INTRODUCTION.

KING HORN.

§ 1. SETTING OF THE STORY.

By the beginning of the 13th century, when literature in the English tongue began to show some signs of revival, the earlier English epic tales seem to have been almost entirely obliterated from memory. A solitary survival seems to have been the story of the dragon-killing Wade with his famous boat Guingelot; but even this story is lost to us save for occasional references,I.1 and from these we must infer that all definite idea of its origin was lost, since Wade is associated, now with Weyland, now with Horn and Havelok, now with Lancelot. The place of these earlier epic tales was filled in Middle English times by a new set of tales for the most part no longer of purely native, popular origin. Tales were imported from every conceivable quarter, though usually by way of France, and even in the popular romances of Guy of Warwick and Bevis of Hampton, which are supposed to contain a kernel of genuine English tradition, the original story is almost unrecognizable amid the embellishments added. Similarly in the stories of Waldef and Hereward the historical facts are almost lost amid this mass of added foreign matter, and in the late romance of Richard Cœur de Lion we have to do, not with the historical Richard, but with a conventionalized hero of mediæval romance.

Standing apart from these largely conventionalized tales are the stories of Havelok and King Horn. These are supposed to have been among the first products of the second growth of English story. They seem to preserve, more than the other, later romances, their primitive traits, and are hence usually classed as English, or Germanic, in origin.

§ 2. VERSIONS.

The story of Horn is known in several different versions. Of these the one printed in the present volume is the oldest and in many respects the most archaic. The story, which it will be unnecessary to summarize here, is told in a simple, direct style with a noticeable lack of unnecessary description inserted for embellishment. The explanation of the peculiar features of this version is no doubt to be found in the purpose for which this version was used. It was probably intended to be sung, as one would infer from the opening lines, and perhaps is such a song, or ballad, as the one which, as the French version informs us (R. H. 2776 ff. cf. p. xiv. below), Horn sang about his love Rigmenil. The manner of the narrative is determined by the song character of the poem. There is more detail than in a modern song, at the same time less detail than in a modern story. Events are sometimes simply referred to as though already known instead of being fully described. The bravery of Murry, Horn’s father, is alluded to in such a manner as to lead one to expect to hear more about his feats of prowess. No motive is given for the journey to Ireland. We are conducted from place to place with Horn, from Aylmer’s court in Westernesse to that of Thurston, or from Horn’s wedding feast at Aylmer’s court to the annihilation of the Saracen invaders of Suddenne, almost in a breath. In this way sometimes incidents are thrown absurdly out of perspective. For instance, when Horn wishes to ‘prove his knighthood’ (v. 588), while the others are at table, he sets out on his ‘fole,’ and at the seashore finds a shipload of heþene honde. He slays about a hundred of them. At eureche dunte þe heued of wente. He fixes the leader’s head on the point of his sword and thus returns to the hall. All this, which forms the matter for about four hundred twelve-syllabled lines in the more prolix French version, is here related in an off-hand manner, in about forty short lines. The pitched battle of the French version becomes here a mere after-dinner recreation. It would be possible to multiply instances (cf. pp. x-xii) showing the abridged character of the present version.

Very different from the English gleeman’s version, is the highly elaborated French version of the story. This version,I.2 which is preserved in three MSS. at Oxford, at Cambridge, and at London, consists of about 5250 lines of twelve syllables, arranged in laisses, or strophes, of about twenty lines bound together by a single rime. Here we have a full-fledged romance, with descriptions of rich adornments, of feastings, of battles, of ix games, and of tournaments quite in the manner of the contemporary romances current in France and in Norman England. The archaic traits of the English King Horn are no longer so obvious. The names of persons and of places, with the exception of those of Horn, Rymenhild : Rigmel (Rigmenil), Fiken(h)ild : Wikele, Modi : Modin, Westernesse : Westir (Yrlaunde), and Sudden(n)e, are quite different in the two versions.

But with all this difference of detail, the story in its essential elements is the same in the two versions. Wissmann,I.3 in the introduction to his critical edition, says, “der französische roman (R. H.) weist kein einziges notwendiges bindeglied, keinen schönen altertümlichen zug auf, den das englische gedicht, King Horn (K. H.) nicht enthielte; dieses dagegen hat trotz seines geringen umfanges, eine reiche von alten, wahrhaft poetischen motiven jenem voraus.” And further, “aus alle dem ergibt sich, dass K. H. keine bearbeitung des französischen romans sein kann.” Wissmann’s further conclusions, however, are less tenable, when he continues: “das umgekehrte verhältniss dagegen ist nicht nur denkbar, sondern bis zu einem gewissen grade sogar notwendig; eine ältere quelle als das lied von King Horn für R. H. vorauszusetzen sind wir durch nichts berechtigt.”

Limited space forbids a thorough-going comparison of the two versions. The essential elements of the story are in each case nearly the same. In the French version (R. H.) again Horn the prince with his companions is set afloat from Suddenne in an open boat, arrives in Bretaigne, is hospitably received by King Hunlaf, is loved by the princess Rigmenil, from whom he receives a magic ring, is betrayed by Wikele, one of his companions, and is exiled from Bretaigne. He takes ship for Westir, the court of King Godreche, and is well received by the king and his two sons. He distinguishes himself in all things, and is loved and wooed by the princess Lemburc. But after delivering the Irish kingdom (Westir) from an African invasion, he is recalled by a messenger to Bretaigne, where, after vanquishing his rival Modun in a tournament, he rescues Rigmenil and himself plays the part of bridegroom at the wedding prepared. He then repairs to Suddenne, and after ridding his father’s kingdom of the invaders, is warned in a dream of Wikele’s second treachery, and returns again just in time to save his bride from a forced marriage with Wikele. With the death of Wikele and the establishment of Horn’s loyal friend Haderof (Athulf) in Ireland and of Horn and Rigmenil in Suddenne, the French story ends.

In addition to this similarity in general outline must be mentioned x occasional parallelism between the two versions in minor details or even in phraseology. As instances of the first we may cite: Of his feire siȝte Al þe bur gan liȝte K. H. 385-6; De la belte de horn tute la chambre resplent. R. H. 1053. Drink to horn of horne K. H. 1145; Mes com apelent horn li engleis naturer R. H. 4206. He lokede on his rynge And þoȝte on Rymenhilde K. H. 873-4; Si regarde sa main e lanel kest gemmeȝ. Ke li fud de Rimel al departir doneȝ R. H. 3166-7. And whan þu farst to woȝe tak him þine gloue K. H. 793-4; Mes une rien uus di joe dont seieȝ purgardez, Si alez donneier ke oue uus nel menez Kar il est de beaute issi enluminez ke uus la v il iert petit serreȝ preiseȝ R. H. 2323-6. Biuore me to kerue And of þe cupe serue K. H. 233-4; Horn me seruira vi de ma cupe portant R. H. 463. As instances of phrases from King Horn reflected in R. H., we may cite: Stiwarde, tak nu here Mi fundlyng for to lere Of þine mestere, Of wude and of riuere K. H. 227-30; De bois de riueer refet il altre tal R. H. 377. Wiþute sail and roþer K. H. 188; Kil naient auirun dunt a (!) seient aidanȝ Sigle ne guuernad (!) dunt il seint naianȝ R. H. 60-61. Ston he dude lade, ant lym þerto he made K. H. 1502 H. Vn castel ad ia fet de pere e de furment R. H. 5097. These instances, which might be multiplied, will serve to show how closely related in origin are these two versions, English and French.

The identity of the two versions is, however, by no means complete. The more condensed version (K. H.) presents some traits not to be found in R. H. We may mention: Horn’s farewell to his boat, 139 ff.; Rimenhild’s assistance in bringing about the dubbing of Horn, 435 ff.; Rimenhild’s dream, 651 ff.; Horn’s charge to Athulf to care for Rimenhild, 743 ff.; the drowning of the messenger from Rimenhild to Horn, 968 ff.; the palmer’s account of Rimenhild’s grief, 1035 ff.; Athulf’s watching from the tower, 1091 ff.; Horn’s fictitious tale to Rimenhild of his own death, 1175 ff.

If K. H. offers these few traits independent of R. H., the latter, longer narrative introduces episode after episode either barely suggested in a single line of K. H., or entirely foreign to the English version. For example, we may mention: the more circumstantial account of Horn’s descent, and of the heroic death of Aaluf, 250 ff.; Rimel’s amusing method of wheedling Athelfrus into bringing Horn to her, 604 ff.; her confidences to her maid Herselot, 729 ff.; the elaborate account of Horn’s victory over Malbroin and Rodmund, 1295 ff.; Wikele’s contrived pretext for a quarrel with Horn, 1839 ff.; Horn’s loathness to take oath, though he is willing to vindicate his word by meeting in combat any two or even five or six chosen antagonists, 1924 ff.; the love of princess xi Lemburc for Horn, 2394 ff.; the stone-throwing contest, 2568 ff.; the game of chess, 2696 ff.; Lemburc’s apartments, 2709 ff.; the harp-playing, 2776 ff.; the elaborate battle description once more, 3234 ff.; the death of Egfer, 3358 ff.; the meeting of Horn with Wikele and Modin, 4094 ff.; the tournament at Rimil’s wedding, 4456 ff.; the victory, with Hardre’s aid, over the Saracens in Suddenne, 4604 ff.; the touching description of Horn’s meeting with his mother, 4882 ff.; the besiegement of Hunlaf and Rimel by Wikele, 5100 ff.; the intervention of Wikele’s brother, Wothere, 5052 ff., etc.I.4

If the subject matter in the two versions is different, the style is far more so. The simple, condensed, somewhat archaic manner of K. H. stands in marked contrast to the sophisticated style of the French romance. The difference is perhaps that to be expected between two versions, one intended for English-speaking, the other for French-speaking people.I.5 But the difference is perhaps more largely that between ballad and romance. In K. H. the author gives no evidence of himself directly or indirectly, whereas Thomas, the author of R. H., continually addresses his public in the second person and directly introduces his personal opinion. The incidents which in K. H. are condensed almost to unintelligibility, in R. H. are liberally supplied with motives and explanations. The character of Rimenhild in K. H., almost wild in its naturalness, suggests somewhat one of the female divinities of Germanic mythology. Rimel, of the French romance, is an eminently sophisticated, almost modern young woman who understands the arts of coaxing and of coquetry.

The luxury and refinement described in the French version, contrastI.6 markedly with the primitive manners and surroundings suggested in the English version. Rimenhild shares her single sleeping-room with her six maidens; Rimel has so many maids that these have private rooms, Rimel keeping by her only her one trusted maid. Rimenhild on her wedding day, has four maid attendants; Rimel, thirty. King Murry’s retinue consists of two knights, and the sons of the king of Westir appear to have been without retinue; in R. H. the two princes in their mesnée privée have vingt de gens ben escernée. Even the seneschal of King Hunlaf has twenty knights in his retinue. Stimming further points out the feudalistic relations existing between Horn and his companions in R. H. (as well as in H. C.) of which one can hardly detect a trace in xii K. H. Further the author of the romance, quite in keeping with the conventions of contemporary romances, has introduced and elaborated descriptions of battles and of sports and tournaments on every possible occasion. In R. H. Horn is a curteis knight, whose knightly honour forbids him to take oath.

Stimming further points out the difference in cultivation of manner as reflected in the love-making scenes of the two versions. When Athulf is introduced to Rimenhild’s bower, Anon vpon Aþulf child Rymenhild gan wexe wild, K. H. 295-6, she has him seat himself on her bed, embraces him, and offers herself as his bride. Rimel, on the other hand, who before Aþulf’s coming has carefully regarded the glass, pur veer sa belted, Pur saver de su vis cum il est culured, on his appearance, takes him by the hand, leads him to a seat, seats herself beside him, and then expresses the wish, “Bels amis, dès ore voil estre mise en vostre justise,” politely adding, “si vostre plaisir est.”

All this, Stimming concludes, is an unmistakable evidence of the later time of R. H.’s composition. Granting the truth of this conclusion, the difference of treatment in the two versions is also no doubt in part due to the difference in the public for which each version was intended, and also still more, perhaps, to the difference in function of the two works. It must be noted that K. H. is a popular ballad-like poem perhaps of the kind referred to in R. H., while the French R. H. is an artificial and conventionalized romance of prowess and love.

That the ballad-like version K. H., simple, even primitive in matter, in manner, and in metrical form, should have been derived from the sophisticated, artificial romance, R. H. deserves little consideration. On the other hand that the artificial romance should have been derived from the simple ballad-like story, incomplete in its record of details, is even more unworthy of consideration, though quite probably Thomas, the French romancer, may have been to some extent influenced by this English version, with which he was probably acquainted, as we may infer from the following passage:

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, xiii 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:

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 xiv 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 xv the highly sophisticatedI.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 xvi 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.).

§ 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 xvii 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.

§ 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 xviii 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. WardI.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 xix 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 SudeineI.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.

§ 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 xxi 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 xxiii 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:

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 xxiv 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 Westernesse).

Compound proper names seem to have been a source of confusion. Should bothI.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.

§ 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 xxv 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, xxvii 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 xxviii 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.)

Missing “x” supplied from Wissman.