An Essay

or Introductory Lecture

towards facilitating instruction in the Anglo-Saxon and Modern dialects of the English Language.

for the use of the University of Virginia

Printed by order of the Board of Visitors

The importance of the Anglo-Saxon dialect towards a perfect understanding of the English language seems not to have been duly estimated by those charged with the education of youth; and yet it is unquestionably the basis of our present tongue. it was a full-formed language, it’s frame and construction, it’s declensions of nouns and verbs, and it’s syntax were peculiar to the Northern languages, and fundamentally different from those of the South. it was the language of all England, properly so called, from the Saxon possession of that country in the 6th century to the time of Henry III, in the 13th and was spoken pure and unmixed with any other, altho’ the Romans had been in possession of that country for nearly five centuries from the time of Julius Cæsar, yet it was a military possession chiefly, by their souldiery alone, and with dispositions intermutually jealous and unamicable. they seem to have aimed at no lasting settlements there, and to have had little familiar mixture with the native Britons. in this state of connection there would probably be little incorporation of the Roman into the native language, and on their subsequent evacuation of the island, it’s traces would soon be lost altogether. and, had it been otherwise, these innovations would have been carried with the Natives themselves when driven into Wales by the invasion and entire occupation of the rest of the Southern portion of the island by the Anglo-Saxons. the language of these last became that of the country, from that time forth, for nearly seven centuries; and so little attention was paid among them to the Latin, that it was known to a few individuals only, as a matter of science, and without any chance of transfusion into the vulgar language. we may safely repeat the affirmation therefore that the pure Anglo-Saxon constitutes at this day the basis of our language. that it was sufficiently copious for the purposes of society in the existing conditions of arts and manners, reason alone would satisfy us from the necessity of the case. it’s copiousness too was much favored by the latitude it allowed of combining primitive words so as to produce any modification of idea desired in this characteristic it was equal to the Greek. but it is more specially proved by the actual fact of the books they have left us in the various branches of history geography, religion, law, and poetry. and altho’, since the Norman conquest it has recieved vast additions and embellishments from the Latin, Greek, French & Italian languages, yet these are but engraftments on it’s idiomatic stem. it’s original structure & Syntax remain the same, and can be but imperfectly understood by the mere Latin scholar. hence the necessity of making the A-Saxon a regular branch of Academic education. in the 16th and 17th centuries it was assiduously cultivated by a host of learned men. the names Lambard, Parker, Spelman. Wheeloc, Wilkins, Gibson, Hickes, Thwaites, Somner, Benson, Mareschal, Elstob, deserve to be ever remembered with gratitude for the Anglo-Saxon works which they have given us through the press, the only certain means of preserving and promulgating them. for a century past this study has been too much neglected. the reason of this neglect, and it’s remedy, shall be the subject of some explanatory Observations. these will respect I. Alphabet. II. Orthography. III. Pronuntiation. IV. Grammar.

I. The Alphabet.

The Anglo-Saxon alphabet, as known to us in it’s printed forms, consists of 26. characters, about the half of which are Roman, the others of forms peculiarly Saxon. these, mixed with the others, give an aspect to the whole rugged, uncouth and appalling to an eye accustomed to the roundness and symmetry of the Roman character. this is a first discouragement to the English student. next, the task of learning a new alphabet, and the time and application necessary to render it easy and familiar to the Reader, often decides the doubting learner against an enterprise so apparently irksome.

The earliest remains extant of Saxon writing are said to be of the 7th century; and the latest of the 13th. the black letter seems to have been introduced by William the conqueror, whose laws are written in Norman French, and in that letter. the full alphabet of Roman character was first used about the beginning of the 16th century. but the expression of the same sounds by a different character did not change these sounds, nor the language which they constituted; did not make the language of Alfred a different one from that of Piers Ploughman, of Chaucer, Douglas, Spencer, and Shakespear, any more than the 2d revolution, which substituted the Roman for the English black letter made theirs a different language from that of Pope and Bolingbroke; or the writings of Shakespear, printed in black letter different from the same as now done in Roman type. the life of Alfred written in Latin, and in Roman character by Asser, was reprinted by Archbishop Parker in A-S. letters. but it is Latin still, altho’ the words are represented by characters different from those of Asser’s original. and the extracts given us by Dr Hickes from the Greek Septuagint, in A-S. characters, is Greek still, altho’ the Greek sounds are represented by other types. here then I ask, why should not this Roman character, with which we are all familiar, be substituted now for the A-S. by printing in the former the works already edited in the latter type? and also the M.S.S. still inedited? this may be done letter for letter, and would remove entirely the first discouraging obstacle to the general study of the A-Saxon.

II. Orthography

In the period during which the A-S. alphabet was in use, reading and writing were rare arts. the highest dignitaries of the church subscribed their marks, not knowing how to write their names. Alfred himself was taught to read in his 36th year only, or as some editions of Asser say, in his 39th speaking of learning in his preface to the Pastoral of Gregory, Asser says ‘swa clean hi was oth-fallen on Angalkin that swithe few wereon behinan Humber the hior thenung cuthon understandan on English, oth furthon an errand y-write of Latin on English areckon. and I ween that not many beyondan Humber nay aren; swa few hior weron that I furthon ane on lepne nay may y-thinkan be-Suthan Thames tha tha I to ric fang.’ or as literally translated into later English by Archbishop Parker, ‘so clean it was fallen amongst the English nation, that very few were on this side Humber which their service could understand in English, or else furthermore an epistle from Latin into English to declare. and I ween that not many beyond Humber were not. so few of them were, that I also one only may not remember by South Thamise when as I to reign undertook.’ in this benighted state, so profoundly illiterate, few read at all, and fewer wrote; and the writer having no examples of orthography to recur to, thinking them indeed not important, had for his guide, his own ideas only of the power of the letters, unpractised & indistinct as they might be. he brought together therefore those letters which he supposed must enter into the composition of the sound he meant to express, and was not even particular in arranging them in the order in which the sounds composing the word followed each other. thus birds were spelt brides, grass gaers, run yrnam, cart crætt, fresh fersh. they seemed to suppose too that a final vowel was necessary to give sound to the consonant preceding it, and they used for that purpose any vowel indifferently. a son, was suna, sune, sunu; mæra, mære, mæro, mæru. fines, limites; ge, ye, y, i, are various spellings of the same prefix. the final e mute in English is a remain of this, as in give, love, curse.

The vowels were used indiscriminately also for every vowel sound. thus the

of this promiscuous use of the vowels we have also abundant remains still in English. for according to the powers given to our letters we often use them indifferently for the same sound as in bulwark, assert, stir, work, lurk, myrtle. the single word many, in A-S. was spelt, as Dr Hickes has observed in 20. different ways, to wit, mænigeo, mænio, mæniu, menio, meniu, mænigo, mænego, manige, menigo, manegeo, mæanegeo, menegeo, mænygeo, menigeo, manegu, mænigu, menegu, menego, menigu, manigo. to prove indeed that every one spelt according to his own notions, without regard to any standard, we have only to compare different editions of the same composition. take for example Alfred’s preface to Gregory’s Pastoral before cited, as published in different editions.

This unsettled orthography renders it necessary to swell the volume of the dictionaries by giving to each word as many places in order of the Alphabet as there are different modes of spelling it; and in proportion as this is omitted, the difficulty of finding the words increases on the student.

Since then it is apparent that the A-S. writers had established no particular standard of orthography, but each one followed arbitrarily his own mode of combining the letters, we are surely at liberty equally to adopt any mode which, establishing uniformity, may be more consonant with the power of the letters, and with the orthography of the present dialect, as established by usage. the latter attention has the advantage of exhibiting more evidently the legitimate parentage of the two dialects

III. Pronunciation.

To determine what that was among the A-S. our means are as defective as to determine the long agitated question What was the original pronunciation of the Greek & Latin languages. the presumption is certainly strong that in Greece and Italy, the countries occupied by those languages, their pronuntiation has been handed down, by tradition, more nearly that it can be known to other countries: and the rather as there has been no particular point of time at which those antient languages were changed into the modern ones occupying the same grounds. they have been gradually worn down to their present forms by time, and changes of modes and circumstances. in like manner there has been no particular point of time at which the Anglo-Saxon has been changed into it’s present English form. the languages of Europe have generally, in like manner, undergone a gradual metamorphosis, some of them in name as well as in form. we should presume therefore that in those counties of Great Britain which were occupied earliest, longest and latest by the Saxon immigrants, the pronuntiation of their language has been handed down more nearly than elsewhere; and should be searched for in the provincial dialects of those counties. but the fact is that these counties have divaricated in their dialects, so that it would be difficult to decide among them which is the most genuine. under these doubts therefore we may as well take the pronuntiation now in general use as the legitimate standard, and that from which it is most promotive of our object to infer the A-S. pronuntiation. it is indeed the forlorn hope of all aim at their probable pronuntiation; for were we to regard the powers of the letters only, no human organ could articulate their uncouth jumble. we will suppose therefore the power of the letters to have been generally the same in A-S. as now in English; and to produce the same sounds we will combine them, as nearly as may be, conformably with the present English orthography. this is indeed a most irregular and equivocal standard; but a conformity with it will bring the two dialects nearer together in sound and semblance, and facilitate the transition from the one to the other more auspiciously than a rigorous adherence to any uniform system of orthography which speculation might suggest.

I will state some instances only (referring to Dr Hickes for more) of the unskilful and inconsistent uses of the letters by the Anglo-Saxons, in proof of the necessity of changing them, to produce, to a modern reader, the very sounds which we suppose them to have intended by their confused combinations. their vowels, promiscuously used, as before observed, must all be freely changed to those used in corresponding words in English orthography.

and finally, in the words of Dr Hickes ‘demum quomodo Anglo-Saxonicae voces factae sunt Anglicae mutando literas ejusdem organi, asperando lenes, et leniendo asperas, vocales, diphthongos, et interdum consonantes leviter mutando, auferendo initales et finales syllabas, præsertim terminationem modi infinitivi, praterea adolendo, transponendo, et interponendo literas, et voces quoque syncopando, exemplis docendum est.’

IV. Grammar.

Some observations on A-S. grammar may show how much easier that also may be rendered to the English student. Dr Hickes may certainly be considered as the father of this branch of modern learning. he has been the great Restorer of the A-S. dialect from the oblivion into which it was fast falling. his labors in it were great, and his learning not less than his labors. his Grammar may be said to be the only one we yet possess: for that edited at Oxford in 1711. is but an extract from Hickes, and the principal merit of mrs Elstob’s is that it is written in English, without any thing original in it. some others have been written, taken also and almost entirely from Hickes. in his time there was too exclusive a prejudice in favor of the Greek and Latin languages. they were considered as the standards of perfection, and the endeavor generally was to force other languages to a conformity with these models. but nothing can be more radically unlike than the frames of the antient languages, Southern and Northern, of the Greek and Latin languages from those of the Gothic family. of this last are the A-S. and English; and had Dr Hickes, instead of keeping his eye fixed on the Gr. & Lat. languages, as his standard, viewed the A-S. in it’s conformity with the English only, he would greatly have enlarged the advantages for which we are already so much indebted to him. his labors however have advanced us so far on the right road, and a correct pursuit of it will be a just homage to him.

A Noun is to be considered under it’s accidents of genders, cases & numbers. the word gender is, in nature, synonimous with Sex. to all the subjects of the animal kingdom Nature has given Sex, and that is two–fold only, male or female, masculine or feminine. vegetable and mineral subjects have no distinction of sex, consequently are of no gender. words, like other inanimate things, have no sex, are of no gender. yet in the construction of the Gr. and Lat. languages, and of the modern ones of the same family, their adjectives being varied in termination, and made distinctive of animal sex, in conformity with the nouns or names of animal subjects, the two real genders, which nature has established, are distinguished in their languages. but, not stopping here, they have, by usage, thrown a number of unsexual subjects into the sexual classes, leaving the residuary mass to a 3d class, which grammarians call Neutral, that is to say, of no gender or sex; and some Latin grammarians have so far lost sight of the real and natural genders as to ascribe to that language 7. genders, the Masculine, feminine, neutral, gender common to two, common to three, the doubtful and the Epicene; than which nothing can be more arbitrary, and nothing more useless. but the languages of the Anglo-Saxons and English is based on principles totally different from those of the Gr. & Lat. and is constructed on laws peculiar and idiomatic to itself. it’s adjectives have no changes of termination on account of gender, number or case. each has a single one applicable to every noun, whether it be the name of a thing having sex, or not. to ascribe gender to nouns in such a case would be to embarras the learner with unmeaning and useless distinctions. it will be said e.g. that a priest is of one gender, and a priestess of another, a poet of one, a poetess another Etc and that therefore the words designating them must be of different genders. I say, not at all. because altho’ the thing designated may have sex, the word designating it, like other inanimate things has no sex, no gender. in Latin we well know that the thing may be of one gender and the word designating it of another. see Martial 7. Epis, 17 the ascription of gender to it is artificial and arbitrary, and, in English & A-S. absolutely useless. Lowthe therefore among the most correct of our English grammarians, has justly said that in the Nouns of the English language, there is no other distinction of gender but that of nature, it’s adjectives admitting no change but of the degrees of comparison. we must guard against the conclusion of Dr Hickes that the change of termination in the A-S. adjectives, as god, gode for example, is an indication of gender, this, like others of his examples of inflection is only an instance of unsettled orthography. in the languages acknoleged to ascribe genders to their words, as Gr. Lat, Italian, Spanish, French, their dictionaries indicate the gender of every noun; but the A-S. and English dictionaries give no such indication; a proof of the general sense that gender makes no part of the character of the noun. we may safely therefore dismiss the learning of genders from our language, whether in it’s antient or modern form.

2. our law of Cases is different. they exist in nature, according to the difference of accident they announce. no language can be without them, & it is an error to say that the Greek is without an ablative. it’s ablative indeed is always like it’s dative; but were that sufficient to deny it’s existence, we might equally say that the Latins had no ablative plural, because in all nouns, of every declension, their ablative plural is the same with the dative. it would be to say that to go to a place, or from a place, means the same thing. the grammarians of Port-Royal therefore have justly restored the Ablative to Greek Nouns. our Cases are generally distinguished by the aid of the prepositions of, to, by, from or with, but sometimes also by change of termination. but these changes are not so general or difficult as to require, or to be capable of a distribution into declensions. yet Dr Hickes, having in view the 5. declensions of the Latin, and 10. of the Greek languages, has given 6. and Thwaytes 7. to the A-S. the whole of them however are comprehended under the 3. single Canons following.

1. the datives and ablatives plural of all nouns end in um.

2. of the other cases, some nouns inflect their Genitive singular only, and some their Nominative, accusative and Vocative plural also in s, as in English

3. Others, preserving the primitive form in their Nom. and Voc. singular, inflect all the other cases & numbers in en.

3. Numbers.

Every language, as I presume, has so formed it’s Nouns and Verbs as to distinguish the action of a single and a plurality of subjects, and all, as far as I know, have been * p. 17 contented with the simple distinction of singular and plural, except the Greeks, who have interposed between them a Dual number, so distinctly formed by actual changes of termination and inflection, as to leave no doubt of it’s real distinction from the other numbers. but they do not uniformly use their dual for it’s appropriate purpose. the number 2. is often expressed plurally, and sometimes by a dual noun and plural verb. Dr Hickes supposes that A-S. to have a dual number also, not going thro’ the whole vocabulary of nouns and verbs, as in Greek, but confined to two particular pronouns, i.e. wit, and yit, which he translates we two, and ye two. but Benson renders wit by nos, and does not give yit at all. and is it worth while to embarras grammar with an extra distinction for two or three, or half a dozen words? and why may not wit, we two, & yit, ye two, by considered plural, as well as we three, or we four? as duo, ambo, with the Latins? we may surely say then that neither the A-S. nor English has a dual number.

4. Verbs, moods.

To the verbs in A-S. Dr Hickes gives 6. moods. the Greeks, besides the 4. general moods, Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative and Infinitive have really an Optative mood, distinguished from the others by actual differences of termination. and some Latin grammarians, besides the optative, have added, in that language, a Potential mood; neither of them distinguished by differences of termination or inflection. they have therefore been disallowed by later and sounder grammarians; and we may, in like manner, disembarras our A-S. and English from the Optatives and Potentials of Dr Hickes.

Supines and Gerunds.

He thinks too that the A-S. verb has supines & gerunds, among it’s variations; accidents certainly peculiar to Latin verbs only. he considers lufian, to love, as the infinitive, and to lufian, a supine. the exclusion therefore of the preposition to, makes with him the infinitive, while we have ever considered it as the essential sign of that mood. and what all grammarians have hitherto called the infinitive, he considers as a supine or gerund. his examples are given in A-S. and Latin, but I will add the equivalent Greek and English for illustration.

I ask then if απoλεςαι, ϑεραπευειν, δoυναι, are supines or gerunds? why then should to for-spillan, to healan, to a-drivan, to sellen, or, to destroy, to heal, to cure, to drive, to give, be necessarily supines or gerunds? the fact is only that the Latins express by these inflections, peculiar to themselves, what other languages do by their infinitives.

From these aberrations, into which our great Anglo-Saxon leader Dr Hickes has been seduced by too much regard to the structure of the Greek & Latin languages and too little to their radical difference from that of the Gothic family, we have to recall our footsteps into the right way, and we shall find our path rendered smoother, plainer, and more direct to the object of profiting of the light which each dialect throws on the other. and this even as to the English language, appears to have been the opinion of Waltus the best of our English Grammarians who, in the preface to his English grammar, says ‘omnes ad Latinæ linguæ normam [. . .]ne nostram Anglicanam nimium exigentes multa inutilia præcepta de nominum casitus, generibus et declinationibus, [. . .] verborum temporibus, modis et conjugationibus, de nominum item et verborum regimine, a lüsque similibus tradiderunt, qu[. . .] lingua nostra sunt prorsus aliena, adeoque confusionem potius et obscuritatem periunt, quam explicationi inservient.’

Having removed then this cumbrous scaffolding, erected by too much learning, and obscuring, instead of enlightening our Anglo-Saxon structure, I will proceed to give a Specimen of the manner in which I think might be advantageously edited any future republications of the A-S. writings which we already possess in print, or any MSS. which may hereafter be given to us through the medium of the press.

I take my Specimen from Thwaite’s Heptateuch, beginning with 1st chapter of Genesis. I give in one column the A-S. text, in the Roman character, preserving letter for letter the orthography of the Saxon original. in another column the same text in the Roman character also, spelt with a combined regard to the power of the letters, to English orthography, and English pronunciation. I interline a version verbally exact, placing every English word under it’s A-S. root, without regard to the change of acceptation it has undergone in time. as e.g. ‘the earth was idle and empty’ 1. Gen. 2. instead of the modern words ‘without form and void’ and the ‘αορατος και ακαταςκευαςος’ of the LXX. leaving to the ingenuity of the reader to trace the history of the change. in rendering the A-S. into the corresponding English word, I have considered as English not only what is found in the oldest English writers, in glossaries and dictionaries, but in the Provincial dialects also, and in common parlance of unlettered people, who have preserved more of the antient language than those whose style has been polished by education. Grammar too is disregarded, my principal object being to manifest the identity of the two languages. this version is rendered more uncouth by the circumstances that 1. the ordo verborum of the A-S. is not exactly the same as the English. 2. they used much oftener the noun without the article. 3. they frequently use their oblique cases without a preposition prefixed, the English very rarely. in this verbal versions these omissions are to be understood.

The A-S. writings, in this familiar form are evidently nothing but old English; and we may join conscientiously in the exhortation of Archbishop Parker, in his preface to Asser ‘omnes qui in regni institutis addiscendis elaboraverint, cohortabor ut exiguo labore, seu pene nullo, hujus sibi linquæ cognitionem acquirant.’

As we are possessed in America of the printed editions of A-S. writings, they furnish a fit occasion for this country to make some return to the older nations for the science for which we are indebted to them. and in this task I hope an honorable part will in time be borne by our University, for which, at an hour of life too late for any thing elaborate, I hazard these imperfect hints, for consideration chiefly on a subject on which I pretend not to be profound. the publication of the inedited MSS. which exist in the libraries of G. Britain only, must depend on the learned of that nation. their means of science are great. they have done much, and much is yet expected from them. nor will they disappoint us. our means are as yet small. but the widow’s mite was piously given, and kindly accepted. how much would contribute to the happiness of these two nations a brotherly emulation in doing good to each other, rather than the mutual vituperations so unwisely and unjustifiably sometimes indulged in by both. and this too by men on both sides of the water, who think themselves of a superior order of understanding, and some of whom are truly of an elevation far above the ordinary stature of the human mind. no two people on earth can so much help, or hurt each other. let us then yoke ourselves jointly to the same car of mutual happiness, and vie in common efforts to do each other all the good we can. to reflect on each other the lights of mutual science particularly, and the kind affections of kindred blood. be it our task, in the case under consideration, to reform and republish, in forms more advantageous, what we already possess, and theirs to add to the common stock the inedited treasures which have been too long buried in their despositories.

P.S. January 1825. In the year 1818. by authority of the legislature of Virginia, a plan for the establishment of an University was prepared and proposed to them. in that plan the Anglo-Saxon language was comprehended as a part of the circle of instruction to be given to the Students; and the preceding pages were then committed to writing for the use of the University. I pretend not to be an Anglo-Saxon scholar. from an early period of my studies indeed, I have been sensible of the importance of making it a part of the regular education of our youth; and at different times, as leisure permitted, I applied myself to the study of it, with some degree of attention. but my life has been too busy in pursuits of another character to have made much proficiency in this. the leading idea which very soon impressed itself on my mind, and which has continued to prevail through the whole of my observations on the language, was, that it was nothing more than the old English of a period of some ages earlier than that of Piers Ploughman, and under this view my cultivation of it has been continued. it was apparent to me that the labors of Dr Hickes, and other very learned men, have been employed in a very unfortunate direction, in endeavors to give it the complicated structure of the Greek and Latin languages. I have just now recieved a copy of a new work, by mr Bosworth on the Elements of Anglo-Saxon grammar, & it quotes two other works, by Turner and Jamieson, both of great erudition, but not yet known here. mr Bosworth’s is indeed a treasure of that venerable learning. it proves the assiduity with which he has cultivated it, the profound knolege in it which he has attained, and that he has advanced far beyond all former grammarians in the science of it’s structure. yet, I own, I was disappointed on finding that in proportion as he has advanced on, and beyond, the footsteps of his predecessors, he has the more embarrassed the language with rules and distinctions in imitation of the grammars of Greek and Latin, has led it still further from it’s genuine type of old English, and increased it’s difficulties by the multitude and variety of new and minute rules with which he has charged it. I had the less expected this from observations made early in the work, on ‘th total disregard of the A-Saxons of any settled rules of orthography, their confounding the letters, using them indifferently for each other, and especially the vowels and diphthongs [pa. 46.] on the frequent transpositions of their letters, and the variety of ways of writing the same word by different A-S. authors,’ giving, as examples, six ways of spelling the word ‘youth,’ and the twenty ways of spelling ‘many;’ observing that, in the Comparative degree, the last syllable er, was spelt with all the vowels indifferently, so also the syllable est, of the Superlative degree, and so the Participial terminations of end, and ed, [pa.54.] adding many other examples of an use entirely promiscuous of the vowels, and much so of the consonants. and in pa. 249. he says ‘it must be evident that learning was not so common in the Saxon æra as at the present time. our ancestors, having few opportunities of literary acquirements, could not have determined upon fixed rules for orthography, any more than illiterate persons in the present day, who, having been employed in manual labor, could avail themselves of the facilities which were offered. hence arose the differences observable in spelling the same words in Saxon.’ and again in a note, pa. 253. he says ‘those changes in Saxon, which are denominated dialects, appear in reality only to be the alterations observed in the progress of the language, as it gradually flowed from the Saxon, varying, or casting off many of it’s inflections, till it settled in the form of the present English. this progressive transformation of the Anglo Saxon into our present form of speech will be evident by the following examples, taken from the translations of the most learned men of the age to which they are referred.’ and he proceeds to give specimens of the Pater nosters of the years 890. 930. 1130. 1160. 1180. 1250. 1260. 1380. 1430. 1500. 1526. 1537. 1541. 1556. 1611. that is, from the time of Alfred to that of Shakespear. these obviously prove the gradual changes of the language from the A-S. form, to that of the present English, and that there was no particular point of time at which the A-S. was superceded by the English dialect; for dialects we may truly call them, of the same language, separated by lines of time instead of space. and these specimens prove also that the language of Alfred was, no more than that of Piers Ploughman, a different one from that we now speak. in like manner the language of France, cotemporary with our Anglo-Saxon, was as different from modern French, as the A-S. from modern English; and their Romanumrusticum, or Romain-rustique, as it was called, has changed insensibly, as our A-S. to the form now spoken. yet so much of the fundamental idiom remains the same in both, that to read and understand the elder dialect, they need but a Glossary for words lost by disuse. I will make one more quotation from mr Bosworth. because it confirms what I have said of the scholastic bias of our early authors to place our old language in the line of Latin and Greek. ‘Hickes, says he, page 213. note 2. indisputably one of the most learned of those who can be said to have examined, with a critical eye, our Saxon literature, influenced by the desire of reducing everything to some classical standard, a prejudice not uncommon in the age in which he wrote, endeavors, with greater zeal than success, to shew that the writers whom he was recommending to the world [the A-S. poets] observed the legitimate rules of Latin prosody, and measured their feet by syllabic quantity.’ Notwithstanding these proofs that our Author was fully aware of the unsettled and uncertain orthography of the A-Saxons, and his particular observations, pa. 53. 54. that ‘the final letters of words are often omitted,’ and ‘that the different letters suffer very frequent changes of position,’ he proceeds, in conformity with preceding authorities, which indeed support him, to make genders, cases, and declensions of nouns to depend on their terminating vowel, pa. 80. 81. 82. 83. 94. the formations of different parts of verbs to depend on the collocation of the letters [pa. 143.] and other formations [pa. 181.] and even regimen [pa. 202.] to depend on the final syllable. and this leads to such an infinitude of minute rules and observances, as are beyond the power of any human memory to retain. if indeed this be the true genius of the A-S. language, then it’s difficulties go beyond it’s worth, and render a knolege of it no longer a compensation for the time and labor it’s acquisition will require: and in that case, I would recommend it’s abandonment in our University, as an unattainable and unprofitable pursuit. but if, as I believe, we may consider it as merely an antiquated form of our present language, if we may throw aside the learned difficulties which mask it’s real character, liberate it from these foreign shackles, and proceed to apply ourselves to it with little more preparation than to Piers Ploughman, Douglas, or Chaucer, then I am persuaded it’s acquisition will require little time or labor, and will richly repay us by the intimate insight it will give us into the genuine structure powers, and meanings of the language we now read and speak. we shall then read Shakespear and Milton with a superior degree of intelligence and delight, heightened by the new and delicate shades of meaning developed to us by a knolege of the original sense of the same words. this rejection of the learned labors of our A-S. Doctors may be considered perhaps as a rebellion against science. my hope however is that it may prove a revolution. two great works indeed will be wanting to effect all it’s advantages. 1. a Grammar on the simple principles of the English grammar, analogising the idiom, the rules and principles of the one and the other, eliciting their common origin, the identity of their structure, laws and composition, and their total unlikeness to the genius of the Greek and Latin. 2. a Dictionary, on the plan of Stephens or Scapula, in which the A-S. roots should be arranged alphabetically, and the derivatives from each root, Saxon and English, entered under it in their proper order and connection. such works as these, with new editions of the Saxon writings, on the plan I venture to propose, would shew that the A-S. is really old English, little more difficult to understand than works we possess, and read & still call English. they would recruit and renovate the vigour of the English language, too much impaired by the neglect of it’s antient constitution and dialects, & would remove, for the Student, the principal difficulties of ascending to the source of the English language, the main object of what has been here proposed.

Observations on Anglo-Saxon grammar

Pronuntiation. Different nations use different alphabets for expressing the sounds of their languages; and nations which use the same alphabet assign very different powers to the same characters. hence, to enable persons to learn the language of other countries, grammars are composed explaining to what letters and combinations of them, in their own language, the letters and combinations of them in another are equivalent. the pronuntiation of the living languages is deposited in records of this kind, as doubtless was that of the Greek and Latin languages, now considered as dead. these evidences of their pronuntiation however being lost, we resort to the countries in which these languages were once spoken, and where they have been insensibly altered to what is now spoken there; and we presume that, the same alphabetical characters being still preserved there, the powers assigned to them are those handed down by tradition, with some changes no doubt, but yet tolerably correct in the main: and that the present pronunciation of those characters by the inhabitants of the same country is better evidence of their antient power than any other to be obtained at this day. hence it is presumed that the pronuntiation of the Greek and Roman characters, now practised by the modern Greeks & Italians, is nearer probably to that of the antient Greeks and Romans than the sounds assigned to the same characters by any other nation.  The Anglo-Saxon is also become a dead language. it’s alphabet is preserved; but if any written evidences exist of the powers assigned to it’s different characters, it is unknown to me. on the contrary I believe that the expressions of the sounds of their language by alphabetical characters had not been long and generally enough practised to settle an uniform power in each letter or combination of letters. this I infer from their infinitely diversified modes of spelling the same word. for example the word many is found spelt in 20. different manners. to supply evidence therefore of the pronuntiation of their words, we should, I think, resort to the pronuntiation of the corresponding words in Modern English. for as the Anglo-Saxon was insensibly changed into the present English language, it is probable the English have the pronuntiation, as well as the words, by tradition. indeed I consider the actual pronunciation of a word by the English as better evidence of it’s pronuntiation by their Anglo-Saxon ancestors than the multiform representation of it by letters which they have left us. the following examples will give an idea of the appeal I make to English pronunciation for the power of the Saxon letters, and sound of the Saxon words.

those, I think, who have leisure and knolege of the subject, could not render it a greater service than by new editions of the Saxon writings still extant digested under four columns, whereof the 1st should present the text in the Saxon character and original loose orthography; the 2d the same text in Saxon characters reformed to Modern English orthography as nearly as allowable; the 3d the same text in the English character and orthography; the 4th an English version, as literally expressed, both as to words and their arrangement as any indulgences of grammar, or of obsolete, or provincial terms, would tolerate. I will exhibit the following passage from Alfred’s Orosius. L. 1. pa. 23. as a specimen.

the dissimilitude between Saxon and English is more in appearance than reality. it consists chiefly in the difference of character and orthography. suppress that, (as is done in the 3d column,) represent the sounds by the English character and orthography, and it is immediately seen to be, not a different language, but the same in an earlier stage of it’s progression. and such editions of the Saxon writers, by removing the obstructions of character and false spelling, enabling us to give habitual and true, instead of uncouth and false sounds to words, would promote the study of the English language, by facilitating it’s examination in it’s mother state, and making us sensible of delicacies and beauties in it unfelt but by the few who have had the courage, through piles of rubbish, to seek a radical acquaintance with it.

Declensions of Nouns.

One of the simplifications of the study of the Anglo-Saxon which would result from a reformation of it’s orthography to the present English standard, would be a reduction in the number of the declensions of nouns heretofore assigned to it. the Anglo-Saxons seem to have thought some vowel final necessary to give sound to the preceding consonant, altho’ that vowel was not itself to be sounded; and nothing being less fixed than the power of their vowels and diphthongs, they have used all the vowels indiscriminately for this purpose. thus

notwithstanding these various orthographies, all, I presume, represent the same sound and probably that still retained by the English. for I can more easily suppose that an unlettered people used various modes of spelling the same word, than that they had so many different words to express the same thing. the e final of the English is a relique of the Anglo-Saxon practice of ending a word with a final vowel. a difference of orthography therefore, and still less a mere difference of final vowel is not sufficient to characterise a different declension of nouns. I should deem an unequivocal change in the sound necessary to constitute an inflexion; and a difference in the inflections necessary to form a class of nouns into a different declension. on these principles I should reduce Thwaite’s seven declensions to four, as follows.

Ist declension, being Thwaite’s 5th and 6th

IId declension, comprehending Thwaite’s 3d and 4th

IIId declension comprehending Thwaite’s 1st and 7th

IVth declension, being Thwaite’s 2d

In stating the declensions here the 1st column presents the Anglo-Saxon orthography, the varieties of which have been deemed sufficient to constitute inflections & declensions. the 2d column presents a reformed orthography, supposed equivalent to the other as to sound, and consequently shewing that a variety in spelling where there is a sameness of sound, does not constitute an inflection, or change of declination.

the four declensions, reformed to an uniform orthography, would stand thus.

In this scheme then

It may be said that this is a bold proposition, amounting to a change of the language. but not so at all. what constitutes a language is a system of articulated sounds, to each of which and idea is attached. the artificial representation of these sounds on paper is a distinct thing. surely there were languages before the invention of letters; and there are now languages never yet expressed in letters. to express the sounds of a language perfectly, every letter of it’s alphabet should have but a single power, and those letters only should be used whose powers successively pronounced would produce the sound required. the Italian orthography is more nearly in this state than any other with which I am acquainted; the French & English the farthest from it. would a reformation of the orthography of the latter languages change them? if the French word aimoient, for example, were spelt émé, according to the French, or ama, according to the English power of those letters, would the word be changed? or if the English word cough were spelt cof, would that change the word? and how much more reasonable is it to reform the orthography of an illiterate people, among whom the use of letters was so rare that no particular mode of spelling had yet been settled, no uniform power given to their letters, every one being left free to express the words of the language by such combinations of letters as seemed to him to come near their sound. how little they were agreed as to the powers of their own letters, & how differently & awkwardly they combined them to produce the same sound needs no better example than that furnished by Doctor Hickes of the short and simple sound of many being endeavored to be represented by 20. different combinations of letters; to wit, in English characters, maenigo, maenio, mæniu, menio, meniu, mænigo, mænego, manige, menigo, manegeo, mænegeo, menegeo, mænygeo, menigeo, manegu, mænigu, menegu, menego, menigu, manigo. now would it change the word to banish all these, and give it, in their books, the orthography of many, in which they have all ended? and their correction in type is no more than every reader is obliged to make in his mind as he reads along; for it is impracticable for our organs to pronounce all the letters which their bungling spellers have huddled together. no one would attempt to give to each of these 20. methods of spelling many the distinct and different sounds which their different combinations of letters would call for. this would be to make 20. words where these surely was but one. he would probably reduce them all, wherever he met with them, to the single and simple sound of many, which all of them aimed to produce. this then is what I would wish to have done to the reader’s hand, in order to facilitate and encourage his undertaking. for remove the obstacles of uncouth spelling & unfamiliar characters, and there would be little more difficulty in understanding an Anglo-Saxon writer, than Burn’s poems. so as to the form of the characters of their Alphabet. that may be changed without affecting the language. it is not very long since the forms of the English and French characters were changed from the black letter to the Roman; yet the languages were not affected. nor are they by the difference between the printed and written characters now in use. the followings note written by Aelfric is not the less Latin because expressed in Anglo-Saxon characters. ‘Ezo Ælfpicur renipri hunc Libnum in monarzenio Bapdonio ex dedi Bnihzpoldo Pneporizo.’ Hickes. Gram. Island. 158. we may say truly then that the Anglo-Saxon language would still be the same, were it written in the characters now used in English, and it’s orthography conformed to that of the English; & certainly the acquisition of it to the English student would be greatly facilitated by such an operation.

A Specimen

of the form in which the Anglo-Saxon writings still extant might be advantageously published, for facilitating to the English student the knolege of the Anglo-Saxon Dialect.

Genesis Chap. I.

1. On anginne gesceop, God heofenan and earthan.

2. seo corthe sothlice wæs ydel & æmtig, & thoestru wæron ofer thære niwelnisse bradnisse & Godes gast wæs geferod ofer wæteru.

3. God cwæth the ge-weorthe lesht; & leoht wearth ge-worht.

4. God geseah tha thæt hit god wæs, & he to-dælde that leoht fram tham theostrum.

5. and het that leoht dæg, & tha theostra niht. tha wæs ge-worden æfen & morgen an dæg.

6. God cwæth tha eft, gewurthe nu fæstnis tomiddes tham wæterum, and totwæme tha wæteru fram tham wæterum.

7. and God geworhte tha fæstnisse, & totwæmde tha wæteru the wæron under thære fæstnisse fram tham the wæron bufan thære fæstnisse; hit wæs tha swa gedon.

8. and God het tha fæstnisse heofenan, and was tha geworden æfen & morgen other dæg.

9. God tha sothlice cwæth, beon gegaderode tha wæteru the sind under theare heofenan, and æteowigedrignis; hit wæs tha swa gedon.

10. and God gecigde tha drignisse eorthan and thæra wætera gegaderunga he het sæs. God geseah tha that hit god wæs.

11. and cwæth, spritte seo eorthe growende gærs and sæd wircende, and æppelbære treow wæstm wircende æfter his cinne; thæs sæd sig on him silfum ofer eorthan. hit wæs tha swa ge-don.

12. and seo eorthe fortha-teah growende wirte and sæd berende be hire cinne, and treow westm wireende & gehwile sæd hæbbende æfter his hiwe. god geseah tha that hit god wæs.

13. and wæs geuroden æfen & mergen the thridda dæg.

14. God cwæth tha sothlice, beo nu leoht on thære heofenan fæstnisse, and todælon dæg & nihte, & beon to tacnum & to tidum & to dagum & to gearum.

15. and hig scinon on thære heofenan fæstnisse and alihton tha eorthan. hit wæs tha swa geworden.

16. and God geworhte twa micele leoht, that mare leoht to thæs dæges lihtinge, and that læsse leoht to thære nihte lihtings; & steorran he geworhte.

17. and gesette hig on thære heofenan that hig scinon over eorthan.

18. and gimdon thæs dæges thære nihte, & todældon leoht and theostra. God geseah tha that hit god wæs.

19. and wæs geworden æfen & mergen se feortha dæg.

20. God cwæth eac swilce, teon nu tha wæteru forth swimmede cynn cucu on life, & fleogende cinn ofer eorthan under thære heofenan fæstnisse.

21. and God gesceop tha tha micelan hwalas, & eall libbende fiscinn & stirrigendlice, the tha wæteru tugon forth on heora hiwum, and eall fleogende cinn æfter heora cinne. God geseah tha that hit good wæs.

22. and bletsode hig thus cwethende, weaxath & beoth gemenigfilde, & gefillath thære sæ wæteru, and tha fugelas beon gemenigfilde ofer eorthan.

23. and tha wæs geworden æfen and mergen se fifta dæg.

24. God cwæth eacswilc, læde seo eorthe forth cuce nitena on heora cinne, and creopende cinn, and deor æfter heora hiwum. hit wæs tha swa geworden.

25. and God geworhte thære eorthan deor æfter hira hiwum, & tha nitenu and eall creopende cynn on heora cynne. God geseah tha that hit god wæs.

26. and cwæth, Uton, wircean man to andlicnisse, and to ure gelicnisse, and he sig ofer tha fixas, & ofer tha fugelas, & ofer tha deor, and ofer ealle gesceafte, and ofer ealle tha creopende se stirath on eorthan.

27. God gesceop tha man to his andlicnisse, to Godes andlicnisse he gesceop hine, werhades & wifhades he gesceop hig.

28. and God hig bletsode and cwæth, wexath and beoth gemenigfilde, and gefillath tha eorthan and gewildath hig, & habbath on eowrum gewealde thære sæ fixas and thære lyfte fugelas & ealle nytenu the stiriath ofer eorthan.

29. God cwæth tha, Efne, Ie for-geaf eow eall gærs & wyrta sæd berende ofer eorthan, and ealle treowa tha the habbath sæd on him silfon heora agenes cynnes, that hig beon eow to mete.

30.and eallum nytenum & eallum fugelcynne and eallum tham the stiriath on eorthan, on tham the us libbende lif. that hig habbon him to gereordienne. it wæs tha swa gedon.

31. and God y-saw ealle tha thing the he geworhte, and hig wæron swithe gode. was tha geworden æfen and mergen se sixta dæg.

Chapter. II.

1. Eornostlice tha wæron fullfremode heofenas and eorthe, and all heora frætewung.

2. and God tha gefilde on thone seofethan dæg hys weore the he geworhte. and he gereste hine on thone seofethan dæg fram eallon tham weorce the he gefremode.

3. and God gebletsode thone seofethan dæg, and hine gehalgode, for thon the he on thone dæg geswac his weorcas the he gesceop to wirceanne.

4. thas sind thære heofenan & thære earthan cneornisse tha tha hig gesceopene wæron, on tham dæge the God geworhte heofenan & eorthan.

5. and ælcne telgor on eorthan ær tham the he uppa-sprunge on eorthan, and eall gærs & wyrta ealles eardes ær than the hig uppa-spritton. God sothlice ne sende nanne ren ofer eorthan tha git: and man næs the tha eorthan worhte.

6. Ac an wyll a-sprang of thære eorthan wætriende ealre thære eorthan brodnysse.

7. God gesceop eornostlice man of thære eorthan lame, and onableow on hys ansine lifes orthunge; & se man wæs geworht on libbendre sawle.

8. God tha aplantode wynsumnisse orcerd fram frimthe. on tham he gelogode thone man the he geworhte.

9. God tha fortha-teah of thære moldan ælces cynnes treow fæger on gesihthe, and to brucenne winsum, eke-swilie lifes treow o-middan neorxena wange, and treow ingehydes godes & yfeles.

10. and that flood eode of stowe thære winsumnisse to wætrienne neorxena-wang, that flod ys thanon to-dæled on feower ean.

11. an ea of tham hatte Fifon. se gæth on-butan that land the is ge-haten Evilath, thærthær gold wixt.

12. and thæs landes gold is golda selost thar beoth eac gemette tha gimstanas, dellium & honychinus.

13. thære othre ea nama ys Gion. seo ys eac gehaten Nylus. seo imbæth eall thæra Silhearwena land.

14. thære thriddan ea nama ys Tigris. seo gæth on-gean tha Assirisean. sefeorthe ea ys gehaten Eufrates.

15. God ge-nam tha thone man, & ge-logode hine on neorxena-wange, that he thær wircean sceolde and thær begiman.

16. and bebead him thuss cwethende, of ælcum treowe thises orcerdes thu most etan.

17. sothlice of tham treowe in-ge-hides godes & yfeles ne et thu. on swa whilcum dæge swa thu ets of tham treowe, thu scealt death sweltan.

18. God cwæth eacswilce, nis na god thisum men ana to wunienne. Uton. wircean him sumne fultum to his gelicnisse.

19. God sothlice gelædde tha nitenu the he of eorthan gesceop & thære lyftefugolas to Adam, that he fore-sceawode hu he hig ge-cigde. Sothlice æle libbende nyten swa swæ Adam hit gecigde swa ys hys nama.

20. and Adam tha genamode ealle nytenu heora namum, and ealle fugelas, and ealle wild-deor. Adam sothlice ne gemette tha git nanne fultum his gelican.

21. tha sende God slæp on Adam, and tha tha he slep, tha genam he an ribb of his sidan, and gefilde mid flæsce thær thær that ribb wæs.

22. and geworhte that ribb the he genam of Adame to anum wifemen, and gelædde hig to Adame.

23. Adam tha cwæth, this ys nu ban of minum banum and flæsc of minum flæsc. theos bith geciged fæmne for tham the heo ys of were genumen.

24. for tham for-læt se man fæder and moder, & getheot hine to his wife, and hig beoth butu on anum flæsce.

25. he wæron tha butu nacode, Adam and his wif; and him thæs ne sccamode.

Chap. III.

1. Eacswilce seo Næddre wæs geappre thonne ealle tha othre nytenu the God geworhte ofer eorthan; and se næddre cwæth to tham wife, hwi forbead God eow that ge ne æton of ælcum treowe binnan paradisum?

2. that wif andwirde, of thæra treowa wæstme the synd o-middan neorxena wange.

3. God be-bead us that we ne æton, ne we that treow ne hrepodon, thy læs the we swulton.

4. tha cwæth se næddre eft to tham wife, ne beo ge nates-whon deade theah the ge of tham treowe eton.

5. ac God wat sothlice that eowre eagan beoth geopenode on swa hwilcum dæge swa ge etath of tham treowe; and ge beoth thonne Englum-gelice witende ægther ge god ge yfel.

6. tha geseah that wif that thæt treow wæs god to etanne be than the hire thuhte, and wlitig on eagum, and lustbære on gesihthe, and genam tha of thæs treowes fæstme, and geæt and sealde hire were.

7. and heora begra eagan wurdon geopenode, hig on-eneowon tha that hig nacode wæron, & siwodon ficleaf and worhton him wædbrec.

8. eft tha tha God com, hig gehirdon hys stemne thær he 5.eode on neorxena wange ofer mid-dæg. tha be-hidde Adam hyne and his wif eacswa dide fram Godes gesihthe on middan tham treowe neorxena-wanges.

9. God clipode tha Adam and cwæth, Adam hwar eart thu?

10. he cwæth, thine stemne ic gehirde, 7.leof, on neorxena wange, and ic on-dred me for tham the ic eom nacod, and ic be-hidde me.

11. God cwæth, hwa sæde the that thu nacod wære, gif thu ne æte of tham treowe the ic bebead that thu of ne æte?

12. Adam cwæth, thæt wif that thu me for-geofe to geferan sealde me of tham treowe, & ic æte.

13. God cwæth to tham wife, hwi didest thu that? heo cwæth, seo næddre bepæhte me and ic æt.

14. God cwæth to thære næddron, for than the thu this dydest thy byst awinged betwix eallum nitenum and wild-deorum. thu gæst on thinum breoste and etst tha eorthan eallum dagum thines lifes.

15. Ic sette feond rædene betweox the and tham wife, and thinum of springe and hire of springe. heo to-bryt thin heafod, and thu syrwst ongean hyre ho.

16. to tham wife cwæth God eacswilce, Ic gemenigfilde thine yrmtha and thine ge-eacnunga. on sarnysse thu a-cents cild, and thu bist under 11.weres anwealde. and he ge-wild thee.

17. to Adame he cwæth, for than the thu ge-hirdest thines wifes sterane, and thu æte of tham treowe the ic the bebead that thu he æte, ys seo eorthe awirged on thinum weorce. on geswincum thy ætst of thære eorthan eallum dagum thines lifes.

18. thornas and bremelas he asprit the, & thu ytst thære earthan wyrta.

19. on swate thines and wlitan thu briest thines hlafes, oth that thu ge-wende to eorthan of thære the thu genumen wære, for than the thu eart dust, and to duste wyrst.

20. tha ge-sceop Adam naman his wife Eva, that is life, for than the heo is ealra libbendra modor.

21. God worhte eac Adame and his wife fellen e-reaf, and ge-scridde hi.

22. and cwæth. nu Adam can yfel and god swa swa ure sum. the leas he a-strecce his hand. nime eacswilce of lifes treowe, and ete and libbe on ecnisse.

23. a-dræfde hine tha of neorzena-wange, that he tha eorthan worhte, and him theron tilode of thære he ge-numan wæs.

24. tha the he adræfed wæs of Neorxena-wanges myrthe tha ge-sette God æt tham in-fære Engla hyrd-rædene and fyren swurd, to ge-hældenne thone weg to tham lifes treowe.

Chap. IV.

1. Sothelice Adam ge-strynde Cain be Evan his gemæccan, and thus cwæth, thisne man me seald Drihten.

2. Eft he ge-strynde Abel. Abel wæs sceop-hyrde, and Cain eortha-tilia.

3. tha wæs hit geworden æfter manegum dagum that Cain brohte Drihtne lac of eorthan tilingum.

4. and Abel brohte to lace tha frum-cennedan of his heorde. tha be-seah Drihten to Abele and to his lacum.

5. and ne be-seah to Caine ne to his lacum. tha wæreth Cain un-ge-metlice yrre.

6. and Drihten cwæth to him, hwi eart thu yrre?

7. gif thu goddest, sona hit bith the mid gode for-golden; Gif thu thonne yfel dest, sona hit bith the mid yfele for-golden.

8. tha cwæth Cain to Abele his brether. Uton, gan ut; tha hi utagane wæron, tha yrsode Cain with his brother Abel and ofsloh hine.

9. tha cwæth Drihten to Caine, hwær is Abel thine brothor? tha answarode he and cwæth, Ic nat. segst thu sceolde ic minne brothor healdon?

10. tha cwæth Drihten to Caine. whæt dydest thu? thines brother blod clypath up to me of eorthan.

11. witodlice thu byst a-wyrged ofer earthan, for than the seo eorthe on-feng thines brother blodes, the thu mid thinum handum agute.

12. thonne thu tilast thin on eorthan, ne sylth heo the nane wæstmas. thy færsth worigende and bist flyma geond ealle eorthan.

13. witodlice Cain cwæth to Drihtne, min unriht-wisnysse is mare thonne ic forgifenysse wyrthe sy.

14. nu to dæg thu me a-flymst, and ic me be-hyde fram thinre ansine, and ic worige and beo aflymed geond ealle eorthan; eale thæra the me ge-mett me of-slyth.

15. tha cwæth Drihten to Caine, ne byth hit na swa, ac ælc thæra the of-slith Cain, on-fehth seofon-feald wite. and God him sealde tacn, thæt nan thæra the hine ge-mette, hine ne of-sloge.

16. Cain eode fram Drihtnes ansyne, and he wunode flyma on tham eastdeale thæs landes the is ge-nemned Eden.

17. witodlice Cain nam wif. be thære he ge-strynde Enoch; and he ge-timbrode ceastre, and nemned hi be his suna naman Enoch.

18. sothlice Enoch ge-strynde Irad, and Irad ge-strynde Mauiahel and Mauiahel ge-strynde Matusael, and Matusael ge-strynde Lamech.

19. witodlice Lamech nam twa wif. other wæs genemned Ada, and other Sella.

20. tha a-cende Ada Jabal; the wæs fæder thare the wunodon on ge-teldum and hirda.

21. his brothor hatte Jubal; the wæs fæder herpera thæra the organan macodan.

22. be Sellan he ge-strynde Tubalcain; se wæs egther ge-goldsmith, ge-irensmith, and ane dohtor, seo hatte Noema.

23. Lamech cwæth tha to his wivum, Ada & Sella, ge-hyrath myne stemne, Lamech wife, hlystath mine spæce; for than the ic of-sloh weron min wunde, & iungling on minum handam;

24. seofonfeald wracu ge-sealde for Cain. and hund seofontig seofonfeald for Lamech.

25. Eft Adam ge-strynde sunu, thone he nemde Seth, and thus cwæth Drihten me sealde thisne sunu for Abel the Cain of-sloh.

26. Seth ge-strynde sunu and nemde hine Enos; se Enos ærest on-clypian Drihtnes naman.

Chap. V.

1. this is seo boc Adames mægrace. on thone dæg the God ge-sceop man, to Godes ge-licnesse he ge-worhte hine.

2. wer and wif he gesceop hii, and ge-bletsode hi, and het his naman Adam on tham dæge the hi ge-sceopene wæron.

3. Adam sothlice leofode honteonti geare and thritte geare and gestrinde sunu to his ge-licnesse, and anlycnisse, and het hine Seth.

4. tha wæron Adames dages siththen he ge-strind Seth viii. hund yeara, and he ge-strinde sunu and dohtra.

5. wæs tha ge-worden eal the time the Adam leofode nigon hund geara and xxx geare, and he tha forthferde.

6. Seth wæs hund wintre and five, tha he ge-strynde Enos.

7. he lyfed siththan he ge-strinde Enos viii hund geare and seofon geare, and gestrynde sunu and dohtra

8. wæron tha gewordene ealle Sethes dagas, ix hund geare and xii geare and he forthferde.

9. Enos sothlice leofode hund nygontyg geare, and he ge-strynde Cainan.

10. Æfter thes up-springe he leofode viii. hund geare and xv. geare, and gestrinde suna and dohtra.

11. wæron tha ge-wordene ealle Enoses dagas ix hund geare and V. geare, and he forthferde.

12. Cainan lyfode hund-seofontig geare, and ge-strinde Malaleel.

13. he lefeode siththan he ge-strinde Malaleel viii. hund wintre, and æfter tham he ge-strinde suna and dohtra.

14. and he forthferde tha he wæs nigon hund wintre and tyn wintre.

15. witodlice Malelehel ge-strinde Jared tha he wæs fif and sixtig wintre.

16. and siththan he ge-strinde suna & dohtra.

17. and he forthferde tha he was eahta hund wintre and fif hund-nigontig wintre.

18. Jared ge-strinde Enoch tha he wæs fif and sixtig wintre.

19. and æfter tham the he ge-strinde suna and dohtra.

20. and he forthferde tha he wæs nigon hund wintre and fif and sixtig wintre.

21. Enoch ge-strinde Mathusalem tha he wæs fif and sixtig wintre.

22. and siththan he ge-strinde suna & dohtra.

23. and he wæs on thisum life threo hund wintre and fif and sixtig wintre.

24. and he ferde mid Gode; and hine nan man siththan ne ge-seah; for tham the Drihten hine nam mid sawle and mid lichaman.

25. witodlice Matusalam ge-strinde Lamech, tha he wæs seofon and hund-eahtatig wintre.

26. and æfter tham he gestrinde suna and dohtra.

27. and he forthferde tha he wæs nigon hund wintre and nigon and sixtig wintre.

28. Lamech ge-strinde sunu tha he wæs an hund wintra, & two and hund-eahtatig wintre.

29. and nemde hine Noe and thus cwæth be-him. thes man us afrefrath fram urum weorcum, and fram urum ge-swince on tham lande the Drihten wirigde.

30. æfter tham the he ge-strinde suna & dohtra.

31. and he forthferde tha he wæs seofon hund wintre and seofon and hund-seofontig wintre.

32. Noe sothlice tha tha he wæs fif hund geara tha ge-strinde he thri suna, Sem, and Cham and Jafeth.

Chap. VI.

1. Men wurdon tha ge-menigfilde ofer eorthan, and dohtra ge-strindon.

2. tha ge-sawon Godes bearn that wæron gode men manna dohtra, that hig wæron wlitige, and namon him wif of eallum tham tha the hig ge-curon.

3. and God cwæth tha ne thurh-wunath na min gast on menn on ec-nisse, for than the he is flæsc

4. Entas wæron eacswilce ofer eorthan on tham dagun. æfter them the Godes bearn tymdon with manna dohtra and hig cendon. tha sindemihtige fram worulde and hlisfulleweras.

5. tha ge-seah God that micel yfelnys manna wæs over eorthan, and eall ge-thanc manna heortena wæs ge-wendon on yfel on eallum timan.

6. Gode tha of-thuhte that he man ge-worhte ofer eorthan. he wolde tha warnian onær; and wæs gehrepod mid heortan sarnisse withinnan

7. and cwæth, Ic a-dilige thone mannan the ic ge-sceop fram thære eorthan ansine, from tham men oth tha nytenu, fram tham slincendum oth tha fugelas. me of-thincth sothlice that Ic hig worthe.

9. thas sind Noes cneornissa. Noe wæs riht-wis wer, and ful-fremed on his mægthum. mid God he ferde.

10. and ge-strinde thri suna, Sem, and Cham, and Jafetth.

11. tha wæs eall seo eorthe ge-wemmed æt-foran Gode, and a-fylled mid un-riht-wisnysse.

12. tha ge-seah God that seo eorthe wæs ge-wemmed, for than the ælc flæsc ge-wemde his weg ofer eorthan.

13. and God cwæth tha to Noe, ge-endung ealles flæsces com ætforan me. seo eorthe ys a-fylled mid unrihtwisnysse fram heora ansine, and ic for-do hig mid thære eorthan samod.