75

V1.-SOME FRESH EVIIIENCE FROM THE SECOND TEXT OF LAYAMON ON THE POSSESSIVES IN 38 AND HIS. BY F. J. FURNIVALL,ESQ.

IN Serjt. Manning’s “Inquiry into the Character and Origin of the Possessive Augment in English and in Cognate Dialects,” extracts from which were read at a late meeting of our Society, the writcr states at p. 22 : “A simplification was effected in the Anglo-Saxon genitive singular, . . . . by reducing the varying singular genitives of all nouns to the most usual of the genitive forms, namely to that ending in es.” I do not believe this statement as to all nouns, though I do not propose to try and disprove it at present, inasmuch as its maker has not attempted to prove it. He has only stated it. Mr. Xanning next says, “ Another etep taken in the same direction, whilst throwing off all case-terminations of nouns, was to leave the relations existing between the noun dominant and the satellite in the case of possessive nouns, to be inferred from the simple expedient of juxta- posit ion. ” “ The progress of alteration in the language between these two periods, mill be shown by copious extracts exhibited in tww tables. Of these the first will show the gradual declen- sion of the Anglo-Saxon genitive case-termination and the substitution of the pronoun ‘ his,’ where the genitive had been used in a possessive sense.” ‘‘ These interesting documents appear to be of the greatest importance with reference to the present inquiry, inasmuch as in them is laid bare the gradual decline of thc Anglo- Saxon genitive, followed by the employment of two separate instruments, exercising different functions, and invested with distinct power. Upon the gradual abandonment of the Anglo- Saxon inflected genitive, our ancestors did not return to the 76 LAYAMON’S POSSESSIVES IN ‘ ES ’ AND ‘ HIS,’ original mode of constructing a genitive for nouns, namely, that by adopting the genitive form of the personal pronoun. They called up the Scandinavian ‘of’ where the existence merely of some general relation was meant to be indicated. But when the special relat.ion of possessor and t,hing possessed wits to be presented, resort was had to one of two distinct courses.”

‘< 8 7. Possessive Genitive by Juxta-position.

The earlier of these appears to have becn, simple juxta- position, in which thc satellite or thing possessed, was placed immcdiately after the dominant noun, without any inflection or other change of form, either in the noun dominant or in the satellite, and without the aid of any preposition.” . . . . I‘ The possessive genitive by juxta-position, did not remain long in favour. Our continental neighbours, abandoning all distinct ions between possessive und non-possessive genitives, fell hck upon the preposition de, the range of which became and continues to be co-extensive with that of the ancient in- flexional genitives, objective as well as subjcctive. Our island ancestors, on the contrury, clung firmly to the impor- tant distinction which they have handed down to us. They were not long content to trust to bare juxta-position for the development of tlic possessive character of a dominant noun. But instead of imitating the Romanesquc nations, by huddling possessive and non-possessive together,-plucing them under the spell of one undistinguishing prepositional genitive,-they availed thcmselres of the powerful agency of a reflex adjective possessivc pronoun, to endow our language with a peculiar cha- racter of perspicuity, the advantage-the almost incalculable advantage-of which, our countrymen, where they have not denied its existence, have been c;low to appreciate. It would seem to be impossible to assign any precise date to thc intro- duction of a system which it required the lupse of a century to establish. Fortunately the two versions of Layamon’s Brut furnish us with the means of fixing within certain limits the period of the alteration. In the earlier of these 9Y F. J. FURNIVALL, ESQ. 77 versions I have been able to discover only two instances of this application of the possessive pronoun his,” as a substi- tute for the Anglo-Saxon inflected possessive genitive ; whereas it will be seen that during an interval which can scarcely have reached a century, nearly all the Anglo-Saxon possessiue inflezional genitives of the earlier dlS. became the pronominal possessives of the latter version.” The propositions laid down in the foregoing extracts, therefore, are- I. That the varying singular genitives of all nouns were reduced to es. IT. That this es was then abandoned, in favour of of for the expression of a general relation ; and for, 1. juxta-posi- tion, 2. the substitution of the pronoun his for es, when the special relation of possession was to be indicated. 111. That this substitution of his for es took place in the interval ah. 1200 to ab. 1300, and is shown by the two texts of Lajamon, in the second of which nearly all the A. S. pos- sessives in es of the earlier one” had become his-es, or in the words of p. 34-“The following results may be gathered from the foregoing table. That in the interval between the two versions, which may be assumed to comprise the greater part of the thirteenth century, the genitive in s, when used in a possessive sense, mas superseded by the pronoun ‘his.’ ” Whatever other members of the Society may think, I for one must demur to the correctness of these statements, if put forward (as they seem to be) as intending to em- brace the whole of English nouns ; but my concern is not at present with these first statements, it is with the third, the fact or non-fact of the conversion of nearly all the possessives in es of one MS. into those with /ti.$ in another ; the fact or non-fact of the possessive es-es of the 1st text of Lajamon being superseded by his-es in the 2nd. The most superficial examination of the tests will prove to any one that Serjt. Manning’s statement is incorrect, and a more careful search will show that so far from nearly all the possessive es-es having been converted into his-es, not one- 78 LAYAMON’S POSSESSIVES IN ‘RS’ AND ‘HIS, third of them, or thereabouts, has been so converted.’ Mr. Manning has since the reading of this paper explained to the Society the cause of his over statement of the facts which form the foundation of his argument, but as his paper is still circulating in the Society’s Transactions without correc- tion, and I have myself received letters from members com- mcnting on the remarkable fact (so-called) of the entire change above-mentioned, I conceive that the correct evidence of thc Lajamon text on this point should be laid before the Society and the public, and I therefore give the following list of unchanged possessive es-es in the second test of Lalamon.

List of 226 (and more) Possessives in es or s, from the second text of Lapmons Brut (ed. Madden, 1847). VOL. I. F~BBTTEXT, nb. 1200 A.D. SECONDTEXT, nb. 1300 AD. PACE LISE he we8 Lcouena‘Ses sone. 1, 3 hct was I.rucais3 aone (Leuca’s son). hir lifcs ende. 10, 2.1 hirc liues ende (her life’s end).* his lifes endc. 11, 14 his lilies hrmdc. *4 Lnuinc sue. 11, 17 T,nuines3 sone. pis child hefda his cames 11, 22 jis child afclc his hcmee name nome. (his iinclc’s name). * Lauine mawe. 12, 4 Lauincs3 mop. a1 he to-drof jcs kingcs 24, 10 a1 hc to-drof pe kinges here liore. (army). 8 pcs kingcs folc. 27, 22 jis kinges folk. jcs kinges bro5c.r. 29, 20 pis kingee brobcr.

* In these ca6ey the second text has put on an 8 or es to the forms of the first text. 1 I SUPPOW Mr. Manning to have produced thcm all or nearly all ; and thnt the sclio1;m whose opinion bas hcen taken on tlic list nftcrmcntioiied are right in their judgment that thc gcnitives therein given are possessive, 2 I iissumc that rcadcrs will udinit that a life does possess a beginning and nu end. 3 Compare Serjt. Manning’s, “the mutilation of hi8 ill the forms of is, ya, 8, hnd not, at the period of the later rcrsion, cnme into wnernl usc.” I believe that i.9 and ys are dialectal variations of the AS. and hr7y English es, just 88 the plurnls ia and ys are of tlie A.S. nu nnd Jhrly English m. BY F. J. 'FURXIVALL, ESQ. 79

FIESTTEXT, ab. 1200 A.D. SECOSDTEST, ab. 1300 A.D. PACIP. LINE pas kinges ferde. 31, 6 pis kinges ferde (army). pes kinges broker. 31, 18 pea kinges broker. 12 to telde pas kinges. 34, 14 to pis kinges Bldes (tents). to telde pres kinges. 35, 4 to pis khges telde. to swa lase mannes 45, 10 to 60 lope mannee bi-hofe. bihoue. je hunties6 i Jm kinges 61, 10 3e hontep in pis kingee parc. frive. 16 hcwes his awene stiwarzrd. 63, 6 pat was kinges stiward. to hirede jes kinges. 63, 20 to pis kinges ferde (king's army). k igmp of onnes monncs 67, 2 and igrop of one mme8 hond. honde. boten pes anes name pa 77, 1-2 bate pes ones name pat hire ahe heorc alre lauerd wes louerd was (the name of the one). 20 Godes wiser-saka. 77, 5 Godee wiper-sake (God's adver- sary). Al Albanakes folc. 92, 3 A1 Albanaekea folk. anes hahjes kinges 94, 7 one eje kinges dopter. d0 h te r . * for Bstrilde luuc. 95, 21 for Estrildes loue. 24 his lauerdes heste. 101, 3 his louerdss his (for heste 1) his liues ende 103, 2 his lifes hcnde. his liues endc 107, 14 his liues hende. his lifes endc. 118, 12 his liues hende. 28 118, 1 G for j5 kinges bode. Appollones temple. 123, 1 rppe Appolines temple. swa bide ich godes are. 126, 7 so bide ich godes ore. pes kinges writ. 133, 24 PCORliingca writ. 32 a1 jes kinges milk. 156, 5 nl be kinges wille. jre com his ende dsi. 158, 11 Po corn his lifues hende. Heo nomen Horgnnus 164, 18 Hii nomen Morgancs lich (they fiche. took Morgan's body). A Cunedagius dawe. 165, 9 Bi pcos kinges daip 36 bi Appollines ref. 176, 8 bi Appolinee ore. a Bailenes apehond. 185, 1 in Belynes owene hond (in-Be- lin's own hand). pes kinges cnihtes. 196, 18 pis kingee cniptes (sic).

In this case the eecond text has put on an e to the form of the first text. 80 LAYAMON’S POSSESSIVES IN ‘ ES ’ Ah’]) ‘ HIS,’

Firm TEXT,ab. 1200 A.D. SECONDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. PAaE iwt jeos kinges strattc. 206, 15 je kingee stredes (the king’s streets). 40 jeos kinges hro5er. 206, 18 jeos kingee brojer. dcchcs barunes sune. 226, 24 echc barunes sone. pare kingene talddes. 229, 12 pis kinges teldes. forn at )an kinge. 229, 23 at ban kingee fote. 44 JCR kingcs pi%wilnian. 254, 7 Pis kinges grip jeme.’ a8 bi-cumen Jes kinges 254, 8 and bi-cume )is kingee m3n. mon. ntfter Helinnes for8-fare. 256, 13 after Bclynes forj-fare. Englelondes deorllg. 269, 17 hgelondes deorhg.* 48 for sorwen jes kingcs. 278, 10 for pes kingee wowc (for tlie king’s calamity). Argal his bro8er. 279, 14 pat was hrgdea brojer (for Ar- gal hi8 in the first text). to b’h jis kinges. 285, 7 to pis kingee borewes (burgh). dude al jes kinges willc. 287, 23 dude a1 je kings8 wille. 52 Rune Argales. 292, 18 &gal he kingea sonc. be wes Morganus bro’6er. 292, 22 jat was Morganea broker. jeos weoren mannes 292, 23 peos weren Argalaa sones. 6u;les. he wes Peredures beh. 294, 19 Peredures deorling. 56 Goronces sune Elidures. 294, 21-22 Gorontes sone Elydurea (Go- rontes, Elydur’s son). and leiden kene king bi 304, 19 and leide hine hat Ludee gate. me jate. and deupeden hit Lud- 304, 23 and cleopede (hit) Loudeegab. es late. Ludes sunen khgea. 305, 4 Ludes 8ones pes kinges (sons of Lud tho king). 60 Nennius we8 jeos kinges 317, 19 Nemniuswas jeos kingee brojer. broser. he wes monihea monnes 322, 20 he was mani mannea bane (he bone. was many ‘ a ’ man’s bane. of Cesares m6nen. 324, 22 of Cesares mine. * jer Cesar folk. 339, 4 jar Cesnres folk. 64 Weoren in jeos kingcs 346, 2 were in pis kingee kichene. cuchene.

In this case the second text has ut on an e or ea to the form of the bttext. 1 Arthursa p (Arthur fi8 grip). Inquiry, p. 33, 1. 8. a Arthurer %orling (Arthur hir deorling), ib. p. 32, 19. BY F. J. FURNIPALL, ESQ. 81

FIRSTTEXT, ab. 1200 A.D. SECONDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. PAOL LIBt Herigal wes )es kinges 347, 16 Ergal was )e kingee may (rela- mEi. tive). and smat Herigal a )on 318, 7 vppe Ergaka ribbe. ribbcn. I-jench )at he wes 352, 18 Bi-)ench )at he was Lud kingss Lu>Ges sune. sone. 68 his speres ord. 366, 17 his speres horde (point). )es kinges heorts we8 368, 20 je king68 hcorte wee we1 mr. ful sax. 386, 9 of Lud khges cun icome. On Kinbelines dsie. 386, 20 In Kinbelynea daije. 72 anes maidenee sune. 386, 23 hone maidcnes sune (a maiden's son). alesen his leofue wines. 390, 7 alesc mannea cunde (releaae man's racc). of Clst godes shilde. 391, 18 of Crist Godes childe. he wee bi jaes kingee 397, 1 he was bi ). kingee side. side. 76 bcs kinges breoste he 397, 19 )c kinges breostc he to-bm. to-brsee. Claudienes cnihtes. 398, 15 nllc Claudienes cnihtes. for Hamundes da'6e. 400, 8 for Hamundss deaje. Claudienes cnihtes. 409, 19 Claudicnee cnihtes. +80 a1 for his sune hen. 410, 23 a1 for his sones lofue. & ladde jes childes 411, 10 he ladde )is childes moder. moder. of Claudius )en kseisere. 412, 18 of Claudienes &ape. a to )eos kinges he. 422, 4 in pisse kinges lifue. 84 sa?lcu>Gerun-stauE. 425, I of Rodriches dea)e. for3 corn )es kinges 430, 2 for) com pis kinges sone. sune. & be5 hine on goden 432, 10 and bad him a godes name. nomcn. jurh godes mihten. 434, 20 a1 jorh godes mihte. 88 )at folc a godes heonde. 436, 5 )at lond in godes honde.

VOL. 11. & Gezanes moder. 10, 22 Qesanea (Gezan's mother) Ro- main icud

4 In this case the second text ha put ou an 8 or e~ to the form of the first text. 8 82 LASAJION’S POSSESSIVES IN ‘ ES’ AND ‘HIS,’

FIRSTTEXT, ab. 1200 A.D. SECONDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. FA09 11YE cnncs cnihtes sune. 1 I, 1 on eorles sone. Leonine3 sunc. 63, 16 Lconines sonc. 92 of a1 pat Connu eorl spzc 5 1, 12 of Conanes wrapkc. Cradockes rrctl. 54, 15 Crdokes read. pcos kinges freond. F8, 13 pis kinges freijd. godes gri5. 103, 14 godee grip. 96 bc rrrchebiscop. stol. 103, 22 pc archebissopea stolle. to pcs kinges fot. IOG, 11, 12 to pis kingee fot. * mid munec cla%en. 123, 9 mid monekee clopes (?m. plur.) pas kingcs sone. 12G, 3 pane kinges sonc. 100 of Constantines dde. 128, 4 of Constgtines dcaje. gdde5 Iiad. 130, 6 godcs hod. i Vortigeres h3d. 130, 11 in Vortigcrnes hond. in to pas kingcs bure. 142, 18 in to he kinges boure. 104 in to pas 1cigc.s bure. 147, 5 into jc kinges boure. * Hangcst swninr. 160, 20 ITcngcstss sweines. Hcngcstes wif. 172, 1 Hengestes wif. pcs kingcs prco sunen. 179, 5 peos kings8 preo sones. 108 peos king preo suncs. 188, 5 peos kinges )re0 sones. godo\ lap. 185, 6 godes lame. godcs sunc. 187, 17 godcs 60118. of Hengestest monnen. 19 1, 10 of Ircngrstee men. 112 of Vortigcrnes monncn. 192, 6 of Hcngestes men. hire 1:iucrtlt.s quide. 197, 19 here louerdds cwide (her lord‘e test nmen t) . HEgestes lojen. 197, 23 Uengcstes lames. pc scop kcs (laplihtc. 198, 16 pat sop pes daip lihte. 116 a gOdc5 llond. 198, 20 a godes hond. pee kingcs deoresto win. 202, 4 bc kinges bcstc win. on pa kinges bcnche. 202, 8 vp on be kpges bencho. nftrr prs kinges dom. 203, 12 aftcr PP kingea dom. 120 pes kingcs licamc. 206, 19 pis kinges licame (body). Lisicles Baelps-pte. 20G, 21 bisides Uellinges jate. of pcs kinges mi,ncn. 215, 8 of pis kinges folke. anes kingcs bane. 228, 10 onc kingee sonc. 124 a Vortigcrnes hod. 230, 12 in Vortigernes hond. of Constantines cunne 248, 11 of Constantines cunne. 252, 10 for Hegestes eye Vortigernes men. 258, 20 Vortigcres men. 128 pines cunnes bone. 269, 8 pinecunneebane(kindred’sbane)

t In these cases the second text has put on an e or M to the forms of tho first text.’ BY F. J. FURNIVALI., ESQ. 83

FIRSTTEXT, ab. 1200 A.D. SECOXDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. PAGE LINE in to Cuniges-burh. 270, 22 to Conines-borh. an godes lajen. 274, 22 of isme. purh ut Cuniges-burh. 276, 11 a1 Conines-borh. 132 Hcngestes hafd. 276, 15 Hengestes heued. )as kingcs faet. 279, 6 pis kinges fote. Hengestes simc Octa. 279, 8 Hengestes sone Octa. be kinges bro8er. 306, 1 pis kinges broker. 136 311, 14 mid godes gretige. Vortigernes sue. 311, 16 \Tortigcree sone. anes cnihtes sune. 31 3, 22 one cnihtes sone. at peos leomen ende. 325, 23 at be lcomcs ende (at the gleam's end). 140 of jes draken muse. 325, 25 of ban drakes moupe. of pas draken muse. 329, 17 of he drakes mouke. Vl.her Constantines 332, 23 Vther Constantines sone. sune. a1 for Mserlines liue. 339, 21 for Ncrlynes loue. 144 into j.5 biscop-stole. 340, 10 in to )an bissopes stol. of Aurilies ds"6. 341, 14 of Aurilies deaje. of Vthcres kinedome. 341, 15 of Vthcres kinedome. pes daeies ende. 345, 1 Po pes daip ende com (when the day's end came). 148 jeos eorlcs stiward. 372, 1 )is kinges stiward. pas kinges marke. 377, 23 pis kinges markc. pis kinges gris. 378, 11 Pis kinges gri). an Vthcres hond. 384, 2 in Vtheres owe hond. 152 al jurh Nerlines wijel. 381, 7 a1 porh Ncrlps craft. Octa Hengestes sune. 386, 5 Octa Hengestes sone. 392, 14 for pis kingee heye. Hangestes sunc Octa. 393, 17 Hengestcs sone Octn. 156 Hsengestes maie. 390, 17 Hengestes may. 400, 17 to pis kingcQ krde (army). to pas kingcs dale. 400, 23 to je kinges dole. of Constantines cunne. 401, 13 of Constantines cunne. 160 Laucrdcrist godes sue. 41 1, 14 Laucrd crist godes sone. fornanes monnes lsere. 415, 8 for none mannes lore. his spcrcs ord. 422, 17 ke spcres hord (point). bro8er Colgrimes. 424, 5 Colgrimes broker. 164 fr6 Ardures ferde. 425, 13 from Arthures ferde. ArXurcs mai. 426, 2 Arthures mny. to Pas kinges hirede. 429, 4 to pan kinges ferde. 84 JAYAMON'S POSSESSIVES IT 'ES' AND 'HIS,'

FIBSTTEXT, ab. 1200 A.D. SECONDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. PAOR LINE at feuer felche monnes 434, 10 at euereche ma~8ajeab. pte. 168 to Mibccles mnte. 435, 22 to Mihhelee monte. toumard Mihhdes 436, 14 to Miheleu monte. muntc. goddcs milde mdcr. 443, 12 godea moder. for Az'sures kinges 458, 5 for Arthur he kinge, mme. sceomo. 172 pax doeics lihten. 461, 5 pis daijeu lihtc. pas cnihtes broVcr. 474, 9 jes cnihteu brojer. Cheldrichcs cnibtee. 482, 3 Childreches cnihtcs. pas lringes men. 498, 9 pis kinges men. 176 and goddes folc biwus- 505, 4 and godee wore nhte (take tcn . charge of God's work). pas maeidenes moder. 510, 4 peos maydea modcr. godes iwillc. 517, 23 pat dude gode8 wille. pas kinges dohter. 522, 1 pc king88 dohter. 180 al for Ar'Gure oeip 538, 9 for Arthur88 heye. of pas kingcsfor%-fare. 545, 17 ufter pes kinges for)-fare. of Ar'Gures de'6cn. 546, 2 of pes kinges deaje. TValmapncs fader. 548, 1 Wawcpes fndcr. 184 Ar'sures iwille. 558, 19 Arthiires wille. and swa ich ibiden 560, 1 and so ich abide godes ore (and godes me. ns 1 expect God's mercy). al pis oseres lond. 569, 5 a1 peos operea lond (all this other's land). of olifnntes bane. 576, 17 of holifantee bone (?plural). 188 an A&ures hond. 591, 15 in Arthureu hond. Jxbiwop RtoIc. 598, 2 pc bi~sopesstol. 'Elnu5es aune. 600, 19 ElauPes son8 Coittes sunc. 600, 20 Coytea cone. 192 Cledaukes sum. 600, 22 Cledaukes gone. barkesmne. 600, 23 Kinemark88 gone. of Mures borden. 601, 10 at hthurae borde. al mid godes rode. 605, 12 a1 mid gode8 reade (d with God's counsel). 196 on jaa kinges hafdo. 610, 6 on pan kingea hefd. pas kingca hqe birle. 611, 19 jc kingea eje bode (the hg'e high cup-bearer). pcs dreiea lihte. 624, 16 Pcs daijes lihte. (1) Ardures msei. 626, 14 Arthurcamay. BY F. J. FURNIVALL, ESQ. 85

FIRSTTEXT, ab. IS00 A.D. SECONDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. P.4OE LINE 200 Helene Bune. 631, 14 Eleynea sone. jm daplihte. 638, 3 jis daip lihte. (P) Orka . . es deorling. 578, 18 Orcaneiea deorling.' Dencmarkes deorling. 578, 24 Denemarcheo deorling.' 204 Scotlondes deorling. 636, 13 Scotlondsa deorling.' VOL. 111. Walwainnes broger. 9, 17 Waweynee broker. to baa kinges foke. 12, 10 to pis kingee folke. Howeles dohter. 27, 21 Howelss dohter. 208 to pas kinges uerde. 40, 15 to pis king88 ferde (army). we be05 Ar'Gures men. 48, 5 we beoj Aaxthurea men. Ar'Gures men. 72, 19 Arthureemen. pes kinges birle. 86, 15 je kings8 bode (cupbearer). 212 of Ar'sures jeoden. 96, 19 of Arthuree ferde. of ASures golden. 112, 21 of hthurea golde. At5ures msi. 126, 16 Arthuree cun. in Mures ferde. 128,111 [Arth]ures ferde. 2 16 from jaa kinge8 hirede. 13 1, 1 fram )an kinges ferde. Arduree hered-men. 142, 15 Arthures hiredmen. beien Moddredes sunen. 147, 21 [Modredlea Bones tweie his ames sune aqualde. 15 1, 18 his eamea [sone aqual]de. 220 Constantines suster 151, 14 Constantinee 80 . . . . ne. Bune. jns kinges hus. 153, 19 pes kingea londe. of Hengestes cunne. 160, 12 of Hen[ges]ba cunne. Sexisce monne lare. 162, 7 Saxi . . . mannea lore [? plur. J 224 to godes hond. 184, 6 to Oodea hond. crist godes sune. 184, 21 crist godea s[o]ne. preostes mid godes 197, 21 preostes mid godea markea. mserkes. to his foten. 197, 22 to pis kingee feot. 228 pes kinges gri'S. 198, 21 pes kinges gr[i]p. )es kinges suster sune. 214, 14 be kingee soster Bone. his lauerdes hefd. 214, 16 Pan kyngee hefd. pes ilke kingeB iua. 224, 6 Edwynes fo. 23'1 Oswi hafde emes sune. 264, 23 Osmy hadde [elamea Bones. of Cadwdanes deden. 252, 19 of Cudwdpanes deades. Cadwalanes lond. 256, 18 Cadwdjanes lond.

I Cf. Arthurca deorling (Arthur bia deorling), Inquiry, p. 32,-I. 19. 86 LAYYAMON’SPOSSESSIVES IX ‘ ES’ AXD ‘ ms,’

The following instances are put in a list by themselves, as some of them may be held not to be subjective genitives or possessives :- VOL. I. FIBSTTEXT, ab. 1200 A.D. SECONDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. PAOE LINE kisses folkes king. 35, 21 pis folkes kinge (the king of this people). & heo bi ni26ingee beard. 7 1, 13 and al mid nijinges beorde (and they all with nithing’s ges- ture). Vp heo duden heore 72, 22 Vp hii dude hire caetlea jeato castles jaten. (up they did their castle’s [sing.] gate). 4 & mid seolucre & mid 75,19-20 and mid seoluer and goldes of golde pa wes Ooffnres Goffare je kinges. kin geu. For pan weorldes 6comc. 20, 3 For pane worlea same (for the world’s [worldly] sliamc).’ heh sue pes kinges. 102, 10 ejo sonc pcos kinges (Nodan he was named: noble son of the king j tho king‘s noblc son). ah 30 sculle habben 266, 17 and sollcj habbe lodes-mcn lades-mcn. (steersmen). 8 i kinges dude. 11, 10 in kingee studc (in king’e stead). jcs kingcs sune Pnami. 15, 8 jc kinges dohter Prinmi. kes kinges broker Fan- 25, 20 )e kinges brojer Pandrasum. drasum. * hit haf‘6 jcs wur~ctnki: 57, 2 hit hauej pis worles tockne fo- fuliwis. his(it [the merman] hath thisworld’stokenfull surely) cp. God’s mark. 12 For Humbcr kinges 93, 21 . . . mbert kingea deapc dease. on Leir kinges lontl. 133, 14 in Leir kingee lond (in K.Lcir’a land). * cold melle watere. 193, 1 cold well~ewater (cp. man’s spittle). bi Bennee mdes ende. 370, IS bi one wodea endc (cp. man’s foot).

a~ In thene camthe second text has put on an a or ed to the forms of the fir& text. 1 cf. Arthurss grip, Arthur’s peace, pew with or from Arthur. BY P. J. FUKNIVALId, ESQ. 87

I. 137, 21 to Cornwales duke. 11. 102, 22 Londenes folk. 159, 2 to Scotlondes kingc. 31 1, 17 Brutlondes king. 159, 4 Gordoilled lauerd. 191, 9 Norweye8 king. 409, 2 to Lyncolnss ende. 88 LAYAMON’S POSSESSIVES IN ‘ES’ AND ‘IlIS,’

Every reader will judge for hhc f whether any of the genitives that I have called pos.seseive~,or subjective, are or should be called objective. I have, from the first, purposely understated the number at 226, in order to allow for deduc- tione that the judgment or captiousness of any critic might require ; but I must point out to such a one that Mr. Man- ning’s test (as shown by his practice) is evidently unsatisfac- tory, for on p. 33, he says-“ When the inflexional genitive of the older version is oyecfive, it is usually represented in the later by a prepositional genitive. ‘ To-yeines him he funde ther Scotlondee king Stater’ [of the first text], becomes ‘To- yeines him he funde thar thane king of Scotlond Stater’ [of tne second].’’ But at p. 35, Mr. Manning gives the pre- cisely similar genitives-“ Wales his loverd,” [II.,for Waleses loverd v. I. p. 164, 1. 21,] “Jerusalem his cwene” (v. 11, p. 52, 1. lo), aa “possessice” or sa6jective.l Serjt. Manning’s test is thus, that every genitive in his is possessive, because it suits his theory that it should be so. This becomes plainer when we look at the other instances in the book ; for surely no one without a theory to support would contend that in the phrases “the land of Norway, the land of Logres, the town of London, the town of Winchester, the market of, or in, Jerusalem,” or their equivalents, the genitives could rightly be called possessive or subjective ; and yet the re- presentatives of these or the like phrases occur in the second text of Layamon, and are called possessives by Serjt. Man- ning, p. 35.3 VOL. I. FIRSTTEXT, nb. 1200 A.D. SECONDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. PAOL mix & al Lope pat lond. 174, 18 and a1 Leogrie his lond (the land of Logrie). VOL. 11. )a we5 in Norweoyeii 46, 19 )o wa5 in Norweie hk erj rerd.

1 Compare, from rol. ii, p. 488,l. 9-10- SeoWen corn Cador. Suppe corn Cador. pe eorl of of Cornwreille. pa earl of dbmwale. a That he knowe better, we the argument on p. 73-4 of his Inquiry BY F. J. FURNIVALL, ESQ. 89

FIRSTTEXT, ab. 1200 A.D. SECONDTEXT, ab. 1300 A.D. PAQE LINE heo comen to Lulzdene. 188, 2 to Londene his tounc. in Jerusalem9 chepping 275, 22 in Jerusalem his cheping (the market of or in Jerusalem). bli3Se we8 1)e Lundenes 352, 40 blije was Londene his tome tun. (London town). inne Winchestre tun. 400, 7 ine Winchestre his toun (the (town of Wincheater). Compare, from vol. ii. p. 392, 1. 17-20,- & ferde him anan and wende him anon : to j&tune of Herelam. to pan toune of Perolam. abuten Uerolames tun. aboute Perokmes tom : com him Vder Pendragun. com Vther Pendragon.

Also, “ vt of Londenes toun,” out of the town of London, vol. ii. p. 359, 1. 19 ; “vt of Spaynes eor),” out of the land of Spain, vol. iii. p. 233; “be king of Lombardies lond,” the king of the land of Lombardy, val. iii. p. 115. I conclude, therefore, that Mr. Manning’s statement that “ our island ancestors” did not imitate “the Romanesque nations by huddling possessive and non-possessive genitives” together under the same termination, is, like his ‘‘ nearly all” statement, not borne out by the facts of the case. Eaving got thus far in our counter-Inquiry, we may next ask how did even the 112 his genitives produced by Mr. Manning come into existence. On this point I would first observe that the second text of Layamon is an entirely ex- ceptional one as to these forms in his. The able editor of the book-to whom all students of Early English are under a deep debt of gratitude for his many careful and admirable publications-authorises me to say that he does not remember having ever met with a similar text. As he has a wider ac- quaintance with English MSS. than any other living man, it is needless to say that neither Mr. Morris, myself, nor any other editor of early English texts, or librarian that I have asked, has met with or heard of one. But the habit of scribes writing as a separate word any prefixor suffixof acompound when such affix is otherwise familiar to them, is too well known to need example or comment. Every reader or copier of Early English MSS, 90 LAYAMON’S POSSESSIVES IN ‘ ES’ AND ‘ HIS,’

67 23 harmes,, arms . . 95 1 hafter for after , . 236 22 hatter ,, atter,poison 109 1 150 12 heam ,, Bem,uncle. 385 15 ~’d1es(whou~)[231 17 h64m . . . . 376 18 hand ,, and. . . 277 8 hegge ,, egge, edge. 239 2 BY F. J. FURNIVALL, ESQ. 91

hem for Em, uncle . 3?5 4 hock for ached . . . 2% hemes ,, emes (uncle's) 11 22 hord ,, ord, point. . 366 17 11 14 host ,, ost, askest 313 6 hende ,, end. . . . ' f 107 4 hone ,, one. . . . 386 23 hendede for ended . 255 16 hofte ,, oft . . . . 106 18 heni ,) any. . . 22 19 hour ,, our . . . 155 18 heue ,, eve,evening 245 21 230 19 13 15 houre ,, our . . . hi bore ,, ibore(born) 250 12 iheyed (made (215 9 hi heged .,( high,famous) 53 17 243 3 302 22 hii "" 91 idol pu! . :!: wij houte for without hi bud ,, ihud, hid . I 312 21 hi sote ,, isote, shot. 334 17 343 13 hncuje ,, oncuthe (un- c 354 24 known,foreign) 141 17

VOL 11. p. 1. 8. 1. hi ladd ,, ilad (led) . 41 23 hafterhafter (ther- . }for after . 90 1 hi dolue ,, idolue (dug) 224 2 halmes for alms . . 402 19 hilderne ,, elders . 610 harmes ,, arms . . 268 6 r7 hatter ,, atter(poison)406 'I Aohte ,, cehte (brave) 268 9 heldeste ,, eldest . . 118 1 holde ,, old . . . 341 19 helles ,, else . . . 266 21 holifantes ,, elephants . 576 17 heorles ,, earls. . . 271 11 hord ,, ord (point) . 422 17 hi come ,, icome (come) 438 22 horechard,, orchard . . 116 20 hii smite ,, ismite (smit- horf ,, orf (cattle) . 456 25 ten) . . 28 1 huldest ,, eldest . . 527 8 VOL 111. p. 1. hangelfor angel . . . 2"ii 20 harmest for armest (most 1- II wretched). 269 18 ham for am occurs in- VO~.I.-p. 148, 1. 1; p. 312, 1. 5, 6. Vol. 11.-p. 14, 1. 1; p. 121, 1. 10; p. 228, 1. 10; p. 375, 1. 4; p. 528, 1. 21. Vol. 111.-p. 29, 1. 24; p. 123, 1. 19; p. 124, 1. 6. hart for art, in- Vol. I.-p. 131, 1. 2 ; p. 209, 1. 17, 20 j p. 215, 1. 21, 22; p. 313, 1. 14; p. 363, 1. 24; p. 364, 1. 1 ; hert, p. 185, 1. 2. VO~.II.-p. 328, 1. 8; p. 375, 1. 8; p. 411, 1. 1. Vol. III.-p. 26, 1. 20, 23; p. 27, 1. 1; p. 122, 1. 6. 92 LAYAMON’B POSSESSIVES IN ‘ ES’ AND HIS,’

hi8 for U, in- VOL. I. p. 1. 98 1, 2 129 41, 22 3% i2 100 5 152 13 352 12 127 21, 28 156 25 364 20 131 14 184 23 387 7 134 3 245 21 389 4, 7, 8, 11, 21 135 8 248 23 390 22 139 22 309 11, 17, 18, 21 407 13 145 16 311 23 425 13 147 7, 12 312 13 VOL. 11. p. 1. P. 1. P. J. 52 10 329 22 468 6, 13 53 16 360 2 498 18 107 15 366 18 500 4, 6, 8, 10 124 13 368 11, 16, 19 507 1 139 7 373 12 548 1,5, 11 207 18 377 10 560 11 259 2, 4, 8, 9 399 4 571 10 279 17 405 19 573 12, 19 291 20 410 23 698 12 296 3, 5 411 2 606 21, 22 325 19 431 7 625 11, 20 327 26 443 812, VOL. 111. p. 19, 1. 6; p. 18, 1. 17; p. 123, 1.9; p. 266, 1. 18; p. 294, p. 20. Seeing then this scribe’s extraordinary partiality for pre- king h to words and particles, seeing that he has written the verb is at least 88, and probably more than 100 times as his, is it any wonder that when he foundModred is ?@d (Morhed’s head) in ?he first text, he should have Gritten it Modred his hefd in the second (vol. iii. p. 120, 1. 1), or that when he found in the first text the ordinary contraction for is at the end of a genitive, rlnd as part of the word u Jeru- saZem9 cheping” (the market place of Jerusalem), he should have written it in the second “Jerusalem his cheping”? I trow not. Such is, I believe, the true explanation of these excep- tional forms in his in this exceptional MS. of the second text of Layamon. And this view is confirmed by a statement of Sir Frederic Madden’s :-(‘ It would appear also, from aome BY -F. S. FURNIVALL, ESQ. 93 passages, that this copy must have been partially written from recitation. This is confirmed also by the Jinal syllable having occasionalZy been cAanged itato a pronoun, as blisse he for blisse (i. 292)) and dude he for dude (i. 295).” (I cannot verify the second reference). I have little doubt that the writer of this second text copied from a MS. later than the first text, and in which the genitival es of the first text had in a third of its occurrings been changed into its variant is, and then, just as he turned blisse into blisse he, the verb is (say 100 times) into his ; he turned the genitival is another hundred times into his. With regard to the genitival is in other texts, I find none in the Ancren RiwZe (? ab. 1230)) or the Moral Ode (? ab. 1250), but in the Owl and Nightingale (? ab. 1270)) there are a few (as Chistis ore, 1. 1566)) and more in some of the Early English Poems, which I suppose to be before 1300, and which I edited in the Society’s transactions for 1858. That the genitive in his, whether introduced by error or design, prevailed to some extent in Early and Middle Eng- hh, has, of course, long been known. That the practice grew in Middle English, after the A.S. es had been com- pressed to s, but grew under the influence of the error s = his, is known too.’ Alexander Hume-whose most quaint and interesting Treatise on Grammar, Mr. H. B. Wheatley has just edited for the Early English Text Society-could With pleasant exaggeration even say “and now almost a1 wrytes his for s.”2 But that Hume’s statement is an ex- aggeration, one doubtless made the more readily because he thought he could disprove the reason for the fact, all readers of our Middle literature know. And as to his ever having ‘Csuperseded)’es as the possessive of nouns in Early English,

* The mistaken spellings of words under the influence of “ popular etymology” are too well known to need further illustration. 2 The passage, p. 28. runs-“ 6. With -9, it [our genitive] preceedes the word quherof it is governed, and s is devydel from it with an apostrophus; as, a gud man’s house is we1 governed.--?. Thls s sum haldes to be a segment of his, and therefoer now almost a1 wrytes his for it, as if it wer a corruption. But it is not a segment of his; 1. because his is the masculin gender, and this may be fceminin ; as, a mother’s love is tender ; 2. because his is onelie singular, and this may be plural ; RE, a1 men’s vertues are not knamen.” 94 LAYAMON’S POSSESSIVES IN ‘ES’ AND HIS.’

-as Mr. Manning seems to wish us to believrthis is, as has been said elsewhere, “as likely to be true as that Early Englishmen walked about on their heads, or had long curly tails growing out of their spines.” Any one who has read a dozen MSS. or even less, must, I believe, look on this ‘superseding’ as a mere joke. The A.S. or Early English es, or its contraction 8, meets one at every turn, and exists now. Before closing this paper, I wish to call attention to three points :--1. The remarkable way in which the nouns of time have retained the genitive s. Why they should have done so, except for conciseness of expression’s sake, I cannot say, but ‘the summer’s day’(somer-is dai) of ‘theLand of Cokaipe,’ is good English now, and ‘a week‘s holiday, a year’s im- prisonment,’ and the like-where the s = for or during- are every-day expressions. 2. That all oblique case-endings (except in the accusative dual) are stated by Prof. Goldstiicker to be prefixes or preposi- tions; and that the genitival s is a worn-down form re- presented in Sanskrit by the fuller prefix Sam, and in Greek by aw,with. 3. That Mr. Edwh Norris, the editor of the Cornish Drams, would read such phrases as those given from Dr. Angus on p. 5, 6 of Mr. Manning’s Inquiry, with abstract nouns in ing or tiorn, as- That is a picture of Sir Joshua’s (painting), Read a sonnet of Milton’s (writing or composition). Windsor is a castle of the queen’s (owning), La Araucana is an epic of Ercilla’s (writing). The like phrases with yours, mine, eta, as ‘‘ I met a friend of yours or mine,” “that wife of yours or mine,” would of course be explained by putting for the pronoun the word for which it stands, ‘(your (or Jones’s) possessing,” “my (or smith’s) possessing.’’