[16] While agreeing with the editor of the Ormulum, that the simplicity of grammatical forms may fairly be considered as indicating a less artificial, and therefore advanced, stage of the language, I cannot adopt his theory, that "the strict rules of grammar" were therefore abandoned, and thereby was anticipated, to a certain extent, a later phraseology and structure; or that Orm, or any other O.E. writer, ever sacrificed "the more regular for a simpler, though more corrupt, structure and style." It must always be borne in mind that our earlier writers always speak of their language as English; but it was the English of the district in which they lived. In some districts, as in the Northumbrian, for instance, the language underwent certain changes at a very early period, which more Southern dialects did not adopt for more than a century afterwards: thus, in works of the 14th century, we find the Midland more archaic than the Northumbrian, and the Southern more archaic than either. Authors seeking to become popular would write in the dialect best understood by their readers, without considering whether it was simple or complex. Thus the Ayenbite of Inwyt (A.D. 1340), written for the men of Kent, contains far more of the older inflectional forms than the Ormulum of the twelfth century. [17] Southern writers before 1340 formed the g.s. of fem. nouns in _-e_ and not in _-es_. [18] In the Southern dialect the article had separate forms for the nominative fem. (_theo_, _tho_), and neuter (_thet_, _that_); the fem. gen. sing. (_thar_, _ther_), and the masc. acc. (_than_, _then_). [19] See Ormulum, Introduction, p. lxxviii., note 105. [20] _Sinden_, are, occurs in the Ormulum and the Bestiary, but is not employed in the present poem. [21] These forms occur in O.E. Hom., 2nd Series. [22] In O.E. Hom., 2nd Series, we find _hes_ = them. See Moral Ode, l. 186, O.E. Hom., 2nd Series: "wel diere he _hes_ bohte." [23] Robt. of Gloucester, Shoreham, Dan. Michel's Ayenbite of Inwyt. [24] Deep he _them_ buried under an oak. [25] For Solomon find _them_ shall. [26] He took _them_. [27] All his _footsteps_ after him he filleth, draweth dust with his tail where he steppeth, or dust or dew (moisture), that they are not able to find _them_. [28] I have in one case taken the liberty of separating the pronoun from the verb (for the convenience of the reader), giving the MS. reading in the margin; but I am sorry now that I did not let them stand as in the original copy. [29] _Mes_ = _me_ + _es_ = one, them, occurs in O. E. Hom., 2nd Series. [30] All _he them_ had (he had them all) with might begotten (obtained). [31] Undealt (undivided) _he them_ laid, whereso _he them_ brought. The dove hath habits good, All _we them_ ought to have in mind