The following peculiarities of spelling may be first noted. We frequently find _h_ prefixed to words which it is usual to spell without one. Examples are: _holde_ for _old_, _hete_ for _ete_ (eat), _het_ for _et_ (ate), _heuere_ for _euere_, _Henglishe_ for _Englishe_, &c.; see the Glossary, under the letter H. This enables us to explain some words which at first appear puzzling; thus _her_ = _er_, ere; _hayse_ = _ayse_, ease; _helde_ = _elde_, old age; _hore_ = _ore_, grace; _hende_ = _ende_, which in one passage means _end_, but in another _a duck_. The forms _hof_, _hus_, _hure_, for _of_, _us_, _ure_ are such as we should hardly have expected to find. On the other hand, _h_ is omitted in the words _auelok_, _aueden_, _osed_, and in _is_ for _his_ (l. 2254). These instances, and other examples such as follow, may readily be found by help of the Glossarial Index. Again, _d_ final after _l_ or _n_ was so slightly sounded as to be omitted even in writing. Examples are: _lon_ for _lond_, _hel_ for _held_, _bihel_ for _biheld_, _shel_ for _sheld_, _gol_ for _gold_. But a more extraordinary omission is that of _r_ final in _the_, _neythe_, _othe_, _douthe_, which does not seem to be satisfactorily explained even by the supposition that the scribe may have omitted the small upward curl which does duty for _er_ so frequently in MSS. For we further find the omission of _l_ final, as in _mike_ for _mikel_, _we_ for _wel_, and of _t_ final, as in _bes_ for _best_; from which instances we should rather infer some peculiarity of pronunciation rendering final letters indistinct, of which there are numerous examples, as _fiel_ for _field_, in modern provincial English. Cf. _il_ for _ilk_, in ll. 818, 1740; and _twel_ for _twelf_. “From the same license,” says Sir F. Madden, “arises the frequent repetition of such rhythm as _riden_ and _side_, where the final _n_ seems to have been suppressed in pronunciation. Cf. ll. 29, 254, 957, 1105, 1183, 2098, &c, and hence we perceive how readily the infinitive verbal Saxon termination glided into its subsequent form. The broad pronunciation of the dialect in which the poem was written is also frequently discernible, as in _slawen_, l. 2676, and _knaue_, l. 949, which rhyme to _Rauen_ and _plawe_.[33] So likewise, _bothe_ or _bethe_ is, in sound, equivalent to _rede_, ll. 360, 694, 1680.” Other peculiarities will be noticed in discussing the Metre. Observe also the Anglo-Saxon _hw_ for the modern _wh_, exemplified by _hwo_, 368, _hwan_, 474, _hweþer_, 294, _hwere_, 549, _hwil_, 301; compare also _qual_, _qui_, _quan_, meaning _whale_, _why_, _when_.[34] The letter _w_ (initial) is the modern provincial _’oo_, as in _wlf_, _wluine_, _wman_; cf. _hw_, _w_, both forms of _how_; and _lowerd_ for _louerd_. In particular, we should notice the hard sound of _t_ denoted by _th_ in the words _with_, _rithe_, _brouth_, _nouth_, _ricth_, _knicth_, meaning _white_, _right_,