Chapter I: Part 1

[Transcriber’s note:

This text includes characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding:

Ȝ ȝ (yogh)
ħ (h with stroke)
łł (l with slash, see below)
ā ē ī ō ū ȳ ǣ (vowels with macron or “long” mark)
ẹ̄ ę̄ and ǭ ọ̄, each representing open/closed pairs
e͞o (eo with shared macron) used as a stand-in for e᷍o

If any of these characters do not display properly--in particular, if the diacritic does not appear directly above the letter--or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a last resort, use the Latin-1 version of the file instead.

Combinations such as ȳ̆ (y with breve and macron) or ọ̄ (o with under-dot and macron) may not display as intended in all browsers. These forms are rare. Except for yogh, h-stroke and paired ł, unusual letters appear only in the editorial material (introduction, notes and glossary).

For this e-text, the printed book’s circumflex accents have been shown as macrons--that is, ǣ instead of æ̂ and similar--except for “true” circumflexes in modern French citations and the word “rôle”. The character shown here as e͞o was printed as “eo” joined by a single circumflex. In the Trentham MS. of Floriz and Blauncheflur, and a few times in the Assumption, some letters were printed with “end flourishes” (see Introduction under “Manuscripts”). All are shown here as a free-standing tilde ~ after the letter. In the same passages, the double letter “ll” printed with a joining wavy line is shown as łł.

In the primary texts, italics representing editorial expansions are shown with {braces}. Roman (non-italic) words within italic passages are shown the same way. Other italics are shown conventionally with _lines_. Boldface is shown as #A#, #B#. Large initial letters are shown with double or triple preceding + as ++Horn, +++Alle to avoid “breaking” the text. The number of + signs reflects the size of the original (two lines or more).

Footnotes have been numbered continuously through the Introduction, and separately for each of the three original texts. For mechanical reasons some footnotes in the primary text will seem to be out of order. Line numbering is by multiples of 4.

See the end of the e-text for details about differences between the e-text and the printed book.]

King Horn,
Floriz and Blauncheflur,
The Assumption of our Lady.

Early English Text Society.
Original Series, No. 14

1866 (re-edited 1901; reprinted 1962)

Price 30s.

KING HORN,

FLORIZ AND BLAUNCHEFLUR,

THE ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY.

First Edited in 1866
BY J. RAWSON LUMBY,

And Now Re-Edited From The Manuscripts,
With Introduction, Notes, And Glossary,
by
GEORGE H. McKNIGHT.

_Published for_
THE EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY
_by the_
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
London New York Toronto

First Published (Edited by J. Rawson Lumby) 1866
Re-edited by George H. McKnight 1901
Reprinted (1901 Version) 1962

Original Series, No. 14

Reprinted in Great Britain by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd.,
Bungay, Suffolk.

CONTENTS.

Page
Preface vi
Introduction vii
King Horn, from three MSS.:
Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2 1
Laud Misc. MS. 108 1
Harl. MS. 2253 1
Floris and Blauncheflur, from three MSS.:
Trentham Ms 71
Ms. Cott. Vitell. D. III 74, 84
Cambridge MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2 80
The Assumption of Our Lady, from three MSS.:
Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2 111
Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10,036 111
Harl. MS. 2382 118
Notes 137
Glossary 155

PREFACE.

The triple labour involved in editing three independent works in one volume will, it is hoped, serve as an excuse for some of the shortcomings of the present publication. Under the circumstances it has been impossible to make the work as definitive as might have been the case with a single text. For example, while I have been able to print the three existing manuscript texts of King Horn, of the other two poems, the textual material is not nearly so complete.

The texts, it is hoped, are accurately printed. The credit for this is due, in large measure, to Dr. Furnivall,--who has read with the MSS. the proofs of all the British Museum texts,--and to the proof-readers at Oxford and Cambridge. The notes to King Horn represent a good deal of labour, and may, I trust, prove useful. The glossary, though not so complete as that in Wissmann’s excellent critical edition of King Horn, is intended to fit the volume, and to supply explanation of words and uses of words not intelligible to ordinary readers of Early English Texts.

It is my pleasant duty to acknowledge assistance from various quarters. I am indebted to the libraries of the British Museum and Cambridge University, and the Bodleian library at Oxford for the use of manuscripts; also to the Duke of Sutherland for permission to copy the text of Floris and Blauncheflur from the manuscript in his private library; also to the Cornell University library for conveniences placed at my disposal in the preparation of this volume. I must also acknowledge timely words of advice from Prof. J. M. Hart, notes on Layamon from Dr. B. S. Monroe, and assistance in proof-reading by Prof. W. Strunk, jr. But above all I must acknowledge the less apparent work of Dr. Furnivall in preparing the texts for press, a work the amount of which one who has not edited for the E.E.T.S. is not likely to realize.

G. H. M. K.

_Ithaca, N.Y., July 8, 1901._

INTRODUCTION.

KING HORN.

§ 1. _Setting of the Story_, p. vii.
§ 2. _Versions_, p. viii.
§ 3. _Elements of the Story_, p. xvi.
§ 4. _Topography_, p. xvii.
§ 5. _Style_, p. xx.
§ 6. _Versification_, p. xxi.
§ 7. _Dialect_, p. xxiv.
§ 8. _Manuscripts_, p. xxviii.

§ 1. SETTING OF THE STORY.

By the beginning of the 13th century, when literature in the English tongue began to show some signs of revival, the earlier English epic tales seem to have been almost entirely obliterated from memory. A solitary survival seems to have been the story of the dragon-killing Wade with his famous boat Guingelot; but even this story is lost to us save for occasional references,[I-1] and from these we must infer that all definite idea of its origin was lost, since Wade is associated, now with Weyland, now with Horn and Havelok, now with Lancelot. The place of these earlier epic tales was filled in Middle English times by a new set of tales for the most part no longer of purely native, popular origin. Tales were imported from every conceivable quarter, though usually by way of France, and even in the popular romances of Guy of Warwick and Bevis of Hampton, which are supposed to contain a kernel of genuine English tradition, the original story is almost unrecognizable amid the embellishments added. Similarly in the stories of Waldef and Hereward the historical facts are almost lost amid this mass of added foreign matter, and in the late romance of Richard Cœur de Lion we have to do, not with the historical Richard, but with a conventionalized hero of mediæval romance.

Standing apart from these largely conventionalized tales are the stories of Havelok and King Horn. These are supposed to have been among the first products of the second growth of English story. They seem to preserve, more than the other, later romances, their primitive traits, and are hence usually classed as English, or Germanic, in origin.

[Footnote I-1: Cf. Skeat’s Chaucer. Note to Marchaundes Tale 1424,
and Tr. and C. iii, 614.]

§ 2. VERSIONS.

The story of Horn is known in several different versions. Of these the one printed in the present volume is the oldest and in many respects the most archaic. The story, which it will be unnecessary to summarize here, is told in a simple, direct style with a noticeable lack of unnecessary description inserted for embellishment. The explanation of the peculiar features of this version is no doubt to be found in the purpose for which this version was used. It was probably intended to be sung, as one would infer from the opening lines, and perhaps is such a song, or ballad, as the one which, as the French version informs us (R. H. 2776 ff. cf. p. xiv. below), Horn sang about his love Rigmenil. The manner of the narrative is determined by the song character of the poem. There is more detail than in a modern song, at the same time less detail than in a modern story. Events are sometimes simply referred to as though already known instead of being fully described. The bravery of Murry, Horn’s father, is alluded to in such a manner as to lead one to expect to hear more about his feats of prowess. No motive is given for the journey to Ireland. We are conducted from place to place with Horn, from Aylmer’s court in Westernesse to that of Thurston, or from Horn’s wedding feast at Aylmer’s court to the annihilation of the Saracen invaders of Suddenne, almost in a breath. In this way sometimes incidents are thrown absurdly out of perspective. For instance, when Horn wishes to ‘prove his knighthood’ (v. 588), while the others are at table, he sets out on his ‘fole,’ and at the seashore finds a shipload of _heþene honde_. He slays about a hundred of them. _At eureche dunte þe heued of wente._ He fixes the leader’s head on the point of his sword and thus returns to the hall. All this, which forms the matter for about four hundred twelve-syllabled lines in the more prolix French version, is here related in an off-hand manner, in about forty short lines. The pitched battle of the French version becomes here a mere after-dinner recreation. It would be possible to multiply instances (cf. pp. x-xii) showing the abridged character of the present version.

Very different from the English gleeman’s version, is the highly elaborated French version of the story. This version,[I-2] which is preserved in three MSS. at Oxford, at Cambridge, and at London, consists of about 5250 lines of twelve syllables, arranged in _laisses_, or strophes, of about twenty lines bound together by a single rime. Here we have a full-fledged romance, with descriptions of rich adornments, of feastings, of battles, of games, and of tournaments quite in the manner of the contemporary romances current in France and in Norman England. The archaic traits of the English King Horn are no longer so obvious. The names of persons and of places, with the exception of those of Horn, Rymenhild : Rigmel (Rigmenil), Fiken(h)ild : Wikele, Modi : Modin, Westernesse : Westir (Yrlaunde), and Sudden(n)e, are quite different in the two versions.

But with all this difference of detail, the story in its essential elements is the same in the two versions. Wissmann,[I-3] in the introduction to his critical edition, says, “der französische roman (R. H.) weist kein einziges notwendiges bindeglied, keinen schönen altertümlichen zug auf, den das englische gedicht, King Horn (K. H.) nicht enthielte; dieses dagegen hat trotz seines geringen umfanges, eine reiche von alten, wahrhaft poetischen motiven jenem voraus.” And further, “aus alle dem ergibt sich, dass K. H. keine bearbeitung des französischen romans sein kann.” Wissmann’s further conclusions, however, are less tenable, when he continues: “das umgekehrte verhältniss dagegen ist nicht nur denkbar, sondern bis zu einem gewissen grade sogar notwendig; eine ältere quelle als das lied von King Horn für R. H. vorauszusetzen sind wir durch nichts berechtigt.”

Limited space forbids a thorough-going comparison of the two versions. The essential elements of the story are in each case nearly the same. In the French version (R. H.) again Horn the prince with his companions is set afloat from Suddenne in an open boat, arrives in Bretaigne, is hospitably received by King Hunlaf, is loved by the princess Rigmenil, from whom he receives a magic ring, is betrayed by Wikele, one of his companions, and is exiled from Bretaigne. He takes ship for Westir, the court of King Godreche, and is well received by the king and his two sons. He distinguishes himself in all things, and is loved and wooed by the princess Lemburc. But after delivering the Irish kingdom (Westir) from an African invasion, he is recalled by a messenger to Bretaigne, where, after vanquishing his rival Modun in a tournament, he rescues Rigmenil and himself plays the part of bridegroom at the wedding prepared. He then repairs to Suddenne, and after ridding his father’s kingdom of the invaders, is warned in a dream of Wikele’s second treachery, and returns again just in time to save his bride from a forced marriage with Wikele. With the death of Wikele and the establishment of Horn’s loyal friend Haderof (Athulf) in Ireland and of Horn and Rigmenil in Suddenne, the French story ends.

In addition to this similarity in general outline must be mentioned occasional parallelism between the two versions in minor details or even in phraseology. As instances of the first we may cite: _Of his feire siȝte Al þe bur gan liȝte_ K. H. 385-6; _De la belte de horn tute la chambre resplent._ R. H. 1053. _Drink to horn of horne_ K. H. 1145; _Mes com apelent horn li engleis naturer_ R. H. 4206. _He lokede on his rynge And þoȝte on Rymenhilde_ K. H. 873-4; _Si regarde sa main e lanel kest gemmeȝ_. _Ke li fud de Rimel al departir doneȝ_ R. H. 3166-7. _And whan þu farst to woȝe tak him þine gloue_ K. H. 793-4; _Mes une rien uus di joe dont seieȝ purgardez, Si alez donneier ke oue uus nel menez Kar il est de beaute issi enluminez ke uus la v il iert petit serreȝ preiseȝ_ R. H. 2323-6. _Biuore me to kerue And of þe cupe serue_ K. H. 233-4; _Horn me seruira vi de ma cupe portant_ R. H. 463. As instances of phrases from King Horn reflected in R. H., we may cite: _Stiwarde, tak nu here Mi fundlyng for to lere Of þine mestere, Of wude and of riuere_ K. H. 227-30; _De bois de riueer refet il altre tal_ R. H. 377. _Wiþute sail and roþer_ K. H. 188; _Kil naient auirun dunt a (!) seient aidanȝ Sigle ne guuernad (!) dunt il seint naianȝ_ R. H. 60-61. _Ston he dude lade, ant lym þerto he made_ K. H. 1502 H. _Vn castel ad ia fet de pere e de furment_ R. H. 5097. These instances, which might be multiplied, will serve to show how closely related in origin are these two versions, English and French.

The identity of the two versions is, however, by no means complete. The more condensed version (K. H.) presents some traits not to be found in R. H. We may mention: Horn’s farewell to his boat, 139 ff.; Rimenhild’s assistance in bringing about the dubbing of Horn, 435 ff.; Rimenhild’s dream, 651 ff.; Horn’s charge to Athulf to care for Rimenhild, 743 ff.; the drowning of the messenger from Rimenhild to Horn, 968 ff.; the palmer’s account of Rimenhild’s grief, 1035 ff.; Athulf’s watching from the tower, 1091 ff.; Horn’s fictitious tale to Rimenhild of his own death, 1175 ff.

If K. H. offers these few traits independent of R. H., the latter, longer narrative introduces episode after episode either barely suggested in a single line of K. H., or entirely foreign to the English version. For example, we may mention: the more circumstantial account of Horn’s descent, and of the heroic death of Aaluf, 250 ff.; Rimel’s amusing method of wheedling Athelfrus into bringing Horn to her, 604 ff.; her confidences to her maid Herselot, 729 ff.; the elaborate account of Horn’s victory over Malbroin and Rodmund, 1295 ff.; Wikele’s contrived pretext for a quarrel with Horn, 1839 ff.; Horn’s loathness to take oath, though he is willing to vindicate his word by meeting in combat any two or even five or six chosen antagonists, 1924 ff.; the love of princess Lemburc for Horn, 2394 ff.; the stone-throwing contest, 2568 ff.; the game of chess, 2696 ff.; Lemburc’s apartments, 2709 ff.; the harp-playing, 2776 ff.; the elaborate battle description once more, 3234 ff.; the death of Egfer, 3358 ff.; the meeting of Horn with Wikele and Modin, 4094 ff.; the tournament at Rimil’s wedding, 4456 ff.; the victory, with Hardre’s aid, over the Saracens in Suddenne, 4604 ff.; the touching description of Horn’s meeting with his mother, 4882 ff.; the besiegement of Hunlaf and Rimel by Wikele, 5100 ff.; the intervention of Wikele’s brother, Wothere, 5052 ff., etc.[I-4]

If the subject matter in the two versions is different, the style is far more so. The simple, condensed, somewhat archaic manner of K. H. stands in marked contrast to the sophisticated style of the French romance. The difference is perhaps that to be expected between two versions, one intended for English-speaking, the other for French-speaking people.[I-5] But the difference is perhaps more largely that between ballad and romance. In K. H. the author gives no evidence of himself directly or indirectly, whereas Thomas, the author of R. H., continually addresses his public in the second person and directly introduces his personal opinion. The incidents which in K. H. are condensed almost to unintelligibility, in R. H. are liberally supplied with motives and explanations. The character of Rimenhild in K. H., almost wild in its naturalness, suggests somewhat one of the female divinities of Germanic mythology. Rimel, of the French romance, is an eminently sophisticated, almost modern young woman who understands the arts of coaxing and of coquetry.

The luxury and refinement described in the French version, contrast[I-6] markedly with the primitive manners and surroundings suggested in the English version. Rimenhild shares her single sleeping-room with her six maidens; Rimel has so many maids that these have private rooms, Rimel keeping by her only her one trusted maid. Rimenhild on her wedding day, has four maid attendants; Rimel, thirty. King Murry’s retinue consists of two knights, and the sons of the king of Westir appear to have been without retinue; in R. H. the two princes in their _mesnée privée_ have _vingt de gens ben escernée_. Even the seneschal of King Hunlaf has twenty knights in his retinue. Stimming further points out the feudalistic relations existing between Horn and his companions in R. H. (as well as in H. C.) of which one can hardly detect a trace in K. H. Further the author of the romance, quite in keeping with the conventions of contemporary romances, has introduced and elaborated descriptions of battles and of sports and tournaments on every possible occasion. In R. H. Horn is a _curteis_ knight, whose knightly honour forbids him to take oath.

Stimming further points out the difference in cultivation of manner as reflected in the love-making scenes of the two versions. When Athulf is introduced to Rimenhild’s bower, _Anon vpon Aþulf child Rymenhild gan wexe wild_, K. H. 295-6, she has him seat himself on her bed, embraces him, and offers herself as his bride. Rimel, on the other hand, who before Aþulf’s coming has carefully regarded the glass, _pur veer sa belted, Pur saver de su vis cum il est culured_, on his appearance, takes him by the hand, leads him to a seat, seats herself beside him, and then expresses the wish, “_Bels amis, dès ore voil estre mise en vostre justise_,” politely adding, “_si vostre plaisir est_.”

All this, Stimming concludes, is an unmistakable evidence of the later time of R. H.’s composition. Granting the truth of this conclusion, the difference of treatment in the two versions is also no doubt in part due to the difference in the public for which each version was intended, and also still more, perhaps, to the difference in function of the two works. It must be noted that K. H. is a popular ballad-like poem perhaps of the kind referred to in R. H., while the French R. H. is an artificial and conventionalized romance of prowess and love.

That the ballad-like version K. H., simple, even primitive in matter, in manner, and in metrical form, should have been derived from the sophisticated, artificial romance, R. H. deserves little consideration. On the other hand that the artificial romance should have been derived from the simple ballad-like story, incomplete in its record of details, is even more unworthy of consideration, though quite probably Thomas, the French romancer, may have been to some extent influenced by this English version, with which he was probably acquainted, as we may infer from the following passage:

_Mes un lai ai oi dunt ioe sai la meitie
Si iol sousse tut, par ma crestiente
En cest nostre pais nad taunt bone cite
Ki tant me fust a main e á ma uolente
Ke ainz ne la perdisse ke lousse ublie
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Mut en auez oi parler en cest regne
E de lamur de horn ke ele od taunt ame
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Coe est ueir dist Guffer, Rigmel est mut loéé
Bele soeur de beaute en meinte cuntréé
E de horn ai oi meinte feiz renoméé
Quil est pruz e uallanz e corteis sanz pounéé._

R. H. 2783-2801.

The French romance is no doubt constructed from an English story, as we may infer from the proper names, which in general seem to be Germanic in origin, from occasional English words, _e.g._ _welcumeȝ_ 800, _wite God_, _wrec_ 150, etc., from references to English such as, _Mes com apelent horn li engleis_, R. H. 4206, and especially from the general features of the story which seem to be Germanic. Further, “in the introduction to the French romance of Waldelf we are informed that the romance of Horn was taken from an English original” (T. Wright, Essays on Middle Ages, I, 102. London, 1846). The English gleeman’s version quite likely was composed directly from oral tradition, while the romance rests upon some version of the story, the “_parchemin_” so often referred to. This hypothetical version, judging from the identity of the story in its main outline with that in K. H., must be the version upon which R. H. rests also, or must rest upon the same tradition with K. H.

A third version of the story of Horn is the romance of Horn Childe and Maiden Rimnild, the only copy of which is the incomplete one contained in the famous collection of the Auchinleck MS. of the 14th century. (One leaf lost in the middle and one or two at the end.) Of this romance, which is composed in twelve-lined strophes, _rime couée_, there are preserved 1136 lines, that is to say, 96 strophes, not all complete. The story, very briefly summarized, is as follows:

Haþeolf, king of “_al Ingelond fram Humber norþ_,” has one son named Horn. To Horn Haþeolf gives eight companions and puts all under the instruction of Arlaund. Haþeolf annihilates a host of Danish invaders, but within nine months is again attacked, this time by three kings from Ireland, and after an heroic fight, in which he slays five thousand, is stoned to death, and “_an erle of Northumberland_” seizes the kingdom.

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.

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_).