Part 2

Text| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12| 13 |14|15|16 |17|18| Cam ----+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+------+--+--+---+--+--+---- CS | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2. 1 1 (1) 1 1 1 | 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3.4. 2 2 (2) 2 2 3.8. | 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6.5. 3 3 (3) 3 3 2 | 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7.8. 4 4 (4) 4 4 10 | 5 5 -- 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 8 -- 11.12. 5 5 (5) 5 5 9 |-- -- 4 6 6 6 6 -- 6 9 9 -- -- 6 15 6 6 6 11 |-- -- 6 7 7 7 7 -- 7 11 11 -- -- 12 16 7 7 7 -- | 8 12 12 -- 31.32. | 5 5 5 15.16. | 6 6 6 -- | 7 7 -- 9.10. | 10 10 -- 13.14. ----+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+------+--+--+--+---+--+--- IS | [A] [B] [C][D] [E]

[A] stanzas 6. 7. 8. (3) [B] 17 to 30. (14) [C] 7 to 11 (5) [D] 6 to 14 (9) [E] 6. 7. 13. 18 resemble A Version. 4. 5. 12. 14 to 17. 19 to 22 independent (11)

It will be seen from the table that eleven of these texts have seven stanzas in common, and that fifteen of them have five in common. Of the three remaining texts, MS. Harl. 984 has a missing leaf, but would clearly appear to belong to the seven-stanza type, raising the above numbers to twelve texts of seven stanzas, and sixteen of five. MS. Selden again obviously represents the usual seven-stanza type with the accidental omission of verse 5. MS. Titus has four of the customary five verses, breaks off to follow the arrangement of the Lambeth MS., and comes to an end after copying two of the additional verses in the Lambeth text before reaching the usual fifth verse. Assuming that it represents a transcription of the Lambeth text, MS. Titus might be classed with the five-stanza type, or possibly, like MS. Lambeth, with the seven-stanza type. It may therefore be assumed that all eighteen of the B texts have five stanzas in common, or are based upon such a common type, and that thirteen, or possibly fourteen of them, represent a common type with seven stanzas, six of which are further found in the Cambridge text. These common stanzas vary very little in the different MSS. as regards either the actual text or the order of lines and stanzas, and it seems probable that the normal B version consisted of seven stanzas, ending with a personal exhortation which has been omitted, or possibly not yet added, in five of the texts. In four MSS.--Lambeth, Laud, Rawl. P., and Harl. 4486--an interesting final stanza, containing a prayer, has been added. Three of these texts, MSS. Lamb., Laud, and Rawl. P., correspond in three other additional stanzas, which seems to point to some closer relationship between them, and two, or more strictly one and a half, of these additional stanzas are also found in MS. Titus, which appears to be a transcript of the Lambeth text. The scribe of MS. Titus followed the Lambeth text until he reached the middle of verse 6, when he apparently wearied of the task, and broke off with a new couplet of his own, entirely foreign in idea and metre to the _Erthe upon Erthe_ poems:--

Lewe thy syne & lyffe in right, And þan shalt thou lyffe in heuyn as a knyght.

The text, as a whole, is badly written with many erasures, and points to a careless hand.

The additional stanzas cited in the table as independent contain mere variations on the main theme, and it is highly probable that the more expanded texts are the later, and represent individual additions to a popular poem, since they generally fail to maintain the internal rime on the word _erthe_ which is an evident characteristic of the genuine verses. In the case of the five MSS. in question, MS. Harl. 4486 might be taken to represent the original type, and MSS. Lamb., Laud[11], and Titus an expansion of this, while the author of Rawl. P. was obviously acquainted with the Lambeth text, or its original, and added to it certain stanzas of his own, leaving out three of the verses in Lambeth to make room for these. Whether the eighth stanza which MSS. Harl. 4486, Lamb., Laud, and Rawl. P. have in common belongs to the original type of the B version, or was itself a later addition, can scarcely be determined, but as it seems to be confined to these four texts, the latter view is perhaps the more probable. It must, however, have been added early, as it occurs already in MSS. Lamb. and Laud before 1450, and preserves the principle of the internal rime on _erthe_. The relative dates of MSS. Lambeth and Rawl. P. as fixed by Furnivall and Madden (MS. Lamb. 1430-1450, R. P. after 1450) would bear out this theory of the relationship between these two texts, and it may further be noted that both have the same prefatory _De terra plasmasti me_, otherwise found only in MS. Harl. 1671, and that both exhibit the same tendency to employ a direct personal mode of address, and to lengthen out the original text by superfluous words.

Cf. for example, MS. Harl. 4486, verse 5 (so MS. Laud, verse 8)--

Why erthe loueth erthe wonder me thynke, Or why that erthe for erthe swete wylle or swynke, &c.

with MS. Lamb. verse 8--

Whi þat erþe _to myche_ loueþ erþe, wondir me þink, Or whi þat erþe for _superflue_ erþe _to sore_ sweete wole or swynk

and MS. Rawl. P. verse 11--

Or whi that erthe for the erthe _Unresonably_ swete wol or swynke.

The exact date of the text in MS. Titus is indeterminate, but, as stated above, it is evidently based on MS. Lambeth or its original, and might be ascribed to c. 1450 or later. The text in MS. Harl. 4486 has been added by some later owner of the MS. on the last leaves of a fifteenth-century transcript of _Le Livre de Sydrac_. The handwriting of _Erthe upon Erthe_ is also fifteenth century, but the exact date again cannot be determined. The text, however, is far simpler and nearer to the original than that of the other four MSS., and evidently represents an earlier type than these, though the actual transcript may be later.

With the exception of these five MSS., it is not easy to group the eighteen texts of the B version on any system based upon the additional stanzas, since these fail to bear out any theory as to closer relationship between individual MSS., though the connexion of ideas is often close owing to the similarity of the theme. Thus the nine additional stanzas in MS. Balliol contain a digression upon the nine worthies with an interesting reference in verse 12 to the Dance of Powlis, i.e. the Dance of Death formerly depicted outside St. Paul's Cathedral (v. Notes, p. 36). It is in the Cambridge text alone that the additional stanzas supply an interesting connexion with the A version, which places this text, unfortunately corrupt and difficult to decipher, in an important position as a link between A and B.

With regard to possible relationships dependent upon variations in the order or arrangement of the lines in the seven common stanzas, it may be pointed out that the first verse in MS. Egerton consists of three lines only, the usual second line being omitted, and that both MS. Harl. 1671 and MS. Porkington omit the same line, though each of these supplies a new and independent fourth line to fill the gap:--

(_MS. Egerton_ 1995)

Erthe owte of þe erthe ys wounderly wrought, Erthe vppon erthe hathe sette hys thought How erthe a-pon erthe may be hy brought.

(_MS. Harl._ 1671)

Erthe apon erthe ys waxyne and wrought, And erthe apon erthe hathe ysette all hys thought How that erth apon erth hye myght be brought, _But how that erth scal to the erth thyngketh he noht_.

(_MS. Porkington 10_)

Erthe vppon erthe is woundyrely wrou[gh]te; Erthe vppon erthe has set al his þou[gh]te How erthe vppon erth to erthe schall be brou[gh]te; _There is none vppon erth has hit in þou[gh]te._ Take hede! Whoso þinkyse on his ende, ful welle schal he spede.

It is obvious that these new lines are an afterthought, especially in the case of MS. Porkington, where the rime-word _þou[gh]te_ has to be repeated. Possibly these three texts depend upon a common original in which the usual second line _Erth hath gotyn vppon erth a dygnyte of noght_ was lacking, or MS. Egerton may have been the original of the other two. But MS. Harl. 1671 varies from the other two in the first line also, using a version which is otherwise confined to the Cambridge text--

Erthe apon erthe ys _waxyne and_ wrought--

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.

THE CAMBRIDGE TEXT.

The Cambridge MS., as has been already stated, combines portions of both the A and the B version with several independent stanzas. At first sight it might appear to represent a transitional stage in the development of the B from the A type, but closer examination shows that this is not the case, and that the text is merely a later compilation from the two. The writer must have had some knowledge both of the longer A version represented by MS. Harl. 913, and of the common seven-stanza B type, and seems to have tried to combine his recollections in one poem, halting between the four-lined and six-lined stanza, repeating himself here and there, and adding certain new verses of his own. There is no grouping into stanzas in the MS., but a division is easily made by the rimes, and these give mono-rimed stanzas of four lines chiefly, with one of six lines, and some fragmentary ones of two or three. In one case a stanza has been broken up and the two couplets inserted at different points (ll. 9-10, 27-28). As has been shown in the table of MSS. of the B version, six verses of the B type may be traced, while four verses show distinct correspondence with A, and eleven are independent of either. A comparison of the similar lines follows:--

(_MS. Cambr._ Ii. 4. 9) ll. 1-4.

Erthe vpon erthe is waxin & wrought, Erthe takys on erthe a nobylay of nought; Now erthe vpon erthe layes all his þought How erthe vpon erthe sattys all at noght.

(_MS. Harl._ 4486.) B Version.

1 Erthe owte of erthe is wonderly wrowghte, Erthe of the erthe hathe gete an abbey[12] of nawte, Erthe apon erthe hath sett{e} al his thowghte How erthe apon erthe may be hye browte.

ll. 9-10, 27-28.

Erthe vpon erth wolde be a kyng, But howe erth xal to erth thynkyth he no thyng. When erthe says to erth: 'My rent þou me bryng,' Then has erth fro erthe a dolfull p{ar}tyng.

2 Erthe apon erthe be he a kyng{e}, Butt how erth schall{e} to erthe thynketh{e} he nothyng{e}. When erthe byddeth erthe his rent home bryng{e}, Then schall{e} erth{e} owte of erthe haue a pyteous[13] p{ar}tyng{e}.

ll. 5-8.

Erthe vpon erth has hallys & towr{is}; Erthe says to erth: 'This is alle owr{is}.' But q{ua}n erth vpon erth has byg{g}yd his bowr{is} Than xal erth for the erth haue scharpe schowr{is}.

3 Erthe apon erthe wynneth castell{es} & towres. Then seyth{e} erthe to erthe: 'These byth{e} all{e} owres.' When erthe apon erthe hath bygged{e} vp his bowres Then schall{e} erthe for the erthe suffre scharpe schowres.

Cf. l. 66.

If erth haue mys don, he getyth scharpe sho{u}rs.

ll. 33-35.

Erthe wrotys in erth as molys don in molde, Erthe vpon erth glydys as golde, As erthe leve in erthe eu{e}r mor{e} schulde.

4 Erthe gothe apon erthe as molde apon molde. So goeth erthe apon erthe all{e} gleteryng{e} in golde, Lyke as erthe into erthe neu{er} go scholde, And [gh]et schall{e} erthe into erthe rather then be wolde.

ll. 29-32.

How erthe louys erth wondyr me thynke, How erthe for erth wyll swete and swynke. When erth is in {e}rthe broght w{i}t{h}-in the brynke What as herth than of erthe but a fowle sty{n}ke.

5 Why erthe loueth{e} erthe wonder me thynke, Or why that erthe for erthe swete wyll{e} or swynke, Ffor whan erthe apon erthe is browte w{i}t{h}yn þe brynke, Then schall{e} erthe of the erthe haue a fowle stynke.

ll. 36-37.

Erthe vpon erth mynd eu{er} more þou make How erthe xal to erth when deth wyll hy{m} take.

6 Loo erthe apon erthe consyder{e} thow may How erthe co{m}myth to erthe naked all way.

ll. 19-22.

Erth vpon erthe gos in the weye, Prykys and prankys on a palfreye; When erth has gotyn erth alle that he maye, He schal haue but seven fote at his last daye.

(_MS. Harl._ 913) A Version. v. 5, ll. 1, 2, 5, 6.

Erþ is a palfrei to king a{nd} to quene, Erþ is ar la{n}g wei, þouw we lutil wene. Whan erþ haþ erþ wiþ st{r}einþ þus geten, Alast he haþ is leinþ miseislich i-meten.

ll. 41-46, 23-26.

Ffor erth gos in erth walkand in vede, And erthe rydys on erth on a fayr stede, When he was goty{n} in erth erth to his mede, Than is erth layde in erthe wormys to fede. Whylke are the wormys the flesch brede? God wote the wormys for to ryght rede. Than xal not be lyky{n}g vnto hy{m} Bu[t] an olde sely cloth to wynde erthe in, When erthe is in erth for wormys wyn, The rof of his hows xal ly on his chyn.

v. 2.

Erþ geþ on erþ wrikkend in weden, Erþ toward erþ wormes to feden; Erþ b{er}riþ to erþ al is lif deden; When erþ is i{n} erþe, heo muntid þi meden. When erþ is i{n} erþe, þe rof is on þe chynne; Þan schullen an hu{n}dred wormes wroten on þe skin.

ll. 63-64.

Erthe bygyth hallys & erth bygith towres, When erth is layd in erth, blayke is his bo{ur}s;

v. 6, ll. 5-6.

Erþ bilt castles, a{nd} erþe bilt toures; Whan erþ is on erþe, blak beþ þe boures.

l. 38.

Be war{e}, erth, for erthe, for sake of thi sowle.

v. 6, l. 3.

Erþ uppon erþ be þi soule hold.

The additional verses in MS. Cambr. bear some slight resemblance to other additional lines found in MSS. of the B type, and this is interesting as showing that the writer worked on the same lines in expanding his text, and was perhaps acquainted with some of the longer B texts. On the other hand characteristic differences in the treatment of the theme would seem to support the view that these verses are really individual additions and not derived from any of the other texts. The lines in question are given below:--

_MS. Cambr._ ll. 71-82.