368 LIBRARY OF OLD AUTHORS. 



seems unaware of the fact. In his first volume (p. 224) 



he gi'avely prints : — 



" They trowed vereh-e that she shoulde dye ; 

 With that our ladye wold her helpe and spede." 



The semicolon after di/e shows that this is not a mis- 

 print, but that the editor saw no connection between the 

 first verse and the second. In the same volume (p. 

 133) we have the verse, 



'■ He was a grete tenement man, and ryche of londe and lede," 



and to lede Mr. Hazlitt appends this note : " Lede, in earl_y 

 English, is found in various significations, but here 

 stands as the plural of lad, a servant." In what con- 

 ceivable sense is it the plural of lad? And does lad 

 necessarily mean a servant 1 The Fromptorium has 

 ladde glossed by garcio, but the meaning servant, as in 

 the pai-allel cases of ttois, puer, gargon, and hoy, was a 

 derivative one, and of later origin. The word meaug 

 simply man (in the generic sense) and in the plural peo- 

 ple. So in the " Squyr of Low Degi'e," 



" I will forsake both land and lede," 

 and in the " Smyth and his Dame," 



" That hath both land and lyih:' 

 The word was not " used in various significations." Eveu 

 so lately as " Flodden Ffeild " we find, 



" He was a noble leed of high degree." 

 Connected with land it was a commonplace in German 

 as well as in English. So in the Tristan of Godfrey of 

 Strasburg, 



„(5r C8ct»a(d) jtii t ib t bate )Tii (ant 



%n ftneS marfca(fc£i (jaitt." 



Mr. Hazlitt is more nearly right than usual when ho 

 says that in the particular case cited above lede means 

 servants. But were these of only one sex 1 Does he not 

 Mnow that even in the middle of the last century when 



