Chapter III: Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

U
__/ \__
__/ \__
/ \__
_X_ |
/ \__ |
/ \ |
/ _y_ |
/ _/ \_ |
/ / \_ |
/ A \_ |
/ V |
/ |
T C ]

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

THE ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY.

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

§ 1. INTRODUCTORY.

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

§ 2. SETTING.

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

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

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

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

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

§ 3. THE RISE OF THE LEGEND.

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 4. PLACE OF OUR LEGEND OF THE ASSUMPTION.

What then was the original function of our legend of the Assumption? The _evangelium_ and the homily, as we have seen, still retained their places, in part at least, in the _temporal_, where the Assumption would belong, but were supplemented by legendary anecdotes, or even by entire legends. Was our poem originally intended for a place in the religious service, or was it rather a lyrico-romantic production with a sacred theme? What was the original purpose of the poem, it is not easy to determine. In actual use, however, it seems to have played a double role. In two of the six MSS. in which the present version of the story is preserved (viz. the Chetham MS. and Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2.), the legend is associated with romances, and we must infer that it is the romantic quality of the legend that has appealed to the collectors. (Cf. also the slightly different version in the Auchinleck MS.) In the other four MSS., however, the associations, as will be seen later, are distinctly religious, though Harl. MS. 2382 seems rather a literary collection than one designed for church use. In all of the MSS. the poem is referred to as a tale (cf. Harl. MS. 2253, near the end, where occurs the line, _This tale y haue tolde wit mouthe_), and as a _lesson_, that is to say a ‘reading,’ and if we may judge by the general tone of the different versions, the place for this ‘reading’ was quite likely the church. Even if the reading was not confined to the church, it usually was of a professionally religious character as we must judge from the remarkable conclusion in Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10036:

We biseche þee for alle þat hereþ þis vie
Off oure ladi seynt marie,
That Ih{es}u schelde hem fram g{ra}me
Fro dedly synne {and} fro schame,
Ne mysauenture schal bi falle þ{a}t man
That þis a vie here can.
Ne no womman þat ilke dai,
That of oure ladi hereþ þis lai,
Dien ne schal of hure childe;
For oure ladi hure schal be mylde.
Ne noone mys-auenture schall be-falle,
In felde, in strete, ne in halle,
In stede þer þis vie is rad,
For oure ladi hure sone it bad,
And þe archibisshop, seynt Edmou{n}d,
Haþ g{ra}unted xl. daies to p{ar}dou{n}
To alle þat þis vie wol here,
Or with good wille wol lere. vv. 879-896.

§ 5. ORIGIN.

The legend of the Assumption, according to ten Brink (Geschichte der engl. Litt. I, p. 331), had its origin in the second half of the 4th century. Tischendorf (Act. Apocr. p. xxxiv, Leipzig, 1866) believes a still earlier origin to be not impossible. The story had a wide circulation in the East. Besides the Greek versions we know (cf. F. Gierth, Engl. Stud. vii, pp. pp. 1-33) of three Syriac, one Arabic, and one Sahidic version. Even in Ethiopia there exists a similar tale (Journ. of Sacr. Lit. and Bibl. Rec., Jan. 1865, p. 48). From the orient the legend spread into the literatures of western Christendom. Tischendorf (as above, p. xliii.) gives a list of a dozen Latin manuscripts of the legend, and from these he offers critical editions of two versions, which, with Gierth, we may indicate as: (1) _Transitus Mariae_, #A# (Tischendorf, pp. 113 ff.) in Latin prose; (2) _Transitus Mariae_, #B#, a fuller version differing from #A# in some respects, notably in the absence of the scene in which Thomas appears.

Other Latin versions are those published by Th. Graesse: (1) The section, _De assumtione beatae Mariae virginis in Jacobi a Voragine Legenda Aurea_,[I-23] ed. Th. Graesse, _Dresdae et Lipsiae_, 1846, pp. 504 ff., (2) _De modo assumtionis beatae Mariae_, published by Graesse, as above, pp. 517 ff.

In French may be mentioned the version by Wace (_L’Établissement de la fête de la conception Nôtre-Dame dite la fête aux Normands_. Caen, 1842, or, in another edition, _Vie de la vierge Marie_, Tours, 1859). For account of other unpublished French versions cf. E. Stengel, _Mittheilungen aus franz. hss._, etc., Halle, 1873, pp. 20 ff.

In German we may mention the version by Conrad v. Heimesfurt, about 1200 (HZ. viii, pp. 150 ff.).

Our story in its present form seems to have made its first appearance in England in the French version, above mentioned, by Wace, in the second quarter of the 12th century. (Cf. however, _Assumptio sanctae Mariae virginis_, Blickling Homilies, E.E.T.S. 58, 63, 73.) Of an English version of the present form of the legend, for English hearers, we have no trace before the middle of the following century, from which it seems we are to infer that the legend remained the property of the French clericals about a century before coming into general circulation in the English-speaking world. This earliest English version of the story is the one of the present edition in short riming couplets.

What then was the source of this earliest English version? Was it derived from Wace, or does it rest on one of the Latin versions? Wace’s poem consists of three parts (cf. Gierth, Engl. Stud. vii, p. 6): (1) the institution of the feast of the Conception of Mary, (2) her birth, rearing and marriage, (3) her death and burial. For the first part his source seems to have been the _Miraculum de conceptione sanctae Mariae_; for the second part, the _Evangelium de nativitate Sanctae Mariae_. About these two works, which he has followed almost word for word, Wace grouped a number of minor anecdotes and commentary notes from Anselm, Eadmer, and other of the church writers of the 11th and 12th centuries. For part (3) Wace seems certainly to have used the Latin version of the story, designated by Tischendorf as _Transitus Mariae_, #B#.

The English version has in common with Wace’s poem some traits that in the other versions are wanting. For instance, only in these two versions is it related that Mary cared for and instructed the maidens in the temple. (Engl. vv. 60 ff.) Another feature in common is contained in the speech of Christ to his mother shortly before her death, in which he promises her, _La porte d’aidier auras A trestous ceus que tu vorras_ (Wace, p. 71, vv. 6, 7), which the English poet seems to have expanded into a number of verses, in which is promised pardon to every sinner who will betake himself to Mary.

On the other hand, in several instances the English agrees more closely with the Latin, where Wace has considerably abridged, and in these instances the French cannot have been the original of the English poem. A Latin original seems much more probable. The first two-thirds of the English poem corresponds almost exactly with the Tischendorf Latin #B# version. On the other hand, the introduction of Thomas in the last one-third of the poem is a feature of the Latin #A# version, but is foreign to #B#. In other respects the English poem corresponds more closely to a third Latin version from which Tischendorf quotes variants, the _Codex Laurentius_. The English has in common with the _Legenda Aurea_ the peculiar trait of making no mention of the miraculous transit of John from Ephesus. Again, some traits in Latin #B# do not appear in the English version, and, on the other hand, the English version contains a few traits not to be found in any of the other versions spoken of.

From the above we must conclude either that the English version rests on a very composite version of which we do not know, or that the composer of the English version was very eclectic, and selected his material from very different sources. The latter explanation seems the more probable one. In this connection it is important to note an observation first made by Zarncke and afterwards corroborated by Kölbing (Engl. Stud. ii, pp. 281-2) that the different prose versions of legends influence each other reciprocally, producing mixed or composite forms of the legend (_mischredactionen_) whose exact descent it is impossible to trace. It is here that the learned element makes itself felt and differentiates the tradition of a legend from the tradition of a romance or of a song. The influence of this learned element we must probably assume in explaining the tradition of our legend of the Assumption, which seems to be a _mischredaction_.

[Footnote I-23: A legend cycle composed in Latin prose by the
Italian Jacobus a Voragine, Bishop of Genoa.]

§ 6. OTHER ENGLISH VERSIONS.

The story of the Assumption seems to have circulated, as we have seen, both as a romantic story and as a devout legend. It must have been in the first of these two _rôles_ that it was admitted to the famous collection of romances in the Auchinleck MS. Here the story appears in a new dress, composed in six-line strophes, with _rime couée_, probably under the influence of the ballad singers. The content of this version (cf. M. Schwarz, Engl. Stud. viii, pp. 428 ff.) seems to be substantially that of the earlier version of the present volume. The first stanza of this version is,--

Who so bereȝ palm, þe tokne is þis,
Þat in clene lif he is;
Þat is to vnderstonde:
Hit is tokning of loue,
Þat god him haueȝ wraththe forȝoue,
Þat bereȝ palm on honde.

The Assumption also forms a member of the Southern cycle of legends, which go to form a legendary. In this _rôle_ it appears in Harl. MS. 2277, “a parchment book in a long 4to, imperfect at the beginning and elsewhere; which formerly contained the legends of the Saints, etc., according to the course of the year, written in very old English verse.... The handwriting of this MS. seems to be older than that year” (1320). The MS. contains 69 legends, of which number 38 is _Assumpcio S. Marie_, in 246 long riming lines, the first two of which are,--

Seinte marie godes moder : f{ra}m þaposteles nas noȝt
Þo þe holi gost a wit sonedai : among hem was ibroȝt.

This version seems to rest on the _Legenda Aurea_[I-24] as an original, although the incident of the tardy arrival of Thomas, which is contained in the Latin, is wanting in this version.

This same version appears in a later MS., Bodl. 779,[I-25] of the 16th century. In this MS. the legend cycle is greatly extended by the addition of a whole new series of legends. The number of legends in this MS. reaches the number of 135, of which the version of the Assumption is number 57.

Another version of our legend is that belonging to the Northern legend cycle, and preserved in two MSS.: Harl. 4196 and Cott. Tiber. E. VII,[I-26] of which the latter is the older, but the former the more complete. These two texts correspond word for word, and apart from possible scribal blunder, letter for letter, abbreviation for abbreviation. Harl. MS. 4196 is a large folio on parchment, evidently of about the middle of the 14th century, and written in a beautiful large hand of the Northern type. It has 258 double-columned leaves, and contains (1) several parts of the gospel in verse, which end at fol. 132 _a_, then after a blank page, (2) collection of legends in verse, with special title and an introduction of eight verses (folios 133-205), then as a sort of appendix, (3) a metrical gospel of Nicodemus (folios 206-215 _a_), and (4) the Prick of Conscience in verse. This version, which appears as number 8 in the second division, the legend collection of the Harl. MS., and whose text is identical in the two MSS. above mentioned, opens as follows,--

Of mari milde now will I mene
Þat of all heuyns es corond quene
And lady of all erth to tell
And also Emp{er}ise of hell.

Another version belonging to the Southern cycle is that contained in the younger MS. of this cycle, Lambeth MS. 223, a 4to parchment from the beginning of the 15th century. (Cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, p. xlvii. and Notes.) In this MS. the Assumption appears, not in the legendary itself, but as the fifth and last division in the _temporal_, which is prefixed to the Southern cycle of legends. This version has frequent rimes within the verse, and the last half verse has four stresses. The version agrees in many respects with the Northern one just described and also with the earlier Southern version, the one of our present volume. The opening lines are as follows,--

Herkkenes alle gode men, ȝif ȝe ben wise and slye
And I wole to ȝow rede þe assumpcioun of Marie
How she was from erþe taken into heuen on hegh
And þere she shal euer wone and sitte Ihesu negh.

Another English version of our legend is that incorporated into the Cursor Mundi (vv. 19993-20064). This version is translated into a Northern dialect from a Southern English poem. (Cf. Cursor Mundi, ed. by R. Morris, Introduction by Dr. Haenisch, pp. 42 ff.)

And sant edmund o ponteni
Dais o pardun þam gis tuenti
In a writt þis ilk i fand,
He-self it wroght, ic understand.
In sotherin englis was it draun
And turnd it haue i till our aun
Langage o northrin lede,
Þat can nan oþer englis rede.
vv. 20057-64.

The poet of Cursor Mundi follows the Southern author nearly line for line, so that there cannot be the slightest doubt that he refers to the Southern English version of the present volume. But now and then he has made additions, for some of which Haenisch finds no source. (Horstmann believes this version to have been translated from Wace.)

The fact that the poet of Cursor Mundi “attributes his original to Edmund of Pontenay was caused by a misunderstanding of the lines 893-96 of the SE. Assumption” (Haenisch).

Cursor Mundi, vv. 20057-60.

And sant edmund o ponteni
Dais o pardun þam gis tuenti;
In a writt þis ilk i fand
He self it wroght, ic understand.

Assumption, vv. 893-6.

And þe archibisshop seynt Edmound
Haþ graunted xl. daies to pardoun
To alle þat þis vie wol here
Or with good wille wol lere.

Still another version, which formed part of a work by Barbour, the author of the Scotch collection of legends, is mentioned in his prologue, but, along with the rest of this work referred to, is unfortunately lost.

Still further deserving of mention are (1) the prose version contained in the ‘Festial’ of Johannes Mirkus (Horstmann, Neue Folge, pp. cix. ff.), a collection of sermons, derived for the most part from the _Legenda Aurea_ and written about 1400 for the festivals of the church, Festae Christi and Saints’ days;[I-27] and (2) that contained in the English translation of the _Legenda Aurea_ (cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, pp. cxxx ff.). “The Assumption of oure ladi” stands 111 in Harl. MS. 4775.

The above enumeration of versions of our legend will demonstrate effectively its popularity in England, also its use in the service of the church. Further investigation is needed to determine more exactly the interrelations of the various versions, though it is doubtful if such an investigation would produce any very conclusive results, since, as suggested above, many versions of the legends were probably mixed versions (_mischredactionen_).

[Footnote I-24: Cf. M. Schwarz, Engl. Studien, viii, pp. 461 ff.
But cf. ten Brink, I, p. 336; Horstmann, Neue Folge, p. xxxix.]

[Footnote I-25: Cf. C. Horstmann, Altengl. Legenden, p. xxxiv,
Paderborn, 1875.]

[Footnote I-26: Cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, pp. lxxviii ff., Text,
pp. 112 ff.]

[Footnote I-27: The sermons are arranged according to the
calendar, so that here the book of homilies and the legendary are
at length completely formed into one. In the oldest and best MS.,
Cott. Claud. A. II, the Assumption is number 52.]

§ 7. MANUSCRIPTS.

The earliest English version, the one of the present volume, is known to exist in six manuscripts.

1. Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2. (For description cf. introduction to King Horn, p. xxviii.) This fragmentary text (240 lines) is printed in the present volume.

2. Chetham MS. 8009, Manchester, a collection of romances and legends. (For description cf. Engl. Stud. vii, 195 ff., viii, pp. 1 ff.)

3. Cambr. Univ. MS. Dd. 1. 1., a long narrow MS. from about the middle of the 14th century and written in a large, informal, very legible hand. The content of the MS. is the Northern collection of _Evangelia dominicalia_, with which is included, in addition to the sermons with legends attached for the festivals of John and Peter and Paul, also our Southern legend poem of the Assumption, which is perhaps to be attributed to the scribe (named Staundon), who is Southern. (For a full account of this MS. cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, p. xxvi. and pp. lxvii. ff.) This text of 544 verses has not been printed.

4. Cambr. Univ. MS. Ff. 2. 38, a paper MS. in an informal but legible hand by a Southern scribe. It contains miscellaneous religious writings, the list of which I neglected to copy. Our poem is followed by “þe lyfe of seynt Kateryn.” This text of 770 verses has not been printed.

5. Harl. MS. 2382, a paper book in 4to, in an informal hand, and containing nine miscellaneous theological poems by Lydgate, Chaucer, etc. Poem number 1 is Lydgate’s Life of the Virgin Mary, four books at the end of which stands this note, _Explicit quartus liber de sancta Maria_. The second poem is our present version of the Assumption, evidently the end of a sequel to Lydgate’s poem, for at the end stands the note, _Explicit Sextus liber Sancte Marie_, which shows that two other books were added to the original four of Lydgate, written in stanzas, to King Henry V. The other contents of this MS. seem also to be literary, and are as follows: 3. _Oracio ad Sanctam Mariam_, 4. _The Testament of Dan Johan Lydgate_, 5. _Fabula Mornalis de Sancta Maria_, Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale, 6. _Vita Sancte Cecilie_, Chaucer’s Second Nonne’s Tale, 7. _De Sancto Erasmo Martire_, 8. _Testamentum Cristi_, 9. _The Childe of Bristow_. This text of 710 verses is in part reprinted in the present volume.

6. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10036, a small parchment volume (about 8 × 4) of 100 folios, written in black letter, perhaps in the second half of the 14th century, and containing a miscellaneous religious collection: (1) History of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian (ff. 1-61), (2) The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (ff. 62-80), (3) A question of the peynes of helle (prose, ff. 81-84), (4) Here bigynneth the thre arowis that God schal schete at domys-dais apon hem that schullen be dampned (prose, ff. 85-91), (5) The seven petitions in the Pater Noster (prose, ff. 91-94), (6) Ave Maria, Pardons and Indulgences for repeating (prose, f. 94), (7) Ten Commandments trans. and expl. (prose, ff. 94-96), (8) The 51st Psalm, _Miserere mei_, trans. into English verse (96-100). This text, in 904 verses, is printed in the present volume.

If for the sake of conformity with the German investigations, we designate Cambr. MS. Gg. 9. 27. 2. as #A#, Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10036 as #B#, Harl. MS. 2382 as #C#, Cambr. MS. Dd. 1. 1. as #D#, Cambr. MS. Ff. 2. 38. as #E#, and Chetham MS. as #Ch.#, then the interrelations of the different texts of this version are about as follows (F. Gierth, Engl. Stud. vii, pp. 1 ff.). #A# and #B# form a special group as opposed to #C#, #D#, #E#, on the one hand, and to #Ch.# alone, on the other. No one of these versions is the direct source of any other. The different texts may be characterized somewhat as follows:

#A# offers the best text as far as it goes.

#B# introduces many important changes, and seems to be somewhat confused in the order of events, but in the passages preserved intact, preserves the text and the rime better than do #C#, #D#, or #E#.

#C# gives best the true course of the story, but often alters the rime, in particular, individual rime words.

#D# has many gaps, and is particularly defective after the entrance on the scene of Thomas.

#E# stands in closer relation to #D# than to #C#, and often takes an intermediate position between #C# and #D#. #Ch.# (cf. M. Schwarz, Engl. Stud. viii, p. 460) we must regard as a compilation of different MSS., and owes its origin perhaps to oral tradition. In the case of #Ch.#, as in the case of the other texts of this version, it will be safer not to set up any diagram representing the interrelations of MSS., since these MSS. are no doubt all of them influenced by written as well as by oral tradition, and, as has been pointed out above, there is at least a possibility, as in the case of #Ch.#, of mixed versions. In dealing with legend, even less than in dealing with romance, does one have to do with a purely epic growth.

§ 8. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.

We have already seen that the author of Cursor Mundi attributes the authorship of this version of the Assumption to Edmund of Pontenay (pp. liii, liv, above). But we have also seen the probable source of his error. In one thing the Northern writer is no doubt right, when he says (v. 20061), “In sotherin englis was it draun.” The poem is undoubtedly Southern in origin. To gain more definite knowledge is not easy. The rimes, our usual guide in such cases, in this poem are very uncertain. The writer’s ear seems to have been not a delicate one. He does not distinguish carefully open _ę̨̄_ and close _ẹ̄_, e.g. _here_ : _lere_ 4 Add., _wel_ : _del_ 212 C, 206 D, 218 Add., 256 C, 262 Add., _were_ : _here_ 716 Add., etc.

In a similar way he does not distinguish carefully open _ǭ_ and close _ọ̄_, e.g. _gone_ : _done_ 86 Add., 594 H, _done_ : _one_ 416 Add., 562 H, 588 H, 750 Add., _anon_ : _done_ 530 Add., _sloo_ : _doo_ 508 H, _þo_ : _do_ 262 D, etc. In consequence we are not able to apply the _-wǭ-_, _-wọ̄-_ test with any degree of certainty. OE. _-wā_ rimes, now with _ǭ_, now with _ọ̄_, e.g. _fro_ : _so_ 342 Add., 324 D, _so_ : _fo_ 374 Add., _tho_ : _so_ 278 H, _also_ : _mo_ 17 C, etc.; but _so_ : _to_ 179 C, 184 Add., 214 C, 296 C, 300 Add., 314 H, 344 Add., 718 Add., 904 Add., _atwo_ : _do_ 280 H, _whom_ : _come_ 306 F (_wham_ : _cam_ 336 Add.), etc.

In the same way OE. _æ_, and shortened OE. _ǣ_, rimes now with _a_, now with _e_, e.g. _was_ : _gracias_ 310 Add., 774 Add., _Thomas_ : _was_ 656 C, _Iosephas_ : _was_ 582 H; but _fless_ : _was_ 34 C, _best_ : _lest_ 392 H, _fed_ : _bed_ 124 C, 132 A, _les_ : _wes_ 566 D.

In the same way OE. _y_ rimes now with _e_, now with _i_, e.g. _stede_ : _dude_ 57 C, 62 Add., 88 Add., 800 Add., 82 C, 624 Add., _kyng_ : _geng_ 220 C, _him_ (= ‘them’) : _kyn_ 642 Add.; but _mankyne_ : _pyne_ 426 A, _Inne_ : _kynne_ 430 A, 478 A, 360 H, 338 D, 346 D, _it_ : _pytt_ 506 H, _þerynne_ : _synne_ 604 H, _blisse_ : _gladnesse_ 384 H, etc.

In the same way in the 3rd plur. pres. indic., the ending is sometimes _-eþ_, sometimes _-n_, e.g. _listneþ_ 8 C, _serueþ_ 418 H, _goth_ 476 H, 593 A, _buþ_ 22 C, 26 C, etc.; but _ben_ 25 A, _beon_ 141 C, 149 A, etc., and the rime _kenesmen_ : _ben_ 122 C, 130 A.

Details may be multiplied indefinitely to show the general Southern character of the language, _e.g._ the verbal endings in _-i_ or _-y_, as _blessi_ : _herkni_ 7, 8 C, _loky_ 47 C, _gladie_ 75 C, etc.; the infinitive preserving its final _-n_, as _quene_ : _bene_ 6 Add., _bene_ : _ysene_ 40 A, _gon_ : _on_ 140 C, _quen_ : _ben_ 98 C, 104 A, 114 C, 120 A, etc.; but _beo_ : _gleo_ 10 C, etc.; the present participle in _-and_, as _lepand_ : _hande_ 614 A, etc.; the use of the palatalized consonants, as in _yyeue_ 566 H, _ayene_ 597 H, etc.

The dialect then certainly is of the Southern part of England; but the rimes do not enable one to locate the dialect more exactly. The composition is undoubtedly that of a scholar in whom one might expect a wider range in pronunciation. Doubtless both Southern and Midland dialects were familiar to him. The pronunciation, however, of OE. _y_ as _e_ and of OE. _æ_ as _e_ belongs to the East Southern, and we shall probably be safe in calling the dialect a compromise between East Southern and East Midland.

The time of composition was probably not later than 1250. The OE. _ā_ had regularly changed to _ǭ_ (if we neglect an isolated instance like _thomas_ : _ras_ 822 A); but I find no certain instance of lengthening in open syllables, and further, the oldest MS. (C) is not much later than 1250, as we have seen. It preserves the unmonophthonged _eo_, e.g. _weop_ 29, _treo_ 35, _heo_ 36, _beo_ 37, _iseo_ 38, etc.

§ 9. VERSIFICATION.

The legend, like the romance of Floris and Blancheflur, is composed in short riming pairs. Each verse nominally has four metrical stresses. The rime may be either masculine or feminine. Frequently assonance takes the place of perfect rime; e.g. _weop_ : _fet_ 30 C, _gode_ : _fote_ 70 Add., _þolen_ : _y-boren_ 220 Add., etc.

KING HORN.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Line-initial þ was corrected to capital Þ on the assumption that
capitalization was editorial. Individual changes are noted at the
end of the e-text. Line-initial y was retained for consistency.]

_Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2._

Alle beon he bliþe
Þat to my song lyþe,
A sang ihc schal ȝou singe
Of Murry þe kinge. 4

_Laud Misc. MS. 108_, fol. 219 _b_.

+++Alle ben he bliþe
Þat to me wile{n} liþe,
A song ich wille you si{n}ge
Of morye þe kinge. 4

_Harl. MS. 2253._

_The | corresponds to a sign used in the MS. to mark the divisions between the lines._

[[See Transcriber’s Note about e-text format.]]

[Sidenote: [leaf 83]]
Her bygynneþ þe geste of kyng Horn.

¶ Alle heo ben blyþe
þat to my song ylyþe,
a song ychulle ou singe
of Allof þe gode kynge. 4

[Sidenote: King Murry and his queen, Godhild, have a son named Horn.]

King he was biweste
So longe so hit laste.
Godhild het his quen;
Faire ne miȝte non ben. 8
He hadde a sone þ{a}t het horn;
Fairer ne miste no{n} beo born,
Ne no rein vpon birine,
Ne su{n}ne vpon bischine. 12

King he was bi westen
Wel þat hise dayes lesten,
And godild hise gode quene;
Feyrer non micte bene. 8
Here sone hauede to name horn;
Feyrer child ne micte ben born.
Ne reyn ne micte upon reyne,
Ne no so{n}ne by schine. 12

kyng he wes by weste
þe whiles hit yleste,
ant godylt his gode quene;
no feyrore myhte bene. 8
ant huere sone hihte horn;
feyrore child ne myhte be born.
for reyn ne myhte by ryne
ne sonne myhte shyne. 12

[Sidenote: He is marvellously fair and fifteen years old.]

Fairer nis no{n} þane he was;
He was briȝt so þe glas.
He was whit so þe flur,
Rose red was his colur. 16
[_No gap in MS._ . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .]
In none kinge riche
Nas no{n} his iliche. 20

Fayrer child þa{n}ne he was,
Brict so eu{er}e any glas,
Whit so any lili flour,
So rose red was hys colur. 16
He was fayr and eke bold
And of fiftene winter hold.
Was noma{n} him yliche
Bi none kinges riche. 20

feyrore child þen he was,
bryht so euer eny glas,
so whit so eny lylye flour,
so rose red wes his colour. 16
He wes feyr {ant} eke bold
ant of fyftene wynter old.
[Sidenote: [leaf 83, back]]
Nis non his yliche
in none kinges ryche. 20

[Headnote: _Saracens invade the land._]

[Sidenote: Horn has twelve companions.]

Twelf feren he hadde
Þ{a}t alle wiþ him ladde,
Alle riche ma{n}nes sones,
{And} alle hi were faire gomes, 24
Wiþ him for to pleie.
{And} mest he luuede tweie;
++Þat on him het haþulf child,
{And} þ{a}t oþ{er} ffikenild. 28

xij feren he hadde
Þat he mid him ladde,
And alle rich ki{n}ges sones,
And alle swiþe fayre gomes, 24
Mid hym forto pleye.
But mest he louede tueye;
Þat on was hoten ayol child,
And þat oþer fokenild. 28

tueye feren he hadde
þ{a}t he wiþ him ladde,
alle richemenne sones,
{ant} alle suyþe feyre gomes, 24
wyþ him forte pleye.
mest he louede tueye;
Þ{a}t on wes hoten Athulf chyld,
{ant} þ{a}t oþer Fykenyld. 28

[Sidenote: Athulf the best, and Fikenhild the worst.]

Aþulf was þe beste
{And} fikenylde þe werste.
Hit was vpon a som{er}es day,
Also ihc ȝou telle may, 32

Ayol was þe beste
And fokenild þe werste.
++Hit was sone som{er}es day,
Also ich nou telle{n} may, 32

Athulf wes þe beste
ant fykenyld þe werste.
Hyt was vpon a someres day,
also ich ou telle may, 32

[Sidenote: King Murry while riding, finds fifteen ships arrived on the strand.]

Murri þe gode king
Rod on his pleing
Bi þe se side,
Ase he was woned ride. 36

Þat moye þe gode kinge
Rod on his pleyhinge
Bi þe se syde,
Þer he was woned to ryde. 36

Allof þe gode kyng
rod vpon ys pleyȝyng
bi þe see side,
þer he was woned to ryde. 36

[_No gap in MS._ . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .]
He fo{n}d bi þe st{ro}nde,
Ariued o{n} his lo{n}de, 40
Schipes fiftene,
Wiþ sarazins kene.

With him ride{n} bote tvo;
Al to fewe ware þo.
He fond bi þe stronde,
Ariued on his londe, 40
Schipes xv,
Of sarazines kene.

wiþ him ne ryde bote tuo;
al to fewe hue were þo.
he fond by þe stronde,
aryued on is londe, 40
shipes fyftene,
of sarazynes kene.

He axede what isoȝte
Oþ{er} to londe broȝte. 44
++A Payn hit of herde
And hym wel sone answarede,
“Þi lo{n}d folk we schulle slon
And alle þ{a}t Crist luueþ vpon, 48
And þe selue riȝt anon;
Ne schaltu todai henne gon.”

He acsede wat he sowte
Oþer to londe broucte. 44
A peynym it yherde
And sone answerede,
“Þi lond folc we wile{n} slon
And al þat god leuet on; 48
And þe we solen sone anon;
Sald þou neuere henne gon.”

he askede whet hue sohten
oþer on is lond brohten. 44
a payen hit yherde
{ant} sone him onsuerede,
“þy lond folk we wolleþ slon
þ{a}t euer c{ri}st leueþ on; 48
{ant} þe we wolleþ ryht anon;
shalt þou neuer henne gon.”

[Headnote: _Saracens kill Horn’s father._]

[Sidenote: After a brave defence, the king and his two companions are slain,]

Þe kyng aliȝte of his stede,
For þo he hauede nede, 52
{And} his gode kniȝtes two;
Al to fewe he hadde þo.
Swerd hi gu{n}ne g{ri}pe
{And} to gadere smite. 56
Hy smyten vnder schelde
Þat sume hit yfelde.
Þe king hadde al to fewe
Toȝenes so vele schrewe. 60

Þe king licte adoun of his stede,
For þo he hauede nede, 52
And hise gode knictes ij,
But ywis he{m} was ful wo.
Swerdes þe go{n}ne g{r}ipe
And to gydere smyte. 56
He foute{n} an ond{er} selde
Some of hem he felde.
He weren al to fewe
Ayen so fele srewe. 60

þe kyng lyhte of his stede,
for þo he heuede nede, 52
ant his gode feren tuo;
mid ywis huem wes ful wo.
swerd hy gonne g{ri}pe
{ant} to gedere smyte. 56
hy smyten under shelde,
þ{a}t hy somme yfelde.
¶ þe kyng hade to fewe
aȝeyn so monie schrewe. 60

[Sidenote: and the Saracens begin to waste the land.]

So fele miȝten yþe
Bringe hem þre to diþe.
¶ Þe pains come to londe
{And} neme hit in here honde. 64
Þ{a}t folc hi gu{n}ne quelle
{And} churchen for to felle.

Sone micte{n} atteþ[KH-1]
Bri{n}gen þre deþe.
Þe paynimes come{n} to londe
And nome{n} hyt al to honde. 64
Cherches he go{n}ne{n} felle,
And folc he go{n}ne quelle.

[Footnote KH-1: after þ a letter erased]

so fele myhten eþe
bringe þre to deþe.
þe payns come to londe
{ant} nomen hit an honde. 64
þe folk hy gonne quelle
{ant} sarazyns to felle.

Þer ne moste libbe
Þe fremde ne þe sibbe, 68
Bute hi here laȝe asoke
{And} to here toke.
Of alle wymmanne
Wurst was godhild þanne. 72

Þer ne micte libbe
Þe fremde ne þe sibbe, 68
Bote he here ley forsoken
And to here token.
Of alle wi{m}menne
Verst was godyld o{n}ne. 72

þer ne myhte libbe
þe fremede ne þe sibbe, 68
bote he is lawe forsoke
{ant} to huere toke.
of alle wymmanne
werst wes godyld þanne. 72

[Sidenote: Godhild grieves much,]

For Murri heo weop sore
{And} for horn ȝute more.
[_No gap in MS._ . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .] 76

For moy he wep sore
And for horn wel more.
Godild hauede so michel sore
Micte no wimma{n} habbe more. 76

for Allof hy wepeþ sore
{ant} for horn ȝet more.
Godild hade so muche sore
þ{a}t habbe myhte hue na more. 76

[Headnote: _Godhild takes refuge in a cave._]

[Sidenote: but retires alone to a cave, where she continues to observe the Christian religion.]

He wenten vt of halle,
Fram hire Maidenes alle,
Vnder a roche of stone.
Þer heo liuede alone. 80
Þer heo s{er}uede gode,
Aȝenes þe paynes forbode.

Þe vente hout of halle,
Fram hire maydenes alle,
In to a roche of stone.
Þar he wonede allone. 80
Þer he seruede god,
Ayenes þe houndes forbod.

hue wente out of halle,
from hire maidnes alle,
vnder a roche of stone.
þer hue wonede al one. 80
þer hue seruede gode,
aȝeyn þe payenes forbode.

Þer he seruede c{ri}ste,
Þ{a}t no payn hit ne wiste. 84
Eu{e}re heo bad for horn child,
Þ{a}t Iesu c{ri}st him beo myld.
Horn was in paynes honde
Wiþ his feren of þe londe. 88
Muchel was his fairhede,
For ih{es}u c{ri}st hi{m} makede.

Þer he s{er}uede c{r}iste,
Þat paynimes ne wiste, 84
And eu{er}e bed for horn child,
Þat ih{es}u c{r}ist him were mild.
Horn was i{n} peynims honde,
Mid his feren of þe londe. 88
Miche was his fayrhede,
So ih{es}u him hauede made.

þer hue seruede c{ri}st,
þ{a}t þe payenes hit nust. 84
ant euer hue bad for horn child,
þ{a}t c{ri}st him wrþe myld.
¶ Horn wes in payenes hond,
mid is feren of þe lond. 88
muche wes þe feyrhade
þ{a}t ih{es}u c{ri}st him made.

[Headnote: _Saracens deliberate over Horn._]

[Sidenote: The pagans save Horn and his companions on account of Horn’s fairness,]

Payns him wolde slen
Oþ{er} al quic flen. 92
Ȝef his fairnesse nere,
Þe children alle aslaȝe were.
Þa{n}ne spak on Admirad,
Of wordes he was bald, 96

Þo hundes wolde slon,
And some him wolde flon. 92
Ȝif hornes fayrede nere,
Þe child yslawe ware.
++Uan bi spek him amyraud,
Of wordes he was swiþe baud, 96

payenes him wolde slo
{ant} summe him wolde flo. 92
ȝyf hornes feyrnesse nere,
yslawe þis children were.
þo spec on Admyrold,
of wordes he wes swyþe bold, 96

“Horn, þu art wel kene,
{And} þ{a}t is wel isene;
Þu art gret {and} st{ro}ng,
fair {and} euene lo{n}g. 100
Þu schalt waxe more
Bi fulle seue ȝere.

“Horn, þou art swiþe scene,
And follyche swiþe kene;
Þou art fayr and eke strong,
Þou art eueneliche long. 100
Þou scald more wexe
In þis fif yere þe nexte.

“horn, þou art swyþe kene,
bryht of hewe {ant} shene;
þou art fayr {ant} eke strong
{ant} eke eueneliche long. 100
[_No gap in MS._ . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .]

[Sidenote: at the same time with forebodings that if Horn lives, he will take revenge.]

Ȝef þu mote to liue go,
{And} þine feren also, 104
Ȝef hit so bi falle,
Ȝe scholde slen vs alle.
Þaruore þu most to stere,
Þu {and} þine ifere. 108
To schupe schulle ȝe funde
{And} sinke to þe grunde.

Ȝif þu to liue mictest go,
An þine feren also, 104
Þat micte so bifalle
Þou suldes slen us alle.
Þe for þou scald to stron go
And þine feren also. 108
To schip ye schule{n} sto{u}nde
A sinke{n} to þe grunde.

ȝef þou to lyue mote go,
ant þyne feren also, 104
þat ymay byfalle
þ{a}t ȝe shule slen vs alle.
[Sidenote: [leaf 84]]
þare fore þou shalt to streme go,
þou ant þy feren also. 108
to shipe ȝe shule founde
{ant} sinke to þe grounde.

Þe se ȝou schal adrenche;
Ne schal hit us noȝt of þinche. 112
For if þu were aliue,
Wiþ swerd oþ{er} wiþ kniue
We scholden alle deie,
{And} þi fader deþ abeie.” 116

Þe se þe sal adrinke;
Ne sal hit us of þinke. 112
For yf þou come to liue,
With suerdes or with cniue
We sholde alle deye,
Þi fad{er}es det abeye.” 116

þe see þe shal adrenche;
ne shal hit vs of þenche. 112
for ȝef þou were alyue,
wiþ suerd oþer wiþ knyue
we shulden alle deȝe,
þy fader deþ to beye.” 116

[Headnote: _Horn is put to sea in a boat._]

[Sidenote: Grieving sorely, the children are put aboard the boat,]

++Þe children hi broȝte to st{ro}nde,
Wringinde here honde,
Into schupes borde
At þe furste worde. 120
Ofte hadde horn beo wo,
At neure wurs þan him was þo.
[_No gap in MS._ . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .]

Þe childre yede to stronde,
Wringende here honde.
[_No gap in MS._ . . . .
. . . . . . . . .]
Ofte hauede horn child be wo,
Bute neu{er}e werse þa{n} þo.
Horns yede in to þe shipes bord
Sone at þe firste word, 124
And alle hise feren,
Þat ware him lef and dere.

þe children ede to þe stronde,
wryngynde huere honde,
ant in to shipes borde
at þe furste worde. 120
ofte hade horn be wo,
ah neuer wors þen hi{m} wes þo.
[_No gap in MS._ . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .]

Þe se bigan to flowe
{And} hornchild to rowe. 128
Þe se þ{a}t schup so faste drof,
Þe children dradde þer of.
Hi wenden to wisse
Of here lif to misse, 132

Þe se bigan to flowen
And horn faste to rowen. 128
And here schip swiþe drof;
Þe childre{n} adred þer of.
Þei wende{n} alle wel ywis
Of here lif haued ymis, 132

¶ þe see bygon to flowen
{ant} horn faste to rowen 128
ant þ{a}t ship wel suyþe drof,
{ant} horn wes adred þer of,
hue wenden mid ywisse
of huere lyue to misse. 132

[Sidenote: and the following morning see land.]

Al þe day {and} al þe niȝt,
Til hit sprang dai liȝt.
¶ Til horn saȝ on þe st{ro}nde
Men gon i{n} þe londe. 136
“Feren,” q{ua}þ he, “ȝo{n}ge,
Ihc telle ȝou tiþinge.

Al þe day and al þe nict,
Til him sprong þe day lyt.
Til horn bi þe stro{n}de
Seth me{n} gon alonde. 136
“Feren,” he seyde, “singe,
Y telle ȝou a tidinge.

al þe day {ant} al þe nyht,
o þ{a}t sprong þe day lyht,
Flotterede horn by þe stronde,
er he seye eny londe. 136
“feren,” quoþ horn þe ȝynge,
“y telle ou tydynge.

[Sidenote: Horn announces land to his companions.]

Ihc here foȝeles singe
{And} þ{a}t gras him springe. 140
Bliþe beo we on lyue,
Vre schup is on ryue.”
Of schup hi gu{n}ne funde
{And} setten fout to grunde. 144

Ych here foules singe
And so þe g{ra}s him sp{r}inge. 140
Bliþe be we o liue,
Houre schip hys come ryue.”
Of schip þe gon fonde
An sette fot on grunde. 144