Part 2

Herlaund conducts the nine boys “_fer souþe in Inglond_,” where they are received by Houlac the king. The king’s only daughter, Rimneld, loves him and asks Herlaund to bring Horn to her bower. As in the other versions, Arlaund first brings Haþerof, but the second time brings Horn to Rimneld, and the princess gives Horn rich presents, and promises to be his if he shall be dubbed knight. But Wikard and Wikel, two of Horn’s companions, calumniate Horn and Rimneld to the king, and Horn is banished. After vain attempts at a reconciliation with the king, he takes leave of Rimneld, who gives him a ring with a magic stone:

“_When þe ston wexeþ wan Þan chaungeþ þe þought of þi leman When þe ston wexeþ rede Þan haue y lorn mi maidenhed._”

Horn takes the name of Godebounde, has heroic adventure in the forest, wins a great tournament in Wales, then crosses over to Ireland, and delivers king Finlawe (Finlak) from his enemy, Malkan, the one who had slain Horn’s father. Atula, Finlak’s daughter, loves Horn, but he remains true to Rimneld, notices that the stone in his ring has turned pale, and with a hundred knights, crosses over into England in time to save Rimneld from marrying King Moioun, overthrows Moioun in the tournament, slays Wigard and smites out the eye of the false Wiȝel, Wigard’s brother. Horn marries Rimneld, and, after five days of feasting, makes ready a force to go into _North-Humberland_ to win back his father’s kingdom. The single MS. ends abruptly at this point.

It will be seen that the main outline of the story as told in the other two versions, is here preserved, but with many modifications, with some omissions and some additions. The scene of action has shifted. We hear no more of the to us obscure names Suddenne and Westir; the whole action takes place in the British isles. The names of the persons, too, are greatly transformed, Horn and Rimneld, and possibly Moioun being about the only names common to all the versions. The whole introduction of the present version, dealing with the bravery and death of Haþeolf, Horn’s father, which forms about a quarter of this romance version as preserved to us, is entirely strange to K. H. and to R. H. Other features peculiar to H. C. are: Haþeolf’s instructions to the boy companions of Horn, to bear fealty to Horn, 137 ff.; the fine gifts and rich entertainment by Rimnild of Herlaund and Haderof and, later, of Horn, 330 ff., 377 ff.; the manner of the courtship, where Horn no longer plays the reluctant part, urging his poverty as an excuse, 373 ff.; the episode of the departure of Horn’s companions Tebeaud, Winwald, Garins and Aþelston for foreign lands, 445 ff. Wikel here does not accuse Horn of designs on the king’s life and kingdom, 486 ff. Horn remains at home from the hunting, not to visit Rimnild, but “_for blodeleteing, Al for a maladye_.” 485 ff. There is no Saracen invasion of Houlac’s kingdom. Horn tries to appease the king, 541 ff. The ring has a different function, 571 ff. The ring it is that prompts Horn’s return to Rimnild. Still other features peculiar to this edition are: the heroic adventure in the forest, 613 ff.; the tournament at the court of Elidan in Wales, 664 ff.; and the whole account of Horn’s experiences in Ireland, the occasion of his journey there, the character of the battle (in which Horn is wounded), and the absence of mention of king Finlak’s proposal to give his daughter and kingdom to Horn.

All these independent traits in H. C. lead us to conclude that this version must rest, directly or indirectly, on a tradition different from that underlying K. H. and R. H. That, as Stimming thinks probable, the writer “unmittelbar aus der sage selbst geschöpft” seems unlikely considering the highly sophisticated[I-7] nature and artificial form of this version, and the frequent remarks of the author, “_in boke as we rede_,” etc. More likely it rests directly on an earlier version of the story, which in its turn rests on a Northern tradition of the story. That such a Northern tradition existed we have evidence in the Scottish ballads of Hind Horn [Child’s (F. J.) English and Scottish Ballads. Boston, 1882-84], which while emphasizing only one element, the separation of the two lovers and their reunion through the agency of the magic ring, agree with the H. C. version rather than with that of K. H. and R. H.

What, then, is the relation of H. C. to K. H. and to R. H.? Wissmann says, apparently with truth: “Das Gedicht von Horn Childe hat von dem Gehalt des K. H. nichts bewahrt, was nicht auch R. H. hätte.” On the other hand H. C. has a number of important traits in common with R. H., for instance, the names: Herland (R. H.); Herlaund, Arlaund, Harlaund, Arlond, etc. (H. C.); Allof (R. H.); Haþeolf (H. C.); Wikel (R. H.); Wiȝel (H. C.); Haþerof (R. H.); Haderof (H. C.) and Hunlaf (R. H.); Houlac (H. C.); further, Haderof’s ignorance of Herland’s intention to palm him off as Horn, the love of the Irish princess for Horn, Horn’s meeting with Moioun (Moging) and Wikard, and his riddle of the net told here, the tournament and the contest between Horn and Moioun, Horn’s thanks to king Houlac (Hunlaf). From the considerable French element in the vocabulary of H. C., including frequent rime words, the French form Cornwayle riming with the French phrase _saun faile_, it is reasonable to suppose that the author was acquainted with French, and the general tone of the romance, the feudalism inculcated by King Haþeolf, 133 ff., the tournaments and the general air of luxury in addition to the above-mentioned striking traits in common with R. H., suggest almost inevitably that the author of H. C. must have been acquainted with, and influenced by, the French version.

The Scottish ballads of Hind Horn (cf. Child, as above, I, 187), as said above, emphasize only one element of the original story, namely, the separation of Horn and the princess, and their reunion through the agency of the magic ring. The story in Hind Horn agrees more closely (notably in the function of the ring, peculiar to the Northern versions) with H. C. than with R. H. or K. H., and seems to rest, along with H. C., on a northern version of the story.

The later French romance _Ponthus et la belle Sidoine_ is an adaptation of the French version (R. H.) of the Horn story. It is purely an artificial product based on R. H., and has little bearing on the origin and history of the version in hand. It is interesting in this connection as showing how possible it is to tell the same story with different names, the only name in common between R. H., and the adaptation being that of the steward Herlant. (Cf. English translation, King Ponthus and the Fair Sidone, edited by F. J. Mather, Publ. of the Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America, xii, 1-150.) The story of Ponthus also appears in a German _Volksbuch_ (cf. Simrock, I. 1 ff.).

[Footnote I-2: Brede (R.) und Stengel (E.). _Das agn. Lied vom wackern Ritter Horn._ Ausg. u. Abh. VIII. Marburg, 1883. Also Fr. Michel. For the Bannatyne Club, 1845.]

[Footnote I-3: Wissmann (Th.), Quell. u. Forsch. XVI. Strassburg, 1876.]

[Footnote I-4: For complete list of traits peculiar to R. H. cf. J. Caro, in Eng. Stud. xii, 331-2.]

[Footnote I-5: Cf. the relation of the English version of Fl. and Bl. to the French original.]

[Footnote I-6: Cf. Stimming. Review of Wissmann’s ed. of K. H. Engl. Stud. i, 357 ff.]

[Footnote I-7: The author of H. C. endeavours to be realistic. There are no more vague terms, like _Sarazins_, etc. Further, there is a parallelism with the story of Harold, suggesting that this version has been influenced by historical events.]

§ 3. ELEMENTS OF THE STORY.

The story of Horn, it is generally believed, had its origin in the turbulent times of the Danish invasions, but the kernel of genuine historical tradition is probably small. How the different elements in such a story aggregate, we can plainly see in the case of the _Hereward_: “The writer of the life of Hereward,” according to Wright, “had, among other sources of information, the work of the presbyter, Leofric, Hereward’s archdeacon. This Leofric, he tells us, occupied himself in collecting for the edification of his hearers, all the acts of the giants and warriors from the fables of the ancients, or, in the instance of more modern heroes, from the trustworthy relations of those who had known them, and in writing them in English that they might be preserved in people’s memories.” In this way grew the _Hereward_ story, and in a similar manner, we may suppose, that the story of Horn attracted to itself many new and foreign elements, receiving its development and final form probably at the hands of the _jongleurs_, or gleemen, whom we are to think of as wandering widely and gathering romantic material from the most remote regions.

In another place (Publ. of the Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America, xv. 221-232) I have attempted to point out some of the ‘Germanic elements’ in the story. It seems possible to distinguish two essential elements in the story: (1) Horn’s expulsion from his kingdom and his return and avengement of his father’s death; (2) the separation and reunion of the faithful lovers. Of these elements the first seems to be especially Germanic. At least historic incidents which might supply the nucleus for such a tale were particularly common in connection with the continual wars between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and also with the invasions of England, Danish and Norman. (Cf. the death of Beaduheard. Eng. Chron. (Winch.) a. 787, also the death of Aethelwulf at hands of Danes, avenged by his brother Aethelstan. Gaimar, 2391 ff.) The second element also may have been of Germanic origin, though it has become greatly conventionalized and has come to be the more prominent element in the story. The minor features of the story, though often purely conventional, and, therefore, belonging to no distinct nationality, at times show Germanic traits, as for instance in the _comitatus_ relation existing between Horn and his followers, in the manner of wooing and of wedding, in the etiquette of the feasts, in the etiquette of the duel, and in the formal challenge on the part of a champion of an invading host, to a duel upon the result of which shall depend the marriage of a princess or the fate of a kingdom (cf. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Publ., as above, pp. 228-231).

The story as it is preserved in K. H., the earliest of existing versions, is no doubt a greatly expanded form of the original nucleus. The timely rescue of the princess from a forced marriage, which in the Scottish ballad has been preserved at the expense of the complete loss of the other element, the recovery of the kingdom and the avengement of the father’s death, even in the earlier K. H. version has come quite to overshadow the recovery and revenge element. It seems very probable also that there has been a duplication of the rescue scene, due either to the desire of the _jongleur_, or minstrel, to repeat a successful climax, or to a blending of two versions of the same story, a not at all uncommon feature in such romances,[I-8] and that the second rescue scene, with its more archaic and more particularly Germanic features, represents the sole turning-point in an earlier and simpler version, the first and more conventional rescue scene being an expansion contributed by a later composer. All this, which rests largely on conjecture, would assume for the nucleus of the story a relatively simple incident in which there are involved only two places, the kingdom from which the prince is expelled and which he regains, and the kingdom where he finds refuge.

[Footnote I-8: Cf. the seeming duplication of names, Rymenhild, Reymyld etc.; Reynild, Ermenyld, etc., all of which may have come from an original Eormenhild (cf. OE. Leechdoms), the variants being due to metathesis as in OE. _yrnan_ : _rinnan_. Cf. also the explanation of Westernesse below, p. xx.]

§ 4. TOPOGRAPHY.

The topography of the Horn story offers some difficult but interesting problems. In the northern version (H. C.) all is made relatively clear. The author of this version assigns the events to very definite places. Horn’s father is king of “_al Ingelond fram Humber norþ_.” He repels a Danish invasion on the east coast, and is slain by invaders from Ireland. Horn and his companions take refuge “_fer souþe in Inglond_.” Thence Horn goes in exile to Wales and later into Ireland. The Norman _trouvère_, also, clarifies matters somewhat by assigning definite names to two of the three kingdoms involved, Bretaigne and Westir (_Ki ore est Hirlonde lors westir fu apelee_, 2184, H). But both the Norman and the older English versions have consistently the perplexing name Sudenne (Sodenne); and the earlier English version has also the vague name Westernesse (Westnesse), leaving as a certain starting-point in our study of the topography only Yrlonde, also referred to as _westene lond_ (754 H).

From internal evidence in King Horn we learn little that is definite about the situation of Suddenne. In drifting from Suddenne to Westernesse, Horn and his companions spend “_Al þe day and al þe niȝt, Til hit sprang dai liȝt_,” K. H. 122-3; and again we are told of the same voyage “_Dai hit is igon and oþer, Wiþute sail and roþer_,” 187-8. On the return voyage to Suddenne, _Biþinne daies fiue, þat schup gan ariue_, 1295-6. On hearing of Fikenhild’s second treachery Horn exclaims, “_Crist for his wundes fiue, To niȝt me þuder driue_,” 1423-4, and then, _Er þan horn hit wiste, To fore þe sunne vpriste, His schup stod vndur ture At Rymenhilde bure_, 1435-39. From all which we can only conclude that ideas of direction and distance are very vague in the mind of the English composer.

In regard to the kingdom of Suddenne, some have thought that the name must be connected with _Suðdene_ mentioned in Beowulf, which would make Suddenne refer to some place in northern Europe, possibly in Denmark. (Parallelism with the _Havelok_ would also support this opinion.) But neither the proper names of the story, nor the phonology of the word Suddenne itself, support this view. Ward[I-9] suggests that the name is a mere vague poetical designation, and brings together historical facts and internal evidence in the attempt to determine the definite place. He cites the name Hornesbeorh on the Isle of Purbeck, Dorsetshire, calls attention to the phrase in King Horn, “_y come into þis yle_,” referring to the Sarazin incursion in which Horn’s father was killed, and from the fact that “it was upon Dorsetshire that a descent of the Northmen took place, which was the first recorded appearance in Wessex, and which evidently made a great impression upon the people,” concludes that “Dorsetshire has a very fair claim to be considered the birthplace of the Horn legend.”

One is loath, however, to let go the only thread that seems to lead to an explanation of the name Suddenne itself. Francisque Michel was the first to point out that in the Brit. Mus. text of Gaimar’s _L’estorie des Engleis_, one reads that “_Edelbrit fu feit reis de Kent E de Sudeine ensement_,” vv. 955-6. In spite of the fact that the other three versions have; one, Surrie, the other two Suthreie, one is tempted to cling to this clew, and the fact that in the same manuscript later, Gaimar, in referring to the same political division says,[I-10] “_Puis regnat son fiȝ, E Adelstán, un rei gentils, Li uns out Westsexe, e laltre Kent, Suthdreie, e Suthsexe ensement_, vv. 2388-91, gives ground for the supposition that Sudeine[I-11] may refer collectively to Surrey and Sussex. In that case the coast of Sussex was probably the scene of the first act in the Horn drama.

Whichever of these views is the true one, we may be reasonably certain that the Suddenne in the mind of the composer of K. H. lay on the south coast of England. Knowing this, we may perhaps determine, at least approximately, the situation of Westernesse. In the Harleian and Laud MSS., the messenger sent to seek Horn, says, _Ich seche from Westnesse horn knight of estnesse_,” which indicates that the composer conceives Westernesse to be west of Suddenne. Further it is very certain, as Ward (as above, p. 449) points out, that an early version of the Horn story has supplied several of the incidents of the _Hereward_. The influence of the story of Horn on the _Hereward_ is particularly obvious in chapters 4-6, where Hereward gets into trouble at the court of a king of Cornwall named Alef, by killing a champion who had claimed the princess in marriage; Hereward is imprisoned, but is released by the princess, who sends him to her chosen lover, the son of a king of Ireland; a letter subsequently reaches him, saying that she is about to be forced into marriage with another Irish prince. Hereward reaches Cornwall again, visits the bridal feast in disguise, and is presented with the cup by the princess. “This,” as Ward remarks, “is certainly some evidence that the Westnesse or Westernesse of our poem may be taken to signify Cornwall. The name, Aylmar (_i.e._ Athelmar), also does not oppose this view. The name was a very common one in South England, and was borne by two of the Aldermen of Devonshire, who seem to have had some authority over Cornwall also, one about 930, another in the early part of the 11th century, and both bearing the epithet ‘Ailmer the Great.’”

Another possible explanation of Westernesse may be suggested. The duplication of names and incidents in Westernesse and Ireland has been referred to above. The _-er_ suffix of Westernesse certainly suggests the _-r_ termination in Westir (the name in R. H.), which is probably a Norse name for Ireland (cf. the other Norse names in Ireland: Thurston, Regnild, = Norse Ragnhilda, and Harild. Cf. also R. H. 2184 H, quoted above, p. xviii), and it is not at all impossible to conceive that in the original, simpler form of the story, there were but two scenes to this drama, and that Westernesse of the English version, and Westir of the Norman version, alike refer to Ireland, only that on account of the amplification of the story, one came to think of Aylmar’s kingdom as in England, and added a _-nesse_ to the Norse form Westir (Vestr) so as to make the term fit a promontory on the western end of the south coast of England, in Devonshire or in Cornwall.

[Footnote I-9: Ward (H. L. W.), Catalogue of Romances in the British Museum, I, 450.]

[Footnote I-10: Aethelwulf was King of Kent, Surrey and Sussex (Gaimar, 2391. Cf. also 2476, 2480-82). Aethelstan had Wessex, for see 2480-82. Aethelwulf was defeated by the Danes (2440-46), and was avenged by his brother Aethelstan, who defeated the Danes (2480-83).]

[Footnote I-11: All three MSS. of K. H. say of Horn’s father, “_king he wes by weste_,” perhaps referring to this western division of the eastern kingdom. Asser visits Alfred at the latter’s royal ‘vill’ which is called Denne. East Dene (or Dean) and West Dene are two villages near Chichester. There are also two villages of the same name near Eastbourne.]

§ 5. STYLE.

As we have seen, the story of Horn belongs to a second growth of English story. The manner of expression, and the general movement of the story are quite different from those peculiar to Anglo-Saxon poetry, lacking almost entirely the parallelism,--the appositional construction and the heaped-up epithets, or _kennings_ of the earlier stories. With the large French element in the vocabulary, there seems to have been introduced a manner of expression more like the French than like the earlier English. The movement is direct, and the imagery very simple and popular. Cf. _He was briȝt so þe glas. He was whit so þe flur, Rose red was his colur_, 14-16, _Also blak so eny cole_, 624. _Also he sprunge of stone_, 1102, etc. In this respect King Horn is less closely linked with the past than is Layamon’s Brut, which was composed in the West Midlands, where the OE. traditions in poetry persisted the longest. The Brut, while presenting many of the modern features of manner and of phrase, still preserves much of the manner of the past. There are in King Horn a number of the conventionalized phrases, to be found also in Layamon (cf. Notes to vv. 11, 67, 69, etc.), but the number of such instances is much smaller than one would have expected, and if Layamon’s West Midland work represents an earlier stage than King Horn in the development from the Anglo-Saxon manner of writing, the composer of Horn has certainly been subjected to many new and modernizing influences.

The very element in common between Layamon and King Horn is, perhaps, the new, the modern phraseology more often than the old phraseology rooted in the past. While, then, there are but few traces of the older English poetic phraseology, there is much in common between King Horn and the romances of the 13th and 14th centuries. The language in King Horn seems to be already again crystallizing into new conventional forms. In spite of the different demands of the metre of Horn from those of the later, more regular, forms of versification, there are a very great number of stereotyped phrases common to King Horn and to the contemporary and succeeding romances composed in the other metre. I have brought together in the Notes a number of instances of this agreement in phraseology. The minor elements, also, are often rather mediæval than Anglo-Saxon, and the customs described, the princess’s manner of receiving visitors, the manner of salutation in meeting and in parting, etc., if truly representing the manners of the time of the composition of King Horn, soon became conventionalized and common to the whole body of Middle English romance. (Cf. Notes to vv. 315, 319, 321, 403, 537, 739, etc.) In these respects the composer of K. H. no doubt at times follows the conventional mode of composition of his time, but he is probably also at times an innovator, for several scenes in Horn seem to have been prototypes directly imitated in later romances in the _Ipomydon_ and in the _Richard Coeur de Lion_. (Cf. Notes to 239 ff., 264.)

On the whole, then, we see that the language of King Horn is much less influenced, than one would expect, by older English models. The language of the second growth of story seems to have fallen into new conventional moulds quite independent of the older tradition.

§ 6. VERSIFICATION.

As we have seen, the phraseology of King Horn shows relatively little trace of influence by the older English traditional stereotyped forms of expression. In this respect if Layamon is the link connecting native English poetry with the past, King Horn is the link joining to the newer traditions of poetry, which were forming. For, as we have seen, if King Horn has some phrases in common with Layamon, these are the modern forms of expression more often than the phrases rooted in the older English tradition. And, as we have seen, while King Horn has relatively little of phraseology inherited from the past, it has a multitude of stereotyped phrases in common with the poetry of contemporary and later composition (cf. Notes). In the same way in versification, if Layamon is the link connecting with the Anglo-Saxon mode of versification, King Horn is the link connecting with the newer mode, of Romance or mediæval Latin origin.