King Horn, Floriz and Blauncheflur, and The Assumption of Our Lady

170 Pages·1866·7.348 MB·English

by  Rawson Lumby (ed.), George H. McKnight (ed.)

Iff

I

^o.
\ A-
PREFACE.
The greater partof the poems here printed are fromamutilated
MS. in the Cambridge UniversityLibrary marked Gg. 4. 27. 2.
The MS. commences with the fragment of the Floriz and
Blauncheflur, in the middle is the King Horn entire, and that
is followed by the fragment of the Assumption. The entire
MS. is here printed, though not in the order in which the
pieces are written. Beside the contents of this MS., a com-
plete copy of the Assumption has been printed from MS. 10036
of the Add. MSS. in the British Museum, and also all that can
be deciphered of the Floyres and Blancheflur (Cotton. Vitellius,
D. iii.) which was so grievously injured in the fire that occurred
at the Museum in 1731.
The Cambridge MS., which appears to be of about the latter
halfofthe thirteenth century, consists offourteen folios written
in double columns, and occasionally, as the lines are short, with
two lines joined into one. The initial letters of the lines are
written a little apart from the rest, and coloured red.
The first folio, which contains the earliest part of the frag-
ment of Floriz and Blauncheflur, is damaged, a triangular por-
tion being cut off the lower corner. This damage is indicated
—
by the bracketed endings of lines 78 80, and by the italics at
—
the commencement of lines 102 120. The initial letters of
—
lines 617 626 of the same poem have also been cut away.
The larger capitals and the paragraph-marks have all been
printed exactly as they occur in the MS.
b
——
:
n PREFVi K.
The Floriz and Blauncheflur fragment extends from fbL 1*7
bb. ofthe MS. The Horn from &*—13'/. The fragment ofthe
Assumption from 13//—145.
This version of King Ilorn has been printed before, though
without a glossary, in the publications of the Bannatyne Club,
and under the superintendence of Mr. Thomas AVright. It
formed part of a volume printed, along with a French version
ofthe Romance, in Paris, and edited by M. Michel. Numerous
misprints occur in the English text, apparently owing to its
being printed abroad.
There exist two other complete English versions of Horn,
one in the British Museum (Ilarl. MS. 2253), which has been
printed, but very badly, by Ritson, in the second volume of his
Metrical Romances. The other is in the Bodleian at Oxford
(MS. Laud. 108), and has never been printed. Subjoined are
specimens of all the three texts for the sake of comparison:
Earl MS. 2253. MS.laud. 108 (Bodleian),
Cambridge Univ. Lib.
Her bygynne)' ye gefte of fol. 2195.
Kyng Horn. KING HORN. Go. 4. 27. 2.
' heobenblyte Allebenhebli)>e Allebeonheblij^e
pattomyfongylyfe. J-at to mewilenlihe. patto myfonglyfe
afongychulleoulinge Afongichwilleyoufiwge Afangihcfchal joufinge
ofAllofyegodekynge. ofmoryeyekynge. OfMurry yekinge.
Kinghewesbywefte kinghewas biweften Kinghewasbiwefte
he whiles hit ylefte. Wei £at hife dayesleften: Solongfohit lafte.
antgodylthisgodequene, Andgodildhifegodequene Godhildhet his quen,
nofeyroremyhtebene, feyrernon mictebene: Fairenemijtenonben.
ant houre fone hihte Heresone hauede toname He hadde a sone hot het
horn, horn horn,
feyrorechildnemihtebe feyrer child ne micte ben Fairer ne mifte non beo
born. [ryne born, [reyne, born.
for reyne ne myhte by Ne reyn ne micte upon Nenoreinuponbirine
nefonne myhteshyne Nenofonwebyschine, Nefanweuponbifchine.
FeyTorechildyenhewas. fayrerchildy&nnehewas. Fairernisnowfanehewas,
bryhtfoenerenyglas, Brictsoeueranyglas, Hewasbrittfoyeglas,
Sowhitfoenylylyeflour, Whitsoanyliliflour Hewaswhitfo ye flur,
Soroferedwashiscolour, Soroferedwashyfcolur. Roferedwashiscolur.
hewas feyr £c ekebold Hewaffayrandekebold Innonekinge-riche
antoffyftenewynterold. Andoffiftenewinter hold. Nasnowhis iliche.
PREFACE. Vll
The English version of Horn is so complete a story, and so
naturally (<>ld, that we cannot doubt the information given in
the introduction to the French Romance of Waldef that the
original story was English. From this the Fronch versions
wore made, and we arc told in one of these versions that the
Norman poet who wrote it was one Thomas, who lived in the
reign of Richard I. (sec Warton, i. 41, notes, and Wright's
Biogr. Brit. Lit. ii. 340.) The later origin of the Frcncli is
shown also by the bulk to which the story has grown in that
language. The French text printed by M. Michel extends to
5250 lines. That a long story should be made out of a shorter,
by the addition of speeches and dialogue, is exactly what would
be expected. The best French text, and also the most perfect,
is that in the Cambridge Univ. Lib. (Ff. vi. 17'.)
On the alterations in the names and the character of the
speeches introduced into the French the reader may consul
I.
Wright's Middle Ages, vol. i. p. 101, etc.
The fragment of the Assumption ofour Lady consists ofonly
240 lines, and the complete version which is printed along with
it is of much later date, and bears traces of a more Northern
origin.
There are in the Cambridge University Library two other
MSS. of this poem. The first is in the volume Dd. 1.1, pp.
317-328, but one leaf, containing pp. 324, 325, is wanting.
Thiscopyis as old, if not older, than the fragment here printed.
In the notes a few extracts from it are given, from which its
character may be decided.
The second is marked Ff. 2. 38. 23, and is almost word for
word the same as the former, except that now and then a more
modern spelling or word is substituted for the earlier.
Much interest has been given to the Story of the Assump-
tion by the recent publication of three Syriac versions (two
fragmentary and one complete) of a very early date, by Dr.
Mil PREFACE.
Wright. The fragments are ]><>th printed in lii.s "Syriac
Apocrypha," and the complete story appeared in the "Journal
of Bacred Literature," January and April, 1865. The Syriac
version is much longer than our text, giving an account of the
discovery of tin' original work, and also more details of the
behaviour Of the several apostles.
In an interesting review of Dr. Wright's edition, Ewald
ns the origin of the story to the latter half of the fourth
century. It has been very widely spread, for (Journ. Sac. Lit.,
January, 18C5, p. 418) it is stated that a very similar narrative
exists iii JEthiopic.
It is most likely to have made its way to England in a Latin
dress, of which we have many examples. One such version is
in the Bibiiothcc. Max. Patrum, vol. ii., part 2, pp. 212-216.
An Arabic version with a Latin translation was published by
Enger, at Elberfeld, 1854, which most nearly corresponds with
the Syriac in the Journal of Sacred Literature. But the nearest
approach to the Englishversion, as here printed, is in two Latin
texts ofthe Transitus Marioe, markedAand B respectively,just
published by Teschendorf in theApocalypsesApocryphae. Lips.,
1866. Of these the latter corresponds almost exactly with our
English version.
The Floriz and Blauncheflur is a longer fragment, 824 lines
being preserved, but this must have been a very small portion
of the whole poem, as will be seen by an abstract of the com-
plete story which is given below. Beside this text, three other
English versions, or fragments of versions, are known. The
first (Floyresand Blanchefiur) is in the British Museum, Cotton.
Vitellius, D-. iii., but has been almost destroyed byfire. All that
can be deciphered of it has been appended to this volume. A
second (Florence and Blanchefloure) is said to be in theLibrary
at Bridgewater House, but owing to the minority ofthe present
Lord Ellesmere is just now inaccessible. The third (Florice