Floris and Blauncheftur. § 3. English Version. xxxvii entirely peculiar to this version, points rather to a version in the North of Italy, which the Spanish adapter has quite probably translated into Spanish without important alteration. § 3. ENGLISH VERSION. The story of Fl. and Bl. found its way into England in the 13th century, that is to say, when it had been for a hundred years familiar to French hearers and after it had already spread into many lands outside of France. As has been said, the English version goes back to a French original. This original was certainly of the I. form. Of the features peculiar to the French II. version, the English version does not show one, while it agrees with the French I. version to the extent of exact translation of many phrases and verses and even of reproduction of French rime-words. At the same time the French original that lay before the English adapter can not have been the text exactly as it is preserved in any one of the three extant French MSS., but rather an older, or purer text which we have designated by x, a distinguishing feature of which is the absence of the attempted suicide of Floris in the lion pit. The text that must be assumed as the original of the English poem must have been very similar to the original from which Fleck and Dideric derived their German versions, but not exactly identical as is evidenced by frequent slight divergences. The English poet has not expanded and amplified by the addition of further details or by the introduction of personal reflections, as the German Fleck has done. He has presented the essential features of the love story as it impressed him, in a condensed form to be sure, at the same time without bareness or baldness. Unlike the adapter of the Low Rhenish condensed version, he has preserved the original order of incidents, and has usually preserved faithfully the smallest details that have any essential bearing on the plot. Some idea of the English writer's fidelity to the details and even to the phraseology of his French original, and of his method of translating, may be gained from the following parallel passages: Que bien sorent parler latin Faites la moi tost demander Qu'a fin or l'a sept fois pesée. vv. 507-8. Inouz pey coup of latyne The grafe is elaborately described in vv. 788-98: In spite of this number of tolerably exact correspondences, in word and phrase, with the French original, the English poem is a condensed adaptation rather than a slavish translation. As in the French II. version, the tender and sentimental element is much condensed; but the English writer, unlike the writer of French II., does not introduce the heroic and warlike element in the form of duels and battles. He does not amplify by adding new details, as Fleck did, nor does he confuse the order of incidents as does the adapter of the Low Rhenish version. He makes rather a faithful condensation quite after the manner of English adapters from the French, which is no doubt to be explained as due not so much to difference between the writers, English and French, as to a difference Floris and Blauncheflur. § 3. English Version. § 4. Dialect. xxxix between the hearing publics, French and English, for whom the production was intended.1 No doubt with his English public in mind, the English poet, in adapting the story from the French, has modified to some extent the tenderness and sentimentality, even at times the poetic descriptions, of his French original (compare vv. 1117-1194 of the French with the corresponding English vv. 457–72), and has omitted the enumeration of gems and of precious stuffs suggestive of an elegance perhaps unintelligible to an English speaking and hearing public at this time. The wonderful cup, to the description of which 67 verses (431-498) are devoted in the French romance, in the English poem is dismissed with 17 verses (163– 184). The garden so elaborately described in the French, vv. 1724-1835, in the English poem occupies only vv. 685-732. The description of the knife (grafe), which serves no other purpose than that of external adornment in the French version (vv. 788-799), is entirely neglected in the English translation. The translator's method is well illustrated in the case of the description of Floris's equipage preliminary to setting out on his journey. The description of the saddle and harness occupies 37 verses (964-1000) of the French poem, and is dismissed by the English translator with 5 (vv. 382–389), I ne can telle zou nozt Hu richeliche pe sadel was wrozt, and three verses following. 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. § 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 1 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. V 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 versâ; 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. seems to have been pronounced ž. 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 exceptious 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 -wộ-, -wộ- 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, po : so 666 C, also: bo 780 C, whoom: froom 70 T. It would seem then that the change had affected the â in OE. swâ but not in twâ and hwâ. It must be noted that all the quoted so rimes with ō occur in MS. C, which, as we shall see later, has a strong Southern colouring. : 3. The product of OE. a before 7+ cons. seems to be a, or with lengthening before -ed, ô. 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). Excep tions 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.1 : 1 That the Cambr, scribe was from the South is very apparent from: (1) the pres. indic. plur. endings in ep, e. g. comeþ 282, etc., (2) the above rimes of O.E. Floris and Blauncheflur. § 4. Dialect. § 5. Date of Composition. xli 4. The inflectional endings of the pres. indic. seem to be -e, -est, -ep for the singular. There are rimes to prove the 3rd sing. in -ep; seith: withe 106 T, he sit nabit 40 C, gep dep 200 C (also T and Cott.), 422 C (also T). The plural ending is less evident. The Cambr. MS. has regularly ep. e. g.; habbep 20, seruep 1256, beop 294, 295, wenep 314, letez 448, chaungep 510, gop, seop, spekep 708 C, criep 526; the T. MS. -en, e. g.; seruen 590 T, cryen 815 T, ben 909 T, etc. That the -ep ending did not belong to the original we may probably infer from the fact that while the -ep of the 3rd sing. counts metrically, the -ep of the plural usually does not. Cf. 20 C, 256 C, 448 C, 526 C, 708 C, etc. But cf. springep 296 C, bisechep 765 C, fallep 786 C. These endings, then, point to an East Midland dialect. Cf. also the rimes; wepinge: bringe Cott. p. 105, cussep: blisse 549–50 C. 5. OE. œ (e) and shortened OE. &, umlaut of WG. ai, or WG. â. The OE. short e 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. vnderzet: set 166 C (but cf. vnderzat: sat 98 C). The shortening of OE. & (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 is shortened to ě, as in parts of the South, or the ĕ is lengthened to ê. The shortening of OE. (WG. a) 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. â was the Saxon & rather than the Anglian, and Kentish ê, 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. § 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, eall: 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. |