Part 1

The

Story of Genesis and Exodus,

AN EARLY ENGLISH SONG,

ABOUT A.D. 1250.

EDITED

FROM A UNIQUE MS. IN THE LIBRARY OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,

WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND GLOSSARY,

BY THE

REV. RICHARD MORRIS, LL.D.,

AUTHOR OF "HISTORICAL OUTLINES OF ENGLISH ACCIDENCE;" EDITOR OF "HAMPOLE'S PRICKS OF CONSCIENCE;" "EARLY ENGLISH ALLITERATIVE POEMS," ETC. ETC.; ONE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENTS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

[Second and Revised Edition, 1873.]

LONDON:

PUBLISHED FOR THE EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY,

BY N. TRÜBNER & CO., 57 & 59, LUDGATE HILL.

MDCCCLXV.

PREFACE.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT, ETC.

The Editor of the present valuable and interesting record of our old English speech will, no doubt, both astonish and alarm his readers by informing them that he has never seen the manuscript from which the work he professes to edit has been transcribed.

But, while the truth must be told, the reader need not entertain the slightest doubt or distrust as to the accuracy and faithfulness of the present edition; for, in the first place, the text was copied by Mr F. J. Furnivall, an experienced editor and a zealous lover of Old English lore; and, secondly, the proof sheets have been most carefully read with the manuscript by the Rev. W. W. Skeat, who has spared no pains to render the text an accurate copy of the original.[1] I have not been satisfied with merely the general accuracy of the text, but all _doubtful_ or _difficult_ passages have been most carefully referred to, and compared with the manuscript, so that the more questionable a word may appear, either as regards its _form_ or _meaning_, the more may the reader rest assured of its correctness, so that he may be under no apprehension that he is perplexed by any typographical error, but feel confident that he is dealing with the reading of the original copy.

The editorial portion of the present work includes the punctuation, marginal analysis, conjectural readings, a somewhat large body of annotations on the text of the poem, and a Glossarial Index, which, it is hoped, will be found to be complete, as well as useful for reference.

The Corpus manuscript[2] is a small volume (about 8 in. × 4½ in.), bound in vellum, written on parchment in a hand of about 1300 A.D., with several final long ſ's, and consisting of eighty-one leaves. Genesis ends on fol. 49_b_; Exodus has the last two lines at the top of fol. 81_a_.

The writing is clear and regular; the letters are large, but the words are often very close together. Every initial letter has a little dab of red on it, and they are mostly capitals, except the _b_, the _f_, the _ð_, and sometimes other letters. Very rarely, however, _B_, _F_, and _Ð_ are found as initial letters.

The illuminated letters are simply large vermilion letters without ornament, and are of an earlier form than the writing of the rest of the manuscript. Every line ends with a full stop (or metrical point), except, very rarely, when omitted by accident. Whenever this stop occurs in the middle of a line it has been marked thus (.) in the text.

DESCRIPTION OF THE POEM.

Our author, of whom, unfortunately, we know nothing, introduces his subject to his readers by telling them that they ought to love a rhyming story which teaches the "layman" (though he be learned in no books) how to love and serve God, and to live peaceably and amicably with his fellow Christians. His poem, or "song," as he calls it, is, he says, turned out of Latin into English speech; and as birds are joyful to see the dawning, so ought Christians to rejoice to hear the "true tale" of man's fall and subsequent redemption related in the vulgar tongue ("land's speech"), and in easy language ("small words").

So eschewing a "high style" and all profane subjects, he declares that he will undertake to sing no other song, although his present task should prove unsuccessful.[3] Our poet next invokes the aid of the Deity for his song in the following terms:—

"Fader god of alle ðhinge, Almigtin louerd, hegeſt kinge, ðu giue me ſeli timinge To thaunen ðis werdes biginninge, ðe, leuerd god, to wurðinge, Queðer ſo hic rede or ſinge!"[4]

Then follows the Bible narrative of Genesis and Exodus, here and there varied by the introduction of a few of those sacred legends so common in the mediæval ages, but in the use of which, however, our author is far less bold than many subsequent writers, who, seeking to make their works attractive to the "lewed," did not scruple to mix up with the sacred history the most absurd and childish stories, which must have rendered such compilations more amusing than instructive. It seems to have been the object of the author of the present work to present to his readers, in as few words as possible, the most important facts contained in the Books of Genesis and Exodus without any elaboration or comment, and he has, therefore, omitted such facts as were not essentially necessary to the completeness of his narrative;[5] while, on the other hand, he has included certain portions of the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy,[6] so as to present to his readers a complete history of the wanderings of the Israelites, and the life of Moses their leader.

In order to excite the reader's curiosity, we subjoin a few passages, with a literal translation:—

LAMECH'S BIGAMY.

Lamech is at ðe sexte kne, ðe ſeuende man after adam, ðat of caymes kinde cam. ðiſ lamech waſ ðe firme man, ðe bigamie firſt bi-gan. Bigamie is unkinde ðing, On engleis tale, twie-wifing; for ai was rigt and kire bi-forn, On man, on wif, til he was boren. Lamech him two wifes nam, On adda, an noðer wif ſellam. Adda bar him ſune Iobal, He was hirde wittere and wal; Of merke, and kinde, and helde, & ble, ſundring and ſameni[n]g tagte he; Iobal iſ broðer ſong and glew, Wit of muſike, wel he knew; On two tableſ of tigel and braſ wrot he ðat wiſtom, wiſ he was, ðat it ne ſulde ben undon If fier or water come ðor-on. Sella wuneð oc lamech wið, ghe bar tubal, a ſellic ſmið; Of irin, of golde, ſiluer, and bras To ſundren and mengen wiſ he was; Wopen of wigte and tol of grið, Wel cuðe egte and ſafgte wið.

Lamech is at the sixth degree, The seventh man after Adam, That of Cain's kin came. This Lamech was the first man Who bigamy first began. Bigamy is unnatural thing, In English speech, twi-wiving; For aye was right and purity before, One man, one wife, till he was born. Lamech to him two wives took, One Adah, another wife Zillah. Adah bare him a son Jubal, He was a [shep-]herd wise and able; Of mark,[7] breed, age, and colour, Separating and assembling taught he; Jubal his brother poetry and music, Craft of music, well he knew; On two tables of tile and brass, Wrote he that wisdom, wise he was, That it should not be effaced If fire or water came thereon. Zillah dwelleth also Lamech with, She bare Tubal, a wonderful smith; Of iron, of gold, silver and brass To separate and mix, wise he was; Weapon of war and tool of peace, Well could he hurt and heal with. —(ll. 444-470.)

DEATH OF CAIN.

Lamech ledde long lif til ðan ðat he wurð biſne, and haued a man ðat ledde him ofte wudeſ ner, To scheten after ðe wilde der; Al-so he miſtagte, alſo he ſchet, And caim in ðe wude iſ let; His knape wende it were a der, An lamech droge iſ arwe ner, And letet flegen of ðe ſtreng, Caim unwar[_n_]de it under-feng, Gruſnede, and ſtrekede, and ſtarf wið-ðan. Lamech wið wreðe iſ knape nam, Vn-bente iſ boge, and bet, and slog, Til he fel dun on dedeſ ſwog. Twin-wifing and twin-manſlagt, Of his ſoule beð mikel hagt.

Lamech led long life till then That he became blind and had a man That led him oft to woods near, To shoot after the wild deer (animals); As he mistaught, so he shot, And Cain in the wood is let; His knave (servant) weened it were a deer, And Lamech drew his arrow near And let it fly off the string, Cain unwarned it received, Groaned, fell prostrate (stretched) and died with-that. Lamech with wrath his knave seized, Unbent his bow, and beat and slew, Till he fell down in death's swoon. Twi-wiving (bigamy) and twi-slaughter (double homicide) On his soul is great trouble (anxiety). —(ll. 471-486.)

HOW THE CHILD MOSES BEHAVED BEFORE PHARAOH.

Ghe brogte him bi-foren pharaon, And ðiſ king wurð him in herte mild, So ſwide faiger was ðiſ child; And he toc him on ſunes ſtede, And hiſ corune on his heued he dede, And let it ſtonden ayne ſtund; ðe child it warp dun to ðe grund. Hamoneſ likeneſ was ðor-on; ðiſ crune is broken, ðiſ iſ miſdon. Biſſop Eliopoleos ſag ðiſ timing, & up he roſ; "If ðiſ child," quad he, "mote ðen, He ſal egyptes bale ben." If ðor ne wore helpe twen lopen, ðiſ childe adde ðan ſone be dropen; ðe king wið-ſtod & an wiſ man, He ſeide, "ðe child doð alſ he can; We ſulen nu witen for it dede ðiſ witterlike, or in child-hede;" He bad ðis child brennen to colen And he toc is (hu migt he it ðolen), And in hiſe muth ſo depe he iſ dede Hiſe tunges ende iſ brent ðor-mide; ðor-fore ſeide ðe ebru witterlike, ðat he ſpac ſiðen miſerlike.

She (Thermutis) brought him (Moses) before Pharaoh, And this king became to him in heart mild, So very fair was this child; And he took him on son's stead (instead of a son), And his crown on his head he did (placed), And let it stand a stound (while); The child threw it down to the ground. Hamon's likeness was thereon; This crown is broken, this is misdone. The Bishop of Heliopolis Saw this circumstance, and up he rose; If this child, quoth he, might thrive (grow up), He shall Egypt's bale be. If there had not helpers 'tween leapt, This child had then soon been killed; The king with-stood and a wise man, He said, The child doth as he can (knows); We should now learn whether it did This wittingly, or in childishness; He offered this child two burning coals And he took them (how might he bear them?) And in his mouth so deep (far) he them did (placed) His tongue's end is burnt therewith; Therefore said the Hebrew truly, That he spake afterwards indistinctly. —(ll. 2634-2658.)

HOW MOSES DEFEATED THE ETHIOPIANS.

Bi ðat time ðat he was guð, Wið faigered and ſtrengthe kuð, folc ethiopienes on egipte cam, And brende, & ſlug, & wreche nam, Al to memphin ðat riche cite, And a-non to ðe reade ſe; ðo was egipte folc in dred, And aſkeden here godes red; And hem ſeiden wið anſweren, ðat on ebru cude hem wel weren.

Moyſes was louered of ðat here, ðor he wurð ðane egyptes were; Bi a lond weige he wente rigt, And brogte vn-warnede on hem figt; He hadden don egipte wrong, He bi-loc hem & ſmette a-mong, And ſlug ðor manige; oc ſumme flen, Into ſaba to borgen ben. Moyſes bi-ſette al ðat burg, Oc it was riche & ſtrong ut-ðhurg; Ethiopienes kinges dowter tarbis, Riche maiden of michel priſ, Gaf ðiſ riche burg moyſi; Luue-bonde hire ghe it dede for-ði. ðor iſe fon he leide in bonde, And he wurð al-migt-ful in ðat lond; He bi-lef ðor(.) tarbis him ſcroð, ðog was him ðat ſurgerun ful loð; Mai he no leue at hire taken but-if he it mai wið crafte maken: He waſ of an ſtrong migt [&] wiſ, He carf in two gummes of priſ Two likeneſſes, ſo grauen & meten, ðis doð ðenken, & ðoð_er_ forgeten; He feſt is in two ringes of gold, Gaf hire ðe ton, he was hire hold; [And quan awei nimen he wolde Gaf hire ðe toðer, he was hire colde] Ghe it bered and ðiſ luue iſ for-geten, Moyſes ðus haued him leue bi-geten; Sone it migte wið leue ben, Into egypte e wente a-gen.

By that time that he was a youth (young man), For beauty and strength renowned, Ethiopian folk on Egypt came, And burnt, and slew, and vengeance took, All to Memphis that rich city, And anon to the Red Sea; Then was Egypt's folk in dread, And asked their gods' advice; And they said to them in answer, That one Hebrew could them well defend.

Moses became leader of that (Egyptian) army, There he became then Egypt's protector; By a land-way he went right, And brought unwarned on them fight; They had done Egypt wrong, He compassed them and smote among, And slew there many; but some fled Into Sheba to be saved. Moses beset all that borough (city), But it was rich and strong out-thorough (throughout); Tarbis, the Ethiopian king's daughter, Rich maiden of great renown, Gave this rich city to Moses; As love-bond's hire she did it, therefore. There his foes he laid in bond, And he became all-powerful in that land; He remained there, Tarbis him urged, Yet was to him that sojourn full loath; May he no leave of her take Unless he it may with craft make: He was of a strong might and wise, He carved in two gems (stones) precious, Two likenesses alike carved and depicted, This one causes to remember, and the other to forget; He fastened them in two rings of gold, Gave her the one, he was dear to her; [And when depart he would Gave her the other, and was distasteful to her] She it beareth and this love is forgotten, Moses thus hath for himself leave begotten; Soon it might with leave be, Into Egypt he went again. —(ll. 2665-2708.)

THE PLAGUE OF FROGS.

And aaron held up his hond to ðe water and ðe more lond; ðo cam ðor up ſwilc froſkes here ðe dede al folc egipte dere; Summe woren wilde, and ſumme tame, And ðo hem deden ðe moſte ſame; In huſe, in drinc, in metes, in bed, It cropen and maden hem for-dred; Summe ſtoruen and gouen ſtinc, And vn-hileden mete and drinc; Polheuedes, and froſkes, & podes ſpile Bond harde egipte folc un-ſile.[8]

And Aaron held up his hand To the water and the greater land; Then came there up such host of frogs That did all Egypt's folk harm; Some were wild, and some tame, And those caused them the most (greatest) shame; In house, in drink, in meats, in bed, They crept and made them in great dread; Some died and gave (out) stink, And (others) uncovered meat and drink; Tadpoles and frogs, and toad's venom Bound hard Egypt's sorrowful folk. —(ll. 2967-2978.)

The reader must not be disappointed if he fails to find many traces in this work of our pious author's poetic skill; he must consider that the interest attaching to so early an _English_ version of Old Testament History, as well as the philological value of the poem, fully compensates him for the absence of great literary merit, which is hardly to be expected in a work of this kind. And, moreover, we must recollect that it is to the patriotism, as well as piety, of such men as our author, that we owe the preservation of our noble language. The number of religious treatises written in English during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries proves that the dialect of religion approached more closely to the speech of the people than did the language of history or romance. And it is a curious fact that the most valuable monuments of our language are mostly theological, composed for the lewed and unlearned, who knew no other language than the one spoken by their forefathers, and who clung most tenaciously to their mother tongue, notwithstanding the changes consequent upon the Norman invasion, and the oppression of Norman rule, which, inasmuch as it fostered and kept up a patriotic spirit, exercised a most important and beneficial influence upon Early English literary culture and civilization.

DATE AND DIALECT OF THE POEM.

The mere examination of an Early English work with respect to its vocabulary and grammatical forms, will not enable us (as Price asserts) to settle satisfactorily the date at which it was written. The place of composition must also be taken into consideration, and a comparison, if possible, must be made with other works in the same dialect, the date of which is known with some degree of certainty. The date of the text before us must not, therefore, be confounded with that of the manuscript, which is, perhaps, a few years earlier than A.D. 1300. A careful comparison of the poem with the Bestiary, written in the same dialect, and most probably by the same author[9] (and printed by Mr Wright in the Reliquiæ Antiquæ, p. 208, and by myself in an Old English Miscellany), leads me to think that the present poem is not later than A.D. 1250.[10]

The vocabulary, which contains very few words of Romance origin,[11] is not that of Robert of Gloucester, or of Robert of Brunne, but such as is found in Laȝamon's Brut, or Orm's paraphrases, and other works illustrating the second period of our language, i.e. the twelfth and earlier part of the thirteenth centuries.

The employment of a _dual_ for the pronouns of the first and second persons marks an _early_ date (certainly not much later than the time of Henry III.) even in works composed in the Southern dialect, which, it is well known, retained to a comparatively late period those Anglo-Saxon inflections that had long previously been disused in more Northern dialects.

The Corpus manuscript is evidently the work of a scribe, to whom the language was more or less archaic, which accounts for such blunders as _ðrosing_ for _ðrosem_, _waspene_ for _wastme_, _lage_ for _vn-lage_, _insile_ for _vn-sile_, _grauen_ for _ðrauen_, etc.

The original copy of Genesis most probably terminated with ll. 2521-4:

"And here ended completely The book which is called Genesis, Which Moses, through God's help, Wrote for precious souls' need."

The concluding lines, in which both the author and scribe are mentioned, seem to me to be the work of a subsequent transcriber:

"God shield his soul from hell-bale, Who made it thus in English tale (speech)! And he that these letters wrote, May God help him blissfully, And preserve his soul from sorrow and tears, Of hell-pain, cold and hot!"

The Ormulum is the earliest[12] printed Early English work which has come down to us that exhibits the uniform employment of the termination _-en_ (_-n_) as the inflection of the plural number, present tense, indicative mood; or, in other words, it is the earliest printed example we have of a _Midland_ dialect. I say _a_ Midland dialect, because the work of Orm is, after all, only a specimen of _one_ variety of the Midland speech, most probably of that spoken in the northern part of the eastern counties of England, including what is commonly called the district of East Anglia.

Next in antiquity to the Ormulum come the Bestiary, already mentioned, and the present poem, both of which uniformly employ the Midland affix _-en_, to the exclusion of all others, as the inflection of the present plural indicative.

There are other peculiarities which these works have in common; and a careful comparison of them with the Ormulum induces me to assign them to the East Midland area; but there are certain peculiarities, to be noticed hereafter, which induce me to believe that the work of Orm represents a dialect spoken in the northern part of this district, while the Story of Genesis and Exodus, together with the Bestiary, exhibits the speech of the more southern counties of the East Midland district.[13] Thus, if the former be in the dialect of _Lincoln_, the latter is in that of _Suffolk_.[14]

The chief points in which the present poem and the Bestiary agree with the Ormulum are the following:—

I. The absence of compound vowels.

In the Southern dialects we find the compound vowels _ue_, _eo_, _ie_, _ea_ (_yea_). In the Ormulum _eo_ occurs, but with the sound of _e_, and _ea_ in Genesis and Exodus is written for _e_.

II. The change of an initial _ð_ (th) into _t_ after words ending in _d_, _t_, _n_, _s_, that is to say, after a dental or a sibilant.[15]

"ðanne iſ _tis_ fruit wel ſwiðe good."—(_Gen. and Ex._, l. 334.)

"ðe firſt moned and _te_ firſt dai, He ſag erðe drie & _te_ water awai."—(_Ibid._, l. 615-6.)

"ðin berg and _tin_ werger ic ham."—(_Ibid._, l. 926.)

"at _te_ welle[n]."—(_Ibid._, l. 2756.)

This practice is much more frequent in the Bestiary, which is a proof, perhaps, that the present poem has suffered somewhat in the course of transcription.

"neddre is _te_ name."—(_O.E. Miscellany_, p. 5.)

"it is _te_ ned."—(_Ibid._, p. 6.)

"ðis lif bitokneð ðe sti ðat _te_ neddre gangeð bi, and _tis_ is ðe ðirl of ðe ston, ðat _tu_ salt ðurg gon."—(_Ibid._, p. 7.)

"at _tin_ herte."—(_Ibid._, p. 7.)

III. Simplicity of grammatical structure and construction of sentences.[16]

1. The neglect of _gender_ and _number_ in nouns.

2. The genitive singular of substantives end in _-es_ in all genders.[17]

3. The absence of the gen. pl. of substantives in _-ene_.

4. The employment of an uninflected article.[18]

5. The use of _ðat_ (that) as a demonstrative adjective, and not as the neuter of the article. The form _ðas_ (those), common enough in the fourteenth century, does not occur in this poem or in the Ormulum.

6. No inflection of the adjective in the accusative singular. The phrase '_godun_ dai,' good day, in l. 1430, p. 41, contains a solitary instance of the accusative of the adjective, but it is, no doubt, a mere remnant of the older speech, just like our 'for _the n_once' (= for _then_ once), and is no proof that the writer or his readers employed it as a common inflection. The form _godun_ is a corruption of _godne_, as it is more properly written in works in the Southern dialects as late as the middle of the fourteenth century.

7. Adjectives and adverbs with the termination _-like_.

The Southern form is, for adjectives, _-lich_ (sing.), _-liche_ (pl.); for adverbs _-liche_. Thus the adoption of this affix really (though at first it appears a matter of no importance) marks a _stage_ in the language when the distinction between the sing. and pl. form of adjectives was not very strictly observed, and was, moreover, a step towards our modern _-ly_, which is adjectival as well as adverbial.

Even in this poem adjectives occur in _-li_, as _reuli_ = piteous, which is the earliest example I have met with. Orm employs double forms in _-like_ and _-liȝȝ_ (= _ly_?). _-ly_ has arisen not out of _-lich_ or _-liche_ (which would have become _lidge_ or _litch_), but out of some such softened form as _liȝ_.

8. The tendency to drop the initial _y_, _i_ (A.S. _ge_) of the passive participles of strong verbs.

The Ormulum has two or three examples of this prefixal element, and in our poem it occurs but seldom.

IV. A tendency to drop the _t_ of the second person of verbs, as _as_, hast; _beas_, beëst; _findes_, findest.

Examples of this practice are very common in the Bestiary and Genesis and Exodus, but it occurs only four times in the Ormulum.[19] It was very common for the West-Midland to drop the _-e_ of 2nd person in strong verbs. See Preface to O.E. Homilies, 1st Series.

V. The use of _arn_, _aren_, for _ben_ of the Midland dialect, or _beð_ of the Southern dialect.[20]

VI. The employment of the adverbs _thethen_, _hethen_, _quethen_ (of Scandinavian origin),[21] instead of the Southern _thenne_ (_thennen_), thence; _henne_ (_hennen_), hence; _whanne_ (_whanene_), whence.

VII. The use of _oc_, _ok_ (also, and), a form which does not occur in any specimen of a Southern, West-Midland, or Northern dialect that has come under my notice. The use of _on_, _o_, for the Southern _an_ or _a_, as _onlike_, _olike_, alike, _on-rum_, apart, _on-sunder_, asunder, is also worth noticing.

VIII. The coalition of the pronoun _it_ with pronouns and verbs, as _get_ (Bestiary) = she it (_ȝhöt_ in Ormulum; cf. _þüt_ = _thu itt_, thou it); _tellet_ = tell it; _wuldet_ = would it; _ist_ = is it, is there; _wast_, was it, was there, etc. _þit_ = _þe_ + _hit_ = who it, occurs in O.E. Homilies, 2nd Series.