Page:Alexander and Dindimus (Skeat 1878).djvu/20

 {| "cellpadding=0" "cellspacing=0" þat all þe gomes were agrise · of his grim sight 986 with skaþe wer þei skoumfyt · skape þei ne myght 86 þat þei gradden hur griþ · his grace to haue 151
 * Fragment A
 * Fragment B
 * Fragment B

how þe ludus of the land · alosed for gode 331 alosed in lond 139, 577 with all þe weies in þe won 164; if any wight in þis wonne 622 lengen in bliss 44 yee þat lengen in londe 1 teeneful tach 282

that most was adouted 33, 400 or hee fare wolde 740; pass were hee woolde 1080 hee shall grow full grim 858 his term was tint 30 þe dragoun dreew him awaie 998; he drouned as a dragon · dredeful of noyes 985 and lordship of Larisse · laught to his will 131, 161 so hee stynted þat stounde 1079 too mark þe teene 497; as mich maugre and more · hee marked hem after 932 for no grace hur grete God · graunte ne might 539 Olympias þe onorable queene 576, 738 as hym leefe thought 60 þei were a-grisen of his grym 50

for skaþe of þe scorpionus · askape þei ne miȝhte 159 whan ȝe greden ȝour grace · to graunte ȝour wille 606; whan ȝe hem greden of griþ 764 þo þat ludus in oure land · alosed arn wise 1112 alosed in land 665 and for ȝe, weihuus, of þat wn · wende ne mowe 1092 lengeþ in blisse 628 ȝif we lengede in ȝoure land 872 tenful tach 566; schamfule tacchus 463 þat was most adouted 1130 or he passe wolde 1135

þat is grimmest igrowe 252 ȝour daies to tine 589 dredful dragonus · drawen him þiddire 156 mihte lordschipe lache 264 þat i mai stinte no stounde 97 he haþ marked ȝou men · mischef on erþe 1120 þei [your gods] graunte no grace 709 Olimpias · þe onorable quene 825, 1083 as him dere þoute 1133 But though these coincidences are striking and of considerable force, the argument from them is less conclusive than the argument derived from the peculiarities of alliteration. This point is well and carefully worked out by Dr. Trautmann, and we may, I think, accept his conclusion, against which there is no antecedent probability. I ought to add here that another result of his more careful investigation is to shew that these two Alexander-fragments are not by the author of William of Palerne, as was supposed by Sir F. Maddej, and as, at one time, believed by myself. Dr. Trautmann also expresses an opinion that the date of these fragments is later than I should put it; but here I am not convinced.
 * }

It appears to me that there is another argument which is