Part 3

The exact theory of the versification of King Horn remains yet to be established. Luick in his article in Paul’s Grundriss offers the very ingenious hypothesis that in the ‘beginnings of English as well as of German rimed verse, we have before us the coming to light again of the primitive Teutonic measured song verse.’ This hypothesis, though ingenious and plausible, does not admit of verification, and it is perhaps safer to adhere to the view of Schipper (Grundriss der englischen Metrik), who sees in Layamon’s verse the direct traditional descendants of the OE. types, and in King Horn a further development of the versification of Layamon.

We see then, probably, in the versification of King Horn a transitional stage in the development of native English metre, connecting, as we have seen, more closely with the future than with the past. It was probably the occurrence in each verse of two syllables marked from the other syllables by a stronger stress, that gave rise to a feeling of uniformity in rhythm. This tendency toward uniformity in rhythm was fostered by the regular introduction of rime, for since the riming syllable naturally bore one of the two verse accents, and since the riming syllables in two riming verses would occupy the same relative position, hence in a riming verse the second of the two verse accents must balance with that in the other verse of the pair, and the balance established between the second pair of accents would naturally lead to a complete balance between the two verses. In other words the two verses would be levelled to the same rhythm.

The regular introduction of rime was, no doubt, attended by the gradual loss of alliteration, which would cease to be significant as marking the verse accent, since it could hardly be made to fall regularly on the same syllable with the rime, and would hence be merely an unorganic adornment of the verse. As the position of the two verse accents came to be a fixed one, there seems to have been a tendency by raising some of the syllables bearing merely a logical stress, to rhythmic importance, thus to bring about a verse with regular measure.

The most natural products of this development are the two types: (1) with three accents and feminine rime, the natural product of the OE. A, D, and C metrical types, (2) with four accents and masculine rime, the natural product of the OE. B and E types. These forms of verse were very similar, as Schipper has pointed out (as above, § 39), to two popular Romance forms of verse--namely: the first form, three accents with feminine ending, to the half verses of the Alexandrine; and the second form, four accents with masculine ending, to the verses of the short riming couplets and to the first member of the septenar. The development toward regular measure, which had its origin as explained above, was furthered by the influence of the Romance and Mediæval Latin forms of verse. In certain ME. poems, notably the _Bestiary_, there are to be found verses constructed regularly after Romance or Mediæval Latin models along with native forms in all the stages of development:

1. His muð is yet wel unkuð Wið _pater noster_ and crede; Faren he norð, er fare he suð Leren he sal his nede. vv. 112-15.

2. Ðe mire muneð us Mete to tilen, Longe liuenoðe, ðis little wile. vv. 273-6. Ðe leun stant on hille And he man hunten here. vv. 1-2.

The native forms must have been influenced by this close association with foreign forms.

To these conditions and to this course of development we must probably attribute the origin of the versification in King Horn. The rime has become a regular and essential element, the alliteration, a rare and unessential element in the verse. The forms mark a transitional stage in development, but are more closely related to the new than to the old. There has been a half-hearted attempt to introduce regularity of measure, but the rhythm of the OE. types has still influenced the ear of the composer. The most frequent verse form is the one with three accents and feminine rime, about 1300 verses (Schipper). This is developed from the OE. through a stronger accent on one of the original theses; e.g., _king he was biweste so longe so hit laste_, vv. 5, 6 C, where the measure has been developed from the OE. #A.# type through stronger stress on _was_ and _so_ respectively. Sometimes the original OE. #A.# type is preserved; e.g., _Hi slóȝen and fúȝten þe níȝt and þe úȝten_, 1473-4 C. But that this was not considered normal is shown by the fact that the other two texts, #L# and #H#, have made these two verses quoted, fit into the new normal form, by adding a new syllable in each verse, so that we have in MS. L, _He smýten ánd he foúten þe nýȝt and éke þe oúȝten_, vv. 1473-4 L. Cf. also H. The next most frequent type is the one with four accents and masculine rime; e.g., _Here sone hauede to name horn; Feyrer child ne micte ben born_, 9, 10 L. Less frequent types are; that with three accents and masculine ending, e.g., _þu art gret and strong, Fair and euene long_, 99-100 C; and that with four accents and feminine rime, e.g., _To deþe he hem alle broȝte, His fader deþ wel dere hi boȝte_, 951-2 C (but cf. #L# and #H#, which have more normal forms).

While nearly all the verses may be made to fit into one of the types mentioned above, there are some which do not fit naturally into any one of the new types, but which seems rather to be a stereotyped form handed down from OE. tradition; e.g., _Bi þe se side_ (OE. #C# type) 35, _of alle wymmanne_ (OE. C type) 71, _Wringinde here honde_ (OE. E type) 118, _Bi þe se brinke_ 151, _In to a galeie_ 199, _He was þe faireste_ 187 C. (OE. #C# types). (Cf. L which tries to make this verse fit better into the new versification, _For þat he was fayrest_), _We ben of sodenne_ 189 L, _Of Cristene blode_ (OE. type E) 191 C. _And þi fairnesse_ 227 C. _þoru out westnesse_ 228 L (MS. C adapts the verse by changing the _westnesse_ of L. H. to _West{er}nesse_).

Compound proper names seem to have been a source of confusion. Should both[I-12] elements of the name receive stress, primary and secondary, as in OE., or should only one? Notice the struggles of the scribes with verse 169: _Hy metten wiþ almair king_ C, _Metten he with aylmer king_ L, _metten hue Eylmer, þe kyng_ H. Also 257. _Ailbrus gan lere_ C, _And aylbrous gan leren_ L, _Aþelbrus gon leren_ H. On the whole the scribes have been fairly successful in making the native material fit into the new forms, but not unfrequently may be detected traces of the rhythm of the native OE. types, especially of the C type.

[Footnote I-12: The rimes throughout indicate that the second syllables in compound words and the more important suffixes still bore an accent. Cf. 169-70, 199-200, 209-10, 219-20, 1353-4, etc.]

§ 7. DIALECT.

In what dialect King Horn was originally composed, it is not easy to determine. This is a particularly difficult matter because the real pronunciation is disguised behind a great diversity of written forms. Under the circumstances the only safe guide is to be found in the rimes. Even these are very unsatisfactory since they are too few to permit any safe generalizations. For instance, it is impossible to apply satisfactorily Prof. Hempl’s -wǭ-, -wō- test (cf. _Journ. of Germ. Phil._ I, pp. 14-30). In a similar way it is impossible to apply Pogatscher’s ingenious test by means of the shortened product of WG. _ā_, WS. _ǣ_ (cf. _Anglia_, xxiii, pp. 301 ff.) because of want of rime material. Another difficulty in using the rime-test is the double pronunciation indicated, notably in the case of WS. -eald-, éa- as the result of contraction (_e.g._ WS. _sléan_), and of words with initial palatal ȝ- (_e.g._, WS. _geong_). Cf. examples below.

From a consideration of the phonology of the poem Wissmann concludes (King Horn, Untersuchungen, Strassburg, 1876, p. 33) that, “Im Allgemeinen ist der Charakter des Vocalismus ein südöstlicher, der jedoch von dem kentischen in vielen Punkten sich unterscheidet. Die grösste Wahrscheinlichkeit hat Essex als Gegend der Entstehung für sich.” A further investigation reveals to me no reason for dissenting from this view. Some of the more prominent features of the phonology are as follows:

In all of the three MSS. the sign _æ_ has been disused. In its place occurs, now _a_, now _e_, so that the indication of pronunciation is often ambiguous. That the letter _a_ sometimes denotes the _æ_ sound seems certain (cf. Wissmann, Untersuchungen, as above, p. 10). The original pure #ă#, as in some districts of America, had nearly disappeared, or been lengthened, or become _o_ or part of a diphthong. The letter _a_ was thus left free to denote the _æ_ sound, though sometimes assisted in this function by the letter _e_.

OE. _æ̆_ and OE. _ǣ_ (_ē_) shortened.

In the North and the Midland, OE. _æ̆_ and _ǣ_ (umlaut of WG. _ai_) shortened, appear as _a_, OE. (WS.) _ǣ_ (= WG. _ā_) shortened usually as _e_. In the West-Southern and Middle-Southern, (1) early writings have _e_ (_æ_, _ea_), (2) later writings have _a_. In Kentish and East-Southern the prevailing vowel is _e_. (Cf. Morsbach, §§ 96-105.)

In K. H. OE. _æ̆_ appears (1) in C usually as _a_ (one exception _bed_ 536), (2) in H as _e_, e.g., _sumwet_ : _net_ 725-6, (3) in L as _a_ or _e_. OE. _ǣ_ (i-umlaut) shortened seems to have been written the same. Cf. 5-6, 653-4, 1249-50, with some variations from the rule in 21-2, 553-4, 1305-6, 701-2 C H. The pronunciation of this shortened OE. _ǣ_ (_i_-umlaut) seems to have been _e_. Cf. _geste_ : _feste_ 553-4, 1305-6, _biweste_ : _laste_ 5-6. Apparent evidence to the contrary are _haste_ : _laste_ 653-4 C L (but _beste_ : _leste_ H), and _icaste_ : _ilaste_ 701-2 C H (but _keste_ L), _hadde_ : _ladde_ 21-2, _hadde_ : _dradde_ 1249-50 C L, but _hedde_ : _dredde_ 1249-50 H.

Note 1. OE. (WS.) _ǣ_ must have had a close pronunciation (_ẹ̄_) if we may judge from the rimes; _here_ : _lere_ 241-2, _lede_ : _ȝede_ 309-10 C, _ete_ : _suete_ 1349-50, _lere_ : _yfere_ 257-8, _swete_ : _forlete_ 231-2, _seche_ : _speche_ 183-4, 483-4, etc. Or perhaps we must conclude that _ẹ̄_ close and _ę̄_ open were not carefully distinguished in rime, for cf. _stede_ : _drede_ 273-4 C, and Note 2.

Note 2. OE. _a_ when lengthened in open syllables seems to have had an open _ę̄_ sound. Cf. _makede_ : _verade_ 179-80, _þere_ : _fare_ 497-8 L H, _speke_ : _take_ 567-8, _þere_ : _aylmere_ 537-8 L, C H, 1613-14, _ȝate_ : _late_ 1123-4 C, 1593-4 C, _brake_ : _gate_ 1157-8 C, _lede_ : _made_ 1501-2 L H, _slape_ : _rape_ 1531-2 C. Cf. also the _ai_ : _ei_ rimes. L and H write _ai_, _ay_, _ei_, and _ey_ without distinction. Cf. 1087-8 L, 1361-2 C, 1399-1400, etc.

Note 3. Pogatscher’s ingenious test (_Anglia_, xxiii, 301 ff.) can not be applied here, because, so far as I can see, there are no instances of rimes with shortened OE. _ǣ_ (WG. _ā_). This _ǣ_ with original length occurs in rime, now with _a_ lengthened in open syllable (cf. Note 2, above), now with _ē_. Cf. _seche_ : _speche_ 183-4, _swete_ : _forlete_ 231-2, etc.

On the whole, then, we may conclude that it is possible to assume for K. H. the East-Southern product _e_, but that if we do so we must also assume either inaccuracy in the rimes or a mixed dialect.

WS. _ea_ before _l_ + consonant is written, sometimes _eld_, sometimes _old_. It seems also to have had a double pronunciation. Both pronunciations are supported by rimes. Such rimes as _welde_ : _ȝelde_ 513-14 C H, _felde_ : _welde_ 451-2 H, _bihelde_ : _felde_ 901-2, support one pronunciation based on the OE. (WS.) breaking _ea_ before _l_ + cons., while _Admirad_ : _bald_ C, _amyraud_ : _baud_ L, _Admyrold_ : _bold_ H 95-6, seem to testify to the unbroken sound in OE. lengthened before _-ld_ to _ā_ and then opened to _ǭ_. For other instances with varying spelling cf. 17-18, 323-4, 397-8, 639-40, 1499-1500. In v. 497 the L reading _talede_ seems to represent the OE. broken form as opposed to the unbroken form _tolde_ in #C# and #H#.

OE. _ĕ_. There are many instances of _e_ : _i_ rimes. But it is seemingly impossible to determine thereby much concerning the dialect. (Cf. Morsb. §§ 109, 114, N. 1.) For examples of this rime, cf. _wïlle_ : _telle_ 383-4, 1015-16 C; _stille_ : _duelle_ 393-4 C; _þikke_ : _nekke_ 1327-8; _snelle_ : _wille_ 1581-2 C, etc.

The form _sigge_ seems to belong especially to the South-East. (Morsb. 114, N. 1, 109, N. 4, also Wissman, King Horn, p. xiv.) Cf. K. H. vv. 1367-8, _ligge_ : _wiþsegge_ C, _ligge_ : _sigge_ L; _lygge_ : _wiþsugge_ H.

OE. _ȳ̆_, umlaut of _ū̆_ offers many difficulties. It is represented in writing by _y_, _i_, _u_, _e_. The rimes show the prevailing sound to have been _e_; e.g., _Suddenne_ : _kenne_ 155-6, 923-4, _pelle_ : _fulle_ 421-2, _leste_ : _beste_ 505-6, also 617-18, 671-2, 647-8, 703-4, 917-18, 919-20 L, 805-6, 795-6, 1479-80, 1637-8, 1341-2, 1367-8, etc. But cf. _y_ : _i_ in _kesse_ : _ywisse_ 461-2 C H, _liȝte_ : _driȝte_ 1405-6 C. That _y_ : _i_ rimes should occur, might be expected in view of the vague distinction between _e_ and _i_ as shown by the _e_ : _i_ rimes, but the number of _y_ : _e_ rimes attests to a pronunciation _e_. This is the strongest available evidence that K. H. was composed in the south-eastern district.

That the dialect of King Horn is a mixed dialect is supported by the treatment of _æ_ above, by the double pronunciation of WS. _-eald_, and by further double pronunciations. OE. (WS.) _slēan_, _flēan_ seem to have had double pronunciations. The _ō_ pronunciation is attested to by the rime, _slon_ : _vpon_ C, _slon_ : _on_ L H, 47-8. The OE. _e͞a_ is rendered probable by the written forms, _sle_ : _fle_ 1467-8 C, etc. Other double pronunciations are _ȝonge_ : _ispronge_ 579-80, and more frequently the _i_ rime _ȝonge_ : _bringe_ 295-6, _ringe_ : _ȝonge_ 599-600.

Prof. Hempl’s _-wǭ-_, _-wō-_ test does not yield very definite results in this text, but seems to indicate a southern dialect. Cf. _two_ : _þo_ 53-4 C, 37-8 L H, _go_ : _also_ 103-4, 107-8 L H, _wo_ : _þo_ 121-2, 279-80. But cf. _wo_ : _do_ 291-2. This might perhaps be cited as another evidence of mixed dialect.

For consonants we have no definite rime tests, and consequently can learn concerning them little more than the scribal preferences. In all three texts, however, the southern forms are the favoured ones; e.g. _ȝeue_, _ȝate_. Here again, however, we have double forms; e.g. _wurche_ : _chirche_ 1481-2, but _werke_ : _derke_ 1547-8 C H; _yliche_ : _riche_ 19, 20, 357-8; _ilike_ : _biswike_ 305-6, though, perhaps, we are to seek the explanation of these double forms in difference of vowel-ending rather than in difference of dialect.

From the inflections as from the consonants we can gain no very exact information, and for the same reason. The evidence, however, such as it is, points in the same direction, toward the south. The regular endings of the present indicative seem to be _-e_, _-est_, _-eþ_ for the singular and _-eþ_ for the plural. The forms are not numerous on account of the infrequent use of the present tense. There are some departures from these normal endings. _ben_ occurs occasionally in the plural of the verb ‘be’; _e.g._ 882 L, 1643 C L, 177 H. Other traces of the Midland ending _-en_ are to be seen, _wilen_ 2 L, 7 H, etc. Such forms as _þou seydes_ 588 L, _þou biginnes_ 608 L, _wepes þou_ 696 L, are probably to be explained as mistakes of the scribe of this MS., who frequently leaves off a final consonant.

The conservative forms of the past participle, preserving the old prefix as _i-_ or _y-_, also indicate a southern dialect for the scribes at least.

The personal pronouns preserve the conservative southern forms, rare exceptions being _sche_ 380 L, in place of the normal _he_, and _þei_ 1557 C, _þe_ 55 L, for the normal _hi_.

From what has been said above, it seems fairly certain that the original dialect was a southern one, and probably a south-eastern one. There are, however, some features which distinguish the dialect of Horn from the Kentish. (Cf. Morsbach, § 9, b.) For instance, I may cite the history of the breaking _ea_ before _r_ + cons. In K. H. this is usually written _a_. (Cf. 481-2, 751-2, 1147-8.) But in case of lengthening before _-rn_, we see that the OE. broken _ea_ pronunciation must have been the basis; e.g., _werne_ : _berne_ C L, _werne_ : _berne_ H, 753-4, 985-6, 749-50 L, 1513-14 H, _erne_ : _werne_ 937-8 H. The combinations _ē̆o_, _ī̆o_, _ēa_ are very regularly monophthonged, not preserving any of the Kentish diversity of form.

The time of composition must have been fairly late, as we must infer from the number of French words even in the rimes. That K. H. was composed later than the beginning of the 13th century, we may conclude from the fact that OE. _ā_ has been regularly converted into _-ǭ-_. Cf. _drof_ : _of_ 129-30, _forsoke_ : _loke_ 799-800, etc. That it was composed in the second half of the century seems certain from the regularity of the conversion of _ā_ to _ǭ-_, and further from the lengthening of short vowels in open syllables. Of this latter phenomenon we have very few certain instances. Such rimes, however, as _þere_ : _fare_ 497-8 L H and _stede_ : _drede_ 273-4 C, seem to be certain enough. (Cf. also 179-80, 537-8, 567-8, 1123-4 C, 1157-8 C, 1501-2 L H, 1531-2 C, 1613-14.)

§ 8. MANUSCRIPTS.

The English story of King Horn is preserved in three MSS.

1. The Cambridge University MS. Gg. 4. 27, 2, which forms the nucleus of the present volume, is merely a fragment of fourteen folios. It contains on its first folios the latter part of the story of Floris and Blauncheflur, which is printed in the present volume. This is followed by King Horn entire, which is followed by the fragment, printed in this volume, of the Assumption.

The Cambridge MS. is written in a very plain book-hand, apparently of the latter half of the 13th century. The folios are written in double columns, and occasionally, since the lines are short, two lines are joined in one. The initial letters are written a little apart from the rest, and are marked with strokes of red.

This text of King Horn is the one printed by Lumby in the first edition of the present volume.

2. Laud Misc. MS. 108 is well known because containing one of the earliest collections of legends. It contains sixty-one legends (the Southern Cycle) followed by three religious poems, these in turn followed by the romances of Havelok and Horn, and these followed by three further legends, in a later hand of the 15th century.

The MS. is written in double columns on parchment, and probably dates back to 1325. The texts of Horn and Havelok are written in a fine book-hand. The lives that are appended are written in a later, much less formal hand.

[For full description of the MS. and its contents, see C. Horstmann, Altenglische Legenden, pp. x-xii, Paderborn, 1875.]

This text of King Horn is printed by C. Horstmann in Herrig’s Archiv, 1872, pp. 39-58.

3. Harleian MS. 2253 is well known to all connoisseurs of early lyric poetry. It seems to be the collection of a genuine lover of poetry. In the words of the Brit. Mus. Catalogue it is, “A parchment book in small folio, written by several hands, upon several subjects; partly in old French, partly in Latin, and partly in old English; partly in prose, partly in verse.” The lyrical poems have been reprinted by T. Wright (Specimens of Lyric Poetry, Percy Society, London, 1842), who believes that the collection had its origin in the Abbey of Leominster in Herefordshire. The English poems have also been published by Dr. K. Böddeker (Altenglische Dichtungen des MS. Harl. 2253. Berlin, 1878).

The MS. is written in an informal, but legible hand, probably of the early 14th century. The writer of the text of King Horn seems to have been acquainted with the French version of the story, as we must infer from his substitution of Allof (R. H. aaluf) for Murry. The word _geste_ in the heading, and the French orthography throughout, together with occasional forms as _enimis_ 1024 H, nom. sing. of enemy (cf. Note), 659 H, _maister_ gen. sing., 123 L, Horns, nom. sing. go along with the evidence of the French associations of the MS., to make us believe that the scribe was an Anglo-Norman.

This text of King Horn has been printed by J. Ritson (Anc. Engl. Metr. Rom., London, 1882, II, pp. 91-155).

We thus see that for the preservation of King Horn we are indebted to (1) a fragment of a collection of stories, (2) a southern collection of legends, to which have been appended Havelok and Horn, (3) a genuine literary collection probably made in Herefordshire by an Anglo-Norman.

Of these MSS. no one is derived from either of the others. To indicate their interrelations, I will borrow the diagram of Wissmann expressing the result of his studies in this matter. (Cf. Wissmann, King Horn, p. v, Strassburg, 1881.)

FLORIS AND BLAUNCHEFLUR.

§ 1. _Introductory_, p. xxx. § 2. _History_, p. xxx. § 3. _English Version_, p. xxxvii. § 4. _Dialect_, p. xxxix. § 5. _Date of Composition_, p. xli. § 6. _Versification_, p. xlii. § 7. _Manuscripts_, p. xlii.

§ 1. INTRODUCTORY.

If in King Horn we have a story Germanic in descent, and betraying everywhere traces of its Germanic origin, in Floris and Blauncheflur we have a romance of extraneous, probably ultimately of oriental origin, and the contrast is in many ways interesting and instructive. The love element, which in King Horn plays so large a part, in Fl. and Bl. is the all in all. This story of all-absorbing passion, which in spite of seemingly insurmountable obstacles and desperate perils, in the end reunites the devoted lovers, was one of the most popular during the Middle Ages, and one of the earliest to be imported from the East. The history of the tale vies in interest with the story itself. The story in a perplexing variety of versions spread over all the countries of Christendom, as we shall see later. It seems to be the basis of the charming _chantefable_, Aucassin and Nicolete, which Andrew Lang and Walter Pater have made so well known to the modern world. The English version, which unfortunately is incomplete at the beginning in each one of the four manuscripts in which it has been written down, was probably derived directly from one of the French versions, as we shall see.

§ 2. HISTORY.

_(a) Origin._

The story of Floris and Blauncheflur is probably an oriental product, and shows many traces of Byzantine influence. It was one of the first of these oriental tales to be retailed in the Occident and had a wide circulation in all the countries of western Christendom, from Spain and Italy to the Scandinavian North. Its route from East to West it is not easy to trace with certainty, though the Crusades were quite probably the means of its importation. Further than this it is not easy to determine. The Provençals, whose active part in the Crusades is well known, may have been the agents, or, as is so often the case with the oriental tales, it may have been imported in a Latin dress.