer, and the author of Piers Plouhman. From all these circumstances it would seem most probable that the work was executed after the Earl's return from France in 1349. between which year and his second expedition in 1359. he appears to have resided on his estates. That this style of composition was much admired and encouraged in England during the 14th century is apparent from the alliterative Romances still extant of the period. But it is very seldom we are indulged with the names of the persons by whom or for whom these poems were written, and in that respect, the present poem becomes more intitled to notice, from its introducing us to a nobleman, whose claims to biography are so very feeble, and who would never otherwise have been known as a patron of literature.

The history, however, of the Romance does not conclude here. We must next trace it in its original form; and here, also, we shall find some circumstances which render it worthy of attention. The origin and progress of French poesy, both of the Trouvères and Troubadours, have been successfully illustrated by Fauchet, Roquefort,¹⁰ De la Rue, Raynouard, and others, but, more particularly, by the authors of the Histoire Litteraire de la France. From these authorities we know that many Romances were composed by the Norman poets previous to the year 1200. which subsequently became the text books of the English versifiers of the 14th century. Most of these were founded on the two great sources of fiction throughout Europe; the exploits of Charlemagne and his Douze Pairs, and of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, amplified from the fictitious histories of Turpin and Geoffry of Monmouth. The chief exceptions to this cycle of poetry at the period we are treating of, are the Romances of Havelok, Horn, Benoit's Guerre de Troie, Garin le Loherain, Alexander, Athys et Porfilias, Florimond, Gerard de Rousillon, and, perhaps, some few others composed by Raoul de Houdanc, and Thiebaut de Mailli, all of which come under the class of Romans mixtes. Among these also we are intitled to place our Romance of William and the Werwolf, the title of which in the original, is, Roman de Guillaume de Palerne. The popularity of this singular tale, (which one would suppose was formed on some Italian tradition, picked up by the Norman adventurers in Apulia and Sicily) must have been considerable, since in the ancient inventories of the libraries of the Dukes of Burgundy, taken in 1467. and 1487. we find no less than three copies of it.¹¹ At present, the catalogues of Mss. in England have been searched in vain for the poem, and in France, on a similar inquiry being made, only one copy has been discovered, preserved in the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, at Paris,¹² and, to all appearance, is the same Ms. which was formerly at Brussels.¹³ By the obliging attention of M. Van Praet, the distinguished Librarian of the Bibliothèque Royale, the Editor is enabled to give some account of this unique volume. It is a vellum Ms. of a small folio size, consisting of 157. leaves, and written in double columns of 31. lines each, towards the close of the thirteenth century. It contains the Roman d’Escouffle (fol. 1-77.) and the Roman du Guillaume de Palerne. The latter commences thus:

Nus ne se doit celer ne taire,
S’il set chose q(i) doie plaire,
K’il ne le desponde en apert,
Car bñ repont son sens et pert,
Q’ nel despont apertement,
En la presence de la gent:
Por ce ne voel mon sens repondre,
Q’ tot li mauuais puissent fondre,
Et cil q(i) me vaurront entendre,
I puissent sens et bñ aprendre;
Car sens celés, q(i) n’est oïs,
Est autresi, ce m’est auis,
Com maint tresor enfermé sont,
Q’ nului bñ ne preu ne font,
Tant comme il soient si enclos,
Aut’ si est de sens repos;
Pur ce ne voel le mien celer,
Ancois me plaist a raconter,
Selonc mon sens et mon memoire,
Le fait d’une ancienne estoire,
Q’ en Puille iadis avint,
A un roi q(i) la terre tint.
          Li rois Embrons fu apelés,
          Mult par fu grans sa poestés, etc.

And ends in the following manner:

Del roi Guill’ et de sa mere,
De ses enfans et de son geurre, (?)
De son empire et de son regne,
Trait li estoires ci a fin.
Cil q(i) tos iors fu et sans fin
Sera, et pardoune briement,
Il gart la contesse Yolent,
La bonne dame, la loial,
Et il descort son cors de mal.
Cest liure fist diter et faire,
Et de Latin en Roumans traire.
Proions dieu por la bonne dam[e]
Qñ bon repos en mete l’ame,
Et il nous doinst ce deseruir,
Q(a) boine fin puissons venir. Amen.

Explicit li Roumans de Guilliaume de Palerne.

The lady here referred to can be no other than Yoland, eldest daughter of Baldwin IV. Count of Hainault, and Alice of Namur. She was married, 1st. to Yves, or Yvon, Count of Soissons, surnamed le Viel, who is characterised by an old Chronicler as a nobleman “de grande largesse, et sage sur tous les Barons de France.”¹⁴ On his death, without issue, which took place in 1177. she married, secondly, Hugh Candavene IV. Count of St. Paul, by whom she had two daughters, the eldest of which carried the title into the family of Chastillon. By the union of Judith, daughter of Charles the Bold, with Baldwin I. Count of Flanders, the Countess Yoland claimed descent from the blood of Charlemagne, and by the marriage of her brother Baldwin the Courageous with Margaret of Alsace, heiress of Flanders and Artois, she became aunt to Baldwin VI. Count of Hainault and Flanders, who in 1204. was elected Emperor of Constantinople,¹⁵ and to Isabel of Hainault, who, in 1180. shared the throne of Philip Augustus, King of France. Such was the splendid alliance of the lady to whom our poem owes its origin. In accordance with the prevailing taste of the age, we find the Counts of Hainault and Flanders distinguished patrons of poesy. Chrestien de Troyes is said to have dedicated several of his Romances to Philip of Alsace, Count of Flanders, who died in 1191.¹⁶ and Baldwin V. Count of Hainault, having found at Sens, in Burgundy, a Ms. of the Life of Charlemagne, gave the work at his death [1195.] to his sister Yoland (the same lady above mentioned), who caused it to be translated into French prose.¹⁷ We have once more to lament that the author of our original (most probably, a native of Artois,) should have concealed his name, but the time of its composition may be assigned between 1178. the probable date of her marriage with the Count of St. Paul, and the year 1200. The Count died at Constantinople before 1206. and Yoland did not, in all probability, survive him long. She was, certainly, alive in 1202. as appears from an instrument in Du Chesne. This Romance may therefore be ranked among the earliest of those composed at the close of the 12th century, and it is surprising it should have been overlooked by Roquefort and the Benedictines.

At a much later period, apparently, at the beginning of the 16th century, this poem was converted into French prose. Three editions of it are known to book-collectors; the first printed at Paris, by Nicolas Bonfons, 4to. litt. goth.¹⁸ the second at Lyons, 1552. by Olivier Arnoult, 4to.¹⁹ and a third at the same place (probably a re-print) by the widow of Louis Coste, s. a. about 1634. The ‘traducteur,’ in a short preface, tells us he obtained the original by gift of a friend, and finding the language to be “romant antique rimoyé, en sorte non intelligible ne lisible,” he turned it into modern French, with some additions of his own, for the assistance of those who might wish to read it: “Car en icelle lisant,” he adds, “pourra l’on veoir plusieurs faictz d’armes, d’amours, & fortunes innumerables, & choses admirables, q’ aduindret au preux & vaillant cheualier Guillaume de Palerne, duquel l’histoire port le nom.” He afterwards adverts to the Countess Yoland, and her nephew Baldwin, Emperor of Constantinople, who was slain by the infidels at the siege of Adrianople, in 1205. And adds: “Pour l’hõneur de laquelle, & de si haut empereur, pouuõs facillement accroistre les choses au present liure contenues.” Whether the story will appear quite so credible at the present day is rather questionable. The French bibliographers are silent as to the author of this prose version, and Dr. Dibdin's sagacity seems to have failed him here. But at the end of the volume is an acrostic of twelve lines, the first letters of which form the name of Pierre Durand, who, no doubt, is the compiler. Any further information respecting him I have been unable to obtain, unless he is the same with the Pierre Durand, Bailli of Nogent le Rotrou, en Perche, mentioned by La Croix du Maine, who adds, that he was an excellent Latin poet, and composed many inedited verses both in Latin and French.²⁰ No notice is supplied of the period at which he lived. It was, most likely, from this prose translation, that the imperfect analysis of the Romance was borrowed, printed in the Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Romans, tom. ii. pp. 41-68. 12mo. Par. an. vi. [1808.] where it is placed in the class of “Romans de Féerie,” although professedly extracted from a Ms. of the 14th century.

By the assistance of Durand's version we are enabled to judge of the accuracy of the English versifier, since they both translate from the same text, and it is surprising how closely the latter has adhered to his original. Another advantage gained from it is to supply the hiatus which, unfortunately, occur in the English poem. To avoid the prolixity of the prose author, the substance of the passages wanting, is here annexed:

“There was formerly a King of Sicily, named Ebron, who was also Duke of Calabria and Lord of Apulia; rich and powerful above all other princes of his time. He married Felixe, daughter of the Emperor of Greece, and not long after their union, they were blessed with a son named William, the hero of the present story. The infant was intrusted to the care of two sage and prudent ladies, named Gloriande and Esglantine, who were chosen to superintend his nurture and education. But the brother of King Ebron, foreseeing that his succession to the throne would be now impeded, soon formed a resolution to destroy the boy, and, by means of promises and bribes so wrought on the governesses, that they at length consented to a plan by which both the Prince and the King were to be put to death. At that time the Court was held at the noble city of Palerne, [Palermo] adjoining to which was a spacious garden, abounding with flowers and fruits, in which the King was often accustomed to take his recreation. But one day, when Ebrons was walking here, accompanied by the Queen and the Prince, (then about four years old) attended by the two governesses, an event took place which turned all their joy into the deepest consternation and grief. For, whilst the King's brother and the two ladies were holding a secret conference how to carry their project into execution, a huge werwolf, with open jaws and bristled mane, suddenly rushed forth from a thicket, at which the ladies were so terrified, that they swooned away, and the rest fled, leaving the child alone, who was immediately carried off, without injury, by the beast. The King ordered pursuit to be made, but in vain, for the swiftness of the animal soon enabled him to distance his pursuers; to the great distress of the monarch and his court. The werwolf bore the child away to a place of safety, and thence, pursuing his course night and day, at length conveyed him to a forest, not far from the city of Rome, where he remained some time, taking care to provide what was necessary for his sustenance; and having dug a deep pit, and strewed it with herbs and grass for William to sleep on, the beast was accustomed to fondle the boy with his paws in the same manner a nurse would have done.”

Here commences the English Romance, which, with the exception of a folio (or 72 lines) missing between ff. 6-7. proceeds regularly to the end. This second defect occurs at the close of the Emperor's speech to his daughter Melior, p. 16. and the text again begins with Melior's reproaches to herself for loving William. What intervenes may be easily supplied, even from fancy, but in the prose Romance we read as follows:

“The Emperor's daughter received the infant, which proved of so gentle a disposition, that it seemed to have been bred at court all its life time. It was soon clothed in dresses of silk and velvet, and became the play-thing of the fair Melior. ‘Et alors,’ says the writer, ‘le faisoit mout beau veoir: car en toute la court ny auoit si bel enfant que luy, ne si aduenant. Sobre estoit en son manger & boire, facilemens fut apprins à seruir les dames à tables; à tous ieux, & à deuiser & à dire ioyeuses sornetes à tous propos.’ But, above all, William studied how best to serve his lady and mistress Melior, whom he loved above every one else. As he advanced in age he began to share in the chivalrous exercises of the time; to bear arms, ride on the great horse, and practice various feats of strength, all for the love of Melior, his ‘mie;’ and so great a favorite was he with all the ladies and demoiselles, that Melior heard of nothing but his praises. The Emperor, too, was so fond of William, as to keep him constantly by his side. In the meantime, the Princess would often withdraw to her chamber to dwell secretly on the personal attractions and graceful demeanor of William, and was at length so pierced by love's keen arrow, that she could not refrain from sighing, and desiring to hold him in her arms. But then again, considering with herself, that a lady of her noble birth ought not to bestow her affection on any one but a Knight of her own rank, she often vainly endeavoured to drive William from her thoughts.”

The remaining part of la belle Melior's soliloquy will be found in our poem, and the translation is sufficiently naïve to be interesting even to those who may, in general, despise the simple language of our old Romances.

The tradition developed in this story, and which forms its chief feature, namely, the transformation of a human being into a wolf, but still retaining many of the attributes of his nature, has been so learnedly and ably discussed by the author of the Letter annexed to the present remarks, as to render any additional illustration unnecessary. But it may not be improper here to suggest, that the belief in this notion in the southern provinces of Europe may have been partly derived through the medium of the Northmen, among whom, as appears from various authorities, it was very general. A curious story of a were-bear in Rolf Kraka's Saga is quoted by Sir Walter Scott,²¹ which has some slight features of resemblance with our werwolf, and it is singular, that this metamorphosis should have been accomplished by striking the person transformed with a glove of wolf-skin. In the Volsunga Saga, also, cap. 12. we read of the similar change of Sigmund and Siufroth into wolves.²² In general, the transformation was supposed to be accomplished, as in our Romance, by the aid of certain magical unguents.²³ With regard to the supposed form of these werwolves, and whether they differed from those of natural wolves, I have searched many writers, without much success, but Boguet informs us, that in 1521. three sorcerers were executed, who confessed they had often become Loupsgaroux, and killed many persons. A painting was made to commemorate the fact, in which these werwolves were each represented with a knife in his right paw. This picture, we are told, was preserved in the church of the Jacobins, at Pouligny,²⁴ in Burgundy, One distinctive mark, however, of a werwolf is said to have been the absence of a tail,²⁵ yet this does not seem to correspond with the vulgar notions on the subject, since in the wooden cut prefixed to the prologue of the prose translation of this Romance (which, for its curiosity, has been transferred to the title-page of the present volume) representing the werwolf carrying off the infant Prince of Palermo, there certainly appears a tail of due proportions.

On the style in which this poem is written, and its peculiarities of language, it is needless to dwell long. The history of our alliterative poetry has already been illustrated by Percy, Warton, and Conybeare, and the principle on which it was composed, even to so late a date as the middle of the 16th century, is sufficiently known.²⁶ The lines in the poem consist of an indeterminate number of syllables, from eleven to thirteen, but sometimes more or less, which, like Piers Plouhman, and other compositions of this class, may be divided into distichs, at the cæsural pause, so as to give them the Saxonic character on which they all are formed. Thus, for instance:

Hit bi fel in that forest,
                    there fast by
side,
Ther woned a wel old cherl,
                    that was a couherde,
That fele winterres in that forest,
                    fayre had kepud, &c.

It adds, however, to the value of this Romance, that we have in it the earliest specimen of unrimed alliterative metre yet discovered; for of the other pieces of this kind extant, there is not one which may not be placed subsequent to Piers Plouhman, composed after the year 1362.²⁷ It is also matter of satisfaction to be able to fix the date of this work prior to the period which produced such writers as Gower and Chaucer. We can now trace the English language step by step from the year 1300. since the writings of Robert of Gloucester, Robert of Brunne, Robert Davies, William of Shoreham,²⁸ Robert Rolle, and Laurence Minot, lead us up to the precise period when our poem was composed, and which forms the connecting link with Langland and the subsequent writers. Without deciding with Bryant, that our Romance betrays very distinctly a provincial dialect, we may accede to his conjecture of its author being, probably, a native of Gloucestershire, or an adjoining country; although the orthography by no means betrays that decided western pronunciation which characterises the poems ascribed to Robert of Gloucester. Of his ability as a poet we ought on the whole to form a favorable judgement; and when we consider the fetters imposed on him by the metre he adopts, and by the closeness of his translation, we may readily forgive the repetitions he abounds in, as well as the somewhat tedious minuteness of his narrative. There are some lines, such for instance these:

And than so throli thouztes thurlen myn herte,
That I ne wot in the world where it bi comse;

and again,

So many maner minstracie at that mariage were,
That whan thei made here menstracie eche man wende
That heven hastili and erthe schuld hurtel to gader;

which would seem to mark the author capable of better things. But the poet shall plead his own apology, in some lines at the close of the Romance:

In thise wise hath William al his werke ended,
As fully as the Frensche fully wold aske,
And as his witte him wold serve, thouzh it were febul;
But thouzh the metur be nouzt made at eche mannes
paye,
Wite him nouzt that it wrouzt, he wold have
do beter
Zif is witte in eny weizes wold him have served.

It would seem from this, as if the alliterative form of alexandrine verse had not yet become popular, and was, in fact, but lately introduced. It is worth observing also, that the number of French words here introduced, will serve to exonerate Chaucer from the charge made against him of debasing the English language by Gallicisms. Such a remark could only have come from one ignorant of what early English literature owes to our continental neighbours.

There are some minuter details respecting the grammatical construction of the poem, which perhaps deserve notice, such as the use of the present tense for the past, as askes, arise, bere, seweth, &c. for asked, arose, bore, sewede, &c. the use of the singular for the plural, (if, indeed, it be not a contracted form of the plural, which I am inclined to believe, like childer from childeren,) in the instances of daie, dede, burgeys, bere, &c. for daies, dedes, burgeyses, beres, &c. but the fact is, these are not peculiarities, but authorised by usage, and many similar forms are retained, even at present, in familiar conversation, particularly among the lower classes.

It only remains to give a brief description of the Ms. from which the present poem has been transcribed. It is a moderate sized folio, written on vellum soon after the middle of the 14th century, and consisting of 130. folios, 82. of which are occupied by the Romance. A quire is wanting at the commencement, and a single leaf shortly after. The text is disposed in single columns, of 36. lines in a page, and the writing is in a remarkably distinct, but rather thick and inelegant letter, with small blue and red initials. …

At the conclusion of the Romance, f. 82. b. is written in a hand of the early part of the 16th century as follows: “Praye we all to that heaven kinge that made all y^e worlde off nowght to perdõ the solle of hūmfray boune, that was erlle of herfo^rd, for hys grete dylygens & peyns takynge to translate thys boke owt off freynsche in to englys; to y^e entent to kepe youythe from ydellnes [he] hathe sete furthe thys goodly story, wher apon we showld bestou o^r tym apon the holy day, & suche other tymes when we haue lytle o^r nothynge a doyng elles, & in so doynge ye may put awey all ydell thowghtes & pensyffnes [of] hart, for the wyche traueyll pray we all to that heuy kynge to graunt hym eternall lyf for hys good wyll.” The rest of the volume is occupied by a portion of the Metrical Lives of the Saints, composed in the reign of Edward the First, and written in a different and rather earlier hand. The lives are those of Judas, Pilatus, Seint Marie Egiptiak, Seint Alphe, Seint George, Seint Dunston, Seint Aldelme, and Seint Austyn. There are several other perfect copies of these curious legends in existence. With respect to the history of this Ms. volume before it was presented to King's College library I could gain no information, nor even the name of the donor. There are several names scribbled on the margins, but all of a late period, and of no importance.

The Romance has been printed, as nearly as possible, in exact accordance with the Ms. and not the slightest liberty has been taken, either with the punctuation or orthography. It is, in short, as near a facsimile of the original, as could be imitated by typography. But for the convenience of those unacquainted with the mode of contracting words in old MSS. a list of the abbreviations is placed at the end of these remarks. The Glossary has been compiled with much care, and rendered as comprehensive as possible, but with all due regard to avoid unnecessary prolixity. Only those words are illustrated which appeared absolutely to require it: it being deemed in other cases sufficient to mark the immediate derivation of the term.

The Editor, in conclusion, has to express his thanks to the Rev. George Thackeray, D.D. Provost of King's College, for his permission to copy the Ms. and also to Martin Thackeray, Esq. M. A. Vice Provost, John Heath, Esq. M. A. Dean, and George Crauford Heath, Esq. M. A. Bursar of the College, for their very obliging attentions during the residence made among them.

Notes

1. Bryant's blunders in explaining these words are marvellous. A few instances, which may be compared with the Glossary at the end of this volume, will serve to shew how little he understood the subject. Thus, he interprets arnd, around, bourde, a public house, or shop, bretages, bridges, kud, good, kinne, can, maid, madam, welt, held, warder, further, boggeslyche, boyishly! Many are also copied so incorrectly that they can scarcely be recognised, as eni for em, asthis for aschis, gemlych for gamlyche, kevily for kenely, komchaunce for konichaunce, wlouke for wlonke, satheli for scathli, neege for neize, henden for hiezeden, feyful for feizful, wyeth for wyez, fayte for fayre, path for paye. And yet this is the man who pretended to judge of Chatterton's forgeries, and even correct them by his own notions of Rowley's fancied original. We may truly apply to him some of the precious lines he wastes his commentary on:

   “Wordes wythoute sense fulle groffyngelye he twynes,
   Cotteynge hys storie off as wythe a sheere;
   Waytes monthes on nothynge, & hys storie donne,
   Ne moe you from ytte kenne, than gyf you neere begonne.”

   p. 69. Ed. Tyrwh.

2. Dr. Glynne bequeathed to the British Museum the original parchments fabricated by Chatterton, which now remain a ‘damning proof,’ were any wanted, of the imposture. They present a series of the most contemptible and clumsy forgeries. Mss. Add. 5766. A. B. C. Alas, for the shade of Rowley!

3. Weber has, indeed, pointed it out as one of those Romances worthy of publication, but he never saw the Ms. itself. See Metr. Rom. Introd. p. lxviii.

4. In the 21 Edw. 3. Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, obtained the royal license to embattle his Manor-Houses in the Counties of Gloucester, Essex, Middlesex, and Wiltshire. In the former of these only one mansion is mentioned, that of Whitenhurst, or Wheatenhurst, situated about eight miles south from Gloucester, and it is very probable that this is the spot alluded to in general terms by the Poet. We know moreover, that the Earl was not buried at Gloucester, but at the Augustine Friars, in London, which he had himself re-edified in 1354. See Dugdale, Baron. 1. 184. Rudder's Gloucest. p. 813. and Stowe's Survey, p. 185.

5. Dugd. Baron. 1. 184. Milles, p. 1072.

6. In 1337. he was entrusted with the guard of the important garrison of Perth in Scotland. (Dugd. Baron. 1. 184.) Three years afterwards he is said to have taken a part, together with his warlike brother, William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton, in the battle of the Sluys, fought in the King's presence, (Froissart, by Lord Berners, f. 30. Ed. 1525.) and commemorated by Laurence Minot, a contemporary poet. The next year, 1341. we meet with him in the magnificent feast and jousts held by the King at London in honor of the Countess of Salisbury—the same to whom the noble Order of the Garter is said to owe its origin, (Froissart, f. 46.) In 1342. he was ordered to provide forty men of arms and sixty archers for the King's service in Britanny, and to attend the Council at London, to treat concerning their wages. (Dugd. Baron. 1. 184.) In 1346. he accompanied the King into France to relieve the town of Aguillon, then besieged by the French, (Froissart, f. 59. b.) but it is not stated by our historians whether he was present at the famous battle of Cressy, fought shortly after. In 1359. he again attended the King on a similar expedition, (Froissart, f. 100.) and nothing further is recorded of him till his death, which took place two years afterwards.

7. Vol. v. p. 52.

8. Prol. to Chron. ap. Hearne, Pref. p. xcvi.

9. Descr. of Brit. c. 15. Ed. 1515. Jul. Notary.

10. When speaking of our English Romances Roquefort is by no means to be relied on. Thus, describing the English Kyng Horn, he says it was composed in the 8th or 9th century. He then confounds it with the Frankish fragment of Hildebrand and Hathubrand, published by Eckard, and takes Ritson to task, for saying that the French text was the original; who would not, he writes, have committed such an error, if he had consulted Ms. Harl. 2253. where the Romance exists in Anglo-Saxon!!! The reply is easy. The copy of Kyng Horn in the Harleian Ms. was written about the year 1300. and it was from this very Ms. Ritson published his text. The Editor of the present volume was fortunate enough to discover another copy of Kyng Horn in the Bodleian, of the same age, which, in many respects, gives preferable readings. M. Roquefort goes on to call the Auchinleck Ms. a collection of French poetry, &c. See his Dissertation “De l’état de la Poésie Françoise dans les xii. et xiii. siecles.” 8vo. Par. 1815. pp. 48. 49.

11. See a curious volume, intitled “Bibliothèque Protypographique.” 4to. Paris, 1830. pp. 199. 302. 323.

12. Marked Belles Lettres, 178.

13. See the work just cited, p. 323. It is there called of the fourteenth century.

14. Du Chesne, Hist. de la Maison de Chastillon, fol. Par. 1621. Preuves, p. 33.

15. The author of the analysis of this Romance, in the Nouv. Bibl. des Romans, t. ii. p. 41. who copies from the printed prose version, hereafter to be noticed, makes a singular mistake, by confounding the Countess of St. Paul with Yoland, sister of the Emperor Baldwin, and wife of Peter de Courteney, who was subsequently, in her right, Emperor of Constantinople, and died in 1221. He says also, that the Countess Yoland found the Romance among the papers of her nephew after his death [1205.] but this is a mere invention of the writer himself, and contradicted by the original text.

16. Hist. Litt. de la France, xiii. 193.

17. Ib. xiii. 386. Fauchet, Recueil de l’Origine de la Langue Françoise, fol. Par. 1581. p. 34.

18. Copies of this exist in the British Museum, and in Mr. Douce's library. In the former is a note in the hand-writing of Ritson, who supposes it to have proceeded from the press of Nicholas, the father of John Bonfons, whose son Nicholas printed from about 1550 to 1590. The title is as follows: “L’Histoire du noble preux & vaillant Cheualier Guillaume de Palerne. Et de la belle Melior. Lequel Guillaume de Palerne fut filz du Roy de Cecille. Et par fortune & merueilleuse auenture deuint vacher. Et finablement fut Empereur de Rome, souz la conduicte dun Loupgaroux filz au Roy Despagne.” The text is accompanied with wood-cuts. This volume is noticed both by Du Verdier, t. iv. p. 169. Ed. Juvigny, and Bibl. des Romans, t. ii. p. 245. but neither of these writers mention the author.

19. See Dr. Dibdin's Tour, vol. ii. p. 337. who describes a copy of this, and the later edition, in the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal.

20. Bibl. Françoises, tom. ii. p. 272. ed. 1772. He is said also to have had an œnigma or rebus in the front of his house, which seems to indicate the same taste which prompted the composition of the acrostic cited above.

21. Border Minstr. ii. 110. Ed. 1803.

22. Biörner's Kämpa-Dæter, fol. 1737.

23. See Discours des Sorciers, par Henry Boguet, 12mo. Lyon, 1608. 2de ed. pp. 363. 369. Verstegan's Restitution of decayed intelligence, 4to. Antv. 1605. p. 237. Jamieson's Dictionary, in v. Warwolf, and Nynauld's treatise De la Lycanthropie, 8vo. Par. 1625. where several of these ointments are described.

24. Boguet, p. 341. Wierus de Præstigiis, lib. v. c. 10.

25. Boguet, pp. 340. 361.

26. See Essay in the Relics of English Poetry, vol. ii. Warton's Hist. of Engl. Poetry, vol. ii. §. 10. 8vo. ed. Whitaker's Introductory Discourse to Piers Plouhman, and Conybeare's Essay on Anglo-Saxon Metre, prefixed to the Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry, 8vo. Lond. 1826.

27. Mr. Conybeare is certainly mistaken in assigning the Romances of Sir Gawayn and Alexander to the 13th century, as I shall endeavour to shew in another place.

28. The poems of this writer, who flourished from 1320 to 1340. are preserved in an unique Ms. belonging to Alexander Henderson, Esq. of Edinburgh, who intends, at some period or other, giving them to the public.