§ 1. _Introductory_, p. xxx.
§ 2. _History_, p. xxx.
§ 3. _English Version_, p. xxxvii.
§ 4. _Dialect_, p. xxxix.
§ 5. _Date of Composition_, p. xli.
§ 6. _Versification_, p. xlii.
§ 7. _Manuscripts_, p. xlii.
§ 1. INTRODUCTORY.
If in King Horn we have a story Germanic in descent, and betraying
everywhere traces of its Germanic origin, in Floris and Blauncheflur we
have a romance of extraneous, probably ultimately of oriental origin,
and the contrast is in many ways interesting and instructive. The love
element, which in King Horn plays so large a part, in Fl. and Bl. is the
all in all. This story of all-absorbing passion, which in spite of
seemingly insurmountable obstacles and desperate perils, in the end
reunites the devoted lovers, was one of the most popular during the
Middle Ages, and one of the earliest to be imported from the East. The
history of the tale vies in interest with the story itself. The story in
a perplexing variety of versions spread over all the countries of
Christendom, as we shall see later. It seems to be the basis of the
charming _chantefable_, Aucassin and Nicolete, which Andrew Lang and
Walter Pater have made so well known to the modern world. The English
version, which unfortunately is incomplete at the beginning in each one
of the four manuscripts in which it has been written down, was probably
derived directly from one of the French versions, as we shall see.
§ 2. HISTORY.
_(a) Origin._
The story of Floris and Blauncheflur is probably an oriental product,
and shows many traces of Byzantine influence. It was one of the first of
these oriental tales to be retailed in the Occident and had a wide
circulation in all the countries of western Christendom, from Spain and
Italy to the Scandinavian North. Its route from East to West it is not
easy to trace with certainty, though the Crusades were quite probably
the means of its importation. Further than this it is not easy to
determine. The Provençals, whose active part in the Crusades is well
known, may have been the agents, or, as is so often the case with the
oriental tales, it may have been imported in a Latin dress.
The history of the story in the West is complicated on account of the
puzzling multiplicity of versions among which it is sometimes
exceedingly difficult to determine the interrelations. The clue to the
difficulty was early hinted at by Sommer (E. Sommer, Einl. zu R. Fleckes
Flore und Blaunscheflur, Quedlingburg und Leipzig, 1846), and more
recently the matter has been very thoroughly explained by Herzog
(H. Herzog, Die beiden Sagenkreise von Flore und Blanscheflur, Wien,
1884) in his investigation of the subject. Herzog points out that there
are to be distinguished in the Occident, two distinct general versions
of the story. In the first of these, #A#, seems to be preserved the
story in its original and genuine form. The second of these versions,
#B#, seems to be a remodelling of the original version in the attempt to
adapt to common folk a story in its existing form intended for higher
circles of society.[I-13] For this purpose slight allusions in #A#, are
expanded in #B# into striking incidents. To bring out into strong light
the injustice of Floris’s father and the final triumph of true love,
supernatural and horrible elements and episodes are introduced. Since
these new elements are of a kind common in other Byzantine tales, it is
concluded that the remodelling of the story had already taken place
before the importation from the East.
The second of these imported versions, #B#, first circulated in Italy,
in Spain and in Greece. It also seems, somewhat indirectly as we shall
see, to have served as a basis for the second French version and for one
group of the German _Volksbücher_. The versions of #B#, if we leave the
second French version out of consideration, all represent the parents of
Blauncheflur as Italian, and in part have the same names for the
characters. This circumstance, with other corroborating facts, seems to
indicate that version #B# first took root in Italy, and from there
spread into Spain and into Greece, possibly its original home.
Version #A#, on the other hand, seems first to have been imported into
France, the great jobbing nation of the Middle Ages in all sorts of
romantic stuffs and materials. From France it was early retailed to
Germany, to England, to Scandinavia, and, possibly, to Italy. From
Germany in turn it was re-exported into Bohemia. Version #A# was without
doubt the first to become known, since we find it not only in the Old
French, but in the Germanic versions springing from a French source, in
an unperverted state. All the different versions of #B#, on the other
hand, have been very noticeably influenced by #A#, indicating that the
arrival of #B# was after #A# had become established and well known.
_(b) In France._
We encounter the story of _Floris and Blauncheflur_ earliest in France,
and the French seem to have been the first to make the story a subject
for poetic treatment. The story appears in French, besides in two songs
celebrating episodes in this tale of true love, in two distinct
versions. The earliest of these versions, which we may designate as I.,
had its origin, it seems, about 1160.[I-14] (Cf. F. Steinmeyer, H Z,
xxi, 319.) Certain it is that a French version of #A# must have existed
about 1170, to serve as a basis for one of the German (the low Rhenish)
versions, Floyris und Blanscheflur. This French version, #I#, seems to
represent fairly well the #A# general form of the story. As so often in
the case of other romances, the _jongleurs_ tried to bring this foreign
importation into the cycle of French story by connecting in bonds of
kinship, its characters with the names celebrated in French epic.
Blauncheflur is represented as being the mother of Bertha of the big
foot, the wife of Pepin, father of Charlemagne.[I-15]
Du Méril (E. du Méril, Floire et Blancheflor, Paris, 1876) in discussing
the interrelations of the two French versions, characterizes one as a
version for a select public, “_version aristocratique_,” and the second
as a version for the entertainment of the masses, “_version populaire_.”
The French II. version, the “_version populaire_,” is, according to
Herzog, p. 4, the result of a sort of fusion of the #A# and #B# general
forms of the story,[I-16] with which have been woven in various episodes
which elsewhere are not known to either general form of the story, #A#
or #B#. Herzog further on continues (p. 11), “Ich halte dafür dass
dieselbe (the OF. II. version) ebenfalls aus Italien nach Frankreich
hinübergewandert ist, wo ihr Bearbeiter den Inhalt des zweiten Kreises
mit dem ihm geläufigen ersten Kreise so verschmolzen hat, dass dieser
einige nur dem zweiten Sagenkreise angehörige Züge ganz verdrängte.”
The general style and manner of handling the story is quite different in
the two French versions. The “_version aristocratique_” preserves the
traits of an oriental romance, and Floire is represented as a love-sick
youth. “_Sans li ne puis jou pas aprendre_” he replies when his father
proposes to educate him alone. There is hardly a more sentimental
passage in literature than the one in I. (212-266) describing the
school-days of the children:
_Ensamble vont, ensamble vienent
Et la joie d’amor maintient
Nus d’aus deus chose ne savoit
Que lués a l’autre ne disoit.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
On ooient parler d’amors.
Ensamble lisent et aprendent;
A la joie d’amor entendent:
Un vergier a li peres Floire
. . . . . . . . . . . .
D’amors i chantent li oisel.
Quant il mangoient et bevoient
Li oisel seure aus se séoient;
Des oiseles oent les chans:
Cou est la vie as deus enfans.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Et quant a l’escole venoient
Lor tables d’yvoire prenoient,
Adont lor veissiez escrire
Letres et vers d’amors en cire.
Letres et salus font d’amors
Du chant des oisiaus et des flors._
The writer of I. is evidently a genuine poet, though perhaps somewhat of
the ‘spring poet’ order. He exalts the sentiment of love, as we have
seen, and feelingly describes the elaborately constructed tomb
(vv. 530-652), the finely wrought cup (vv. 431-498), and the birds and
flowers and fountains and trees of the gardens of the king and of the
‘Admiral.’ He dwells in sensuous fondness in his enumeration equally of
the fine stuffs and precious stones; the _mantiaus_, _vairs osterins_
and _bliaus indes porprins_ (429-30), or the _saffirs_ and _calcidoines_
and _boines jagonses_ and _sardoines_, etc. (1755-77), and of flowers
and trees; the “_poivre, canele et garingal_,” or the “_encens, girofle
et citoval_,” or the _beuns_, the _plantoine_, the _alïer_, the _boins
figiers_, the _peschiers_, the _periers_ and the _noiers_ (1761-8).
The “_version populaire_,” on the other hand, seems to be adapted
somewhat to the ideal of the native French epic, and Floire is
represented as a model of courage and knightly virtue, in a class with
the _douze pers_ and the other heroes of the Charlemagne cycle of
stories. The writer interpolates scenes in which Floire may display his
fighting qualities. In the early part of the story, he returns from
school just in time to rescue Blauncheflur, who is about to be committed
to the flames. He accomplishes her rescue by acting as her champion and
fighting the seneschal, who has accused her of attempting to poison the
king. The combat is a stirring one quite in the manner of the _Chansons
de geste_ (vv. 920-1160). On the journey to Babylon, Floire has heroic
adventures in a battle with Diogenes, son of Samones, king of the city
of Fusis (1854-1984). Later, when the trial of Fl. and Bl. is
interrupted by the arrival of an invader, Jonas de Handreas, Fl. offers
to vanquish the invaders if his life be spared. At first he is
unsuccessful in his attempt, but after being taken prisoner by the
invaders, he is aroused by the reproachful words of Bl. and breaking
loose, slays Jonas, thus delivering the city and winning Bl.
(3120-3410). The writer of II. emphasizes the battle scenes at the
expense of the descriptive passages, devoting to the description of the
tomb only 32 verses, and to that of the wonderful cup, only 14. He seems
also to be of a practical turn of mind, and instead of fondly
enumerating the gems received for Bl., describes rather the
circumstances of the sale. Babyloine is a rich city with no poor, and
has a rent of three thousand ounces of gold each day (vv. 2319, 2342).
From all these instances one can see that the sweet and sentimental tale
of the I. version is quite modified in II. If we agree with Herzog that
this version was the result of the blending of the #B# version imported
from Italy, with the #A# version, which was already well known in
France, we must conclude also that this “_version populaire_” is
influenced by the ideals of contemporary French poetry of native origin,
by the manners and conventions of the _chansons de geste_, and the
heroic romances springing from or influenced by them.
_(c) Provence._
Among the troubadours of Provence the story of Fl. and Bl. was early
known and popular, as one must judge from the very frequent allusions.
There is, however, no proof of the existence of a Provençal romance.
_(d) In Germany._
In Germany are to be encountered many versions of the popular story. The
earliest one seems to have been the Low Rhenish poem Floyris and
Blaunchiflur, of about 3700 lines, translated by an unknown poet about
1170 (Steinmeyer, H. Z. xxi, 307-331). To the middle of the 13th century
belongs the MHG. poem in 8006 lines by Konrad Fleck, composed, quite
independently of the Low Rhenish version above mentioned, after an OF.
original. (Ed. by E. Sommer, Quedlingburg u. Leipzig, 1846.) Somewhat
younger is the Mid. Low Germ. poem, _Floris ende Blancefloer_ of 3983
lines (Ed. by H. von Fallensleben, Leipzig, 1836, and by H. E. Moltzer,
Groningen, 1879, in the _Bibl. van Middelnederlands Letterkunde_). The
poet, Dideric van Assenede, says, himself, that he derived his material
from the “Walsche.”[I-17] As a matter of fact his original seems to have
been French. To the third half of the 14th century belongs the Low Germ.
poem _Flosse un Blankflosse_ of 1534 lines (Ed. by Stephan Waetzoldt,
Bremen, 1880), which also seems to go back to a French original.[I-18]
If we look more closely into the question of the French original of the
German poems, we must assume a version, χ, earlier than the version
preserved in the three existing MSS. of French I. version. These three
MSS. may be classed into a group, _z_, whose chief characteristic is the
attempted suicide of Floris in the Lion pit. This scene appears in two
of the existing MSS., and the writer of the third MS. seems to have had
the scene in his original but to have left it out. (Cf. H. Sundmacher,
_Die altfrz. u. mittelhd. Bearbeitung der Sage von Fl. und Bl._, diss.
Göttingen, 1872.) Among the German versions it appears only in the LG.
_Flosse un Blankflosse_. The other German versions must rest on an OF.
version, χ, which at the hands of Fleck[I-19] underwent an artistic
reconstruction, but at the hands of Dideric was translated simply,
without the addition of any new ideas by the adapter.
In addition to these early German versions must be mentioned two groups
of _Volksbücher_: (1) from Boccaccio’s Filocolo, (2) from Fleck’s poem,
also a Bohemian adaptation and a German Jewish adaptation,
(Cf. Hausknecht, ed. of Fl. u. Bl., pp. 13-20, Berlin, 1885.)
_(e) In Scandinavia._
Our story had a wide circulation also in the North, as one must infer
from the number of Scandinavian versions preserved: (1) the old Norweg.
fragment of a saga (ed. by G. Storm, _Nordisk Tidskrift for Filologi og
Pædagogik_, Copenhagen, 1874, pp. 24-28), (2) the complete Icelandic
saga of _Flóres ok Blankiflúr_, (3) the fragments of a second Icelandic
Saga (ed. by Brynjolf Snorrason, _Annaler for nordisk old kyndighed og
historie_, 1850); (4) the Old Swed. poem (ed. by E. Klemming, _Samlingar
utgifna af svenska formskrift-sällskapet_, I., Stockholm, 1844); and (5)
the Danish translations from the Swedish (ed. by C. J. Brandt,
_Romantisk Digtning fra Middelalderen_, I. and II. København, 1869-77).
The distinguishing characteristic of the Northern versions is the
conclusion. According to the Norse version, Floris, to refute the charge
that he has gained admittance to Bl.’s tower by the use of magic tricks,
offers to fight in single combat the bravest of the Admiral’s knights.
In the ensuing combat he overcomes the Admiral’s champion, and receives
as his guerdon, Blauncheflur. If we accept Herzog’s conclusions (pp. 15,
35, 45-6, 66) we must assume as an original for the Scandinavian
versions, a French original, N, with the ending peculiar to the Northern
versions. The development from this original is shown by the following
plan (also borrowed from Herzog, p. 92).
[Illustration:
Fr. N
\
\
Norw. M*
/ \
/ \
/ \
Icel. M Norw. N*
/ \
/ \
/ \
Icel. N Swed.
|
|
Dan. ]
_(f) In Italy._
In Italy also the story of Fl. and Bl. enjoyed great popularity. The two
chief versions were: (1) the _Cantare_, written by a popular poet in
_ottave rime_; and (2) Boccaccio’s youthful production, his first prose
romance, _Filocolo_. That the I. version of the story, the one most
popular in France, was also current in Italy, we see in these two
versions, both of which show, in addition to the special traits of II.,
many traits peculiar to version I. To determine exactly the
interrelations of these two versions is no easy matter. From allusions
in the _Filocolo_ we know that the _Cantare_ was the older. Internal
evidence, however, forbids the supposition that the _Filocolo_ has
sprung from the _Cantare_. Rather the two versions go back to a common
source. This Italian, or Franco-Italian, version, which probably had no
differences of real moment from the _Cantare_ in its present form, must
in many points have been more ample and complete, and in individual
instances nearer the French tradition, than the _Cantare_ is.
In connection with the Italian group must also be mentioned the Greek
poem of Florios and Platziaflore, composed in the 14th century and
founded upon the _Cantare_.
_(g) In Spain._
In Spain we find allusion to our story already in the 13th century, when
the _Gran conquista de Vltramar_ refers to Fl. and Bl. as the most
devoted pair of lovers that one had ever heard of. But there is no proof
of the existence of a Spanish version of the story as early as this. In
the year 1512, appeared at Alcala the prose romance, _Flores y
Blancaflor_, which is current to the present day. The close relationship
of this to the Italian versions is very evident. Its source, however,
seems hardly to be directly the _Cantare_. The beginning of the Spanish
romance, which is entirely peculiar to this version, points rather to a
version in the North of Italy, which the Spanish adapter has quite
probably translated into Spanish without important alteration.
[Footnote I-13: G. Paris distinguishes three general versions, two
French versions and a third, “Roman” version, in which the parents
of Blauncheflur are not French but Roman.]
[Footnote I-14: The evidence cited by G. Paris, consists of
allusions to--(1) History of Troy, (2) Siege of Troy, (3) Aeneid,
etc. The place of origin, according to G. Paris, was probably in
the region about Beauvais, lying between Normandy, Picardy and the
Île de France.]
[Footnote I-15: Perhaps this is a mere coincidence, since in a
poem about Berthe, her father happens to be named ‘Florie,’ a
Florie with a different history, _roi de Hongrie_. Later this
relationship was commonly assumed. In the _Gran Conquista de
Vltramar_, the story of Berthe is intercalated. She is daughter of
Blancaflor and Flores.]
[Footnote I-16: G. Paris makes this II. version the sole
representative of a third distinct form of the story, the 2^o of
his general classification, 1^o, 2^o, 3^o.]
[Footnote I-17: That is to say, French or Italian.]
[Footnote I-18: This version was evidently not translated from a
French MS. but written from memory. The details are not always
exactly identical with those of the French, though often so,
enough so to make the origin of the poem unmistakable though it is
much condensed and the order of events somewhat transposed.]
[Footnote I-19: Fleck’s work is a paraphrase. The details are
identical but are amplified to 8006 verses.]
§ 3. ENGLISH VERSION.
The story of Fl. and Bl. found its way into England in the 13th century,
that is to say, when it had been for a hundred years familiar to French
hearers and after it had already spread into many lands outside of
France. As has been said, the English version goes back to a French
original. This original was certainly of the I. form. Of the features
peculiar to the French II. version, the English version does not show
one, while it agrees with the French I. version to the extent of exact
translation of many phrases and verses and even of reproduction of
French rime-words. At the same time the French original that lay before
the English adapter can not have been the text exactly as it is
preserved in any one of the three extant French MSS., but rather an
older, or purer text which we have designated by χ, a distinguishing
feature of which is the absence of the attempted suicide of Floris in
the lion pit. The text that must be assumed as the original of the
English poem must have been very similar to the original from which
Fleck and Dideric derived their German versions, but not exactly
identical as is evidenced by frequent slight divergences.
The English poet has not expanded and amplified by the addition of
further details or by the introduction of personal reflections, as the
German Fleck has done. He has presented the essential features of the
love story as it impressed him, in a condensed form to be sure, at the
same time without bareness or baldness. Unlike the adapter of the Low
Rhenish condensed version, he has preserved the original order of
incidents, and has usually preserved faithfully the smallest details
that have any essential bearing on the plot.
Some idea of the English writer’s fidelity to the details and even to
the phraseology of his French original, and of his method of
translating, may be gained from the following parallel passages:
_Que bien sorent parler latin_
_Et bien escrivre en parchemin_
vv. 263-4.
_Inouȝ þey couþ of latyne_
_And wel wryte on parchemyn_
vv. 33-4.
_Faites la moi tost demander_
_Ja li ferai le chief couper._
vv. 399-400.
_Let do bryng forþ þat mayde,_
_Fro þe body þe heved schal goo._
vv. 140-41.
_Et il l’a tant bien acatée_
_Qu’a fin or l’a sept fois pesée._
vv. 507-8.
_Þe amyral hur bouȝt anoon_
_And gafe for hur, as she stood upryȝt,_
_Seven sythes of gold her wyȝt._
vv. 194-6.
_Ci gist la bele Blanceflor_
_A cui Floires ot grant amor._
vv. 651-2.
_Here liþ swete Blauncheflur_
_Þat Floris loved par amur._
vv. 217-18.
_Un grafe a trait de son rapier_
. . . . . . . . . .
_En son cuer bouter le voloit,_
_Quant sa mere cou apercoit._
vv. 787-890.
_His knif he droȝ ut of his scheþe_
_And to his herte hit hadde ismite,_
_Nadde his moder hit underȝite._
vv. 308-10.
The _grafe_ is elaborately described in vv. 788-98:
_Li roi li done un palefroi,_
_Qui d’une part estoit tous blans,_
_De l’autre rouges comme sans._
vv. 964-6.
_Þe king let sadel a palfray_
_Þe oon half white, so mylke_
_And þat oþer reed, so sylk._
vv. 382-4.
_Fius, fait ele, gardez le bien;_
_Tant com l’aurez, mar _cremez_ rien;_
_Car vous ja rien ne requer(r)iez_
_Que tost ou tard vous ne l’aiez_
vv. 1003-6.
_Mi sone, he rede, have þis ring;_
_While he is þin, ne dute noþing._
. . . . . . . . .
_And be hit erli and be hit late_
_To þi wil þu schalt habbe whate._
vv. 393-8.
_La le troevent ou siet, sous l’arbre,_
_Sor un perron qui fu de marbre._
vv. 1355-6.
_Þe briggere he fond ate frome,_
_Sittinde on a marble ston._
vv. 558-9.
_Le millor conseil que jou sai_
v. 1858.
_Þe beste red þat ihc þe can_
v. 742.
_Si maudient qui s i foula_
v. 2060.
_Hi beden God ȝive him wel fin_
_Þat so manie flures dide þerin_
vv. 855-6.
_Des flors sali un paveillon_
_Des eles feri mon menton;_
_Del paveillon tel paor oi,_
_Que m’escriai plus tost que poi_
vv. 2093-6.
_Þer fliste ut a buterfliȝe,_
_Are ihc wiste, on mine iȝe._
_So sore ihc uas offerd of þan,_
_Þat ihc loude crie bigan_
vv. 889-92.
_Bele compaigne, Blanceflor,_
_Volez vous veoir bele flor?_
vv. 2117-18.
_And sede, “Swete Blauncheflur,_
_Wiltu se a wel fair flur?”_
vv. 897-8.
_Damoisele qui a amor_
_Et joie en soi, doit avoir flor._
vv. 2124-30.
_Ho þat loveþ par amur,_
_An haþ þerof joie, mai love flur._
vv. 903-4.
In spite of this number of tolerably exact correspondences, in word and
phrase, with the French original, the English poem is a condensed
adaptation rather than a slavish translation. As in the French II.
version, the tender and sentimental element is much condensed; but the
English writer, unlike the writer of French II., does not introduce the
heroic and warlike element in the form of duels and battles. He does not
amplify by adding new details, as Fleck did, nor does he confuse the
order of incidents as does the adapter of the Low Rhenish version. He
makes rather a faithful condensation quite after the manner of English
adapters from the French, which is no doubt to be explained as due not
so much to difference between the writers, English and French, as to a
difference between the hearing publics, French and English, for whom the
production was intended.[I-20]
No doubt with his English public in mind, the English poet, in adapting
the story from the French, has modified to some extent the tenderness
and sentimentality, even at times the poetic descriptions, of his French
original (compare vv. 1117-1194 of the French with the corresponding
English vv. 457-72), and has omitted the enumeration of gems and of
precious stuffs suggestive of an elegance perhaps unintelligible to an
English speaking and hearing public at this time. The wonderful cup, to
the description of which 67 verses (431-498) are devoted in the French
romance, in the English poem is dismissed with 17 verses (163-184). The
garden so elaborately described in the French, vv. 1724-1835, in the
English poem occupies only vv. 685-732. The description of the knife
(_grafe_), which serves no other purpose than that of external adornment
in the French version (vv. 788-799), is entirely neglected in the
English translation. The translator’s method is well illustrated in the
case of the description of Floris’s equipage preliminary to setting out
on his journey. The description of the saddle and harness occupies 37
verses (964-1000) of the French poem, and is dismissed by the English
translator with 5 (vv. 382-389), _I ne can telle ȝou noȝt Hu richeliche
þe sadel was wroȝt_, and three verses following.
To sum up, the English version is a free, somewhat condensed,
translation from the French I. version. The translator has introduced
almost no new traits, and the extent of the condensation may be judged
by considering the 1296 verses of the English as compared with the 2974
verses in the French I. version. The manner of the condensation has been
indicated. But with all the condensation, especially in the descriptive
passages, it is important to note that in the essential features of the
story, the translator follows his original faithfully, so that the main
outline of the story is preserved as accurately in English as in French.
[Footnote I-20: This same consideration, as we have seen, probably
explains _in part_ the difference between the English King Horn
and the Norman French _Horn et Rigmenil_.]
§ 4. DIALECT.
In Fl. and Bl. as in King Horn it is difficult to distinguish certain
criteria of dialect on account of the variety of orthography in the
different manuscripts. Here again the only safe guide is the rimes, and
the evidence of these is not entirely uniform for the different texts.
There is a great difference in age between MS. C, the oldest, and MS. T,
probably the youngest of the four MSS. Further there is a difference in
the dialects represented by the different scribes. The scribes of MSS. C
and Cott. were evidently southerners, and seem, here and there, to have
twisted the verses around to make them fit the Southern dialect. On the
other hand the later scribe of MS. T seems to have changed verses to
make them fit his later dialect. Either the phrases are less stereotyped
than in Horn or the poem was not so well known; in any event the scribes
of the individual texts seem to have allowed themselves greater
independence. The result is that the rime test here is not a sure one.
The evidence of rimes in MS. C is not necessarily valid for MS. T, and
_vice versā_; and which rimes indicate the pronunciation of the original
composer, it is often difficult to say. If we bear these points in mind
we may perhaps draw some satisfactory conclusions from the following
criteria:
1. OE. _ȳ̆_ seems to have been pronounced _ī̆_. e.g.; _cusseþ_ :
_blisse_, _custe_ : _wiste_ 549-52 C, _ywys_ : _kysse_ 1067 T, _winne_ :
_kinne_ 806 C, _blisse_ : _kisse_ 786 C, _fylle_ : _wylle_ 738 T,
_lyke_ : _lyte_ 782 T. Only apparent exceptions are _meene_ : _kyne_
274 T (these words do not rime together in the original), and _bygge_ :
_segge_ 989 T. _Ostesse_ : _kysse_ belongs only to MSS. T and Auch.
2. If we apply Prof. Hempl’s _-wǭ-_, _-wọ̄-_ test we find some evidence
of a Midland dialect, e.g.; _too_ : _soo_ 94 T, _vndoo_ : _soo_ 74 T,
_also_ : _doo_ 224 T, 764 C, _soo_ : _doo_ 64 T, 336 T, 624 T, _so_ :
_fordo_ 307-8 C. This test applied to Fl. and Bl. is not certain in
itself, but supports the other evidence. That the test is uncertain we
see from the occurrence of apparently inaccurate rimes such as _hoom_ :
_doom_ 1079 T, 802 C, and from a few rimes which oppose the evidence of
those above cited, e.g., _þoo_ : _twoo_ 30 T, _two_ : _mo_ 218 T (and
Cott.), _so_ : _go_ 438 C, 824 C, _bo_ : _atuo_ 548 C, 614 C, _þo_ :
_so_ 666 C, _also_ : _bo_ 780 C, _whoom_ : _froom_ 70 T. It would seem
then that the change had affected the _ā_ in OE. _swā_ but not in _twā_
and _hwā_. It must be noted that all the quoted _so_ rimes with _ọ̄_
occur in MS. C, which, as we shall see later, has a strong Southern
colouring.
3. The product of OE. _a_ before _l_ + cons. seems to be _a_, or with
lengthening before _-ed_, _ō_. e.g.; _wal_ : _cristal_ 273-4 C (also
609-10 T), _wolde_ : _golde_ 208 T, _tolde_ : _holde_, _sholde_ :
_holde_ 435-6 T (also 77-80 C), _wolde_ : _beholde_ 751 T (also
449-50 C), 769-70 T (also 471-2 C). Exceptions occur in the Southern
MSS. e.g.; _elde_ : _helde_ 102 Cott., _halle_ : _welle_ 230 C,
_welle_ : _alle_ 224 C, 280 C, but are not paralleled in MS. T.[I-21]
4. The inflectional endings of the pres. indic. seem to be _-e_, _-est_,
_-eþ_ for the singular. There are rimes to prove the 3rd sing. in _-eþ_;
_seith_ : _withe_ 106 T, _he sit_ : _nabit_ 40 C, _geþ_ : _deþ_ 200 C
(also T and Cott.), 422 C (also T). The plural ending is less evident.
The Cambr. MS. has rcularly _-eþ_. e.g.; _habbeþ_ 20, _serueþ_ 1256,
_beoþ_ 294, 295, _weneþ_ 314, _leteȝ_ 448, _chaungeþ_ 510, _goþ_,
_seoþ_, _spekeþ_ 708 C, _crieþ_ 526; the T. MS. _-en_, e.g.; _seruen_
590 T, _cryen_ 815 T, _ben_ 909 T, etc. That the _-eþ_ ending did not
belong to the original we may probably infer from the fact that while
the _-eþ_ of the 3rd sing. counts metrically, the _-eþ_ of the plural
usually does not. Cf. 20 C, 256 C, 448 C, 526 C, 708 C, etc. But cf.
_springeþ_ 296 C, _bisecheþ_ 765 C, _falleþ_ 786 C. These endings, then,
point to an East Midland dialect. Cf. also the rimes; _wepinge_ :
_bringe_ Cott. p. 105, _cusseþ_ : _blisse_ 549-50 C.