Part 5

To sum up, the English version is a free, somewhat condensed, translation from the French I. version. The translator has introduced almost no new traits, and the extent of the condensation may be judged by considering the 1296 verses of the English as compared with the 2974 verses in the French I. version. The manner of the condensation has been indicated. But with all the condensation, especially in the descriptive passages, it is important to note that in the essential features of the story, the translator follows his original faithfully, so that the main outline of the story is preserved as accurately in English as in French.

[Footnote I-20: This same consideration, as we have seen, probably explains _in part_ the difference between the English King Horn and the Norman French _Horn et Rigmenil_.]

§ 4. DIALECT.

In Fl. and Bl. as in King Horn it is difficult to distinguish certain criteria of dialect on account of the variety of orthography in the different manuscripts. Here again the only safe guide is the rimes, and the evidence of these is not entirely uniform for the different texts. There is a great difference in age between MS. C, the oldest, and MS. T, probably the youngest of the four MSS. Further there is a difference in the dialects represented by the different scribes. The scribes of MSS. C and Cott. were evidently southerners, and seem, here and there, to have twisted the verses around to make them fit the Southern dialect. On the other hand the later scribe of MS. T seems to have changed verses to make them fit his later dialect. Either the phrases are less stereotyped than in Horn or the poem was not so well known; in any event the scribes of the individual texts seem to have allowed themselves greater independence. The result is that the rime test here is not a sure one. The evidence of rimes in MS. C is not necessarily valid for MS. T, and _vice versā_; and which rimes indicate the pronunciation of the original composer, it is often difficult to say. If we bear these points in mind we may perhaps draw some satisfactory conclusions from the following criteria:

1. OE. _ȳ̆_ seems to have been pronounced _ī̆_. e.g.; _cusseþ_ : _blisse_, _custe_ : _wiste_ 549-52 C, _ywys_ : _kysse_ 1067 T, _winne_ : _kinne_ 806 C, _blisse_ : _kisse_ 786 C, _fylle_ : _wylle_ 738 T, _lyke_ : _lyte_ 782 T. Only apparent exceptions are _meene_ : _kyne_ 274 T (these words do not rime together in the original), and _bygge_ : _segge_ 989 T. _Ostesse_ : _kysse_ belongs only to MSS. T and Auch.

2. If we apply Prof. Hempl’s _-wǭ-_, _-wọ̄-_ test we find some evidence of a Midland dialect, e.g.; _too_ : _soo_ 94 T, _vndoo_ : _soo_ 74 T, _also_ : _doo_ 224 T, 764 C, _soo_ : _doo_ 64 T, 336 T, 624 T, _so_ : _fordo_ 307-8 C. This test applied to Fl. and Bl. is not certain in itself, but supports the other evidence. That the test is uncertain we see from the occurrence of apparently inaccurate rimes such as _hoom_ : _doom_ 1079 T, 802 C, and from a few rimes which oppose the evidence of those above cited, e.g., _þoo_ : _twoo_ 30 T, _two_ : _mo_ 218 T (and Cott.), _so_ : _go_ 438 C, 824 C, _bo_ : _atuo_ 548 C, 614 C, _þo_ : _so_ 666 C, _also_ : _bo_ 780 C, _whoom_ : _froom_ 70 T. It would seem then that the change had affected the _ā_ in OE. _swā_ but not in _twā_ and _hwā_. It must be noted that all the quoted _so_ rimes with _ọ̄_ occur in MS. C, which, as we shall see later, has a strong Southern colouring.

3. The product of OE. _a_ before _l_ + cons. seems to be _a_, or with lengthening before _-ed_, _ō_. e.g.; _wal_ : _cristal_ 273-4 C (also 609-10 T), _wolde_ : _golde_ 208 T, _tolde_ : _holde_, _sholde_ : _holde_ 435-6 T (also 77-80 C), _wolde_ : _beholde_ 751 T (also 449-50 C), 769-70 T (also 471-2 C). Exceptions occur in the Southern MSS. e.g.; _elde_ : _helde_ 102 Cott., _halle_ : _welle_ 230 C, _welle_ : _alle_ 224 C, 280 C, but are not paralleled in MS. T.[I-21]

4. The inflectional endings of the pres. indic. seem to be _-e_, _-est_, _-eþ_ for the singular. There are rimes to prove the 3rd sing. in _-eþ_; _seith_ : _withe_ 106 T, _he sit_ : _nabit_ 40 C, _geþ_ : _deþ_ 200 C (also T and Cott.), 422 C (also T). The plural ending is less evident. The Cambr. MS. has rcularly _-eþ_. e.g.; _habbeþ_ 20, _serueþ_ 1256, _beoþ_ 294, 295, _weneþ_ 314, _leteȝ_ 448, _chaungeþ_ 510, _goþ_, _seoþ_, _spekeþ_ 708 C, _crieþ_ 526; the T. MS. _-en_, e.g.; _seruen_ 590 T, _cryen_ 815 T, _ben_ 909 T, etc. That the _-eþ_ ending did not belong to the original we may probably infer from the fact that while the _-eþ_ of the 3rd sing. counts metrically, the _-eþ_ of the plural usually does not. Cf. 20 C, 256 C, 448 C, 526 C, 708 C, etc. But cf. _springeþ_ 296 C, _bisecheþ_ 765 C, _falleþ_ 786 C. These endings, then, point to an East Midland dialect. Cf. also the rimes; _wepinge_ : _bringe_ Cott. p. 105, _cusseþ_ : _blisse_ 549-50 C.

5. OE. _æ̆_ (_e_) and shortened OE. _ǣ_, umlaut of WG. _ai_, or WG. _ā_.

The OE. short _æ_ appears regularly as _a_. _trespas_ : _was_ 1043 T, _orgas_ : _was_ 102 T, _Cesar_ : _bar_ 182 T, are probably to be explained as due to one of the Southern scribes of MSS. C and Cott. e.g. _vnderȝet_ : _set_ 166 C (but cf. _vnderȝat_ : _sat_ 98 C). The shortening of OE. _ǣ_ (umlaut of WG. _ai_) also appears regularly as _a_. e.g.; _glade_ : _ladde_ 480 T, _ilast_ : _cast_ 338 C, _glad_ : _ilad_ 114 C. But cf. _lasse_ : _wytnesse_ 952 T. In the rime, _rest_ : _mest_ 120 C, 384 C, it is impossible to determine whether the _ǣ_ is shortened to _ĕ_, as in parts of the South, or the _ĕ_ is lengthened to _ē_. The shortening of OE. _ǣ_ (WG. _ā_) does not occur in rime often enough to permit any safe conclusion. The rimes _radde_ : _madde_ 826 T and _radde_ : _hadde_ 1025 T, seem to show that the product of shortening was _a_. That the representative of WG. _ā_ was the Saxon _ǣ_ rather than the Anglian, and Kentish _ē_, seems probable from the rimes _rede_ : _seide_ 21-2 T, 51-2 T, 215-16 T, 263-4 T (66 Cott.); _reede_ : _deede_ 45-6 T, 53-4 T.

From these criteria, which seem to be the best available, we may infer that Fl. and Bl. belongs further north than King Horn. Further, the inflections seem to point to the Eastern rather than to the Western Midland, so that we may feel fairly safe in attributing Fl. and Bl. to the East Midland.

[Footnote I-21: That the Cambr. scribe was from the South is very apparent from: (1) the pres. indic. plur. endings in eþ, e.g. _comeþ_ 282, etc., (2) the above rimes of OE. _call_ : _ell_, (3) _axede_ 576, 602, etc., (4) _rede_ : _hadde_ 453-4, (5) _hi_ for ‘they’ 284, etc., _heo_ for ‘she’ 303, etc., (6) _ifere_ 502 C, in fere 827, 280 T, (7) _vaire_ 16, _wuder_ 114, etc.]

§ 5. DATE OF COMPOSITION.

We shall probably be safe in setting the date of composition in the second half of the 13th century. Lengthening in open syllables seems to have taken place, e.g.; _coome_ : _soone_ 100 T, _grome_ : _coome_ 112 T, _come_ : _hoome_ 500 T, _wite_ : _vnderȝete_ 556 C (also Cott.), _wite_ : _wite_ 756 C, _þerone_ : _stone_, 112 T, _vppone_ : _stone_ 172 T, 212 T, _þare_ : _ware_ 1036 T, etc. From this we must conclude that the date of composition is not earlier than 1250. On the other hand the earliest MS. (C) dates back to the second half of the 13th century. Indeed in this MS. there are still traces of the old distinction of grammatical gender, and OE. _ū_ is still always represented by _u_; while the second oldest MS. (Cott.) has the newer writing _ou_. (Cf. Hausknecht, ed. of Fl. and Bl. p. 130, Berlin, 1885.)

§ 6. VERSIFICATION.

The poem is composed in short rimed couplets. The normal verse has four stresses. In no one of the MSS., however, are all the verses perfectly regular, due largely, no doubt, in part to the variety of forms available to each composer and to the variety of spellings to choose from, also to the attempts of each scribe to make the verses of the original fit into his own dialect. The rimes may be masculine or feminine. At times they are mere assonances, e.g.; _first_ : _lyst_ 693-4, _furste_ : _luste_ 377-8 C, _lyke_ : _lyte_ 781-2 T, _longe_ : _sonde_ 795-6 C, _coome_ : _soone_ 100 T, etc. At times they are inaccurate, e.g.; _grunde_ : _honde_ 303-4 C, _meene_ : _kyne_ 273-4 T. Peculiar are the rimes; _þerate_ : _gate_ 153-4 C, etc., _fyne_ : _þeryne_ 369-70 T, 441-2 C, etc., _þerone_ : _stone_ 112 T, 212 T.

§ 7. MANUSCRIPTS.

Floris and Blauncheflur appears in four MSS., in each of the four with a greater or smaller part of the beginning lost.

1. #T.#, the Trentham MS., is in the library of the Duke of Sutherland at Trentham Hall in Staffordshire. The MS. is a relatively late one (about 1440), and is written in a very legible, informal running hand, with loops to the _b_’s, _l_’s, etc. It contains a series of metrical romances; besides Floris and Blauncheflur, also Kyng Rychard, Bevous of Hampton, The Batell of Troye, Amys and Amylion, and Sir Eglamoure. Our poem stands on folios 98-111. The headings to the pages are; on the even, left-hand pages, _Florence_, on the odd, right-hand pages, _& Blanchefloure_. The MS. contains 1083 lines of our poem. The beginning of the poem is lost in this MS., as in the three others, and the first preserved folio is an odd, right-hand page, with the heading, _& Blanchefloure_. The first verse in this MS. corresponds to verse 193 of the French.

The reading of the MS. is made difficult and uncertain by the end flourishes to certain letters, e.g.; _gold~_, _stoon~_, _vppon~_, which it is hard to interpret. It has been collated with the three others by Hausknecht, in his admirable critical edition of the poem.

2. #Cott.#, the Brit. Mus. MS. Cott. Vitell. D. III., which probably belongs to the second half of the 13th century, suffered badly from fire in 1731. Of the original 219 folios of this parchment MS., 26 remain, and these are in many parts exceedingly difficult to read, so that the readings here offered, which are based mainly on Lumby’s text, are offered with apologies, and may no doubt be bettered here and there by comparison with the other MSS. Our poem, which occupies folios 6a-8b of the existing MS., is preceded by _Versus de historibus sacris veteris et novi Testamenti, veteri lingua Gallicana_ (O. French), and in the same handwriting with Fl. and Bl. The following folios (9-26) contain in Latin prose, _Expositiones quaedam sive comentarii in Macrobii Saturnalia_.

Of our poem only 451 lines are preserved in this MS., and of these only 180 are completely legible. The first verse corresponds to about v. 508, and the last to about v. 2514 of the French. The writing is in a fine, apparently French, book hand.

This MS. has been printed by Lumby in the original to the present edition for the E.E.T.S., and has been used by Hausknecht in collation.

3. #A.#, the celebrated Auchinleck MS. of the Advocates’ Library in Edinburgh, is a veritable mine of romance. Perhaps the best description is still that given in Sir Walter Scott’s introduction to _Sir Tristrem_, where is to be found an enumeration of the 44 different articles, mostly romances, still contained (besides 13 lost). It is a large quarto on vellum, and according to Ellis, belongs to the very first of the 14th century. Of our poem, which occupies five double-columned folios (100-104), 861 verses are contained, of which the first corresponds to v. 1001 of the French.

Fl. and Bl. has twice been reprinted from the Auchinleck MS.: (1) C. H. Hartshorne, Ancient Metrical Tales, London, 1829, (2) David Laing, A Penni Worth of Witte, etc., Abbotsford Club, Edinburgh, 1857.

4. #C.#, the Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2, has already been described. (See page xxviii.) Of the fragment of a MS. that now exists, the final 824 verses of Fl. and Bl. occupy folios 1a-5b. The first verse preserved corresponds to verse 1001 of the French poem.

The interrelations of these four MSS. have been carefully studied by Hausknecht (as above, pp. 98-108), whose results may be summarized as follows: MSS. A., Cott., T form a group _x_. Now #C.#, now group _x_ has gaps, and neither is free from individual changes.

Within the group _x_, #A# and Cott. form a special sub-group, _y_ going back to a common origin, but at the same time independent of each other.

We may borrow from Hausknecht the following diagram representing the interrelations.

As regards the relative value of the different MSS., it must be said that #T# is the least to be depended on for accuracy, but is valuable because it preserves more of the early part of the story than is preserved in any of the other MSS. As regards the relative value of #C# and _x_ it is hard to decide. Still the instances in which #C#, in opposition to #A#, agrees with the French are more numerous than are the instances of the contrary case.

THE ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY.

§ 1. _Introductory_, p. xlv. § 2. _Setting_, p. xlv. § 3. _The rise of the Legend_, p. xlvii. § 4. _The place of our Legend of the Assumption_, p. xlix. § 5. _Origin_, p. xlix. § 6. _Other English Versions_, p. lii. § 7. _Manuscripts_, p. liv. § 8. _The Time and Place of Composition_, p. lvi. § 9. _Versification_, p. lviii.

§ 1. INTRODUCTORY.

From the valorous atmosphere of King Horn and the sentimental atmosphere of Floris and Blauncheflur, to the devout atmosphere of the “Assumption,” is a very appreciable change. At the same time the oriental romance of Floris and Blauncheflur and our legend, also, no doubt, of eastern origin, betray their common descent in a certain similarity of sentimental tone; and further, both romances, Germanic and oriental, share to some extent their romantic colour with the religious legend. It is perhaps the love of this romantic colour, which the three poems have in common, that has brought them together in the Cambridge MS. (Gg. 4. 27. 2) which forms the nucleus of the present volume, though the fact that the existing manuscript is but a fragment, forbids any certain conclusion as to the tastes and probable purpose of the collector.

§ 2. SETTING.

In turning from the romances of King Horn and Floris and Blauncheflur to the legend of the Assumption we are entering the most productive field of early English literature. The religious element is the predominant element in Anglo-Saxon poetry. Christianity, from the very first, was received in England with an extraordinary warmth. In the year closely following the conversion of England there came into bloom a rich Christian poetry which soon took the place of, almost displaced, the earlier national epos.

The Norman Conquest was the means of introducing a flood of romances of every conceivable origin, and probably explains the slight revival of genuine English romantic traditions such as those of Horn, Havelok and Waldef, and possibly of Wade. But through the period, immediately following the Conquest, of the domination of the French and Latin languages in English literature, there had persisted a thread of the old English tradition in the homilies which continued for a long time to be industriously read and copied. With these in the 12th century were associated new homilies (cf. R. Morris, Old English Homilies), the direct lineal descendants of those of Alfric and Wulfstan, and in the beginning of the 13th century, in the northern midlands the metrical Ormulum, which betrays some French influence in a somewhat scanty French element in its vocabulary and in its proper names (cf. F. Kluge, Engl. Stud. xxii), but which nevertheless is composed quite in the style and manner of the earlier time.

When, after two centuries, the English language had to some extent come back into use as a language of literature, Cynewulf also found successors, and the legend flourished once more. Indeed in this new period it came to flourish to an extent hitherto unparalleled. This revival was due in part, no doubt, to the story-telling spirit so manifest in this period, and in part to the fact that this period marks the highest point in the progress of saint worship.

Probably the earliest of these newer legends were those of St. Juliana, St. Margeret and St. Katherine, which are written in rhythmical alliterative prose clearly manifesting the earlier English tradition, but which give premonition of a new era in the ring of a lyrical tone and in the already richer, more highly coloured diction. (Cf. C. Horstmann, Altenglische Legenden, Neue Folge, p. xv, Heilbronn, 1881.) Quite romantic in tone and colour are the very early, fine poems, in four-line strophes, of Katerine, Gregory, Mergrete, and the Magdalen, all of which unfortunately are preserved only in later, remodeled forms, and are perhaps only scant remains of an originally much richer literature. (Cf. Horstmann, as above, p. xlii, 225, 242.) According to Horstmann, the poems of Margaret and Gregory belong to the most beautiful productions of the early English language. Even more finely constructed, but rather lyric than narrative in form, are the few legends which fall in with the movement, influenced by French and especially strong in the South of England shortly before 1250, toward the development of the religious lyric. (Cf. R. Morris, Old English Miscellany.) Of these semi-lyrical legends, Eustas (MS. Digby 86) and the legends of the Psalter (MSS. Digby and Auchinleck) are composed in six-line strophes. (Cf. Horstmann, pp. 211, 228.) Other poems of this period, such as the _xi Pains of Hell_, already have the short riming couplet. Nearly to this same time belongs the Assumption of our Lady, in riming pairs and also in the Southern dialect.

The Assumption thus finds its setting among the very finest of the English legendary poems. According to Horstmann (as above, p. xliii): ‘Never again has legendary poetry reached the same height of pathos, the same purity and beauty of form as in these older legends. The period immediately following shows a decided falling off in poetic power and in talent for form. The tone loses in depth and warmth, the style in fullness and swing.’ In the last quarter of the 13th century, as we shall see, the legendary poetry entered the service of the church, and was worked over by the monks into great collections for reading in the services. This no doubt explains the remarkable falling off in poetic style and quality.

§ 3. THE RISE OF THE LEGEND.

The story of the rise[I-22] of the legend from the _Acta Martyrorum_, the earliest records concerning the saints, to the martyrologies, the records of the recognized martyrs in each individual church, which in turn were expanded after the 8th century, from mere lists of names to the Latin legendaries upon which rest the OE. collections of legends,--all this forms an interesting chapter in the history of the church and in the history of literature, but has no place here except in so far as it throws light on the origin of the poem with which we are concerned. The relation too of the legend to the service of the church has a very much involved history. The _Lectiones_ or ‘readings’ in the daily offices of the church were of three kinds: either (1) selections from the Scriptures, or (2) selections from the commentaries or homilies of the church fathers, or (3) the _Acta Sanctorum_. The last kind came generally to be denoted as _Legenda_, or ‘legends.’ At first treated with distrust, in time the legend came to play an important part in the service of the church. It seems to have first found its full development in the ‘nocturns,’ into which it was admitted apparently by the Benedictines in the 8th century. There it first appeared in an amplified and extended form.

The height of the legend’s development lies in the 12th and 13th centuries, and coincides with the period (Horstmann, as above, p. xv) of full bloom of the cult of the saints. At this time the number of saints’ days multiplied. Each church honoured its special saints. One celebrated not alone the death-day of the saint, but that of the burial and the translation. New saints came to be venerated, and long-forgotten ones were again brought to memory. The relics and traditions were collected, and the lives were written. Special church offices were made for them, and hymns and songs were written in their praise. In these new _offices_ of the church the legend found its use. These special festivals often fell on week-days, and one had to fill in _lectiones_ for which nothing was ready. Under these circumstances the legend offered itself as if expressly fitted, and became the key to the entire religious celebration. In this situation, amid these most favourable circumstances, the legend developed its full power, and must have been an important factor in the religious life of the period.

In addition to this place of the legend in the offices of the church, it came later to be read within, or instead of the sermon, after the _Evangelium_ during the mass, and in the popular language. From very early times it was permitted to the clergy, in place of original productions to read the homilies of others, and to this usage, no doubt, we owe such collections as the Blickling Homilies, Bede’s _Homiliae de tempore_, Aelfric’s collections, the Ormulum, etc. That the early legends were intended to be delivered as sermons, or in sermons, is apparent from the frequent direct appeals to the congregation, and from their association, in the MSS., with homilies.

During the 11th and 12th centuries the homily, the older element, continued to prevail even on saints’ days, but in the 13th and 14th centuries the homily came to be in great measure displaced by the legend on the festival days of the saints, and was used only for Sundays and for the _Festae Christi_. To make a complete _liber festivalis_, either to the book of homilies was joined a legendary for saints’ days, or later the legendary, on the other hand, absorbed the book of homilies, as happened for instance in the case of the _Legenda aurea_, which marks the final step in the development of the Latin legendary, and which presents the homilies of the _Festae Christi_, perhaps the remains of the book of homilies, side by side with the legends. In the north of England the collection of _Evangelia dominicalia_, that is to say the gospels for Sundays and _Festae Christi_, which, according to the original plan, embraced only the Sunday gospel readings with their _expositio_ and a _narratio_ (_i.e._ a legendary narrative as an illustration) came in later MSS. to be supplemented by a collection of legends, evidently intended to complete the work by providing also for the saints’ days something in the place of the _proprium sanctorum_ (_i.e._ gospels for saints’ days). In the South of England, on the other hand, the complete _liber festivalis_ grows out of the legendary, which comes to include the homilies.

To sum up, the place of the _evangelium_ in the mass for saints’ days comes to be filled by the legend, while in the mass on Sunday, the _evangelium_ is still retained, though probably often supplemented by an _expositio_ and a _narratio_, or legendary tale as illustration for the _expositio_. In consequence the _liber festivalis_ falls into two parts, the _temporal_ (for Sundays and _Festae Christi_) and the _sanctoral_, or legendary for the saints’ days.

[Footnote I-22: Cf. Horstmann, as above, pp. xxviii ff.]

§ 4. PLACE OF OUR LEGEND OF THE ASSUMPTION.