Part 1

Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, JackMcJiggins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

[Transcriber’s note:

This text includes characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding:

Ȝ ȝ (yogh) ħ (h with stroke) łł (l with slash, see below) ā ē ī ō ū ȳ ǣ (vowels with macron or “long” mark) ẹ̄ ę̄ and ǭ ọ̄, each representing open/closed pairs e͞o (eo with shared macron) used as a stand-in for e᷍o

If any of these characters do not display properly--in particular, if the diacritic does not appear directly above the letter--or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a last resort, use the Latin-1 version of the file instead.

Combinations such as ȳ̆ (y with breve and macron) or ọ̄ (o with under-dot and macron) may not display as intended in all browsers. These forms are rare. Except for yogh, h-stroke and paired ł, unusual letters appear only in the editorial material (introduction, notes and glossary).

For this e-text, the printed book’s circumflex accents have been shown as macrons--that is, ǣ instead of æ̂ and similar--except for “true” circumflexes in modern French citations and the word “rôle”. The character shown here as e͞o was printed as “eo” joined by a single circumflex. In the Trentham MS. of Floriz and Blauncheflur, and a few times in the Assumption, some letters were printed with “end flourishes” (see Introduction under “Manuscripts”). All are shown here as a free-standing tilde ~ after the letter. In the same passages, the double letter “ll” printed with a joining wavy line is shown as łł.

In the primary texts, italics representing editorial expansions are shown with {braces}. Roman (non-italic) words within italic passages are shown the same way. Other italics are shown conventionally with _lines_. Boldface is shown as #A#, #B#. Large initial letters are shown with double or triple preceding + as ++Horn, +++Alle to avoid “breaking” the text. The number of + signs reflects the size of the original (two lines or more).

Footnotes have been numbered continuously through the Introduction, and separately for each of the three original texts. For mechanical reasons some footnotes in the primary text will seem to be out of order. Line numbering is by multiples of 4.

See the end of the e-text for details about differences between the e-text and the printed book.]

King Horn, Floriz and Blauncheflur, The Assumption of our Lady.

Early English Text Society. Original Series, No. 14

1866 (re-edited 1901; reprinted 1962)

Price 30s.

KING HORN,

FLORIZ AND BLAUNCHEFLUR,

THE ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY.

First Edited in 1866 BY J. RAWSON LUMBY,

And Now Re-Edited From The Manuscripts, With Introduction, Notes, And Glossary, by GEORGE H. McKNIGHT.

_Published for_ THE EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY _by the_ OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS London New York Toronto

First Published (Edited by J. Rawson Lumby) 1866 Re-edited by George H. McKnight 1901 Reprinted (1901 Version) 1962

Original Series, No. 14

Reprinted in Great Britain by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk.

CONTENTS.

Page Preface vi Introduction vii King Horn, from three MSS.: Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2 1 Laud Misc. MS. 108 1 Harl. MS. 2253 1 Floris and Blauncheflur, from three MSS.: Trentham Ms 71 Ms. Cott. Vitell. D. III 74, 84 Cambridge MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2 80 The Assumption of Our Lady, from three MSS.: Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2 111 Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10,036 111 Harl. MS. 2382 118 Notes 137 Glossary 155

PREFACE.

The triple labour involved in editing three independent works in one volume will, it is hoped, serve as an excuse for some of the shortcomings of the present publication. Under the circumstances it has been impossible to make the work as definitive as might have been the case with a single text. For example, while I have been able to print the three existing manuscript texts of King Horn, of the other two poems, the textual material is not nearly so complete.

The texts, it is hoped, are accurately printed. The credit for this is due, in large measure, to Dr. Furnivall,--who has read with the MSS. the proofs of all the British Museum texts,--and to the proof-readers at Oxford and Cambridge. The notes to King Horn represent a good deal of labour, and may, I trust, prove useful. The glossary, though not so complete as that in Wissmann’s excellent critical edition of King Horn, is intended to fit the volume, and to supply explanation of words and uses of words not intelligible to ordinary readers of Early English Texts.

It is my pleasant duty to acknowledge assistance from various quarters. I am indebted to the libraries of the British Museum and Cambridge University, and the Bodleian library at Oxford for the use of manuscripts; also to the Duke of Sutherland for permission to copy the text of Floris and Blauncheflur from the manuscript in his private library; also to the Cornell University library for conveniences placed at my disposal in the preparation of this volume. I must also acknowledge timely words of advice from Prof. J. M. Hart, notes on Layamon from Dr. B. S. Monroe, and assistance in proof-reading by Prof. W. Strunk, jr. But above all I must acknowledge the less apparent work of Dr. Furnivall in preparing the texts for press, a work the amount of which one who has not edited for the E.E.T.S. is not likely to realize.

G. H. M. K.

_Ithaca, N.Y., July 8, 1901._

INTRODUCTION.

KING HORN.

§ 1. _Setting of the Story_, p. vii. § 2. _Versions_, p. viii. § 3. _Elements of the Story_, p. xvi. § 4. _Topography_, p. xvii. § 5. _Style_, p. xx. § 6. _Versification_, p. xxi. § 7. _Dialect_, p. xxiv. § 8. _Manuscripts_, p. xxviii.

§ 1. SETTING OF THE STORY.

By the beginning of the 13th century, when literature in the English tongue began to show some signs of revival, the earlier English epic tales seem to have been almost entirely obliterated from memory. A solitary survival seems to have been the story of the dragon-killing Wade with his famous boat Guingelot; but even this story is lost to us save for occasional references,[I-1] and from these we must infer that all definite idea of its origin was lost, since Wade is associated, now with Weyland, now with Horn and Havelok, now with Lancelot. The place of these earlier epic tales was filled in Middle English times by a new set of tales for the most part no longer of purely native, popular origin. Tales were imported from every conceivable quarter, though usually by way of France, and even in the popular romances of Guy of Warwick and Bevis of Hampton, which are supposed to contain a kernel of genuine English tradition, the original story is almost unrecognizable amid the embellishments added. Similarly in the stories of Waldef and Hereward the historical facts are almost lost amid this mass of added foreign matter, and in the late romance of Richard Cœur de Lion we have to do, not with the historical Richard, but with a conventionalized hero of mediæval romance.

Standing apart from these largely conventionalized tales are the stories of Havelok and King Horn. These are supposed to have been among the first products of the second growth of English story. They seem to preserve, more than the other, later romances, their primitive traits, and are hence usually classed as English, or Germanic, in origin.

[Footnote I-1: Cf. Skeat’s Chaucer. Note to Marchaundes Tale 1424, and Tr. and C. iii, 614.]

§ 2. VERSIONS.

The story of Horn is known in several different versions. Of these the one printed in the present volume is the oldest and in many respects the most archaic. The story, which it will be unnecessary to summarize here, is told in a simple, direct style with a noticeable lack of unnecessary description inserted for embellishment. The explanation of the peculiar features of this version is no doubt to be found in the purpose for which this version was used. It was probably intended to be sung, as one would infer from the opening lines, and perhaps is such a song, or ballad, as the one which, as the French version informs us (R. H. 2776 ff. cf. p. xiv. below), Horn sang about his love Rigmenil. The manner of the narrative is determined by the song character of the poem. There is more detail than in a modern song, at the same time less detail than in a modern story. Events are sometimes simply referred to as though already known instead of being fully described. The bravery of Murry, Horn’s father, is alluded to in such a manner as to lead one to expect to hear more about his feats of prowess. No motive is given for the journey to Ireland. We are conducted from place to place with Horn, from Aylmer’s court in Westernesse to that of Thurston, or from Horn’s wedding feast at Aylmer’s court to the annihilation of the Saracen invaders of Suddenne, almost in a breath. In this way sometimes incidents are thrown absurdly out of perspective. For instance, when Horn wishes to ‘prove his knighthood’ (v. 588), while the others are at table, he sets out on his ‘fole,’ and at the seashore finds a shipload of _heþene honde_. He slays about a hundred of them. _At eureche dunte þe heued of wente._ He fixes the leader’s head on the point of his sword and thus returns to the hall. All this, which forms the matter for about four hundred twelve-syllabled lines in the more prolix French version, is here related in an off-hand manner, in about forty short lines. The pitched battle of the French version becomes here a mere after-dinner recreation. It would be possible to multiply instances (cf. pp. x-xii) showing the abridged character of the present version.

Very different from the English gleeman’s version, is the highly elaborated French version of the story. This version,[I-2] which is preserved in three MSS. at Oxford, at Cambridge, and at London, consists of about 5250 lines of twelve syllables, arranged in _laisses_, or strophes, of about twenty lines bound together by a single rime. Here we have a full-fledged romance, with descriptions of rich adornments, of feastings, of battles, of games, and of tournaments quite in the manner of the contemporary romances current in France and in Norman England. The archaic traits of the English King Horn are no longer so obvious. The names of persons and of places, with the exception of those of Horn, Rymenhild : Rigmel (Rigmenil), Fiken(h)ild : Wikele, Modi : Modin, Westernesse : Westir (Yrlaunde), and Sudden(n)e, are quite different in the two versions.

But with all this difference of detail, the story in its essential elements is the same in the two versions. Wissmann,[I-3] in the introduction to his critical edition, says, “der französische roman (R. H.) weist kein einziges notwendiges bindeglied, keinen schönen altertümlichen zug auf, den das englische gedicht, King Horn (K. H.) nicht enthielte; dieses dagegen hat trotz seines geringen umfanges, eine reiche von alten, wahrhaft poetischen motiven jenem voraus.” And further, “aus alle dem ergibt sich, dass K. H. keine bearbeitung des französischen romans sein kann.” Wissmann’s further conclusions, however, are less tenable, when he continues: “das umgekehrte verhältniss dagegen ist nicht nur denkbar, sondern bis zu einem gewissen grade sogar notwendig; eine ältere quelle als das lied von King Horn für R. H. vorauszusetzen sind wir durch nichts berechtigt.”

Limited space forbids a thorough-going comparison of the two versions. The essential elements of the story are in each case nearly the same. In the French version (R. H.) again Horn the prince with his companions is set afloat from Suddenne in an open boat, arrives in Bretaigne, is hospitably received by King Hunlaf, is loved by the princess Rigmenil, from whom he receives a magic ring, is betrayed by Wikele, one of his companions, and is exiled from Bretaigne. He takes ship for Westir, the court of King Godreche, and is well received by the king and his two sons. He distinguishes himself in all things, and is loved and wooed by the princess Lemburc. But after delivering the Irish kingdom (Westir) from an African invasion, he is recalled by a messenger to Bretaigne, where, after vanquishing his rival Modun in a tournament, he rescues Rigmenil and himself plays the part of bridegroom at the wedding prepared. He then repairs to Suddenne, and after ridding his father’s kingdom of the invaders, is warned in a dream of Wikele’s second treachery, and returns again just in time to save his bride from a forced marriage with Wikele. With the death of Wikele and the establishment of Horn’s loyal friend Haderof (Athulf) in Ireland and of Horn and Rigmenil in Suddenne, the French story ends.

In addition to this similarity in general outline must be mentioned occasional parallelism between the two versions in minor details or even in phraseology. As instances of the first we may cite: _Of his feire siȝte Al þe bur gan liȝte_ K. H. 385-6; _De la belte de horn tute la chambre resplent._ R. H. 1053. _Drink to horn of horne_ K. H. 1145; _Mes com apelent horn li engleis naturer_ R. H. 4206. _He lokede on his rynge And þoȝte on Rymenhilde_ K. H. 873-4; _Si regarde sa main e lanel kest gemmeȝ_. _Ke li fud de Rimel al departir doneȝ_ R. H. 3166-7. _And whan þu farst to woȝe tak him þine gloue_ K. H. 793-4; _Mes une rien uus di joe dont seieȝ purgardez, Si alez donneier ke oue uus nel menez Kar il est de beaute issi enluminez ke uus la v il iert petit serreȝ preiseȝ_ R. H. 2323-6. _Biuore me to kerue And of þe cupe serue_ K. H. 233-4; _Horn me seruira vi de ma cupe portant_ R. H. 463. As instances of phrases from King Horn reflected in R. H., we may cite: _Stiwarde, tak nu here Mi fundlyng for to lere Of þine mestere, Of wude and of riuere_ K. H. 227-30; _De bois de riueer refet il altre tal_ R. H. 377. _Wiþute sail and roþer_ K. H. 188; _Kil naient auirun dunt a (!) seient aidanȝ Sigle ne guuernad (!) dunt il seint naianȝ_ R. H. 60-61. _Ston he dude lade, ant lym þerto he made_ K. H. 1502 H. _Vn castel ad ia fet de pere e de furment_ R. H. 5097. These instances, which might be multiplied, will serve to show how closely related in origin are these two versions, English and French.

The identity of the two versions is, however, by no means complete. The more condensed version (K. H.) presents some traits not to be found in R. H. We may mention: Horn’s farewell to his boat, 139 ff.; Rimenhild’s assistance in bringing about the dubbing of Horn, 435 ff.; Rimenhild’s dream, 651 ff.; Horn’s charge to Athulf to care for Rimenhild, 743 ff.; the drowning of the messenger from Rimenhild to Horn, 968 ff.; the palmer’s account of Rimenhild’s grief, 1035 ff.; Athulf’s watching from the tower, 1091 ff.; Horn’s fictitious tale to Rimenhild of his own death, 1175 ff.

If K. H. offers these few traits independent of R. H., the latter, longer narrative introduces episode after episode either barely suggested in a single line of K. H., or entirely foreign to the English version. For example, we may mention: the more circumstantial account of Horn’s descent, and of the heroic death of Aaluf, 250 ff.; Rimel’s amusing method of wheedling Athelfrus into bringing Horn to her, 604 ff.; her confidences to her maid Herselot, 729 ff.; the elaborate account of Horn’s victory over Malbroin and Rodmund, 1295 ff.; Wikele’s contrived pretext for a quarrel with Horn, 1839 ff.; Horn’s loathness to take oath, though he is willing to vindicate his word by meeting in combat any two or even five or six chosen antagonists, 1924 ff.; the love of princess Lemburc for Horn, 2394 ff.; the stone-throwing contest, 2568 ff.; the game of chess, 2696 ff.; Lemburc’s apartments, 2709 ff.; the harp-playing, 2776 ff.; the elaborate battle description once more, 3234 ff.; the death of Egfer, 3358 ff.; the meeting of Horn with Wikele and Modin, 4094 ff.; the tournament at Rimil’s wedding, 4456 ff.; the victory, with Hardre’s aid, over the Saracens in Suddenne, 4604 ff.; the touching description of Horn’s meeting with his mother, 4882 ff.; the besiegement of Hunlaf and Rimel by Wikele, 5100 ff.; the intervention of Wikele’s brother, Wothere, 5052 ff., etc.[I-4]

If the subject matter in the two versions is different, the style is far more so. The simple, condensed, somewhat archaic manner of K. H. stands in marked contrast to the sophisticated style of the French romance. The difference is perhaps that to be expected between two versions, one intended for English-speaking, the other for French-speaking people.[I-5] But the difference is perhaps more largely that between ballad and romance. In K. H. the author gives no evidence of himself directly or indirectly, whereas Thomas, the author of R. H., continually addresses his public in the second person and directly introduces his personal opinion. The incidents which in K. H. are condensed almost to unintelligibility, in R. H. are liberally supplied with motives and explanations. The character of Rimenhild in K. H., almost wild in its naturalness, suggests somewhat one of the female divinities of Germanic mythology. Rimel, of the French romance, is an eminently sophisticated, almost modern young woman who understands the arts of coaxing and of coquetry.

The luxury and refinement described in the French version, contrast[I-6] markedly with the primitive manners and surroundings suggested in the English version. Rimenhild shares her single sleeping-room with her six maidens; Rimel has so many maids that these have private rooms, Rimel keeping by her only her one trusted maid. Rimenhild on her wedding day, has four maid attendants; Rimel, thirty. King Murry’s retinue consists of two knights, and the sons of the king of Westir appear to have been without retinue; in R. H. the two princes in their _mesnée privée_ have _vingt de gens ben escernée_. Even the seneschal of King Hunlaf has twenty knights in his retinue. Stimming further points out the feudalistic relations existing between Horn and his companions in R. H. (as well as in H. C.) of which one can hardly detect a trace in K. H. Further the author of the romance, quite in keeping with the conventions of contemporary romances, has introduced and elaborated descriptions of battles and of sports and tournaments on every possible occasion. In R. H. Horn is a _curteis_ knight, whose knightly honour forbids him to take oath.

Stimming further points out the difference in cultivation of manner as reflected in the love-making scenes of the two versions. When Athulf is introduced to Rimenhild’s bower, _Anon vpon Aþulf child Rymenhild gan wexe wild_, K. H. 295-6, she has him seat himself on her bed, embraces him, and offers herself as his bride. Rimel, on the other hand, who before Aþulf’s coming has carefully regarded the glass, _pur veer sa belted, Pur saver de su vis cum il est culured_, on his appearance, takes him by the hand, leads him to a seat, seats herself beside him, and then expresses the wish, “_Bels amis, dès ore voil estre mise en vostre justise_,” politely adding, “_si vostre plaisir est_.”

All this, Stimming concludes, is an unmistakable evidence of the later time of R. H.’s composition. Granting the truth of this conclusion, the difference of treatment in the two versions is also no doubt in part due to the difference in the public for which each version was intended, and also still more, perhaps, to the difference in function of the two works. It must be noted that K. H. is a popular ballad-like poem perhaps of the kind referred to in R. H., while the French R. H. is an artificial and conventionalized romance of prowess and love.

That the ballad-like version K. H., simple, even primitive in matter, in manner, and in metrical form, should have been derived from the sophisticated, artificial romance, R. H. deserves little consideration. On the other hand that the artificial romance should have been derived from the simple ballad-like story, incomplete in its record of details, is even more unworthy of consideration, though quite probably Thomas, the French romancer, may have been to some extent influenced by this English version, with which he was probably acquainted, as we may infer from the following passage:

_Mes un lai ai oi dunt ioe sai la meitie Si iol sousse tut, par ma crestiente En cest nostre pais nad taunt bone cite Ki tant me fust a main e á ma uolente Ke ainz ne la perdisse ke lousse ublie . . . . . . . . . . . . Mut en auez oi parler en cest regne E de lamur de horn ke ele od taunt ame . . . . . . . . . . . . Coe est ueir dist Guffer, Rigmel est mut loéé Bele soeur de beaute en meinte cuntréé E de horn ai oi meinte feiz renoméé Quil est pruz e uallanz e corteis sanz pounéé._

R. H. 2783-2801.

The French romance is no doubt constructed from an English story, as we may infer from the proper names, which in general seem to be Germanic in origin, from occasional English words, _e.g._ _welcumeȝ_ 800, _wite God_, _wrec_ 150, etc., from references to English such as, _Mes com apelent horn li engleis_, R. H. 4206, and especially from the general features of the story which seem to be Germanic. Further, “in the introduction to the French romance of Waldelf we are informed that the romance of Horn was taken from an English original” (T. Wright, Essays on Middle Ages, I, 102. London, 1846). The English gleeman’s version quite likely was composed directly from oral tradition, while the romance rests upon some version of the story, the “_parchemin_” so often referred to. This hypothetical version, judging from the identity of the story in its main outline with that in K. H., must be the version upon which R. H. rests also, or must rest upon the same tradition with K. H.

A third version of the story of Horn is the romance of Horn Childe and Maiden Rimnild, the only copy of which is the incomplete one contained in the famous collection of the Auchinleck MS. of the 14th century. (One leaf lost in the middle and one or two at the end.) Of this romance, which is composed in twelve-lined strophes, _rime couée_, there are preserved 1136 lines, that is to say, 96 strophes, not all complete. The story, very briefly summarized, is as follows:

Haþeolf, king of “_al Ingelond fram Humber norþ_,” has one son named Horn. To Horn Haþeolf gives eight companions and puts all under the instruction of Arlaund. Haþeolf annihilates a host of Danish invaders, but within nine months is again attacked, this time by three kings from Ireland, and after an heroic fight, in which he slays five thousand, is stoned to death, and “_an erle of Northumberland_” seizes the kingdom.