  FLORIS AND BLAUNCHEFLUR.§ 1. Introductory, p. xxx. § 2. History, p. xxx. § 3. English Version, p. xxxvii. § 4. Dialect, p. xxxix. § 5. Date of Composition, p. xli. § 6. Versification, p. xlii. § 7. Manuscripts, p. xlii. § 1. INTRODUCTORY.If in King Horn we have a story Germanic in descent, and betraying everywhere traces of its Germanic origin, in Floris and Blauncheflur we have a romance of extraneous, probably ultimately of oriental origin, and the contrast is in many ways interesting and instructive. The love element, which in King Horn plays so large a part, in Fl. and Bl. is the all in all. This story of all-absorbing passion, which in spite of seemingly insurmountable obstacles and desperate perils, in the end reunites the devoted lovers, was one of the most popular during the Middle Ages, and one of the earliest to be imported from the East. The history of the tale vies in interest with the story itself. The story in a perplexing variety of versions spread over all the countries of Christendom, as we shall see later. It seems to be the basis of the charming chantefable, Aucassin and Nicolete, which Andrew Lang and Walter Pater have made so well known to the modern world. The English version, which unfortunately is incomplete at the beginning in each one of the four manuscripts in which it has been written down, was probably derived directly from one of the French versions, as we shall see. § 2. HISTORY.(a) Origin.The story of Floris and Blauncheflur is probably an oriental product, and shows many traces of Byzantine influence. It was one of the first of these oriental tales to be retailed in the Occident and had a wide circulation in all the countries of western Christendom, from Spain and Italy to the Scandinavian North. Its route from East to West it is not easy to trace with certainty, though the Crusades were quite probably the means of its importation. Further than this it is not easy to determine. The ProvenÇals, whose active part in the Crusades is well known, may have been the agents, or, as is so often the case with the oriental tales, it may have been imported in a Latin dress. The history of the story in the West is complicated on account of the puzzling multiplicity of versions among which it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to determine the interrelations. The clue to the difficulty was early hinted at by Sommer (E.Sommer, Einl. zu R. Fleckes Flore und Blaunscheflur, Quedlingburg und Leipzig, 1846), and more recently the matter has been very thoroughly explained by Herzog (H.Herzog, Die beiden Sagenkreise von Flore und Blanscheflur, Wien, 1884) in his investigation of the subject. Herzog points out that there are to be distinguished in the Occident, two distinct general versions of the story. In the first of these, A, seems to be preserved the story in its original and genuine form. The second of these versions, B, seems to be a remodelling of the original version in the attempt to adapt to common folk a story in its existing form intended for higher circles of society. The second of these imported versions, B, first circulated in Italy, in Spain and in Greece. It also seems, somewhat indirectly as we shall see, to have served as a basis for the second French version and for one group of the German VolksbÜcher. The versions of B, if we leave the second French version out of consideration, all represent the parents of Blauncheflur as Italian, and in part have the same names for the characters. This circumstance, with other corroborating facts, seems to indicate that version B first took root in Italy, and from there spread into Spain and into Greece, possibly its original home. Version A, on the other hand, seems first to have been imported into France, the great jobbing nation of the Middle Ages in all sorts of romantic stuffs and materials. From France it was early retailed to Germany, to England, to Scandinavia, and, possibly, to Italy. From Germany in turn it was re-exported into Bohemia. Version A was without doubt the first to become known, since we find it not only in the Old French, but in the Germanic versions springing from a French source, in an unperverted state. All the different versions of B, on the other hand, have been very noticeably influenced by A, indicating that the arrival of B was after A had become established and well known. (b) In France.We encounter the story of Floris and Blauncheflur earliest in France, and the French seem to have been the first to make the story a subject for poetic treatment. The story appears in French, besides in two songs celebrating episodes in this tale of true love, in two distinct versions. The earliest of these versions, which we may designate as I., had its origin, it seems, about 1160. Du MÉril (E. du MÉril, Floire et Blancheflor, Paris, 1876) in discussing the interrelations of the two French versions, characterizes one as a version for a select public, “version aristocratique,” and the second as a version for the entertainment of the masses, “version populaire.” The French II. version, the “version populaire,” is, according to Herzog, p.4, the result of a sort of fusion of the A and B general forms of the story, The general style and manner of handling the story is quite different in the two French versions. The “version aristocratique” preserves the traits of an oriental romance, and Floire is represented as a love-sick Ensamble vont, ensamble vienent Et la joie d’amor maintient Nus d’aus deus chose ne savoit Que luÉs a l’autre ne disoit. . . . . . . . . . . On ooient parler d’amors. Ensamble lisent et aprendent; A la joie d’amor entendent: Un vergier a li peres Floire . . . . . . . . . . D’amors i chantent li oisel. Quant il mangoient et bevoient Li oisel seure aus se sÉoient; Des oiseles oent les chans: Cou est la vie as deus enfans. . . . . . . . . . . Et quant a l’escole venoient Lor tables d’yvoire prenoient, Adont lor veissiez escrire Letres et vers d’amors en cire. Letres et salus font d’amors Du chant des oisiaus et des flors. The writer of I. is evidently a genuine poet, though perhaps somewhat of the ‘spring poet’ order. He exalts the sentiment of love, as we have seen, and feelingly describes the elaborately constructed tomb (vv.530-652), the finely wrought cup (vv.431-498), and the birds and flowers and fountains and trees of the gardens of the king and of the ‘Admiral.’ He dwells in sensuous fondness in his enumeration equally of the fine stuffs and precious stones; the mantiaus, vairs osterins and bliaus indes porprins (429-30), or the saffirs and calcidoines and boines jagonses and sardoines, etc. (1755-77), and of flowers and trees; the “poivre, canele et garingal,” or the “encens, girofle et citoval,” or the beuns, the plantoine, the alÏer, the boins figiers, the peschiers, the periers and the noiers (1761-8). The “version populaire,” on the other hand, seems to be adapted somewhat to the ideal of the native French epic, and Floire is represented as a model of courage and knightly virtue, in a class with the douze pers and the other heroes of the Charlemagne cycle of stories. The writer interpolates scenes in which Floire may display his fighting qualities. In the early part of the story, he returns from school just in time to rescue Blauncheflur, who is about to be committed to the flames. He accomplishes her rescue by acting as her champion and fighting the seneschal, who has accused her of attempting to poison the king. The combat is a stirring one quite in the manner of the Chansons de geste (vv.920-1160). On the journey to Babylon, Floire has heroic adventures in a battle with Diogenes, son of Samones, king of the city of Fusis (1854-1984). Later, when the trial of Fl. and Bl. is interrupted by the arrival of an invader, Jonas de Handreas, Fl. offers to vanquish the invaders if his life be spared. At first he is unsuccessful in his attempt, but after being taken prisoner by the invaders, he is aroused by the reproachful words of Bl. and breaking loose, slays Jonas, thus delivering the city and winning Bl. (3120-3410). (c) Provence.Among the troubadours of Provence the story of Fl. and Bl. was early known and popular, as one must judge from the very frequent allusions. There is, however, no proof of the existence of a ProvenÇal romance. (d) In Germany.In Germany are to be encountered many versions of the popular story. The earliest one seems to have been the Low Rhenish poem Floyris and Blaunchiflur, of about 3700 lines, translated by an unknown poet about 1170 (Steinmeyer, H.Z. xxi, 307-331). To the middle of the 13th century belongs the MHG. poem in 8006 lines by Konrad Fleck, composed, quite independently of the Low Rhenish version above mentioned, after an OF. original. (Ed.by E.Sommer, Quedlingburg u. Leipzig, 1846.) Somewhat younger is the Mid. Low Germ. poem, Floris ende Blancefloer of 3983 lines (Ed.by H. von Fallensleben, Leipzig, 1836, and by H. E. Moltzer, Groningen, 1879, in the Bibl. van Middelnederlands Letterkunde). The poet, Dideric van Assenede, says, himself, that he derived his material from the “Walsche.” If we look more closely into the question of the French original of the German poems, we must assume a version, ?, earlier than the version preserved in the three existing MSS. of French I. version. These three MSS. may be classed into a group, z, whose chief characteristic is the attempted suicide of Floris in the Lion pit. This scene appears in two of the existing MSS., and the writer of the third MS. seems to have had the scene in his original but to have left it out. (Cf.H. Sundmacher, Die altfrz. u. mittelhd. Bearbeitung der Sage von Fl. und Bl., diss. GÖttingen, 1872.) Among the German versions it appears only in the LG. Flosse un Blankflosse. The other German versions must rest on an OF. version, ?, which at the hands of Fleck In addition to these early German versions must be mentioned two groups of VolksbÜcher: (1)from Boccaccio’s Filocolo, (2)from Fleck’s poem, also a Bohemian adaptation and a German Jewish adaptation, (Cf.Hausknecht, ed. of Fl. u. Bl., pp. 13-20, Berlin, 1885.) (e) In Scandinavia.Our story had a wide circulation also in the North, as one must infer from the number of Scandinavian versions preserved: (1)the old Norweg. fragment of a saga (ed.by G. Storm, Nordisk Tidskrift for Filologi og PÆdagogik, Copenhagen, 1874, pp. 24-28), (2)the complete Icelandic saga of FlÓres ok BlankiflÚr, (3)the fragments of a second Icelandic Saga (ed.by Brynjolf Snorrason, Annaler for nordisk old kyndighed og historie, 1850); (4)the Old Swed. poem (ed.by E. Klemming, Samlingar utgifna af svenska formskrift-sÄllskapet, I., Stockholm, 1844); and (5)the Danish translations from the Swedish (ed.by C. J. Brandt, Romantisk Digtning fra Middelalderen, I. and II. KØbenhavn, 1869-77). The distinguishing characteristic of the Northern versions is the conclusion. According to the Norse version, Floris, to refute the charge that he has gained admittance to Bl.’s tower by the use of magic tricks, offers to fight in single combat the bravest of the Admiral’s knights. In the ensuing combat he overcomes the Admiral’s champion, and receives as his guerdon, Blauncheflur. If we accept Herzog’s conclusions (pp.15, 35, 45-6,66) we must assume as an original for the Scandinavian versions, a French original, N, with the ending peculiar to the Northern versions. The development from this original is shown by the following plan (also borrowed from Herzog, p.92). stemma of Floris and Blanchefleur: Scandinavia (f) In Italy.In Italy also the story of Fl. and Bl. enjoyed great popularity. The two chief versions were: (1)the Cantare, written by a popular poet in ottave rime; and (2)Boccaccio’s youthful production, his first prose romance, Filocolo. That the I. version of the story, the one most popular in France, was also current in Italy, we see in these two versions, both of which show, in addition to the special traits of II., many traits peculiar to version I. To determine exactly the interrelations of these two versions is no easy matter. From allusions in the Filocolo we know that the Cantare was the older. Internal evidence, however, forbids the supposition that the Filocolo has sprung from the Cantare. Rather the two versions go back to a common source. This Italian, or Franco-Italian, version, which probably had no differences of real moment from the Cantare in its present form, must in many points have been more ample and complete, and in individual instances nearer the French tradition, than the Cantare is. In connection with the Italian group must also be mentioned the Greek poem of Florios and Platziaflore, composed in the 14th century and founded upon the Cantare. (g) In Spain.In Spain we find allusion to our story already in the 13th century, when the Gran conquista de Vltramar refers to Fl. and Bl. as the most devoted pair of lovers that one had ever heard of. But there is no proof of the existence of a Spanish version of the story as early as this. In the year 1512, appeared at Alcala the prose romance, Flores y Blancaflor, which is current to the present day. The close relationship of this to the Italian versions is very evident. Its source, however, seems hardly to be directly the Cantare. The beginning of the Spanish romance, which is § 3. ENGLISH VERSION.The story of Fl. and Bl. found its way into England in the 13th century, that is to say, when it had been for a hundred years familiar to French hearers and after it had already spread into many lands outside of France. As has been said, the English version goes back to a French original. This original was certainly of the I. form. Of the features peculiar to the French II. version, the English version does not show one, while it agrees with the French I. version to the extent of exact translation of many phrases and verses and even of reproduction of French rime-words. At the same time the French original that lay before the English adapter can not have been the text exactly as it is preserved in any one of the three extant French MSS., but rather an older, or purer text which we have designated by ?, a distinguishing feature of which is the absence of the attempted suicide of Floris in the lion pit. The text that must be assumed as the original of the English poem must have been very similar to the original from which Fleck and Dideric derived their German versions, but not exactly identical as is evidenced by frequent slight divergences. The English poet has not expanded and amplified by the addition of further details or by the introduction of personal reflections, as the German Fleck has done. He has presented the essential features of the love story as it impressed him, in a condensed form to be sure, at the same time without bareness or baldness. Unlike the adapter of the Low Rhenish condensed version, he has preserved the original order of incidents, and has usually preserved faithfully the smallest details that have any essential bearing on the plot. Some idea of the English writer’s fidelity to the details and even to the phraseology of his French original, and of his method of translating, may be gained from the following parallel passages: The English text, including line numbers, is from Hausknecht’s edition. Que bien sorent parler latin Et bien escrivre en parchemin Inou? Þey couÞ of latyne And wel wryte on parchemyn Faites la moi tost demander Ja li ferai le chief couper. Let do bryng forÞ Þat mayde, Fro Þe body Þe heved schal goo. Et il l’a tant bien acatÉe Qu’a fin or l’a sept fois pesÉe. Þe amyral hur bou?t anoon And gafe for hur, as she stood upry?t, Seven sythes of gold her wy?t. Ci gist la bele Blanceflor A cui Floires ot grant amor. Here liÞ swete Blauncheflur Þat Floris loved par amur. Un grafe a trait de son rapier . . . . . . . . . En son cuer bouter le voloit, Quant sa mere cou apercoit. His knif he dro? ut of his scheÞe And to his herte hit hadde ismite, Nadde his moder hit under?ite. The grafe is elaborately described in vv. 788-98: Li roi li done un palefroi, Qui d’une part estoit tous blans, De l’autre rouges comme sans. Þe king let sadel a palfray Þe oon half white, so mylke And Þat oÞer reed, so sylk. Fius, fait ele, gardez le bien; Tant com l’aurez, mar cremez rien; Car vous ja rien ne requer(r)iez Que tost ou tard vous ne l’aiez Mi sone, he rede, have Þis ring; While he is Þin, ne dute noÞing. . . . . . . . . . And be hit erli and be hit late To Þi wil Þu schalt habbe whate. La le troevent ou siet, sous l’arbre, Sor un perron qui fu de marbre. Þe briggere he fond ate frome, Sittinde on a marble ston. Le millor conseil que jou sai Þe beste red Þat ihc Þe can Si maudient qui s i foula Hi beden God ?ive him wel fin Þat so manie flures dide Þerin Des flors sali un paveillon Des eles feri mon menton; Del paveillon tel paor oi, Que m’escriai plus tost que poi Þer fliste ut a buterfli?e, Are ihc wiste, on mine i?e. So sore ihc uas offerd of Þan, Þat ihc loude crie bigan Bele compaigne, Blanceflor, Volez vous veoir bele flor? And sede, “Swete Blauncheflur, Wiltu se a wel fair flur?” Damoisele qui a amor Et joie en soi, doit avoir flor. Ho Þat loveÞ par amur, An haÞ Þerof joie, mai love flur. In spite of this number of tolerably exact correspondences, in word and phrase, with the French original, the English poem is a condensed adaptation rather than a slavish translation. As in the French II. version, the tender and sentimental element is much condensed; but the English writer, unlike the writer of French II., does not introduce the heroic and warlike element in the form of duels and battles. He does not amplify by adding new details, as Fleck did, nor does he confuse the order of incidents as does the adapter of the Low Rhenish version. He makes rather a faithful condensation quite after the manner of English adapters from the French, which is no doubt to be explained as due not so much to difference between the writers, English and French, as to a difference No doubt with his English public in mind, the English poet, in adapting the story from the French, has modified to some extent the tenderness and sentimentality, even at times the poetic descriptions, of his French original (compare vv. 1117-1194 of the French with the corresponding English vv. 457-72), and has omitted the enumeration of gems and of precious stuffs suggestive of an elegance perhaps unintelligible to an English speaking and hearing public at this time. The wonderful cup, to the description of which 67 verses (431-498) are devoted in the French romance, in the English poem is dismissed with 17 verses (163-184). The garden so elaborately described in the French, vv. 1724-1835, in the English poem occupies only vv. 685-732. The description of the knife (grafe), which serves no other purpose than that of external adornment in the French version (vv.788-799), is entirely neglected in the English translation. The translator’s method is well illustrated in the case of the description of Floris’s equipage preliminary to setting out on his journey. The description of the saddle and harness occupies 37 verses (964-1000) of the French poem, and is dismissed by the English translator with 5 (vv.382-389), Ine can telle ?ou no?t Hu richeliche Þe sadel was wro?t, and three verses following. To sum up, the English version is a free, somewhat condensed, translation from the French I. version. The translator has introduced almost no new traits, and the extent of the condensation may be judged by considering the 1296 verses of the English as compared with the 2974 verses in the French I. version. The manner of the condensation has been indicated. But with all the condensation, especially in the descriptive passages, it is important to note that in the essential features of the story, the translator follows his original faithfully, so that the main outline of the story is preserved as accurately in English as in French. § 4. DIALECT.In Fl. and Bl. as in King Horn it is difficult to distinguish certain criteria of dialect on account of the variety of orthography in the different manuscripts. Here again the only safe guide is the rimes, and the evidence of these is not entirely uniform for the different texts. There is a great difference in age between MS. C, the oldest, and MS. T, probably the youngest of the four MSS. Further there is a difference in the 1. OE. ?? seems to have been pronounced i?. e.g.; cusseÞ: blisse, custe: wiste 549-52C, ywys: kysse 1067T, winne: kinne 806C, blisse: kisse 786C, fylle: wylle 738T, lyke: lyte 782T. Only apparent exceptions are meene: kyne 274T (these words do not rime together in the original), and bygge: segge 989T. Ostesse: kysse belongs only to MSS. T and Auch. 2. If we apply Prof. Hempl’s -wo-, -w?- test we find some evidence of a Midland dialect, e.g.; too: soo 94T, vndoo: soo 74T, also: doo 224T, 764C, soo: doo 64T, 336T, 624T, so: fordo 307-8C. This test applied to Fl. and Bl. is not certain in itself, but supports the other evidence. That the test is uncertain we see from the occurrence of apparently inaccurate rimes such as hoom: doom 1079T, 802C, and from a few rimes which oppose the evidence of those above cited, e.g., Þoo: twoo 30T, two: mo 218T (and Cott.), so: go 438C, 824C, bo: atuo 548C, 614C, Þo: so 666C, also: bo 780C, whoom: froom 70T. It would seem then that the change had affected the a in OE. swa but not in twa and hwa. It must be noted that all the quoted so rimes with ? occur in MS. C, which, as we shall see later, has a strong Southern colouring. 3. The product of OE. a before l + cons. seems to be a, or with lengthening before -ed, o. e.g.; wal: cristal 273-4C (also 609-10T), wolde: golde 208T, tolde: holde, sholde: holde 435-6T (also 77-80C), wolde: beholde 751T (also 449-50C), 769-70T (also 471-2C). Exceptions occur in the Southern MSS. e.g.; elde: helde 102 Cott., halle: welle 230C, welle: alle 224C, 280C, but are not paralleled in MS. T. 4. The inflectional endings of the pres. indic. seem to be -e, -est, -eÞ for the singular. There are rimes to prove the 3rd sing. in -eÞ; seith: withe 106T, he sit: nabit 40C, geÞ: deÞ 200C (also T and Cott.), 422C (alsoT). The plural ending is less evident. The Cambr. MS. has rcularly -eÞ. e.g.; habbeÞ 20, serueÞ 1256, beoÞ 294, 295, weneÞ 314, lete? 448, chaungeÞ 510, goÞ, seoÞ, spekeÞ 708C, crieÞ 526; the T. MS. -en, e.g.; seruen 590T, cryen 815T, ben 909T, etc. That the -eÞ ending did not belong to the original we may probably infer from the fact that while the -eÞ of the 3rd sing. counts metrically, the -eÞ of the plural usually does not. Cf. 20C, 256C, 448C, 526C, 708C, etc. But cf. springeÞ 296C, bisecheÞ 765C, falleÞ 786C. These endings, then, point to an East Midland dialect. Cf. also the rimes; wepinge: bringe Cott. p.105, cusseÞ: blisse 549-50C. 5. OE. Æ? (e) and shortened OE. ?, umlaut of WG. ai, or WG. a. The OE. short Æ appears regularly as a. trespas: was 1043T, orgas: was 102T, Cesar: bar 182T, are probably to be explained as due to one of the Southern scribes of MSS. C and Cott. e.g. vnder?et: set 166C (but cf. vnder?at: sat 98C). The shortening of OE. ? (umlaut of WG. ai) also appears regularly as a. e.g.; glade: ladde 480T, ilast: cast 338C, glad: ilad 114C. But cf. lasse: wytnesse 952T. In the rime, rest: mest 120C, 384C, it is impossible to determine whether the ? is shortened to e, as in parts of the South, or the e is lengthened to e. The shortening of OE. ? (WG.a) does not occur in rime often enough to permit any safe conclusion. The rimes radde: madde 826T and radde: hadde 1025T, seem to show that the product of shortening was a. That the representative of WG. a was the Saxon ? rather than the Anglian, and Kentish e, seems probable from the rimes rede: seide 21-2T, 51-2T, 215-16T, 263-4T (66Cott.); reede: deede 45-6T, 53-4T. From these criteria, which seem to be the best available, we may infer that Fl. and Bl. belongs further north than King Horn. Further, the inflections seem to point to the Eastern rather than to the Western Midland, so that we may feel fairly safe in attributing Fl. and Bl. to the East Midland. § 5. DATE OF COMPOSITION.We shall probably be safe in setting the date of composition in the second half of the 13th century. Lengthening in open syllables seems to have taken place, e.g.; coome: soone 100T, grome: coome 112T, § 6. VERSIFICATION.The poem is composed in short rimed couplets. The normal verse has four stresses. In no one of the MSS., however, are all the verses perfectly regular, due largely, no doubt, in part to the variety of forms available to each composer and to the variety of spellings to choose from, also to the attempts of each scribe to make the verses of the original fit into his own dialect. The rimes may be masculine or feminine. At times they are mere assonances, e.g.; first: lyst 693-4, furste: luste 377-8C, lyke: lyte 781-2T, longe: sonde 795-6C, coome: soone 100T, etc. At times they are inaccurate, e.g.; grunde: honde 303-4C, meene: kyne 273-4T. Peculiar are the rimes; Þerate: gate 153-4C, etc., fyne: Þeryne 369-70T, 441-2C, etc., Þerone: stone 112T, 212T. § 7. MANUSCRIPTS.Floris and Blauncheflur appears in four MSS., in each of the four with a greater or smaller part of the beginning lost. 1. T., the Trentham MS., is in the library of the Duke of Sutherland at Trentham Hall in Staffordshire. The MS. is a relatively late one (about 1440), and is written in a very legible, informal running hand, with loops to the b’s, l’s, etc. It contains a series of metrical romances; besides Floris and Blauncheflur, also Kyng Rychard, Bevous of Hampton, The Batell of Troye, Amys and Amylion, and Sir Eglamoure. Our poem stands on folios 98-111. The headings to the pages are; on the even, left-hand pages, Florence, on the odd, right-hand pages, & Blanchefloure. The MS. contains 1083 lines of our poem. The beginning of the poem is lost in this MS., as in the three others, and the first preserved folio is an odd, right-hand page, with the heading, & Blanchefloure. The first verse in this MS. corresponds to verse 193 of the French. The reading of the MS. is made difficult and uncertain by the end flourishes to certain letters, e.g.; gold), stoon), vppon), which it is hard to interpret. It has been collated with the three others by Hausknecht, in his admirable critical edition of the poem. 2. Cott., the Brit. Mus. MS. Cott. Vitell. D. III., which probably belongs to the second half of the 13th century, suffered badly from fire in 1731. Of the original 219 folios of this parchment MS., 26 remain, and these are in many parts exceedingly difficult to read, so that the readings here offered, which are based mainly on Lumby’s text, are offered with apologies, and may no doubt be bettered here and there by comparison with the other MSS. Our poem, which occupies folios 6a-8b of the existing MS., is preceded by Versus de historibus sacris veteris et novi Testamenti, veteri lingua Gallicana (O.French), and in the same handwriting with Fl. and Bl. The following folios (9-26) contain in Latin prose, Expositiones quaedam sive comentarii in Macrobii Saturnalia. Of our poem only 451 lines are preserved in this MS., and of these only 180 are completely legible. The first verse corresponds to about v.508, and the last to about v.2514 of the French. The writing is in a fine, apparently French, book hand. This MS. has been printed by Lumby in the original to the present edition for the E.E.T.S., and has been used by Hausknecht in collation. 3. A., the celebrated Auchinleck MS. of the Advocates’ Library in Edinburgh, is a veritable mine of romance. Perhaps the best description is still that given in Sir Walter Scott’s introduction to Sir Tristrem, where is to be found an enumeration of the 44 different articles, mostly romances, still contained (besides 13 lost). It is a large quarto on vellum, and according to Ellis, belongs to the very first of the 14th century. Of our poem, which occupies five double-columned folios (100-104), 861 verses are contained, of which the first corresponds to v.1001 of the French. Fl. and Bl. has twice been reprinted from the Auchinleck MS.: (1) C. H. Hartshorne, Ancient Metrical Tales, London, 1829, (2)David Laing, APenni Worth of Witte, etc., Abbotsford Club, Edinburgh, 1857. 4. C., the Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2, has already been described. (See page xxviii.) Of the fragment of a MS. that now exists, the final 824 verses of Fl. and Bl. occupy folios 1a-5b. The first verse preserved corresponds to verse 1001 of the French poem. The interrelations of these four MSS. have been carefully studied by Hausknecht (asabove, pp. 98-108), whose results may be summarized as follows: MSS. A., Cott., T form a group x. Now C., now group x has gaps, and neither is free from individual changes. Within the group x, A and Cott. form a special sub-group, y going back to a common origin, but at the same time independent of each other. We may borrow from Hausknecht the following diagram representing the interrelations. stemma of Floris and Blanchefleur T misprinted as I (both here and in Hausknecht). As regards the relative value of the different MSS., it must be said that T is the least to be depended on for accuracy, but is valuable because it preserves more of the early part of the story than is preserved in any of the other MSS. As regards the relative value of C and x it is hard to decide. Still the instances in which C, in opposition to A, agrees with the French are more numerous than are the instances of the contrary case. Footnotes to IntroductionGeneral Introduction and Table of Contents (separate file) Introduction to King Horn Floris and Blancheflur (separate file) Glossary (separate file)
1866 (re-edited 1901; reprinted 1962) Price 30s. |
|
