§ 1. _Setting of the Story_, p. vii.
§ 2. _Versions_, p. viii.
§ 3. _Elements of the Story_, p. xvi.
§ 4. _Topography_, p. xvii.
§ 5. _Style_, p. xx.
§ 6. _Versification_, p. xxi.
§ 7. _Dialect_, p. xxiv.
§ 8. _Manuscripts_, p. xxviii.
§ 1. SETTING OF THE STORY.
By the beginning of the 13th century, when literature in the English
tongue began to show some signs of revival, the earlier English epic
tales seem to have been almost entirely obliterated from memory. A
solitary survival seems to have been the story of the dragon-killing
Wade with his famous boat Guingelot; but even this story is lost to us
save for occasional references,[I-1] and from these we must infer that
all definite idea of its origin was lost, since Wade is associated, now
with Weyland, now with Horn and Havelok, now with Lancelot. The place of
these earlier epic tales was filled in Middle English times by a new set
of tales for the most part no longer of purely native, popular origin.
Tales were imported from every conceivable quarter, though usually by
way of France, and even in the popular romances of Guy of Warwick and
Bevis of Hampton, which are supposed to contain a kernel of genuine
English tradition, the original story is almost unrecognizable amid the
embellishments added. Similarly in the stories of Waldef and Hereward
the historical facts are almost lost amid this mass of added foreign
matter, and in the late romance of Richard Cœur de Lion we have to do,
not with the historical Richard, but with a conventionalized hero of
mediæval romance.
Standing apart from these largely conventionalized tales are the stories
of Havelok and King Horn. These are supposed to have been among the
first products of the second growth of English story. They seem to
preserve, more than the other, later romances, their primitive traits,
and are hence usually classed as English, or Germanic, in origin.
[Footnote I-1: Cf. Skeat’s Chaucer. Note to Marchaundes Tale 1424,
and Tr. and C. iii, 614.]
§ 2. VERSIONS.
The story of Horn is known in several different versions. Of these the
one printed in the present volume is the oldest and in many respects the
most archaic. The story, which it will be unnecessary to summarize here,
is told in a simple, direct style with a noticeable lack of unnecessary
description inserted for embellishment. The explanation of the peculiar
features of this version is no doubt to be found in the purpose for
which this version was used. It was probably intended to be sung, as one
would infer from the opening lines, and perhaps is such a song, or
ballad, as the one which, as the French version informs us (R. H. 2776
ff. cf. p. xiv. below), Horn sang about his love Rigmenil. The manner of
the narrative is determined by the song character of the poem. There is
more detail than in a modern song, at the same time less detail than in
a modern story. Events are sometimes simply referred to as though
already known instead of being fully described. The bravery of Murry,
Horn’s father, is alluded to in such a manner as to lead one to expect
to hear more about his feats of prowess. No motive is given for the
journey to Ireland. We are conducted from place to place with Horn, from
Aylmer’s court in Westernesse to that of Thurston, or from Horn’s
wedding feast at Aylmer’s court to the annihilation of the Saracen
invaders of Suddenne, almost in a breath. In this way sometimes
incidents are thrown absurdly out of perspective. For instance, when
Horn wishes to ‘prove his knighthood’ (v. 588), while the others are at
table, he sets out on his ‘fole,’ and at the seashore finds a shipload
of _heþene honde_. He slays about a hundred of them. _At eureche dunte
þe heued of wente._ He fixes the leader’s head on the point of his sword
and thus returns to the hall. All this, which forms the matter for about
four hundred twelve-syllabled lines in the more prolix French version,
is here related in an off-hand manner, in about forty short lines. The
pitched battle of the French version becomes here a mere after-dinner
recreation. It would be possible to multiply instances (cf. pp. x-xii)
showing the abridged character of the present version.
Very different from the English gleeman’s version, is the highly
elaborated French version of the story. This version,[I-2] which is
preserved in three MSS. at Oxford, at Cambridge, and at London, consists
of about 5250 lines of twelve syllables, arranged in _laisses_, or
strophes, of about twenty lines bound together by a single rime. Here we
have a full-fledged romance, with descriptions of rich adornments, of
feastings, of battles, of games, and of tournaments quite in the manner
of the contemporary romances current in France and in Norman England.
The archaic traits of the English King Horn are no longer so obvious.
The names of persons and of places, with the exception of those of Horn,
Rymenhild : Rigmel (Rigmenil), Fiken(h)ild : Wikele, Modi : Modin,
Westernesse : Westir (Yrlaunde), and Sudden(n)e, are quite different in
the two versions.
But with all this difference of detail, the story in its essential
elements is the same in the two versions. Wissmann,[I-3] in the
introduction to his critical edition, says, “der französische roman
(R. H.) weist kein einziges notwendiges bindeglied, keinen schönen
altertümlichen zug auf, den das englische gedicht, King Horn (K. H.)
nicht enthielte; dieses dagegen hat trotz seines geringen umfanges, eine
reiche von alten, wahrhaft poetischen motiven jenem voraus.” And
further, “aus alle dem ergibt sich, dass K. H. keine bearbeitung des
französischen romans sein kann.” Wissmann’s further conclusions,
however, are less tenable, when he continues: “das umgekehrte
verhältniss dagegen ist nicht nur denkbar, sondern bis zu einem gewissen
grade sogar notwendig; eine ältere quelle als das lied von King Horn für
R. H. vorauszusetzen sind wir durch nichts berechtigt.”
Limited space forbids a thorough-going comparison of the two versions.
The essential elements of the story are in each case nearly the same. In
the French version (R. H.) again Horn the prince with his companions is
set afloat from Suddenne in an open boat, arrives in Bretaigne, is
hospitably received by King Hunlaf, is loved by the princess Rigmenil,
from whom he receives a magic ring, is betrayed by Wikele, one of his
companions, and is exiled from Bretaigne. He takes ship for Westir, the
court of King Godreche, and is well received by the king and his two
sons. He distinguishes himself in all things, and is loved and wooed by
the princess Lemburc. But after delivering the Irish kingdom (Westir)
from an African invasion, he is recalled by a messenger to Bretaigne,
where, after vanquishing his rival Modun in a tournament, he rescues
Rigmenil and himself plays the part of bridegroom at the wedding
prepared. He then repairs to Suddenne, and after ridding his father’s
kingdom of the invaders, is warned in a dream of Wikele’s second
treachery, and returns again just in time to save his bride from a
forced marriage with Wikele. With the death of Wikele and the
establishment of Horn’s loyal friend Haderof (Athulf) in Ireland and of
Horn and Rigmenil in Suddenne, the French story ends.
In addition to this similarity in general outline must be mentioned
occasional parallelism between the two versions in minor details or even
in phraseology. As instances of the first we may cite: _Of his feire
siȝte Al þe bur gan liȝte_ K. H. 385-6; _De la belte de horn tute la
chambre resplent._ R. H. 1053. _Drink to horn of horne_ K. H. 1145; _Mes
com apelent horn li engleis naturer_ R. H. 4206. _He lokede on his rynge
And þoȝte on Rymenhilde_ K. H. 873-4; _Si regarde sa main e lanel kest
gemmeȝ_. _Ke li fud de Rimel al departir doneȝ_ R. H. 3166-7. _And whan
þu farst to woȝe tak him þine gloue_ K. H. 793-4; _Mes une rien uus di
joe dont seieȝ purgardez, Si alez donneier ke oue uus nel menez Kar il
est de beaute issi enluminez ke uus la v il iert petit serreȝ preiseȝ_
R. H. 2323-6. _Biuore me to kerue And of þe cupe serue_ K. H. 233-4;
_Horn me seruira vi de ma cupe portant_ R. H. 463. As instances of
phrases from King Horn reflected in R. H., we may cite: _Stiwarde, tak
nu here Mi fundlyng for to lere Of þine mestere, Of wude and of riuere_
K. H. 227-30; _De bois de riueer refet il altre tal_ R. H. 377. _Wiþute
sail and roþer_ K. H. 188; _Kil naient auirun dunt a (!) seient aidanȝ
Sigle ne guuernad (!) dunt il seint naianȝ_ R. H. 60-61. _Ston he dude
lade, ant lym þerto he made_ K. H. 1502 H. _Vn castel ad ia fet de pere
e de furment_ R. H. 5097. These instances, which might be multiplied,
will serve to show how closely related in origin are these two versions,
English and French.
The identity of the two versions is, however, by no means complete. The
more condensed version (K. H.) presents some traits not to be found in
R. H. We may mention: Horn’s farewell to his boat, 139 ff.; Rimenhild’s
assistance in bringing about the dubbing of Horn, 435 ff.; Rimenhild’s
dream, 651 ff.; Horn’s charge to Athulf to care for Rimenhild, 743 ff.;
the drowning of the messenger from Rimenhild to Horn, 968 ff.; the
palmer’s account of Rimenhild’s grief, 1035 ff.; Athulf’s watching from
the tower, 1091 ff.; Horn’s fictitious tale to Rimenhild of his own
death, 1175 ff.
If K. H. offers these few traits independent of R. H., the latter,
longer narrative introduces episode after episode either barely
suggested in a single line of K. H., or entirely foreign to the English
version. For example, we may mention: the more circumstantial account of
Horn’s descent, and of the heroic death of Aaluf, 250 ff.; Rimel’s
amusing method of wheedling Athelfrus into bringing Horn to her, 604
ff.; her confidences to her maid Herselot, 729 ff.; the elaborate
account of Horn’s victory over Malbroin and Rodmund, 1295 ff.; Wikele’s
contrived pretext for a quarrel with Horn, 1839 ff.; Horn’s loathness to
take oath, though he is willing to vindicate his word by meeting in
combat any two or even five or six chosen antagonists, 1924 ff.; the
love of princess Lemburc for Horn, 2394 ff.; the stone-throwing contest,
2568 ff.; the game of chess, 2696 ff.; Lemburc’s apartments, 2709 ff.;
the harp-playing, 2776 ff.; the elaborate battle description once more,
3234 ff.; the death of Egfer, 3358 ff.; the meeting of Horn with Wikele
and Modin, 4094 ff.; the tournament at Rimil’s wedding, 4456 ff.; the
victory, with Hardre’s aid, over the Saracens in Suddenne, 4604 ff.; the
touching description of Horn’s meeting with his mother, 4882 ff.; the
besiegement of Hunlaf and Rimel by Wikele, 5100 ff.; the intervention of
Wikele’s brother, Wothere, 5052 ff., etc.[I-4]
If the subject matter in the two versions is different, the style is far
more so. The simple, condensed, somewhat archaic manner of K. H. stands
in marked contrast to the sophisticated style of the French romance. The
difference is perhaps that to be expected between two versions, one
intended for English-speaking, the other for French-speaking
people.[I-5] But the difference is perhaps more largely that between
ballad and romance. In K. H. the author gives no evidence of himself
directly or indirectly, whereas Thomas, the author of R. H., continually
addresses his public in the second person and directly introduces his
personal opinion. The incidents which in K. H. are condensed almost to
unintelligibility, in R. H. are liberally supplied with motives and
explanations. The character of Rimenhild in K. H., almost wild in its
naturalness, suggests somewhat one of the female divinities of Germanic
mythology. Rimel, of the French romance, is an eminently sophisticated,
almost modern young woman who understands the arts of coaxing and of
coquetry.
The luxury and refinement described in the French version, contrast[I-6]
markedly with the primitive manners and surroundings suggested in the
English version. Rimenhild shares her single sleeping-room with her six
maidens; Rimel has so many maids that these have private rooms, Rimel
keeping by her only her one trusted maid. Rimenhild on her wedding day,
has four maid attendants; Rimel, thirty. King Murry’s retinue consists
of two knights, and the sons of the king of Westir appear to have been
without retinue; in R. H. the two princes in their _mesnée privée_ have
_vingt de gens ben escernée_. Even the seneschal of King Hunlaf has
twenty knights in his retinue. Stimming further points out the
feudalistic relations existing between Horn and his companions in R. H.
(as well as in H. C.) of which one can hardly detect a trace in K. H.
Further the author of the romance, quite in keeping with the conventions
of contemporary romances, has introduced and elaborated descriptions of
battles and of sports and tournaments on every possible occasion. In
R. H. Horn is a _curteis_ knight, whose knightly honour forbids him to
take oath.
Stimming further points out the difference in cultivation of manner as
reflected in the love-making scenes of the two versions. When Athulf is
introduced to Rimenhild’s bower, _Anon vpon Aþulf child Rymenhild gan
wexe wild_, K. H. 295-6, she has him seat himself on her bed, embraces
him, and offers herself as his bride. Rimel, on the other hand, who
before Aþulf’s coming has carefully regarded the glass, _pur veer sa
belted, Pur saver de su vis cum il est culured_, on his appearance,
takes him by the hand, leads him to a seat, seats herself beside him,
and then expresses the wish, “_Bels amis, dès ore voil estre mise en
vostre justise_,” politely adding, “_si vostre plaisir est_.”
All this, Stimming concludes, is an unmistakable evidence of the later
time of R. H.’s composition. Granting the truth of this conclusion, the
difference of treatment in the two versions is also no doubt in part due
to the difference in the public for which each version was intended, and
also still more, perhaps, to the difference in function of the two
works. It must be noted that K. H. is a popular ballad-like poem perhaps
of the kind referred to in R. H., while the French R. H. is an
artificial and conventionalized romance of prowess and love.
That the ballad-like version K. H., simple, even primitive in matter, in
manner, and in metrical form, should have been derived from the
sophisticated, artificial romance, R. H. deserves little consideration.
On the other hand that the artificial romance should have been derived
from the simple ballad-like story, incomplete in its record of details,
is even more unworthy of consideration, though quite probably Thomas,
the French romancer, may have been to some extent influenced by this
English version, with which he was probably acquainted, as we may infer
from the following passage:
_Mes un lai ai oi dunt ioe sai la meitie
Si iol sousse tut, par ma crestiente
En cest nostre pais nad taunt bone cite
Ki tant me fust a main e á ma uolente
Ke ainz ne la perdisse ke lousse ublie
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Mut en auez oi parler en cest regne
E de lamur de horn ke ele od taunt ame
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Coe est ueir dist Guffer, Rigmel est mut loéé
Bele soeur de beaute en meinte cuntréé
E de horn ai oi meinte feiz renoméé
Quil est pruz e uallanz e corteis sanz pounéé._