King Horn. § 7. Dialect. xxvii slon: vpon C, 'slon: on L H, 47-8. The OE. ea is rendered probable by the written forms, sle: fle 1467–8 C, etc. Other double pronunciations are zonge ispronge 579-80, and more frequently the i rime zonge: bringe 295-6, ringe zonge 599-600. Prof. Hempl's -wó̟-, -wō- test does not yield very definite results in this text, but seems to indicate a southern dialect. Cf. two po 53–4 C, 37–8 LH, go: also 103-4, 107-8 L H, wo: po 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. zeue, zate. Here again, however, we have double forms; e. g. wurche: chirche 1481-2, but werke derke 1547-8 CH; 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, -ep for the singular and -ep 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, Such forms as pou seydes 588 L, pou biginnes 608 L, probably to be explained as mistakes of the scribe of this MS., who frequently leaves off a final consonant. wilen 2 L, 7 H, etc. wepes pou 696 L, are 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 pei 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 + 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 ĕo, žo, ea 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. á has been regularly converted into . 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 â to -, 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 pere 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. King Horn. § 8. Manuscripts. xxix [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 H, 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.) XXX FLORIS AND BLAUNCHEFLUR. §1. Introductory, p. xxx. 82, History, p. xxx. §3. English Version, p. xxxvii. § 4. Dialect, p. xxxix, § 5. Date of Composition, p. xli. § 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. 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. Floris and Blauncheflur. § 2. History. xxxi The history of the story in the West is complicated on account of the puzzling multiplicity of versions among which it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to determine the interrelations. The clue to the difficulty was early hinted at by Sommer (E. Sommer, Einl. zu R. Fleckes Flore und Blaunscheflur, Quedlingburg und Leipzig, 1846), and more recently the matter has been very thoroughly explained by Herzog (H. Herzog, Die beiden Sagenkreise von Flore und Blanscheflur, Wien, 1884) in his investigation of the subject. Herzog points out that there are to be distinguished in the Occident, two distinct general versions of the story. In the first of these, A, seems to be preserved the story in its original and genuine form. The second of these versions, B, seems to be a remodelling of the original version in the attempt to adapt to common folk a story in its existing form intended for higher circles of society. For this purpose slight allusions in A, are expanded in B into striking incidents. To bring out into strong light the injustice of Floris's father and the final triumph of true love, supernatural and horrible elements and episodes are introduced. Since these new elements are of a kind common in other Byzantine tales, it is concluded that the remodelling of the story had already taken place before the importation from the East. The second of these imported versions, B, first circulated in Italy, in Spain and in Greece. It also seems, somewhat indirectly as we shall see, to have served as a basis for the second French version and for one group of the German Volksbücher. The versions of B, if we leave the second French version out of consideration, all represent the parents of Blauncheflur as Italian, and in part have the same names for the characters. This circumstance, with other corroborating facts, seems to indicate that version B first took root in Italy, and from there spread into Spain and into Greece, possibly its original home. Version A, on the other hand, seems first to have been imported into France, the great jobbing nation of the Middle Ages in all sorts of romantic stuffs and materials. From France it was early retailed to Germany, to England, to Scandinavia, and, possibly, to Italy. From Germany in turn it was re-exported into Bohemia. Version A was without doubt the first to become known, since we find it not only in the Old French, but in the Germanic versions springing from a French source, in an unperverted state. All the different versions of B, on the other hand, have been very noticeably influenced by A, indicating that the arrival of B was after A had become established and well known. 1 G. Paris distinguishes three general versions, two French versions and a third, 'Roman" version, in which the parents of Blauncheflur are not French but Roman. |