Chapter II: Part 2

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

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

§ 7. DIALECT.

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

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

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

OE. _æ̆_ and OE. _ǣ_ (_ē_) shortened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 8. MANUSCRIPTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U
/ \__
/ \_
/ __x
/ ___/ |
/ ___/ |
/ / |
_y_ |
__/ \___ |
__/ \___ |
__/ \_z_
/ ___/ \___
H ___/ \___
/ \
L C ]

FLORIS AND BLAUNCHEFLUR.

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

§ 1. INTRODUCTORY.

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

§ 2. HISTORY.

_(a) Origin._

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

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.[I-13] 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.

_(b) In France._

We encounter the story of _Floris and Blauncheflur_ earliest in France, and the French seem to have been the first to make the story a subject for poetic treatment. The story appears in French, besides in two songs celebrating episodes in this tale of true love, in two distinct versions. The earliest of these versions, which we may designate as I., had its origin, it seems, about 1160.[I-14] (Cf. F. Steinmeyer, H Z, xxi, 319.) Certain it is that a French version of #A# must have existed about 1170, to serve as a basis for one of the German (the low Rhenish) versions, Floyris und Blanscheflur. This French version, #I#, seems to represent fairly well the #A# general form of the story. As so often in the case of other romances, the _jongleurs_ tried to bring this foreign importation into the cycle of French story by connecting in bonds of kinship, its characters with the names celebrated in French epic. Blauncheflur is represented as being the mother of Bertha of the big foot, the wife of Pepin, father of Charlemagne.[I-15]

Du Méril (E. du Méril, Floire et Blancheflor, Paris, 1876) in discussing the interrelations of the two French versions, characterizes one as a version for a select public, “_version aristocratique_,” and the second as a version for the entertainment of the masses, “_version populaire_.” The French II. version, the “_version populaire_,” is, according to Herzog, p. 4, the result of a sort of fusion of the #A# and #B# general forms of the story,[I-16] with which have been woven in various episodes which elsewhere are not known to either general form of the story, #A# or #B#. Herzog further on continues (p. 11), “Ich halte dafür dass dieselbe (the OF. II. version) ebenfalls aus Italien nach Frankreich hinübergewandert ist, wo ihr Bearbeiter den Inhalt des zweiten Kreises mit dem ihm geläufigen ersten Kreise so verschmolzen hat, dass dieser einige nur dem zweiten Sagenkreise angehörige Züge ganz verdrängte.”

The general style and manner of handling the story is quite different in the two French versions. The “_version aristocratique_” preserves the traits of an oriental romance, and Floire is represented as a love-sick youth. “_Sans li ne puis jou pas aprendre_” he replies when his father proposes to educate him alone. There is hardly a more sentimental passage in literature than the one in I. (212-266) describing the school-days of the children:

_Ensamble vont, ensamble vienent
Et la joie d’amor maintient
Nus d’aus deus chose ne savoit
Que lués a l’autre ne disoit.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
On ooient parler d’amors.
Ensamble lisent et aprendent;
A la joie d’amor entendent:
Un vergier a li peres Floire
. . . . . . . . . . . .
D’amors i chantent li oisel.
Quant il mangoient et bevoient
Li oisel seure aus se séoient;
Des oiseles oent les chans:
Cou est la vie as deus enfans.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Et quant a l’escole venoient
Lor tables d’yvoire prenoient,
Adont lor veissiez escrire
Letres et vers d’amors en cire.
Letres et salus font d’amors
Du chant des oisiaus et des flors._

The writer of I. is evidently a genuine poet, though perhaps somewhat of the ‘spring poet’ order. He exalts the sentiment of love, as we have seen, and feelingly describes the elaborately constructed tomb (vv. 530-652), the finely wrought cup (vv. 431-498), and the birds and flowers and fountains and trees of the gardens of the king and of the ‘Admiral.’ He dwells in sensuous fondness in his enumeration equally of the fine stuffs and precious stones; the _mantiaus_, _vairs osterins_ and _bliaus indes porprins_ (429-30), or the _saffirs_ and _calcidoines_ and _boines jagonses_ and _sardoines_, etc. (1755-77), and of flowers and trees; the “_poivre, canele et garingal_,” or the “_encens, girofle et citoval_,” or the _beuns_, the _plantoine_, the _alïer_, the _boins figiers_, the _peschiers_, the _periers_ and the _noiers_ (1761-8).

The “_version populaire_,” on the other hand, seems to be adapted somewhat to the ideal of the native French epic, and Floire is represented as a model of courage and knightly virtue, in a class with the _douze pers_ and the other heroes of the Charlemagne cycle of stories. The writer interpolates scenes in which Floire may display his fighting qualities. In the early part of the story, he returns from school just in time to rescue Blauncheflur, who is about to be committed to the flames. He accomplishes her rescue by acting as her champion and fighting the seneschal, who has accused her of attempting to poison the king. The combat is a stirring one quite in the manner of the _Chansons de geste_ (vv. 920-1160). On the journey to Babylon, Floire has heroic adventures in a battle with Diogenes, son of Samones, king of the city of Fusis (1854-1984). Later, when the trial of Fl. and Bl. is interrupted by the arrival of an invader, Jonas de Handreas, Fl. offers to vanquish the invaders if his life be spared. At first he is unsuccessful in his attempt, but after being taken prisoner by the invaders, he is aroused by the reproachful words of Bl. and breaking loose, slays Jonas, thus delivering the city and winning Bl. (3120-3410). The writer of II. emphasizes the battle scenes at the expense of the descriptive passages, devoting to the description of the tomb only 32 verses, and to that of the wonderful cup, only 14. He seems also to be of a practical turn of mind, and instead of fondly enumerating the gems received for Bl., describes rather the circumstances of the sale. Babyloine is a rich city with no poor, and has a rent of three thousand ounces of gold each day (vv. 2319, 2342). From all these instances one can see that the sweet and sentimental tale of the I. version is quite modified in II. If we agree with Herzog that this version was the result of the blending of the #B# version imported from Italy, with the #A# version, which was already well known in France, we must conclude also that this “_version populaire_” is influenced by the ideals of contemporary French poetry of native origin, by the manners and conventions of the _chansons de geste_, and the heroic romances springing from or influenced by them.

_(c) Provence._

Among the troubadours of Provence the story of Fl. and Bl. was early known and popular, as one must judge from the very frequent allusions. There is, however, no proof of the existence of a Provençal romance.

_(d) In Germany._

In Germany are to be encountered many versions of the popular story. The earliest one seems to have been the Low Rhenish poem Floyris and Blaunchiflur, of about 3700 lines, translated by an unknown poet about 1170 (Steinmeyer, H. Z. xxi, 307-331). To the middle of the 13th century belongs the MHG. poem in 8006 lines by Konrad Fleck, composed, quite independently of the Low Rhenish version above mentioned, after an OF. original. (Ed. by E. Sommer, Quedlingburg u. Leipzig, 1846.) Somewhat younger is the Mid. Low Germ. poem, _Floris ende Blancefloer_ of 3983 lines (Ed. by H. von Fallensleben, Leipzig, 1836, and by H. E. Moltzer, Groningen, 1879, in the _Bibl. van Middelnederlands Letterkunde_). The poet, Dideric van Assenede, says, himself, that he derived his material from the “Walsche.”[I-17] As a matter of fact his original seems to have been French. To the third half of the 14th century belongs the Low Germ. poem _Flosse un Blankflosse_ of 1534 lines (Ed. by Stephan Waetzoldt, Bremen, 1880), which also seems to go back to a French original.[I-18]

If we look more closely into the question of the French original of the German poems, we must assume a version, χ, earlier than the version preserved in the three existing MSS. of French I. version. These three MSS. may be classed into a group, _z_, whose chief characteristic is the attempted suicide of Floris in the Lion pit. This scene appears in two of the existing MSS., and the writer of the third MS. seems to have had the scene in his original but to have left it out. (Cf. H. Sundmacher, _Die altfrz. u. mittelhd. Bearbeitung der Sage von Fl. und Bl._, diss. Göttingen, 1872.) Among the German versions it appears only in the LG. _Flosse un Blankflosse_. The other German versions must rest on an OF. version, χ, which at the hands of Fleck[I-19] underwent an artistic reconstruction, but at the hands of Dideric was translated simply, without the addition of any new ideas by the adapter.

In addition to these early German versions must be mentioned two groups of _Volksbücher_: (1) from Boccaccio’s Filocolo, (2) from Fleck’s poem, also a Bohemian adaptation and a German Jewish adaptation, (Cf. Hausknecht, ed. of Fl. u. Bl., pp. 13-20, Berlin, 1885.)

_(e) In Scandinavia._

Our story had a wide circulation also in the North, as one must infer from the number of Scandinavian versions preserved: (1) the old Norweg. fragment of a saga (ed. by G. Storm, _Nordisk Tidskrift for Filologi og Pædagogik_, Copenhagen, 1874, pp. 24-28), (2) the complete Icelandic saga of _Flóres ok Blankiflúr_, (3) the fragments of a second Icelandic Saga (ed. by Brynjolf Snorrason, _Annaler for nordisk old kyndighed og historie_, 1850); (4) the Old Swed. poem (ed. by E. Klemming, _Samlingar utgifna af svenska formskrift-sällskapet_, I., Stockholm, 1844); and (5) the Danish translations from the Swedish (ed. by C. J. Brandt, _Romantisk Digtning fra Middelalderen_, I. and II. København, 1869-77). The distinguishing characteristic of the Northern versions is the conclusion. According to the Norse version, Floris, to refute the charge that he has gained admittance to Bl.’s tower by the use of magic tricks, offers to fight in single combat the bravest of the Admiral’s knights. In the ensuing combat he overcomes the Admiral’s champion, and receives as his guerdon, Blauncheflur. If we accept Herzog’s conclusions (pp. 15, 35, 45-6, 66) we must assume as an original for the Scandinavian versions, a French original, N, with the ending peculiar to the Northern versions. The development from this original is shown by the following plan (also borrowed from Herzog, p. 92).

Fr. N
\
\
Norw. M*
/ \
/ \
/ \
Icel. M Norw. N*
/ \
/ \
/ \
Icel. N Swed.
|
|
Dan. ]

_(f) In Italy._

In Italy also the story of Fl. and Bl. enjoyed great popularity. The two chief versions were: (1) the _Cantare_, written by a popular poet in _ottave rime_; and (2) Boccaccio’s youthful production, his first prose romance, _Filocolo_. That the I. version of the story, the one most popular in France, was also current in Italy, we see in these two versions, both of which show, in addition to the special traits of II., many traits peculiar to version I. To determine exactly the interrelations of these two versions is no easy matter. From allusions in the _Filocolo_ we know that the _Cantare_ was the older. Internal evidence, however, forbids the supposition that the _Filocolo_ has sprung from the _Cantare_. Rather the two versions go back to a common source. This Italian, or Franco-Italian, version, which probably had no differences of real moment from the _Cantare_ in its present form, must in many points have been more ample and complete, and in individual instances nearer the French tradition, than the _Cantare_ is.

In connection with the Italian group must also be mentioned the Greek poem of Florios and Platziaflore, composed in the 14th century and founded upon the _Cantare_.

_(g) In Spain._

In Spain we find allusion to our story already in the 13th century, when the _Gran conquista de Vltramar_ refers to Fl. and Bl. as the most devoted pair of lovers that one had ever heard of. But there is no proof of the existence of a Spanish version of the story as early as this. In the year 1512, appeared at Alcala the prose romance, _Flores y Blancaflor_, which is current to the present day. The close relationship of this to the Italian versions is very evident. Its source, however, seems hardly to be directly the _Cantare_. The beginning of the Spanish romance, which is 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.

[Footnote I-13: 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.]

[Footnote I-14: The evidence cited by G. Paris, consists of
allusions to--(1) History of Troy, (2) Siege of Troy, (3) Aeneid,
etc. The place of origin, according to G. Paris, was probably in
the region about Beauvais, lying between Normandy, Picardy and the
Île de France.]

[Footnote I-15: Perhaps this is a mere coincidence, since in a
poem about Berthe, her father happens to be named ‘Florie,’ a
Florie with a different history, _roi de Hongrie_. Later this
relationship was commonly assumed. In the _Gran Conquista de
Vltramar_, the story of Berthe is intercalated. She is daughter of
Blancaflor and Flores.]

[Footnote I-16: G. Paris makes this II. version the sole
representative of a third distinct form of the story, the 2^o of
his general classification, 1^o, 2^o, 3^o.]

[Footnote I-17: That is to say, French or Italian.]

[Footnote I-18: This version was evidently not translated from a
French MS. but written from memory. The details are not always
exactly identical with those of the French, though often so,
enough so to make the origin of the poem unmistakable though it is
much condensed and the order of events somewhat transposed.]

[Footnote I-19: Fleck’s work is a paraphrase. The details are
identical but are amplified to 8006 verses.]

§ 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 χ, 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_
_Et bien escrivre en parchemin_
vv. 263-4.

_Inouȝ þey couþ of latyne_
_And wel wryte on parchemyn_
vv. 33-4.

_Faites la moi tost demander_
_Ja li ferai le chief couper._
vv. 399-400.

_Let do bryng forþ þat mayde,_
_Fro þe body þe heved schal goo._
vv. 140-41.

_Et il l’a tant bien acatée_
_Qu’a fin or l’a sept fois pesée._
vv. 507-8.

_Þe amyral hur bouȝt anoon_
_And gafe for hur, as she stood upryȝt,_
_Seven sythes of gold her wyȝt._
vv. 194-6.

_Ci gist la bele Blanceflor_
_A cui Floires ot grant amor._
vv. 651-2.

_Here liþ swete Blauncheflur_
_Þat Floris loved par amur._
vv. 217-18.

_Un grafe a trait de son rapier_
. . . . . . . . . .
_En son cuer bouter le voloit,_
_Quant sa mere cou apercoit._
vv. 787-890.

_His knif he droȝ ut of his scheþe_
_And to his herte hit hadde ismite,_
_Nadde his moder hit underȝite._
vv. 308-10.

The _grafe_ is elaborately described in vv. 788-98:

_Li roi li done un palefroi,_
_Qui d’une part estoit tous blans,_
_De l’autre rouges comme sans._
vv. 964-6.

_Þe king let sadel a palfray_
_Þe oon half white, so mylke_
_And þat oþer reed, so sylk._
vv. 382-4.

_Fius, fait ele, gardez le bien;_
_Tant com l’aurez, mar _cremez_ rien;_
_Car vous ja rien ne requer(r)iez_
_Que tost ou tard vous ne l’aiez_
vv. 1003-6.

_Mi sone, he rede, have þis ring;_
_While he is þin, ne dute noþing._
. . . . . . . . .
_And be hit erli and be hit late_
_To þi wil þu schalt habbe whate._
vv. 393-8.

_La le troevent ou siet, sous l’arbre,_
_Sor un perron qui fu de marbre._
vv. 1355-6.

_Þe briggere he fond ate frome,_
_Sittinde on a marble ston._
vv. 558-9.

_Le millor conseil que jou sai_
v. 1858.

_Þe beste red þat ihc þe can_
v. 742.

_Si maudient qui s i foula_
v. 2060.

_Hi beden God ȝive him wel fin_
_Þat so manie flures dide þerin_
vv. 855-6.

_Des flors sali un paveillon_
_Des eles feri mon menton;_
_Del paveillon tel paor oi,_
_Que m’escriai plus tost que poi_
vv. 2093-6.

_Þer fliste ut a buterfliȝe,_
_Are ihc wiste, on mine iȝe._
_So sore ihc uas offerd of þan,_
_Þat ihc loude crie bigan_
vv. 889-92.

_Bele compaigne, Blanceflor,_
_Volez vous veoir bele flor?_
vv. 2117-18.

_And sede, “Swete Blauncheflur,_
_Wiltu se a wel fair flur?”_
vv. 897-8.

_Damoisele qui a amor_
_Et joie en soi, doit avoir flor._
vv. 2124-30.

_Ho þat loveþ par amur,_
_An haþ þerof joie, mai love flur._
vv. 903-4.

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 between the hearing publics, French and English, for whom the production was intended.[I-20]

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 ȝou noȝt Hu richeliche þe sadel was wroȝt_, 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.

[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.