The French romance is no doubt constructed from an English story, as we
may infer from the proper names, which in general seem to be Germanic
in origin, from occasional English words, _e.g._ _welcumeȝ_ 800, _wite
God_, _wrec_ 150, etc., from references to English such as, _Mes com
apelent horn li engleis_, R. H. 4206, and especially from the general
features of the story which seem to be Germanic. Further, “in the
introduction to the French romance of Waldelf we are informed that the
romance of Horn was taken from an English original” (T. Wright, Essays
on Middle Ages, I, 102. London, 1846). The English gleeman’s version
quite likely was composed directly from oral tradition, while the
romance rests upon some version of the story, the “_parchemin_” so often
referred to. This hypothetical version, judging from the identity of the
story in its main outline with that in K. H., must be the version upon
which R. H. rests also, or must rest upon the same tradition with K. H.
A third version of the story of Horn is the romance of Horn Childe and
Maiden Rimnild, the only copy of which is the incomplete one contained
in the famous collection of the Auchinleck MS. of the 14th century. (One
leaf lost in the middle and one or two at the end.) Of this romance,
which is composed in twelve-lined strophes, _rime couée_, there are
preserved 1136 lines, that is to say, 96 strophes, not all complete. The
story, very briefly summarized, is as follows:
Haþeolf, king of “_al Ingelond fram Humber norþ_,” has one son named
Horn. To Horn Haþeolf gives eight companions and puts all under the
instruction of Arlaund. Haþeolf annihilates a host of Danish invaders,
but within nine months is again attacked, this time by three kings from
Ireland, and after an heroic fight, in which he slays five thousand, is
stoned to death, and “_an erle of Northumberland_” seizes the kingdom.
Herlaund conducts the nine boys “_fer souþe in Inglond_,” where they
are received by Houlac the king. The king’s only daughter, Rimneld,
loves him and asks Herlaund to bring Horn to her bower. As in the other
versions, Arlaund first brings Haþerof, but the second time brings Horn
to Rimneld, and the princess gives Horn rich presents, and promises to
be his if he shall be dubbed knight. But Wikard and Wikel, two of Horn’s
companions, calumniate Horn and Rimneld to the king, and Horn is
banished. After vain attempts at a reconciliation with the king, he
takes leave of Rimneld, who gives him a ring with a magic stone:
“_When þe ston wexeþ wan
Þan chaungeþ þe þought of þi leman
When þe ston wexeþ rede
Þan haue y lorn mi maidenhed._”
Horn takes the name of Godebounde, has heroic adventure in the forest,
wins a great tournament in Wales, then crosses over to Ireland, and
delivers king Finlawe (Finlak) from his enemy, Malkan, the one who had
slain Horn’s father. Atula, Finlak’s daughter, loves Horn, but he
remains true to Rimneld, notices that the stone in his ring has turned
pale, and with a hundred knights, crosses over into England in time to
save Rimneld from marrying King Moioun, overthrows Moioun in the
tournament, slays Wigard and smites out the eye of the false Wiȝel,
Wigard’s brother. Horn marries Rimneld, and, after five days of
feasting, makes ready a force to go into _North-Humberland_ to win back
his father’s kingdom. The single MS. ends abruptly at this point.
It will be seen that the main outline of the story as told in the other
two versions, is here preserved, but with many modifications, with some
omissions and some additions. The scene of action has shifted. We hear
no more of the to us obscure names Suddenne and Westir; the whole action
takes place in the British isles. The names of the persons, too, are
greatly transformed, Horn and Rimneld, and possibly Moioun being about
the only names common to all the versions. The whole introduction of the
present version, dealing with the bravery and death of Haþeolf, Horn’s
father, which forms about a quarter of this romance version as preserved
to us, is entirely strange to K. H. and to R. H. Other features peculiar
to H. C. are: Haþeolf’s instructions to the boy companions of Horn, to
bear fealty to Horn, 137 ff.; the fine gifts and rich entertainment by
Rimnild of Herlaund and Haderof and, later, of Horn, 330 ff., 377 ff.;
the manner of the courtship, where Horn no longer plays the reluctant
part, urging his poverty as an excuse, 373 ff.; the episode of the
departure of Horn’s companions Tebeaud, Winwald, Garins and Aþelston for
foreign lands, 445 ff. Wikel here does not accuse Horn of designs on the
king’s life and kingdom, 486 ff. Horn remains at home from the hunting,
not to visit Rimnild, but “_for blodeleteing, Al for a maladye_.” 485
ff. There is no Saracen invasion of Houlac’s kingdom. Horn tries to
appease the king, 541 ff. The ring has a different function, 571 ff. The
ring it is that prompts Horn’s return to Rimnild. Still other features
peculiar to this edition are: the heroic adventure in the forest, 613
ff.; the tournament at the court of Elidan in Wales, 664 ff.; and the
whole account of Horn’s experiences in Ireland, the occasion of his
journey there, the character of the battle (in which Horn is wounded),
and the absence of mention of king Finlak’s proposal to give his
daughter and kingdom to Horn.
All these independent traits in H. C. lead us to conclude that this
version must rest, directly or indirectly, on a tradition different from
that underlying K. H. and R. H. That, as Stimming thinks probable, the
writer “unmittelbar aus der sage selbst geschöpft” seems unlikely
considering the highly sophisticated[I-7] nature and artificial form of
this version, and the frequent remarks of the author, “_in boke as we
rede_,” etc. More likely it rests directly on an earlier version of the
story, which in its turn rests on a Northern tradition of the story.
That such a Northern tradition existed we have evidence in the Scottish
ballads of Hind Horn [Child’s (F. J.) English and Scottish Ballads.
Boston, 1882-84], which while emphasizing only one element, the
separation of the two lovers and their reunion through the agency of the
magic ring, agree with the H. C. version rather than with that of K. H.
and R. H.
What, then, is the relation of H. C. to K. H. and to R. H.? Wissmann
says, apparently with truth: “Das Gedicht von Horn Childe hat von dem
Gehalt des K. H. nichts bewahrt, was nicht auch R. H. hätte.” On the
other hand H. C. has a number of important traits in common with R. H.,
for instance, the names: Herland (R. H.); Herlaund, Arlaund, Harlaund,
Arlond, etc. (H. C.); Allof (R. H.); Haþeolf (H. C.); Wikel (R. H.);
Wiȝel (H. C.); Haþerof (R. H.); Haderof (H. C.) and Hunlaf (R. H.);
Houlac (H. C.); further, Haderof’s ignorance of Herland’s intention to
palm him off as Horn, the love of the Irish princess for Horn, Horn’s
meeting with Moioun (Moging) and Wikard, and his riddle of the net told
here, the tournament and the contest between Horn and Moioun, Horn’s
thanks to king Houlac (Hunlaf). From the considerable French element in
the vocabulary of H. C., including frequent rime words, the French form
Cornwayle riming with the French phrase _saun faile_, it is reasonable
to suppose that the author was acquainted with French, and the general
tone of the romance, the feudalism inculcated by King Haþeolf, 133 ff.,
the tournaments and the general air of luxury in addition to the
above-mentioned striking traits in common with R. H., suggest almost
inevitably that the author of H. C. must have been acquainted with, and
influenced by, the French version.
The Scottish ballads of Hind Horn (cf. Child, as above, I, 187), as said
above, emphasize only one element of the original story, namely, the
separation of Horn and the princess, and their reunion through the
agency of the magic ring. The story in Hind Horn agrees more closely
(notably in the function of the ring, peculiar to the Northern versions)
with H. C. than with R. H. or K. H., and seems to rest, along with H.
C., on a northern version of the story.
The later French romance _Ponthus et la belle Sidoine_ is an adaptation
of the French version (R. H.) of the Horn story. It is purely an
artificial product based on R. H., and has little bearing on the origin
and history of the version in hand. It is interesting in this connection
as showing how possible it is to tell the same story with different
names, the only name in common between R. H., and the adaptation being
that of the steward Herlant. (Cf. English translation, King Ponthus and
the Fair Sidone, edited by F. J. Mather, Publ. of the Mod. Lang. Assoc.
of America, xii, 1-150.) The story of Ponthus also appears in a German
_Volksbuch_ (cf. Simrock, I. 1 ff.).
[Footnote I-2: Brede (R.) und Stengel (E.). _Das agn. Lied vom
wackern Ritter Horn._ Ausg. u. Abh. VIII. Marburg, 1883. Also Fr.
Michel. For the Bannatyne Club, 1845.]
[Footnote I-3: Wissmann (Th.), Quell. u. Forsch. XVI. Strassburg,
1876.]
[Footnote I-4: For complete list of traits peculiar to R. H. cf.
J. Caro, in Eng. Stud. xii, 331-2.]
[Footnote I-5: Cf. the relation of the English version of Fl. and
Bl. to the French original.]
[Footnote I-6: Cf. Stimming. Review of Wissmann’s ed. of K. H.
Engl. Stud. i, 357 ff.]
[Footnote I-7: The author of H. C. endeavours to be realistic.
There are no more vague terms, like _Sarazins_, etc. Further,
there is a parallelism with the story of Harold, suggesting that
this version has been influenced by historical events.]
§ 3. ELEMENTS OF THE STORY.
The story of Horn, it is generally believed, had its origin in the
turbulent times of the Danish invasions, but the kernel of genuine
historical tradition is probably small. How the different elements in
such a story aggregate, we can plainly see in the case of the
_Hereward_: “The writer of the life of Hereward,” according to Wright,
“had, among other sources of information, the work of the presbyter,
Leofric, Hereward’s archdeacon. This Leofric, he tells us, occupied
himself in collecting for the edification of his hearers, all the acts
of the giants and warriors from the fables of the ancients, or, in the
instance of more modern heroes, from the trustworthy relations of those
who had known them, and in writing them in English that they might be
preserved in people’s memories.” In this way grew the _Hereward_ story,
and in a similar manner, we may suppose, that the story of Horn
attracted to itself many new and foreign elements, receiving its
development and final form probably at the hands of the _jongleurs_, or
gleemen, whom we are to think of as wandering widely and gathering
romantic material from the most remote regions.
In another place (Publ. of the Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America, xv.
221-232) I have attempted to point out some of the ‘Germanic elements’
in the story. It seems possible to distinguish two essential elements in
the story: (1) Horn’s expulsion from his kingdom and his return and
avengement of his father’s death; (2) the separation and reunion of the
faithful lovers. Of these elements the first seems to be especially
Germanic. At least historic incidents which might supply the nucleus for
such a tale were particularly common in connection with the continual
wars between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and also with the invasions of
England, Danish and Norman. (Cf. the death of Beaduheard. Eng. Chron.
(Winch.) a. 787, also the death of Aethelwulf at hands of Danes, avenged
by his brother Aethelstan. Gaimar, 2391 ff.) The second element also may
have been of Germanic origin, though it has become greatly
conventionalized and has come to be the more prominent element in the
story. The minor features of the story, though often purely
conventional, and, therefore, belonging to no distinct nationality, at
times show Germanic traits, as for instance in the _comitatus_ relation
existing between Horn and his followers, in the manner of wooing and of
wedding, in the etiquette of the feasts, in the etiquette of the duel,
and in the formal challenge on the part of a champion of an invading
host, to a duel upon the result of which shall depend the marriage of a
princess or the fate of a kingdom (cf. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Publ., as
above, pp. 228-231).
The story as it is preserved in K. H., the earliest of existing
versions, is no doubt a greatly expanded form of the original nucleus.
The timely rescue of the princess from a forced marriage, which in the
Scottish ballad has been preserved at the expense of the complete loss
of the other element, the recovery of the kingdom and the avengement of
the father’s death, even in the earlier K. H. version has come quite to
overshadow the recovery and revenge element. It seems very probable also
that there has been a duplication of the rescue scene, due either to the
desire of the _jongleur_, or minstrel, to repeat a successful climax, or
to a blending of two versions of the same story, a not at all uncommon
feature in such romances,[I-8] and that the second rescue scene, with
its more archaic and more particularly Germanic features, represents the
sole turning-point in an earlier and simpler version, the first and more
conventional rescue scene being an expansion contributed by a later
composer. All this, which rests largely on conjecture, would assume for
the nucleus of the story a relatively simple incident in which there are
involved only two places, the kingdom from which the prince is expelled
and which he regains, and the kingdom where he finds refuge.
[Footnote I-8: Cf. the seeming duplication of names, Rymenhild,
Reymyld etc.; Reynild, Ermenyld, etc., all of which may have come
from an original Eormenhild (cf. OE. Leechdoms), the variants
being due to metathesis as in OE. _yrnan_ : _rinnan_. Cf. also the
explanation of Westernesse below, p. xx.]
§ 4. TOPOGRAPHY.
The topography of the Horn story offers some difficult but interesting
problems. In the northern version (H. C.) all is made relatively clear.
The author of this version assigns the events to very definite places.
Horn’s father is king of “_al Ingelond fram Humber norþ_.” He repels a
Danish invasion on the east coast, and is slain by invaders from
Ireland. Horn and his companions take refuge “_fer souþe in Inglond_.”
Thence Horn goes in exile to Wales and later into Ireland. The Norman
_trouvère_, also, clarifies matters somewhat by assigning definite names
to two of the three kingdoms involved, Bretaigne and Westir (_Ki ore est
Hirlonde lors westir fu apelee_, 2184, H). But both the Norman and the
older English versions have consistently the perplexing name Sudenne
(Sodenne); and the earlier English version has also the vague name
Westernesse (Westnesse), leaving as a certain starting-point in our
study of the topography only Yrlonde, also referred to as _westene lond_
(754 H).
From internal evidence in King Horn we learn little that is definite
about the situation of Suddenne. In drifting from Suddenne to
Westernesse, Horn and his companions spend “_Al þe day and al þe niȝt,
Til hit sprang dai liȝt_,” K. H. 122-3; and again we are told of the
same voyage “_Dai hit is igon and oþer, Wiþute sail and roþer_,” 187-8.
On the return voyage to Suddenne, _Biþinne daies fiue, þat schup gan
ariue_, 1295-6. On hearing of Fikenhild’s second treachery Horn
exclaims, “_Crist for his wundes fiue, To niȝt me þuder driue_,” 1423-4,
and then, _Er þan horn hit wiste, To fore þe sunne vpriste, His schup
stod vndur ture At Rymenhilde bure_, 1435-39. From all which we can only
conclude that ideas of direction and distance are very vague in the mind
of the English composer.
In regard to the kingdom of Suddenne, some have thought that the name
must be connected with _Suðdene_ mentioned in Beowulf, which would make
Suddenne refer to some place in northern Europe, possibly in Denmark.
(Parallelism with the _Havelok_ would also support this opinion.) But
neither the proper names of the story, nor the phonology of the word
Suddenne itself, support this view. Ward[I-9] suggests that the name is
a mere vague poetical designation, and brings together historical facts
and internal evidence in the attempt to determine the definite place. He
cites the name Hornesbeorh on the Isle of Purbeck, Dorsetshire, calls
attention to the phrase in King Horn, “_y come into þis yle_,” referring
to the Sarazin incursion in which Horn’s father was killed, and from the
fact that “it was upon Dorsetshire that a descent of the Northmen took
place, which was the first recorded appearance in Wessex, and which
evidently made a great impression upon the people,” concludes that
“Dorsetshire has a very fair claim to be considered the birthplace of
the Horn legend.”
One is loath, however, to let go the only thread that seems to lead to
an explanation of the name Suddenne itself. Francisque Michel was the
first to point out that in the Brit. Mus. text of Gaimar’s _L’estorie
des Engleis_, one reads that “_Edelbrit fu feit reis de Kent E de
Sudeine ensement_,” vv. 955-6. In spite of the fact that the other three
versions have; one, Surrie, the other two Suthreie, one is tempted to
cling to this clew, and the fact that in the same manuscript later,
Gaimar, in referring to the same political division says,[I-10] “_Puis
regnat son fiȝ, E Adelstán, un rei gentils, Li uns out Westsexe, e
laltre Kent, Suthdreie, e Suthsexe ensement_, vv. 2388-91, gives ground
for the supposition that Sudeine[I-11] may refer collectively to Surrey
and Sussex. In that case the coast of Sussex was probably the scene of
the first act in the Horn drama.
Whichever of these views is the true one, we may be reasonably certain
that the Suddenne in the mind of the composer of K. H. lay on the south
coast of England. Knowing this, we may perhaps determine, at least
approximately, the situation of Westernesse. In the Harleian and Laud
MSS., the messenger sent to seek Horn, says, _Ich seche from Westnesse
horn knight of estnesse_,” which indicates that the composer conceives
Westernesse to be west of Suddenne. Further it is very certain, as Ward
(as above, p. 449) points out, that an early version of the Horn story
has supplied several of the incidents of the _Hereward_. The influence
of the story of Horn on the _Hereward_ is particularly obvious in
chapters 4-6, where Hereward gets into trouble at the court of a king of
Cornwall named Alef, by killing a champion who had claimed the princess
in marriage; Hereward is imprisoned, but is released by the princess,
who sends him to her chosen lover, the son of a king of Ireland; a
letter subsequently reaches him, saying that she is about to be forced
into marriage with another Irish prince. Hereward reaches Cornwall
again, visits the bridal feast in disguise, and is presented with the
cup by the princess. “This,” as Ward remarks, “is certainly some
evidence that the Westnesse or Westernesse of our poem may be taken to
signify Cornwall. The name, Aylmar (_i.e._ Athelmar), also does not
oppose this view. The name was a very common one in South England, and
was borne by two of the Aldermen of Devonshire, who seem to have had
some authority over Cornwall also, one about 930, another in the early
part of the 11th century, and both bearing the epithet ‘Ailmer the
Great.’”
Another possible explanation of Westernesse may be suggested. The
duplication of names and incidents in Westernesse and Ireland has been
referred to above. The _-er_ suffix of Westernesse certainly suggests
the _-r_ termination in Westir (the name in R. H.), which is probably a
Norse name for Ireland (cf. the other Norse names in Ireland: Thurston,
Regnild, = Norse Ragnhilda, and Harild. Cf. also R. H. 2184 H, quoted
above, p. xviii), and it is not at all impossible to conceive that in
the original, simpler form of the story, there were but two scenes to
this drama, and that Westernesse of the English version, and Westir of
the Norman version, alike refer to Ireland, only that on account of the
amplification of the story, one came to think of Aylmar’s kingdom as in
England, and added a _-nesse_ to the Norse form Westir (Vestr) so as to
make the term fit a promontory on the western end of the south coast of
England, in Devonshire or in Cornwall.
[Footnote I-9: Ward (H. L. W.), Catalogue of Romances in the
British Museum, I, 450.]
[Footnote I-10: Aethelwulf was King of Kent, Surrey and Sussex
(Gaimar, 2391. Cf. also 2476, 2480-82). Aethelstan had Wessex, for
see 2480-82. Aethelwulf was defeated by the Danes (2440-46), and
was avenged by his brother Aethelstan, who defeated the Danes
(2480-83).]
[Footnote I-11: All three MSS. of K. H. say of Horn’s father,
“_king he wes by weste_,” perhaps referring to this western
division of the eastern kingdom. Asser visits Alfred at the
latter’s royal ‘vill’ which is called Denne. East Dene (or Dean)
and West Dene are two villages near Chichester. There are also two
villages of the same name near Eastbourne.]
§ 5. STYLE.
As we have seen, the story of Horn belongs to a second growth of English
story. The manner of expression, and the general movement of the story
are quite different from those peculiar to Anglo-Saxon poetry, lacking
almost entirely the parallelism,--the appositional construction and the
heaped-up epithets, or _kennings_ of the earlier stories. With the large
French element in the vocabulary, there seems to have been introduced a
manner of expression more like the French than like the earlier English.
The movement is direct, and the imagery very simple and popular. Cf. _He
was briȝt so þe glas. He was whit so þe flur, Rose red was his colur_,
14-16, _Also blak so eny cole_, 624. _Also he sprunge of stone_, 1102,
etc. In this respect King Horn is less closely linked with the past than
is Layamon’s Brut, which was composed in the West Midlands, where the
OE. traditions in poetry persisted the longest. The Brut, while
presenting many of the modern features of manner and of phrase, still
preserves much of the manner of the past. There are in King Horn a
number of the conventionalized phrases, to be found also in Layamon
(cf. Notes to vv. 11, 67, 69, etc.), but the number of such instances is
much smaller than one would have expected, and if Layamon’s West Midland
work represents an earlier stage than King Horn in the development from
the Anglo-Saxon manner of writing, the composer of Horn has certainly
been subjected to many new and modernizing influences.
The very element in common between Layamon and King Horn is, perhaps,
the new, the modern phraseology more often than the old phraseology
rooted in the past. While, then, there are but few traces of the older
English poetic phraseology, there is much in common between King Horn
and the romances of the 13th and 14th centuries. The language in King
Horn seems to be already again crystallizing into new conventional
forms. In spite of the different demands of the metre of Horn from those
of the later, more regular, forms of versification, there are a very
great number of stereotyped phrases common to King Horn and to the
contemporary and succeeding romances composed in the other metre. I have
brought together in the Notes a number of instances of this agreement in
phraseology. The minor elements, also, are often rather mediæval than
Anglo-Saxon, and the customs described, the princess’s manner of
receiving visitors, the manner of salutation in meeting and in parting,
etc., if truly representing the manners of the time of the composition
of King Horn, soon became conventionalized and common to the whole body
of Middle English romance. (Cf. Notes to vv. 315, 319, 321, 403, 537,
739, etc.) In these respects the composer of K. H. no doubt at times
follows the conventional mode of composition of his time, but he is
probably also at times an innovator, for several scenes in Horn seem to
have been prototypes directly imitated in later romances in the
_Ipomydon_ and in the _Richard Coeur de Lion_. (Cf. Notes to 239 ff.,
264.)
On the whole, then, we see that the language of King Horn is much less
influenced, than one would expect, by older English models. The language
of the second growth of story seems to have fallen into new conventional
moulds quite independent of the older tradition.
§ 6. VERSIFICATION.
As we have seen, the phraseology of King Horn shows relatively little
trace of influence by the older English traditional stereotyped forms of
expression. In this respect if Layamon is the link connecting native
English poetry with the past, King Horn is the link joining to the newer
traditions of poetry, which were forming. For, as we have seen, if King
Horn has some phrases in common with Layamon, these are the modern forms
of expression more often than the phrases rooted in the older English
tradition. And, as we have seen, while King Horn has relatively little
of phraseology inherited from the past, it has a multitude of
stereotyped phrases in common with the poetry of contemporary and later
composition (cf. Notes). In the same way in versification, if Layamon is
the link connecting with the Anglo-Saxon mode of versification, King
Horn is the link connecting with the newer mode, of Romance or mediæval
Latin origin.
The exact theory of the versification of King Horn remains yet to be
established. Luick in his article in Paul’s Grundriss offers the very
ingenious hypothesis that in the ‘beginnings of English as well as of
German rimed verse, we have before us the coming to light again of the
primitive Teutonic measured song verse.’ This hypothesis, though
ingenious and plausible, does not admit of verification, and it is
perhaps safer to adhere to the view of Schipper (Grundriss der
englischen Metrik), who sees in Layamon’s verse the direct traditional
descendants of the OE. types, and in King Horn a further development of
the versification of Layamon.
We see then, probably, in the versification of King Horn a transitional
stage in the development of native English metre, connecting, as we have
seen, more closely with the future than with the past. It was probably
the occurrence in each verse of two syllables marked from the other
syllables by a stronger stress, that gave rise to a feeling of
uniformity in rhythm. This tendency toward uniformity in rhythm was
fostered by the regular introduction of rime, for since the riming
syllable naturally bore one of the two verse accents, and since the
riming syllables in two riming verses would occupy the same relative
position, hence in a riming verse the second of the two verse accents
must balance with that in the other verse of the pair, and the balance
established between the second pair of accents would naturally lead to a
complete balance between the two verses. In other words the two verses
would be levelled to the same rhythm.
The regular introduction of rime was, no doubt, attended by the gradual
loss of alliteration, which would cease to be significant as marking the
verse accent, since it could hardly be made to fall regularly on the
same syllable with the rime, and would hence be merely an unorganic
adornment of the verse. As the position of the two verse accents came to
be a fixed one, there seems to have been a tendency by raising some of
the syllables bearing merely a logical stress, to rhythmic importance,
thus to bring about a verse with regular measure.
The most natural products of this development are the two types: (1)
with three accents and feminine rime, the natural product of the OE. A,
D, and C metrical types, (2) with four accents and masculine rime, the
natural product of the OE. B and E types. These forms of verse were very
similar, as Schipper has pointed out (as above, § 39), to two popular
Romance forms of verse--namely: the first form, three accents with
feminine ending, to the half verses of the Alexandrine; and the second
form, four accents with masculine ending, to the verses of the short
riming couplets and to the first member of the septenar. The development
toward regular measure, which had its origin as explained above, was
furthered by the influence of the Romance and Mediæval Latin forms of
verse. In certain ME. poems, notably the _Bestiary_, there are to be
found verses constructed regularly after Romance or Mediæval Latin
models along with native forms in all the stages of development:
1. His muð is yet wel unkuð
Wið _pater noster_ and crede;
Faren he norð, er fare he suð
Leren he sal his nede. vv. 112-15.
2. Ðe mire muneð us
Mete to tilen,
Longe liuenoðe,
ðis little wile. vv. 273-6.
Ðe leun stant on hille
And he man hunten here. vv. 1-2.
The native forms must have been influenced by this close association
with foreign forms.
To these conditions and to this course of development we must probably
attribute the origin of the versification in King Horn. The rime has
become a regular and essential element, the alliteration, a rare and
unessential element in the verse. The forms mark a transitional stage in
development, but are more closely related to the new than to the old.
There has been a half-hearted attempt to introduce regularity of
measure, but the rhythm of the OE. types has still influenced the ear of
the composer. The most frequent verse form is the one with three accents
and feminine rime, about 1300 verses (Schipper). This is developed from
the OE. through a stronger accent on one of the original theses; e.g.,
_king he was biweste so longe so hit laste_, vv. 5, 6 C, where the
measure has been developed from the OE. #A.# type through stronger
stress on _was_ and _so_ respectively. Sometimes the original OE. #A.#
type is preserved; e.g., _Hi slóȝen and fúȝten þe níȝt and þe úȝten_,
1473-4 C. But that this was not considered normal is shown by the fact
that the other two texts, #L# and #H#, have made these two verses
quoted, fit into the new normal form, by adding a new syllable in each
verse, so that we have in MS. L, _He smýten ánd he foúten þe nýȝt and
éke þe oúȝten_, vv. 1473-4 L. Cf. also H. The next most frequent type is
the one with four accents and masculine rime; e.g., _Here sone hauede to
name horn; Feyrer child ne micte ben born_, 9, 10 L. Less frequent types
are; that with three accents and masculine ending, e.g., _þu art gret
and strong, Fair and euene long_, 99-100 C; and that with four accents
and feminine rime, e.g., _To deþe he hem alle broȝte, His fader deþ wel
dere hi boȝte_, 951-2 C (but cf. #L# and #H#, which have more normal
forms).
While nearly all the verses may be made to fit into one of the types
mentioned above, there are some which do not fit naturally into any one
of the new types, but which seems rather to be a stereotyped form handed
down from OE. tradition; e.g., _Bi þe se side_ (OE. #C# type) 35, _of
alle wymmanne_ (OE. C type) 71, _Wringinde here honde_ (OE. E type) 118,
_Bi þe se brinke_ 151, _In to a galeie_ 199, _He was þe faireste_ 187 C.
(OE. #C# types). (Cf. L which tries to make this verse fit better into
the new versification, _For þat he was fayrest_), _We ben of sodenne_
189 L, _Of Cristene blode_ (OE. type E) 191 C. _And þi fairnesse_ 227 C.
_þoru out westnesse_ 228 L (MS. C adapts the verse by changing the
_westnesse_ of L. H. to _West{er}nesse_).
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.)
[Illustration:
U
/ \__
/ \_
/ __x
/ ___/ |
/ ___/ |
/ / |
_y_ |
__/ \___ |
__/ \___ |
__/ \_z_
/ ___/ \___
H ___/ \___
/ \
L C ]