§ 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.