Mr J. A. H. Murray, in his remarks printed in the preface to Mr Lumby’s edition of “Early Scottish Verse,” comes to a similar conclusion, and I here quote his words for the reader’s convenience and information. “There is no reason, however, to suspect the scribe of _wilfully_ altering his original; indeed, the reverse appears manifest, from the fact that the ‘Craft of Deyng’ has not been assimilated in orthography to ‘Ratis Raving,’ but distinctly retains its more archaic character; while in ‘Sir Lancelot,’ edited by Mr Skeat for the Early English Text Society, from the handwriting of the same scribe, we have a language in its continual Anglicisms quite distinct from that of the pieces contained in this volume, of which the Scotch is as pure and unmixed as that of the contemporary Acts of Parliament. With regard to the remarkable transformation which the dialect has undergone in Sir Lancelot, there seems reason, therefore, to suppose that it was not due to the copyist of the present MS., but to a previous writer, if not to the author himself, who perhaps affected _southernism_, as was done a century later by Lyndesay and Knox, and other adherents of the English party in the Reformation movement. The Southern forms are certainly often shown by the rhyme to be original, and such a form as _tone_ for _tane_ = taken, is more likely to have been that of a Northerner trying to write Southern, than of a Southern scribe, who knew that no such word existed in his dialect. The same may be said of the _th_ in the second person singular. A Scotch writer, who observed that Chaucer said _he liveth_, where he himself said _he lyves_, might be excused for supposing that he would also have said _thou liveth_ for the Northern _thow lyves_; but we can hardly fancy a Southern copyist making the blunder.” 4. We find not only the Northumbrian forms _sall_ and _suld_, but also _shall_, _shalt_, and _shuld_. 5. As regards pronouns, we find the Scottish _scho_ (she) in l. 1169; but the usual form is _sche_. We find, too, not only the broad forms _thai_, _thair_, _thaim_, but also _thei_ (sometimes _the_), _ther_, and _them_. As examples of forms of the relative pronoun, we may quote _who_, _quho_, _whois_, _quhois_ (whose), _quhom_, _qwhome_ (whom), _quhat_, _qwhat_ (what), and _whilk_, _quhilk_, _quhich_, _quich_, _wich_ (which). _Wich_ is used instead of _who_ (l. 387), and we also find _the wich_, or _the wich that_, similarly employed. The nominative _who_ does not perhaps occur as a _simple_ relative, but has the force of _whoso_, or _he who_, as _e.g._, in l. 1102; or else it is used interrogatively, as in l. 1172. 6. Many other peculiarities occur, which it were tedious to discuss fully. It may suffice, perhaps, to note briefly these following. We find both the soft sound _ch_, as in _wich_, _sich_, and the hard sound _k_, as in _whilk_, _reke_ (reach), _streke_ (stretch), etc.; which are the true Northern forms. _Mo_ is used as well as _more_.