BERTRAM MARRIES GRIM’S SECOND DAUGHTER. HAVELOK IS CROWNED KING OF ENGLAND. SUCH IS THE “GESTE” OF HAVELOK. SAY A PATERNOSTER FOR THE AUTHOR.] PREFACE. § 1. The English version of the Lay of Havelok, now here reprinted, is one of the few poems that have happily been recovered, after having long been given up as lost. Tyrwhitt, in his Essay on the Language and Versification of Chaucer, has a footnote (No. 51) deploring the loss of the Rime concerning Gryme the Fisher, the founder of Grymesby, Hanelok [_read_ Havelok] the Dane, and his wife Goldborough; and Ritson, in his Dissertation on Romance and Minstrelsy--(vol. i. p. lxxxviii. of his Metrical Romanceës)--makes remarks to the same effect. It was at length, however, discovered by accident in a manuscript belonging to the Bodleian library, which had been described in the old Catalogue merely as _Vitæ Sanctorum_, a large portion of it being occupied by metrical legends of the Saints. In 1828, it was edited for the Roxburghe Club by Sir F. Madden, the title-page of the edition being as follows:-- “The Ancient English Romance of Havelok the Dane, accompanied by the French Text: with an introduction, notes, and a glossary, by Frederick Madden, Esq., F.A.S. F.R.S.L., Sub-Keeper of the MSS. in the British Museum. Printed for the Roxburghe Club, London. W. Nicol, Shakspeare Press, MDCCCXXVIII.” This volume contains a very complete Introduction, pp. i-lvi; the English version of Havelok, pp. 1-104; the French text of the Romance of Havelok, from a MS. in the Heralds’ College, pp. 105-146; the French Romance of Havelok, as abridged and altered by Geffrei Gaimar, pp. 147-180; notes to the English text, pp. 181-207; notes to the French text, pp. 208-210; and a glossary, &c., pp. 211-263. But there are sometimes bound up with it two pamphlets, viz. “Remarks on the Glossary to Havelok,” by S. W. Singer, and an “Examination of the Remarks, &c.,” by the Editor of Havelok. In explanation of this, it may suffice to say, that the former contains some criticisms by Mr Singer (executed in a manner suggestive of an officious wish to display superior critical acumen), of which a few are correct, but others are ludicrously false; whilst the latter is a vindication of the general correctness of the explanations given, and contains, incidentally, some valuable contributions to our general etymological knowledge, and various remarks which have proved of service in rendering the glossary in the present edition more exactly accurate.[1]