The various allusions to the story of Havelok already cited naturally lead us to consider the question as to what date we should refer such circumstances of the story as may have some foundation in truth, or such circumstances as may have originated the story. I do not look upon this as altogether a hopeless or profitless inquiry, for it seems to me that a theory may be constructed which will readily and easily fit in with most of the statements of our authorities. In the first place, to place Havelok’s father in the time of Alfred, as is done by Peter de Langtoft and his translators, is absurd, and evidently due to the confusion between the names of Gunter and Godrum or Guthrum. We may even adduce Langtoft’s evidence against himself, as he alludes to Grimsby as being the boundary of Egbert’s kingdom; and indeed, the mere fact of its being a British lay points to a time before the establishment of the Heptarchy. As already suggested in § 16, some of the authorities point to the sixth century. But the evidence of the French poem and of Gaimar points still more steadily to a similar early date. There we find Gunter appearing as the enemy, not of Alfred, but of Arthur. The French prose chronicle of the Brute places Adelbright and Edelfi after the death of Constantine, and it is clear that there is some close connection between the British lay of Havelok and the British Chronicle. The _Godrich_ of the English version is the _Alsi_ of the French poem, the _Edelsi_ of Gaimar, the _Adelfrid_[29] or _Edelfrid_ of the Eulogium Historiarum, the _Elfroi_ of Wace, the _Æluric_ of Laȝamon, the _Æthelfrith_ who succeeded to the throne of Northumbria A.D. 593, according to the Saxon Chronicle. The _Athelwold_ of the English version is the _Adelbrict_ of Gaimar, the _Ekenbright_ of the French poem, the _Athelbert_ of the Eulogium Historiarum, the _Aldebar_ of Wace, and the _Æthelbert_ of Laȝamon, i.e. no other than the celebrated _Æthelberht_ of Kent, who was baptized by St Augustine A.D. 596, according to the Saxon Chronicle. This is the right clue to the _names_, from which, when once obtained, the rest follows easily. The variations between the English and French versions are very great, and it is clear that each poet proceeded much as poets are accustomed to do. Taking a legend as the general guide or thread of a narrative, it is the simplest and easiest plan to dress it up after one’s own fashion, and to draw upon the materials that are supplied by the _general surroundings_ of the story. I feel confident that the narrators of the Lay of Havelok must have used materials not much unlike those used by Laȝamon, and a mere comparison of the French and English lays with Laȝamon will amply suffice to elucidate this. Æluric is first mentioned at p. 195 of vol. iii. of Laȝamon, as edited by Sir F. Madden; if we allow ourselves a margin on both sides of this, we may find many things akin to the lay of Havelok between pages 150 and