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

Introduction.

The Assumption of Our Lady.

§ 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 riseI.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.

§ 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 Ihesu schelde hem fram grame

Fro dedly synne and fro schame,

Ne mysauenture schal bi falle þat 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 Edmound,

Haþ graunted xl. daies to pardoun

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. 156 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.

§ 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: fram þaposteles nas noȝt

Þo þe holi gost a wit sonedai: among hem was ibroȝt.

This version seems to rest on the Legenda AureaI.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 Emperise 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).

§ 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.

Footnotes to Introduction

I.22 Cf. Horstmann, as above, pp. xxviii ff.

I.23 A legend cycle composed in Latin prose by the Italian Jacobus a Voragine, Bishop of Genoa.

I.24 Cf. M. Schwarz, Engl. Studien, viii, pp. 461 ff. But cf. ten Brink, I, p. 336; Horstmann, Neue Folge, p. xxxix.

I.25 Cf. C. Horstmann, Altengl. Legenden, p. xxxiv, Paderborn, 1875.

I.26 Cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, pp. lxxviii ff., Text, pp. 112 ff.

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.