SOURCE: "Character in the 'Matter of England' Romances," The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. X, 1911, pp. 429-609.

[Here, Creek evaluates the relationship between characterization, plot, and setting in four Middle English romances: Havelok the Dane, King Horn, Bevis of Hampton, and Guy of Warwick. In terms of characterization, the critic claims, Bevis is closer to the simpler, more primitive forms of the genre—Havelok and Horn—but with respect to structural development, it is more akin to Guy.]

For the student of medieval life and literature the dramatis personce of the romances—conventional as they are, and conventional as the romancers' treatment of them often is—are of no little interest. Professor Comfort's studies in the chansons de geste¹ have shown the importance of a knowledge of the character types of the French epic for an appreciation of the ideals and culture of medieval France. In this paper an attempt will be made to investigate, on a somewhat broader plan,² the four most important of the "matter of England" romances—King Horn, Havelok the Dane, Bevis of Hamtoun, and Guy of Warwick.³

Character stands in a peculiar relation to the other narrative elements of the metrical romance. It is, of course, never emphasized. Yet when romance after romance has been read, and a host of incidents have been forgotten, characteristic personalities stand out, which, modern English literature proves, have been of abiding interest. The more distinguished names—Gawain, Kay, Lancelot, Tristram, Iseult—were the fruit of a romance-activity which stands in strong contrast with the more popular art of Horn and Havelok. Yet the heroes of this seemingly more primitive group typify, I think, ideals of permanent interest. Appearing, as they do, in situations and relations thoroughly stereotyped, they are perhaps more interesting for that reason, have more of the medieval flavor, gain in representative quality. If they are deficient in subtlety, they are not deficient in a crude strength of character and will, perennially attractive.

For these reasons it will be seen that characterization, to an unusual degree, perhaps, is bound up with plot on the one hand, and with the broad background of medieval life on the other, and it will be necessary, in discussing it, to trespass somewhat upon these other fields.

The Group

The well-known tendency of the dramatis personœ of medieval romance to fall into certain conventional relations is well illustrated by a group of characters which appears, with certain variations, in Horn, in Bevis, and in Guy. This group seems to belong naturally to stories of the exile-and-return type, but it is not restricted to them, as it appears very clearly in the Guy. Nor is it essential to the exile-and-return type, since it does not appear, unless faintly, in Havelok. The following table shows the correspondence:

• The father
• The hero
• The old friend
• The young friend
• The foreign king
• The foreign king's daughter
• The defamer
• The second lady

• Horn
• Murri
• Horn
• Aþelbrus
• Aþulf
• Aylmar
• Rymenhild
• Fikenhild
• Reynild

• Bevis
• Guy
• Bevis
• Saber
• Terri
• Ermin
• Josian
• Two knights
• King of Aumbeforce's daughter

• Guy
• [Syward]
• Guy
• Herhaud
• Tirri
• Ernis
• Claris
• Morgadour
• Oisel

These lists might be paralleled, in part, with another from Havelok, as well as from romances far removed from this group, but as the relations of the dramatis personœ are not so clearly the same in these other cases, I have not thought it worth while to insist on the parallel. However, the possibility of making the table which here appears is not without significance, and a very fundamental resemblance will, I think, appear on closer investigation.⁴

In respect to the hero's father the resemblance is incomplete. Guy of Warwick is not a story of the exile-and-return type, and Guy's father plays a comparatively unimportant part in the story. In Horn and in Bevis the resemblance is clear. In both cases the father is of very high rank, Murri being King of Suddenne and Guy the Earl of South Hampton, of noble character and approved prowess. Both are slain at the opening of the story, being overpowered by numbers, and their possessions, in both cases, are seized by those who have slain them—in the one case by the Saracens, and in the other by Devoun, Emperor of Almaine. Both leave young heirs who are helpless to protect their dominions. Birkabein, father of Havelok and King of Denmark, occupies an analogous position. He dies leaving his young heir in the power of a traitor, who seizes the kingdom. This situation is repeated in the same poem in the death of Aþelwold, leaving his daughter and the Kingdom of England in the care of a traitor. Thus in each of the three romances of the exile-and-return type there is a king who dies, leaving a young son in the hands of enemies.

The children of these three fathers⁵ too early dead experience a similar fortune. Horn, sent out in a boat to find a grave in the sea, luckily reaches the coast of Westernesse. Bevis, narrowly escaping death at the hands of his own mother, is sold into slavery and borne across the seas to Armenia. Havelok, after heart-breaking sufferings, likewise crosses the sea in a boat to find a home at Grimsby. Guy had no such experiences in his earlier days, but gained manhood at his own home. It is his later career which brings him into the company of Horn and Bevis, as will appear in the discussion of the other typical characters.

Curiously enough, Horn, Bevis, and Guy each have for teacher a kind, brave man, who remains a steadfast friend. Akelbrus taught Horn the craft of wood and river, as well as harping, carving, and serving the cup (w. 229 ff.). Later he assists in the love affair of Horn and Rymenhild; and finally he is rewarded with a kingdom (vv. 1507 f.). However, the resemblance between Guy and Bevis, here as elsewhere, is much stronger. Saber is the "meister" of Bevis. After keeping Bevis concealed as long as he can, he is obliged to see him banished, but later sends his son to seek the lad; and he himself accompanies Bevis on some of his adventures. Almost the same thing happens in the case of Herhaud.

Gij a forster fader hadde,
þatte him lerd & him radde
Of wodes & riuer & oþer game;
Herhaud of Ardern was his name.
(vv. 169 ff.)

Herhaud, too, is a fellow-soldier of his friend, and himself seeks Guy when lost. Herhaud is also tutor to Guy's son Reinbrun, seeks him through many lands when he is stolen away, and in general stands in the same relation to the son that he did to the father. Like Saber, Herhaud has a warlike son who plays a part in the romance. Like him, too, he is warned in dreams when the hero is in need of assistance. Grim has certain points of contact with these characters, particularly with Saber. Both Grim and Saber are instructed to slay their charges, and both represent that they have done so. Thus in each of these romances there is an old friend who guards the early years of the hero; in three cases he is the tutor; and in the fourth case he stands in the general relation of guide and instructor, teaching, however, not knightly accomplishments, but the meaner duties of labor.

In three of the romances there is a young friend who is the faithful helper of his superior. In the fourth romance, Havelok, there is only the semblance of an equivalent in the three sons of Grim. But A'pulf in Horn, Terri in Bevis, and Tirri in Guy, occupy corresponding positions. In two of the cases the friend is presented with a bride and territory by the hero. Thus Reynild is given to Aþulf, and the daughter of the King of Aumbeforce agrees to become the wife of Terri when she learns that Bevis is beyond her reach. Guy also plays an important, though not similar, part in securing Oisel for Tirri. In the case of Terri and Bevis and of Tirri and Guy the friendship lasts through many battles in which the comrades fight side by side.

The term foreign king refers in Horn and in Bevis to the father of the heroine. The Emperor of Constantinople, in Guy, occupies a somewhat analogous position. Bevis and Horn are welcomed at the courts of the foreign kings. Each is granted honors, but later is the victim of a false friend (two in Bevis), who misrepresents the relations existing between the hero and the king's daughter. This, so far, is true of Guy at Constantinople also. But the Emperor of Constantinople is not misled, while both the King of Westernesse and the King of Armenia trust the informers, and as a consequence the hero in one case is banished (Bevis, vv. 1229 ff.) and in the other is sent on a mission which is intended to result in his death (Guy, vv. 3727 ff.). Thus in the portions of the stories connected respectively with the foreign kings the three romances show strikingly similar characteristics.

The term defamer indicates sufficiently well the characteristic quality of one of the conventional enemies of the hero in these romances. Thus Fikenhild tells Ailmar that Horn

     "liþ in bure
Vnder couerture
By Rymenhild þi doyter."
(vv. 695ff.)

Similarly, the false knights whom Bevis had preserved in battle said of Bevis to the Emperor that

"þe douyter he haþ now for-lain."
(v. 1209)

In Guy it is the steward Morgadour who accuses the hero of having dishonored the Emperor's daughter.

"Into his bour wiþ strengþe he yede
& bi þi douhter his wille he dede."
(vv. 3227 f.)

In these cases the resemblance between the villains lies chiefly in the identity of the charges which they make.

It is to be noted that the hero in each case has a love affair with the king's daughter. Clarice, it is true, does not become the wife of Guy; but the account of her relations with him has the characteristics of a romantic story, leading up almost to the marriage altar, when the hero recollects Felice in time. In the other cases the love results in marriage, and both Rymenhild and Josian take the initiative in the wooing. In both cases separation occurs as the result of the treachery of defamers, but the later fortunes of the heroines show wide divergence. However, so far as the general relations go, we again find strong similarity.

The last character of the group, the one I have called the second lady, is of slighter importance, and its presence here may be questioned. I mean by this Reynild in Horn and the King of Aumbeforce's daughter in Bevis, each of whom loves⁶ the hero, but later becomes the wife of the hero's friend. Oisel, whose name I have placed in brackets in the table, can scarcely be included, except that it is through Guy's victories over Tirri's enemies that she becomes the wife of the hero's friend.

Of course I do not mean to say that the reappearance of this group of characters is sufficient ground for thinking that any one of this group of romances is derived directly or indirectly from any other.⁷ But it does seem to me that there was a common narrative fund which every one felt at liberty to draw upon, which indeed was common property, since no one knew precisely whence it came. If we wish to know where it existed, it is not too vague to say that it existed in the stories already familiar, in the conventional incidents and characters which were found there, and which were being more and more conventionalized as they appeared again and again. Perhaps some elements were conventionalized out of existence; but one must think, from the state of the romantic literature which has been preserved, that the number of such was small.

It has been noted, no doubt, that in discussing this group of dramatis personœ nothing has actually been said about character. Rather has it not been plot, and are not the dramatis personœ (so viewed) merely the pegs to which the plot is tied? This question must be answered with a modified affirmative. What has been indicated thus far is that when a situation is used for a second or hundredth time in a romance, there is a strong tendency to place the new pegs about where the old ones were. Character, in the stricter sense, is then indicated only by the general relations of dramatis personœ to the plot. This, of course, does not sum up character; and a study of the characters as such will, I believe, add some confirming evidence of the existence of this recurring group.

Stock Dramatis Personœ

Before going on to discuss characters as distinguished from dramatis personœ, it is worth pointing out that there are in the romances, as indeed in fiction of a later date, stock figures who are of little or no value as characters, but who do mean something to the plot. Thus in Horn and in Bevis there is the conventional porter. The only function which he serves is to delay the action by supplying occasion for an altercation at the entrance to the castle. Thus in Horn:

He com to þe gateward,
þat him answerede hard.
Horn bad undo softe,
Mani tyme and ofte.
Ne miyte he awynne
þat he come þerinne.
Horn gan to þe þate turne
And þat wiket vnspurne.
þe boye hit scholde abugge;
Horn, þreu him ouer þe brigge,
þat his ribbes him to brake;⁸
And suþþe com in atte gate."
(vv. 1067 ff.)

In Bevis the account is still more detailed. The hero, seven years of age, after getting the better of the porter in a word encounter, cleaves his head (vv. 394 ff.). The porter, it seems, nearly always stands at the gate to refuse admittance and to suffer for his refusal.⁹

The suggestion sometimes made that the minstrel is taking revenge for rebuffs suffered by his class is perhaps not altogether without foundation. The aim seems to be to make the porter a ridiculous figure. The humorous intention is sometimes marked.¹⁰ Perhaps the porter in Macbeth is distantly akin to the porter of romance.

More intimately connected with the plot, and more important for the revelation of character in others, is the maid of the heroine. The fact that she does not appear in Horn, Havelok, or Bevis is a slight indication of the fact that they are not true romances of chivalry. Rymenhild may have sent a maid for AIelbrus to summon him for the first interview, but, if so, there is no indication of the fact. When Josian desires to communicate with Bevis, she sends a man. The absence of the romantic element in Havelok, of course, almost precludes the possibility of such a character appearing. In Guy there is a hint of this personage. Guy has just made a declaration to Felice, and swoons from the violence of his emotions. Felice bids a maid to lift him, which she does, weeping.

"Bi god of heuen," sche seyd,
"& ich wer as feir a mayd,
& as riche king's douhter were
As ani in kis warld here,
& he of mi loue vnder-nome were
As he is of tine in strong manere,
& he wald me so o lou yerne,
Me benke y no myyt it him nouyt weme."
(vv. 609 ff.)¹¹

But Felice rebukes her for commiserating Guy. One need only glance at the French Horn et Rimel¹² to note a marked contrast with the maid of Guy. Here Herselote is the natural messenger of Rimel; she tells in the bower of what is going on in the hall; she receives her mistress's confidences, comforts her when distressed, praises the lover, and is on hand to assist in emergencies. This is the conventional part of the maid. It is to be found repeatedly. Lunete plays the part in Chrétien's Ivain. In William of Palerne, Alexandrine is not only a confidante; she plays almost the part of a fairy in bringing William and Melior together, having power to cause dreams. Iseult's maid is perhaps the most distinguished of all, performing more than one important service for her mistress.¹³ Playing a part of far greater importance than the porter, the maid of romance has a more developed personality. She is faithful as a matter of course, loyal to lover as well as to mistress, resourceful, self-sacrificing, brave. But she belongs essentially to the chivalrous romance; she has no place in the very different type of romance to which the exile-and-return group belongs.

If the maid is a kind of good fairy in the romances, the steward is almost always a malevolent agency. Unlike the maid, he is well represented in our group. It is he frequently who envies the hero because of the favor bestowed upon him by the king, or because of his superior knightly qualities.

A steward was wiþ King Ermin
þat hadde tiyt to sle þat swin;

To Beues a bar gret envie
For þat he hadde þe meistrie.
(Bevis, vv. 837 ff)

The steward of the King of England also hates the hero. Bevis visits the king:

And alle þe barouns, þat þer were,
On Beues made glade chere,
Boute þe steward of þe halle
He was þe worste frend of alle.
(vv. 4303 ff.)

He later tries to slay Bevis and, like the steward of Armenia, pays for his treachery with his life. In Guy there are several stewards. The most typical, Morgadour, did his best to discredit Guy with the Emperor.

Traytour he was, and full of envy.
(v. 2962)

He, too, lost his life at the hands of the object of his envy. The steward of Duke Otous (vv. 4753 ff.) is slain by Guy while trying to lead away the wounded Tirri. After the death of Otous, his kinsman Berard becomes the Emperor's steward (v. 6497); persecutes Guy's friend Tirri; shows his lack of honor by wearing two coats of mail in his combat with Guy (st. 187) and by trying to rid himself of his dangerous antagonist by casting him in the sea with the bed on which he is sleeping; but finally he, too, succumbs to the hero's valor (sts. 208 ff.). Again, the steward of Earl Florentin attacks Guy while a guest in his master's castle, and his head is cleaved with an axe (vv. 6899 ff.). Thus in the romances of Bevis and Guy alone the appearance again and again of a treacherous, envious steward is striking. He appears very frequently elsewhere. The chief villain of Generydes, Amalok, is the steward of Auferius, King of India. He adds adultery with the Queen to treason against his lord. In Sir Cleges the steward commits the same offense and suffers the same punishment as did the porter.¹⁴ The envious character of "Kay the seneschal," while not quite so offensive as that of most stewards, is perhaps due to the association of his position.¹⁵ The typical steward, however, is treacherous as well as envious;¹⁶ not a coward (for cowards are rare in medieval romance), yet with the manners, the sneakingness, so often associated with cowardice.¹⁷

Other lay figures are palmer, merchant, beggar. The palmer or beggar is frequently the hero disguised. But he may be merely the bearer of news. A palmer tells Guy of the war between the Emperor of Almaine and Duke Segyn (vv. 1803 ff.). It is from a palmer that Horn hears of the wedding preparations when he lands in Westernesse with his Irish force (vv. 1027 ff.). No doubt the palmer was a natural bearer of news. Thus the false news which Bevis, disguised as a palmer, tells Yvor, is instantly accepted and acted upon. Bevis asks a palmer where to find King Yvor and his Queen, Josian, when he approaches Mombraunt (vv. 2049 ff.). ¹⁸ Beggars are necessary to show the hospitality of lord or lady and to furnish an opportunity for the disguised hero to slip in with the crowd. The number thirteen, so frequently mentioned, springs from the custom of inviting thirteen beggars to appear at wedding and other feasts in honor of Christ and the Apostles. Thus Guy is one of thirteen beggars fed by Felice when he finally returns home after his long pilgrimage (sts. 278 ff.). In Ponthus and Sidone the mother of Ponthus is discovered by him among the thirteen beggars at the feast celebrating the regaining of his kingdom (pp. 119 f.). In Horn et Rimel it is a beggar instead of a palmer whom Horn meets on his return to his beloved. Merchants, too, may be messengers. Guy learns from Greek merchants of the war between the Emperor of Constantinople and the Sultan (vv. 2801 ff.). Merchants are also used for taking away children. Bevis is sold to merchants (vv. 505 ff.), and Reinbrun is stolen by merchants who pass through the country (Guy, C. vv. 8680 ff.).¹⁹ A large number of subordinate dramatis personœ of various sorts is naturally characteristic of the roman d'aventure, in which the social life is more complicated than in the chanson de geste.²⁰

Typical Characters and Medieval Life

Looking again at this list of dramatis personœ, not this time as elements of the story, but as figures typical of medieval life, one sees at least four stand out as significant: (1) the king; (2) the knight; (3) the lady; (4) the vassal. These are not entirely exclusive of each other, as the knight may be king, and the vassal is, of course, usually a knight. However, the characteristic king is usually the father of the hero, or some lord under whom the hero takes service; the hero is nearly always an ideal knight; the hero's beloved is invariably represented as an ideal lady; and it is usually in a friend of the hero that faithful service to one's lord is best exemplified. So, for practical purposes, there is little or no confusion, and some light may be thrown, too, on the phase or phases of society for which the romances were produced, and also perhaps on the society in which they have enacted their subsequent history.

From the tremendous host of kings in medieval literature two great figures stand out—Charlemagne and Arthur—the one, at his best, the king of the chanson de geste, and the other, at his best, the king of chivalric romance; the one leading his hosts against the enemies of his country and fighting at their head; the other, for the most part at least, loosely controlling a band of knights errant, who are incessantly engaged in adventures for the sake of honor or for the sake of the "fair lady." In the so-called romance of Germanic origin, there is, of course, nothing to approach the splendor of either of these figures. But in these romances the kings are certainly more nearly related to Charlemagne than to Arthur. They are kings of national war. Murri, father of Horn, was such a man, although the primitive conditions which seem to underlie the story would make him little more than a tribal chief. With two knights he awaits the onset of the Saracens, and loses his life defending his territories. Nothing is said in the way of characterization, save that he was "gode king" (v. 33), as were also Ailmar of Westernesse (v. 219) and þurston of Ireland (v. 782).²¹ Aþelwold, the father of Goldborough, was also a bold warrior.

He was þe beste kniht at nede
þat euere mihte riden on stede,
Or wepne wagge, or foic vt lede;
Of kniht ne hauede he neuere drede,
þat he ne sprong forth so sparke of glede,
And lete him knawe of hise hand-dede.
(vv. 87 ff.)

In Horn Childe King Haþeolf is a bold warrior, fighting against the enemies of his country—the Danes and the Irish. In Guy Aþelstan is represented as leading the English forces in their struggle with the Danes. In other words, the kings in this group of romances are fighters, usually defending their country against invaders. The king who, like Arthur and Alexander, conquers the world, belongs to a different type of romance.

Of exceptional interest is the account of King Aþelwold in Havelok, because there is nothing precisely comparable to it elsewhere in the romances. Here is a king who is not merely a leader of warriors, but a lawgiver and a strong executive. We certainly have a picture of an ideal king as seen by the eyes of the middle and lower classes, by those who desired, not glory, but comfort and peace.²² He loved God and holy church; he hated robbers and hanged outlaws. Chapmen might go through England with their wares fearlessly.

þanne was Engelond at ayse.
(v. 59)

Moreover, he was friendly to the fatherless (vv. 75 ff.) and

Hauede he neure so god brede,
Ne on his bord non so god shrede,
þat he ne wolde þorwith fede
Poure þat on fote yede"
(vv. 98 ff.).

Here, surely, if anywhere, we get the ideal king of merchant and laborer.²³

The heroes are more likely to be individualized than other characters. Nevertheless, the greater part of their traits are thoroughly typical. The ideal knight of this group is one of great personal beauty and strength, who hates infidels, enjoys battle, is a faithful lover of one woman. He is often rude, sometimes cruel, always pure. He stands opposed to the chivalrous, gentle, often immoral knight typified in Lancelot.

In these romances little is said, for the most part, regarding the personal appearance of the dramatis personœ. This is not so likely to be the case with the hero. Thus of Horn the author says at the beginning:

Fairer ne miste none beo born
Ne no rein vpon birine,
Ne sunne vpon bischine:
Fairer nis non ban he was.
He was briyt so be glas,
He was whit so be flur,
Rose red was his colur.
In none kinge riche
Nas non his iliche.
(vv. 10 ff.)²⁴

His physical beauty continues to receive attention. He is the "faireste" (v. 173); Ailmar admires his "fairnesse" (v. 213); Aþulf says "he is fairere by one rib þan eny man þat libbe" (vv. 315 ff.); when he visits Rymenhild the bower is lighted "of his feire siyte" (v. 385);²⁵ Berild has never seen so fair a knight come to Ireland (v. 778); King burston speaks of his "fairhede" (v. 798); and at the close the author says:

Her endeþ þe tale of horn,
þat fair was & noyt vnom.
(vv. 1525 f.)

Havelok likewise is very beautiful (v. 2133) and well-shaped (v. 1647). Bevis was a "feire child," and King Ermin said of him:

"Be Mahoun, þat sit an hiy,
A fairer child neuer i ne siy,
Neiþer a lengþe ne on brade,
Ne non, so faire limes hadde!"
(vv. 535 ff.)

In Guy, too, not much is said of the personal appearance of the hero, not nearly so much as in Horn. There is nothing especially distinctive about the traces of description one finds, as they are the commonplaces.

The hero's strength and valor are of great prominence in all romances, but there are certain variations of greater interest than are found in descriptions of personal appearance. In Horn the hero's strength is frequently the object of direct praise from the dramatis personœ. The Admirad says to him, "þu art gret & strong" (v. 93), and adds that if he lived, in time he "scholde slen us alle" (v. 100); Ailmar says the strength of his hand shall become famous (vv. 215 ff.). The author of Havelok also takes great delight in his hero's physical prowess, and speaks directly to the audience:

For þanne he weren alle samen
At Lincolne, at þe gamen,
And þe erles men woren alle þore,
Was Hauelok bi þe shuldren more
þan þe meste þat þer kan:
In armes him noman ne nam
þat he doune sone ne caste;
Hauelok stod ouer hem als a mast.
Als he was heie, so he was strong,
He was boþe stark and long;
In Engelond was non hise per
Of strengþe þat euere kam him nere.
(vv. 979 ff.)

Again and again this brute strength is brought out. Havelok eats more than Grim and his five children (vv. 793 f.); at Lincoln he upsets "sixtene laddes gode" and carries "wel a cart lode" of fish; his strength is admired by Ubbe, who thinks he should be a knight (v. 1650); he slays three men with one blow of a "doretre" (v. 1806); he puts the stone at the first throw so far that all competitors depart (vv. 1052 ff.). There is on the part of the author a certain simplicity of delight in the overwhelming strength of his hero that is almost unique. In the rapid succession of incidents in Bevis there is little time for commenting on the hero. However, there is a word at the beginning of his fighting career.

Be þat he was fiftene þer olde,
Kniyt ne swain þar nas so bolde,
þat him dorste ayenes ride
Ne wiþ wreþþe him abide.
(vv. 581 ff.)

In Guy we have gone so far toward the romance of chivalry that the emphasis, so far as direct description goes, is on something else than strength, which is left to be inferred from many a deed of valor.²⁶

On the other hand, the mental character and accomplishments of the hero are emphasized in Guy, especially on the knightly side, and in Havelok on the homely side, while in Bevis and in Horn they are neglected. Indeed, scarcely anything is said of Horn's mental or moral characteristics. He was "of wit þe beste" (v. 174), "wel kene" (v. 91). His teachableness and good nature are indicated.

Horn in his herte layte
Al þat he him tayte.
In þe curt & ute
& elles al abute
Luuede men horn child.
(vv. 243 ff.)

In Havelok again there is the unique quality which was noted in the account of the physical characteristics, but even more marked. The author probably had in mind that Havelok would make a good king like Aþelwold, but he has made him seem more like a strong, rather slow-witted, but happy peasant. His life at Winchester, which is described most fully, makes him seem to be a powerful, mild-tempered boy.

Of alle men was he mest meke,
Lauhwinde ay, and bliþe of speke;
Euere he was glad, and bliþe,
His sorwe he couþe ful wel miþe.
It net was non so litel knaue, …
For to leyken, ne forto plawe,
þat he ne wolde with him pleye:
þe children that yeden in þe weie
Of him he deden al her wille,
And with him leykeden here fille.
(vv. 945 ff.)

Not only is his kindness shown by his playing with the children; it is shown in the care he later takes of his foster brothers and sisters and in the mercy offered to Godrich. He is as observant of law as Aþelwold. Only after due trial may Godard and Godrich be executed.

Thus does the author intend for us to see him—strong, cheerful, merciful, fearless, law-abiding. It may be questioned whether he intended that Havelok should so appear, but he surely was lacking in initiative. It is Goldborough who arouses in him the ambition, or at least stirs it to the acting point, to regain his kingdom. It is Ubbe who collects the friends of Havelok in Denmark. Havelok would have been a happy peasant. He is a true member of the lowly classes—strong in body and in mind, whole-hearted, loving peace better than war, but fearless when called upon to fight, rather than a fiery king, full of aggressive ambition, or a luxurious, generous monarch such as the nobility admired.

But Guy is a hero a chivalry—not of the Lancelot type, nor of the Galahad type, although approaching the latter in the religious devotion of his later years. He stands somewhere between Horn and Bevis, on the one hand, and Lancelot and Galahad on the other. He has the knightly education which Horn had. He knows the craft

Of wode, of Ryuer, of all game.
(C. v. 171)

He is generous. He gives rich gifts to parsons and poor knights,

And to other oft Oeue he wolde
Palfrey or stede, siluer and golde,
Euery man after his good dede
Of Guy vnderfangeth his mede.
(C. vv. 181 ff.)

Moreover he became ill from loving too well, and fought long years merely for the sake of a woman. Guy stands in fairly strong contrast with the heroes of King Horn, of Bevis, and of Havelok, and approaches the heroes of another type of romance.²⁷

Somewhat less need be said about the heroine in these romances. The part played by Goldborough is so small that she may be dismissed almost with a word. She is seen as a great lady, resenting her forced marriage to one apparently far beneath her in rank, and later urging her husband to regain his crown—a figure of strength, described as "swibe fayr" (v. 111), the "faireste woman on liue" (v. 281), as bright (v. 2131), as chaste (v. 288), and

Of alle þewes was she wis.
þat gode weren, and of pris.
(vv. 282 f.)

The absence of a love element prevents the development of her character. She is queen rather than woman.

The character of Rymenhild, on the other hand, is that of a woman, individual in some respects, yet typical of a class, of which Josian, in Bevis of Hamtoun, is a member. Her individuality may be said to lie largely in the very prominence of certain typical characteristics. Her appearance is passed almost without comment. She is "Rymenhild þe briyte" (vv. 382, 390) or "Rymenhild þe yonge" (v. 566). It is decidedly by her actions that she is interesting. It is a primitive, undisciplined nature. In love and in hate she is uncontrolled. She loved Horn "þat ney heo gan wexe wild" (v. 252). There is no reserve in her wooing. When Aþulf enters her bower she at once takes him in her arms. When she finds she has been deceived by Aþelbrus she is as unrestrained in her rage.

"Schame mote, þu fonge
& on hiye rode anhonge …
Wiþ muchel schame mote þu deie."
(vv. 327 ff.)

When Horn refuses to plight his troth to Rymenhild, she swoons. She is all in tears over her dream of the net (v. 654). When she thinks Horn lost forever, she is ready to slay herself.

Heo feol on hir bedde,
þer heo knif huddle
To sle wiþ king loþe
& hure selue boþe,
In þat vike niyte,
If horn come ne miyte
To herte knif heo sette,
Ac horn anone hire kepte,
(vv. 1195 ff.)

She is as faithful as passionate. When she knows that she is about to be forced into a hateful marriage, she sends a messenger to seek Horn (vv. 933 ff.). She watches the sea for her absent lover (vv. 975 ff.). Even to the last she has Aþulf on the tower with his eyes searching the great expanse of water. Altogether she is a wilful, passionate creature of uncontrolled impulses, yet constant in love. The author does not think her worthy of direct description. Yet he has created a striking figure.²⁸

As stated, Josian belongs to the same type. The account of her beauty is made somewhat more striking by the use of a figure of speech.

So fair yhe was & briyt of mod,
Ase snow opon þe rede blod.
(vv. 521 f.)

She was also "hende" and "wel itau??t," although she knew nothing of Christian law (vv. 525 f.). Like Rymenhild she loves passionately, and it is her persistence and her willingness to change her faith which win her lover. Perhaps it is the same persistent courage which gives her the strength to slay her undesired husband. A strong woman, equal to emergencies, faithful to lover and husband—less attractive than Rymenhild, but by no means unworthy—is the heroine of Bevis of Hamtoun.²⁹

But in Felice we have a lady of the romance of chivalry. Fifteen lines at the outset and more elsewhere are devoted to her beauty, although the author remarks that it is so great that he cannot describe it (v. 60).³⁰ Her accomplishments are equally remarkable.

All the vii artis she kouthe well,
Noon better that euere man herde tell.

His maisters were thider come
Out of Tholouse all and some;
White and hoore all they were,
Bisy they were that mayden to lere.
(c. vv. 81 ff.)³¹

In love she is as reserved and cruel as Rymenhild is unrestrained and generous, promising her lover favor repeatedly, only to withdraw it, until he has become the most famous knight in the world. After that her conduct shows a marked change. She seems a very mild and dutiful wife. When Guy becomes a pilgrim, she feeds the poor and prays for her absent lord, so that there is no better woman in the world (st. 279). As with Guy, there is in her traces of the ascetic ideal. The best woman, as well as the best man, is one withdrawn from the common life.

Here again we find the Guy far removed from the other romances. Josian and Rymenhild are passionate, primitive creatures, willing to do all and suffer all for their lovers. Felice is a woman more cultivated, more self-contained, more selfish, more of a "lady," and her later piety and devotion but emphasize the fact that she is a member of a class. Yet she in turn is far removed from the Guinevere type, and farther still from the heroine of so many of the later French romances—a married woman who devotes her life to intrigues with a lover.³²

While the type which I have called the vassal shows less variety, it is extremely interesting. In Aþulf, in Grim, in Saber, in Herhaud, as well as in other characters, one sees the relation of lord and follower at its best. Aþulf, appearing only for an instant now and then in the story of Horn, leaves a vivid impression. There is never a hint of self-seeking. Not for an instant will he take advantage of Aþelbrus's deception, when Rymenhild, thinking him Horn, declares her love. During Horn's long absence, he remains in Westernesse to guard the mistress for her lover. Herhaud, Grim, and Saber, likewise, are always willing to sacrifice all for their respective lords. Here is a glimpse of the more beautiful side of chivalry. However, it needs no emphasis here, as it is one of the most evident of the attractive features common to the whole range of medieval romance.³³

Minor Characters

There are in the romances, as in all narratives, figures which flash for an instant before us, then pass away; perhaps to return, and appear and disappear as before; perhaps to be seen no more. Some of these we have already noted as stock figures. Others do not seem to be of that character. Whatever they are, it is interesting to know who they are, what value they have for the stories in which they are introduced, and what interest the author has succeeded in attaching to them. Most are beyond the pale of characterization. Some of them are merely speaking persons, who appear unexpectedly, tell their stories, and disappear. In Horn there are two of these—Aþulf s father, who greets Horn and his companions when they land in Denmark, and tells them what has been going on in their absence (vv. 1301 ff.), and Arnoldin, who appears to tell Horn where Rymenhild has been taken by Fikenhild (vv. 1443 ff.). Again, there may be characters who are never named. Of this class are nine of the twelve companions of Horn—ornamental figures, who are dropped without remark. Other characters may be talked about and never actually get on the stage. Reynild is the sole member of this class in Horn. Others still may merely add a touch of pathos, as does Horn's mother. Lastly may be mentioned Harild and Berild who, after performing one or two insignificant acts, perish almost without rippling the surface of the narrative.

Thus Horn, considering the brevity of the story, has a fairly full background of dramatis personœ. If the English version represents the earlier form of the story, it is worth while to notice, in passing, how the minor characters appear in such a developed, sophisticated romance as Horn et Rimel. A number of the parts so insignificant have become really important. Lemburc, who plays the part of Reynild, and her brothers, Egfer and Guffer, appear repeatedly in a series of highly elaborated incidents. The account of Horn's father, told in epic fashion by the son in the body of the romance, is fairly full. A considerable addition to the stock of characters is made to fill up the enlarged stage. Herselote has already been mentioned. A nurse is introduced by means of whom Rimel discovers that she is making love to another than Horn. Rimel has attendants, unnamed, ready to amuse the one who might disturb a tête-à-tête. In the Irish part of the story, Gudburc and Sudburc, mother and sister of Lemburc, and Eglaf, the chess-player and athlete, are additions. Even the Irish kings are named.³⁴ The divergence is extremely interesting, for this elaborate treatment of so many minor dramatis personae marks as well as anything else the long distance which must have been traveled by one or both of these romances from the source common to both.

In Horn the lesser characters seem to spring, for the most part, from a natural development of the plot. This, I think, is less true of Havelok, Guy, and Bevis. There may be, however, other sources of interest. In Havelok the two sisters of the hero are essentially pathetic characters. Grim's wife, after playing an important part in the realistic scene in Grim's "cleue," is never referred to again. Her brutality to the unknown boy, like that of Grim, leaves a blot on the family, if not on the story.

Vp she stirte, and nouht ne sat,
And caste, þe knaue so harde adoune,

þat he crakede þer his croune
Ageyn a gret ston, þer it lay.
(vv. 566 ff.)

Grim's children and Ubbe play conventional parts. Bernard Brun is an innkeeper with a name. His chief part is a repetition of the story of the fight between Havelok and the sixty lads, which might very well have been dispensed with. The cook, Bertram, is merely a friendly helper. The Earl of Chester and the Earl of Lincoln furnish historical background, and the former, in addition, becomes husband of Gunnild, Grim's daughter. It is interesting to note that every one of these persons has a name, from Leue, the wife of Grim, to Bernard Brun, the innkeeper, and Bertram, the cook. Most of the minor characters, too, it will be noted, are of humble rank, and are an item in the popular character of the story. The prominence given to the family of Grim is probably due to the fact that the romance celebrates a particular place. If the minor dramatis personae of Havelok are less intimately connected with plot than those of Horn, they show greater realism and broader range.

In Bevis and Guy the greater part of the minor characters are principals in the incidents in which they appear. In these romances the story is a succession of adventures, each with its little plot. In Bevis these are usually brief and very slightly elaborated, three or four dramatis personae being sufficient for each incident. Many persons appear, only to be slain by the hero. Most of these are too colorless to be characterized. In general, it may be said that there is an absence of pathetic and ornamental figures. There is a fairly large number—including two messengers, two porters, two stewards, a palmer, and a giant—bearing no names. There is a concentration upon incidents. One figure, Ascopard, stands out somewhat, being intended, it seems, to produce a comic effect.³⁵

Much of what was said about Bevis at the beginning of the preceding paragraph applies to Guy as well. The latter romance is much longer than the former; the incidents are told with greater detail; but there is the same succession of lifeless figures, among whom the hero displays his prowess. There is, moreover, no comic person to be placed beside Ascopard. The reference to the various ladies surrounding Felice is another element associating it with the courtly type of romance. There is, too, the account of the gathering of people at Warwick at Pentecost—

There were Erles, barons, and knyghtes,
And many a man of grete myghtes;
Ladies and maydens of grete renown,
The grettest desired ther to bee bown
(C. vv. 189 ff.)—

swhich furnishes a courtly setting. With the twelve companions of Horn may be compared the twenty sons of good barons who were dubbed knights with Guy. The list of dramatis personae is very great. Limiting the number to those introduced as individuals, there are almost a hundred, of whom about seventy are named.³⁶ In Bevis there are forty, of whom about twenty-five are named. In Havelok there are twenty-two, all named; in Horn twenty, of whom fifteen are named.

Dialogue and Soliloquy

Dialogue plays an interesting and important part in displaying character, and the manner of the dialogue goes far toward being the manner of the romance.

In Horn the vigorous dialogue serves to advance the narrative rather than to portray character. It is significant, too, that real soliloquy, to reveal intention or mood, is absent. In Havelok, on the contrary, in which dramatic situation is not emphasized, dialogue is of comparatively slight importance, while numerous soliloquies reveal mood and purpose.³⁷ In Bevis there is gain in dialogue with the author's superior sense of situation. However, it is a matter of plot primarily, although, with its brevity and passion, it is valuable for character too.³⁸ The seven soliloquies are brief and of slight importance. Both dialogue and soliloquy are of great importance in Guy. Dialogue is sustained, and emotions are presented fully.³⁹ The soliloquies are long and important. The one which shows Guy struck with remorse for his sins is both moving and true (sts. 21 f.). In dialogue and soliloquy Guy shows the characteristics of the chivalric romance.

Interest in Mental States

In reading this section much that has already been said should be kept in mind. The discussion of the individual characters, of dialogue, and of soliloquy includes much which might be treated here. But to avoid needless repetition, the attempt will be made to view the material already familiar from another angle, something being added to make the outlook sufficiently broad. The term "interest in mental states" is employed here loosely. The manner in which emotion is manifested by the dramatis personae, the degree to which the author delights in analyzing mental states, even the extent of the emotional appeal to the auditor, and the way in which it is produced, will come under review.

King Horn, which is the most ballad-like of all genuine English romances,⁴⁰ has, like the ballad, emotional value apart from any overt interest on the part of the author in character or mental states. The dialogue has frequently this emotional appeal. But of real interest in states of mind as such there is none. In the most dramatic scenes the auditor may be left without a hint of the emotions of the dramatis personae (e. g., the banishment of Horn, vv. 705 ff.).⁴¹ In Havelok the situation is almost reversed. There is a certain amount of interest in mental states as such, but none of the ballad-like appeal to feelings by poignant situations such as we found in Horn. The author takes pleasure in reminding the hearers that Godrich is deceived and plotting his own ruin when he plans to marry Goldborough and Havelok.

For he wende, pat Hauelok wore
Sum cherles sone, and no more;
Ne shulde he hauen of Engellond
Onlepi forw in his hond
With hire, þat was þer-of, þe eyr,
pat bope was god and swipe fair.
He wende, pat Hauelok wer a þral,
þer-þoru he wende hauen al
In Engelond, pat hire riht was.
(vv. 1091 ff.)

We are told in some detail how the characters thought over situations. Thus Apelwold considers at length what best to do to protect his daughter's interests after his death. Havelok considers carefully before returning to Grimsby with his bride. In fact there is a good deal of downright thinking going on. To Bevis what was said about Horn in large measure applies. The situations in themselves are often moving, but the author does not dwell on the emotions of his characters, nor does he seem to insist on the emotional appeal to the reader. He is in too much of a hurry to get on. However, the dialogue is often characteristic enough to reveal the feelings of the characters. But the reader is left in doubt as to Bevis's feelings for Josian up to the time when she became a Christian. In the love affair it is only the heroine's feelings which are revealed. Scarcely anything is made of the loss of wife and children, when Ascopard carries Josian away and the two boys are left in the care of strangers. Whatever emotional appeal there is springs entirely from the imaginative sympathy of the audience with the situation. It need scarcely be said that there is far greater interest in emotional states of mind in Guy. So far as the hero's love and repentance are concerned, this was made clear in discussing the soliloquies. One may note, also, the accounts of the reunion of comrades after long separation (vv. 1749 ff.; sts. 142 ff.); the story of Guy's parting from father and mother (vv. 1217 ff.); the story of Oisel and Tirri; the story of Jonas. There is not so much analysis as in many French romances, but there is a decided interest in emotional states, a too-marked insistence on them often, which sets Guy far apart from Horn, Havelok, and Bevis.⁴²

When one looks at the actual manner of manifesting emotion in the romances, he is at once in the midst of stock material. However, I believe that differences in the treatment of this stock material will appear. The expression of grief is most important. Wringing of the hands is, of course, a commonplace, and is not limited by age or sex.

þe children hi broyte to stronde
Wringende here honde.
(Horn, vv. 111 ff.)

When Rymenhild found her messenger drowned,

Hire fingres he gan wringe.
(ibid., v. 980)

Likewise of the child Bevis:

yeme a wep, is hondes wrong.
(Bevis, v. 298)

Swooning is even more common. Rymenhild falls (presumably in a faint) three times: on Horn's refusal of her love "adun he feol iswoye" (v. 428); at Horn's departure for Ireland she "feol to grunde" (v. 740); and again she "feol iswoye" when Horn approached Fikenhild's castle singing (v. 1479). Swooning does not occur in Havelok, and in Bevis occurs but twice—curiously enough a man being the victim in each case. Thus Terri, when he was told that Guy was dead,

fel, þar doun and swouy,
His her, his cloþes he al to-drouy.
(vv. 1309 f.)

And Bevis, when he finds his two newborn children, but no mother,

fel þar doun and swouy.
(v. 3717)

Lovers were of course expected to faint, and Guy is a perfect lover. At the end of a confession of love,

Adoune he felle swoune with that.
(v. 598)

Later in the story, what with bleeding wounds and sorrow for his slain friends, "adoun he fel aswon." Herhaud swoons from the shock of surprise and joy in meeting Guy (v. 1762), and again he "fel in swowe vpon his bedde"⁴³ because of anxiety for Guy, who was absent on a dangerous mission (v. 3999). Oisel faints over her wounded lover (v. 4896), and again when she sees him in bonds (v. 5903). Both Guy and Felice swoon when he announces his intention to become a pilgrim (st. 32, v. 11). Tirri swoons when he learns that the unknown pilgrim who had slain his enemy Berard is in truth his old comrade Guy (st. 226, v. 3). Lastly, Felice swoons when she comes to the hermitage where her husband lies dead.

Weeping is too common an occurrence for anything like a full list here. While more often it is the manifestation of a woman's grief, it is not at all regarded as unworthy of heroes. In Horn there are the following examples:

Heo sat on be sunne
Wib tires al birunne.
(vv. 653 ff.)

Alf weop wit ibe
& al bat him isiye.
(vv. 755 ff.)

Horn iherd with his ires
A spak with bidere teres.
(vv. 887 ff.)

Ne miste heo adribe
bat heo (Rymenhild) ne weop wib iye.
(vv. 1035 f.)

be bride wepey sore.
(v. 1049)

She was "sore wepinge & berne" when Horn entered the hall where the wedding feast was being prepared; she wept "teres of blode" when imprisoned by Fikenhild (v. 1406). Abulf, watching for Horn, says "for sorebe nu y wepe" (v. 1104). In Havelok there are only two or three examples. The lords whom Abelwold summoned when he was at the point of death

Greten, and gouleden, and gouen hem ille.
(v. 164)

Havelok and his sisters, shut up in a castle, wept for hunger and cold (v. 416). Likewise, there is little weeping in Bevis. When the boy hero learned of his father's death, "berne a wep" (v. 298). Josian weeps right sorely (vv. 1111, 1190) and Bevis hears her weeping and crying in the castle of Yvor (v. 2101). Guy, true lover that he is, weeps as well as faints from the violence of his passion (vv. 247, 261, 568). He weeps too over his fallen comrades (v. 1554). The kissing of men is associated with weeping sometimes, either for joy or for sorrow. Once when Herhaud and his fellows rescue Guy pursued by Saracens,

be most hepe wepen for blis;
??ai kisten Gij alle for blis.
(vv. 4072 f.)

When Guy and Tirri part,

To gider bai kisten to,
At her departing bai wepen bo.
(vv. 7111 f.)

And at another parting they

kist hem wib eiye wepeing.
(st. 232)

Weeping with both eyes seems intended to imply violent weeping (v. 4455, sts. 138, 226, 294).

The more violent tearing of hair and clothes is also a convention of romances. There are no cases in Horn or in Havelok. In Bevis there is the instance quoted above when Terni swooned and, apparently at the same time,

His her, his clobes he al todrouy.
(v. 1310)

In Guy the expression is common. Of Guy in
  love it is said
     His clothes he rende, his heer he drough.
(v. 420)

The Sultan, enraged at his defeat, rends his clothes (Caius v. 3692). Earl Jonas, when Guy meets him, is rending his clothes and tearing his hair (st. 46).

Other ways of expressing grief may be mentioned. "Hise heorte began to childe" (Horn, v. 1148) has numerous parallels.⁴⁴ In Bevis there is

be childes herte was wel colde.
(v. 511)

and

be kinges herte wex wel cold.
(v. 553)

Less conventional is the account of Josian's woe when she thinks Bevis is leaving her:

Hire pouyte, pe tour wolde on hir falle.
(v. 1140.)⁴⁵

Guy complains that, because of love, he cannot sit nor stand, rest nor sleep, eat nor drink (vv. 315 ff.). There is also in Guy an abundance of making "mone" and sighing "sore."

The expression of joy is also unrestrained. Kissing is often a token of joy.

Hi custe hem mid ywisse
& makeden muchel blisse.
(Horn, vv. 1209 f.)

When Terri discovered his father Saber in the palmer, he took him in his armes

& gonne cleppen and to kisse
And made meche ioie & blisse.
(vv. 3944 f.)

Almost the identical lines occur at another place (w. 3057 f.). In Guy the meeting of old friends is accompanied by kissing.

To kissen Herhaud bai hem do,
Wel gret ioie bai maden to.
(vv. 6655 f.)⁴⁶

Swooning or falling down for joy is restricted to Guy. Herhaud's swooning (v. 1762) has been mentioned. When Oisel, forcibly held by Otous, saw Guy unexpectedly,

For blisse sche fel aswon adoun.
(v. 6297)

She swoons again when she meets Tirri:

For ioie sche swoned omong hem.
(v. 6533)

Unrestrained expression of emotion on the part of dramatis personce is a characteristic pretty general in metrical romance.⁴⁷ In the group here studied, Havelok, which is the least romantic, is least emotional, and Guy, which is most romantic, is most emotional. The means of expressing feeling are thoroughly conventional, as the brief review here made clearly shows.⁴⁸Horn, Bevis, and Guy represent types of literature which originally stood far apart. Yet we find them side by side on English soil, drawing from the same stock of literary material. The sentimentalism of Guy brings with it a freer use of the extreme forms of expressing emotion.⁴⁹ In Bevis, where sentiment plays a small part, we find these stock expressions here and there; almost unexpectedly. In Horn, which is more truly romance, the expression of joy, less unrestrained than in Guy, is more appropriate than in Bevis. But the strong resemblance of these metrical stories is due, largely at least, to the recasting at the hands of Englishmen who did not distinguish types; who were familiar with stock romantic material, the well-known poses, rhyme phrases, etc., and in translating threw them in where convenient.⁵⁰

In the English romances the expressions representing emotion are for the most part stock material, English material indeed, although no doubt French romance assisted in its creation. Perhaps there was a tendency in this respect to confuse types of narrative—that is, in the use of these stock emotional expressions—which brings the English romances nearer together than their sources.

The Human Relations

It is perfectly clear, even to him who reads running, that the medieval romances by no means deal in anything like a complete way with the various relations which make up human life. The name romance perhaps cuts out a certain portion of these; but modern romance has looked upon and cultivated great areas of life which medieval romance never dreamed about. To determine a little more clearly what are the human limits of the metrical romances, particularly the four now under examination, is the purpose of this section.

Love, as in all romance, is, next to war, the greatest interest. This means, of course, the love of the sexes. Other forms of love—of parent and child, of brother and sister, of brother and brother—are almost crowded out. War, of course, means comradeship, and the love of comrades for each other—sometimes of follower for lord—plays its expected part. But affections other than the love of man and woman, of warrior and warrior, are of insignificant interest.

In these four romances there are two types of love represented, the passionate and the chivalrous. The latter is, of course, the type at once associated with medieval romance—with Lancelot and with Tristram. In greater refinement it is represented by the love stories of Dante and Pertrach. It is the love of Arthur's court and of the court of love, of Chretien at the beginning and Malory at the end of a literary period. This type of love is represented in Guy, imperfectly perhaps, yet not unattractively. The passionate type is represented in Horn and Bevis.

Curiously enough, in the passionate type it is the woman who woos. This is a situation appearing in William of Palerne, in Amis and Amiloun,⁵¹ as well as in Horn and in Bevis. There seems to be a greater popularity in the kind of love here represented. It is attractive by its simplicity, its frankness, its faithfulness, its healthy, unspoiled, primitive human nature. Sometimes there seems to be a certain disregard of the legal bond of marriage. Apparently Rymenhild cared little for it (vv. 531 ff.); we are not sure that Josian did (vv. 1093 ff.). William of Palerne's love for Melior had, at first, no legal sanction. Yet there is always the faithfulness which we associate with the marriage tie. It is the unmoral attitude of the ballads.

This passionate type of love is characteristic of the chanson de geste (cf. Gautier, I, p. 207). It is the lady who makes the advances, sometimes in a disgustingly bold manner.⁵² Frequently it is a Saracen girl who shows this frank, sometimes brutal passion, which may not scruple at parricide to attain its end.⁵³ However, the general traits of female character seem much the same in Christian as in Saracen.⁵⁴ Prejudice against Saracen women who become Christians is not a trait of the chansons de geste.⁵⁵ Orable, the wife of' Guillaume de Orange, is perhaps the most attractive of the heroines of the chansons de geste. This typical woman was never a person common in real life; but she probably does represent an earlier stage when women were of less importance socially, and when distinctively feminine traits were not held in the esteem which was felt by the society implied by the roman d'aventure.

In Guy it is the man who woos. The lady is unsusceptible, disdainful even. The hero must remain afar off, must wait for many years; and when he wins his love he is scarcely permitted to enjoy it. There is a strong undercurrent of asceticism. The love of woman leads to strife; many men have been and will be "to gronde y-brouyt" by women (vv. 1503 ff.); it is after renunciation that the noblest character is developed both in Guy and in Felice (st. 279). Even pure and chivalrous love is unworthy in the presence of religious asceticism.

It is well to bear in mind that there was an ideal of love in medieval literature, and life, too, perhaps, which insisted that the perfect relation was between a married woman and an unmarried man. At its best this ideal is beautiful, if unpractical and ultimately immoral. It sprang from a desire to preserve the first bright glow of young love before desire had darkened it. To do this meant to love the unattainable and unapproachable—a married woman. This of course is the love of Dante for Beatrice. It is the love which dictated the rules of the court of love. But in many of the French romances, as well as in their English analogues, we see the ideal breaking down, and another taking its place. The beloved is still a married woman, but not quite unapproachable, not quite unattainable. Here of course stand Lancelot and Guinevere, Tristram and Iseult, human and attractive, but sinners who must suffer. Later still come the romances in which illicit love is represented not as sin, perhaps not involving evil consequences, or, if so, only accidentally as any pure love might. Under a slight varnish there is often all the grossness of fabliau. Yet the author will say that these were perfect lovers.⁵⁶ It is interesting to note that these grosser romances had no vogue in English. No doubt they were repugnant to medieval English moral standards, at least of the public which read the English romances, low as they often are. Contemporary with these immoral romances, with their ideal of courtly, illicit love, were romances in which love seems so primitive as in Horn and Bevis, and so pure as in Guy. The English were using the less fashionable of contemporary literary material.

More important is war—involving the emotions of hatred and envy, as well as hope of glory and joy of victory. Here we are concerned primarily with the human side—with the emotions concerned. These are implied rather than expressed. In Horn and in Bevis there is the opposition of Christian and Saracen; in Havelok, of the loyal and the traitorous; in Guy of Warwick, of national and foreign. In addition, we find in our romances hostility because of the appearance of an undesired suitor for the heroine's hand, or because some one has been dispossessed of his property, or because some one has been worsted in a tournament. On the whole it may be said that these hostile relations are dwelt upon only sufficiently to bring about the fascinating scenes when lances break and swords clash. To see more clearly how the human elements enter into war it will be sufficient to discuss vengeance, cruelty, and the emotions of the fight.

The emotions of the fight are anger and fear. In Horn and Havelok these scarcely appear. In the fight with his father's slayer

Horn him gan agrise,
& his blod arise
(vv. 868 ff.)

And Godard when captured "rorede als a bole" (Hav. v. 2438). In Bevis, however, there are numerous expressions to indicate the state of mind of combatants, especially of the hero. These are chiefly about physical sufferings. He is injured

pat he miyte sofre namore.
(Bevis, v. 630)

When he got to his chamber, he

 leide him deueling on be grounde
To kolen is hertte in Oat stounde.
(vv. 649 f.)

He became weary in his fight with the boar (v. 799). In the fight with the dragon "lim pouyte his herte to-brast" (v. 1792), and in his fight with the London crowd he was "wo be-gon" because of his wounds. In Guy combatants suffer for water (sts. 113, 120). When wounded, Amoraunt's "hert was full of ire and care" (v. 8541). Colbrond, when wounded, "was sore aschame" (st. 262). Guy in the same fight was sore dismayed and sore aghast when his sword broke. These are but a few of the cases in Bevis and Guy in which something is said about the emotions and physical sufferings of combatants. The simpler romances of Horn and Havelok have less fighting and therefore less material of this kind. Perhaps the most striking feature to be observed is the absence of fear.

Vengeance has an important part to play in many romances—and in three of this group, Horn, Havelok, Bevis. But the feeling of bitterness from which deeds of vengeance spring is almost absent. It is true that vengeance is secured. The Saracen enemies of Horn are slain; Godard and Godrich pay for their treachery with their lives; and the mother and stepfather of Bevis likewise perish. But of real hatred there is none except in the case of Bevis. Even in his case there is nothing to compare with the vengeance of Elizabethan drama. It is in the background of the story.

Of cruelty there is probably no more than medieval life would justify, In Horn there is mutual slaughter of Saracens and Christians, non-combatants as well as combatants (vv. 63 ff., 1377 ff.). But mortal enmity between Christians and infidels is merely part of the setting of much of medieval literature.⁵⁷ Even the Saracens did not have the cruelty to slay Horn and his companions outright. Fikenhild, after his death at Horn's hands, was drawn,⁵⁸ but that was the customary fate of traitors. The same remark applies to the tortures undergone by Godrich and Godard. They are condemned by their peers, and no one might do Godrich shame before trial (Havelok, vv. 1762 ff.). But there is no shrinking from legal cruelty. When Godard had been sentenced and shriven,

Sket came a ladde with a knif,
And bigan riht at þe to
For to ritte, and for to flo
So it were grim or gore.
(vv. 2493 ff.)

With like severity Godrich was bound to a stake and burned (vv. 2831 ff.). The cruelty of Bevis is of a much fiercer quality. When Bevis was told that his half-brother⁵⁹ had been unintentionally slain by his father he

louy and hadde gode game.
(v. 3116)

When his stepfather was captured, he had him put to death by being thrown into a kettle of lead, and when his mother, beholding her husband thus perish, falls from the castle and breaks her neck,

Alse glad he was of hire,
Of his damme, ase of is stepsire.
(vv. 3463 f.)

Such brutality as this is entirely absent from Guy. Here is another instance of the distance by which this romance is removed from the others, particularly from Bevis, which in structure it so much resembles.

As has been said, not much is made of the family relations. The relation of husband and wife seems to be an exception, as it is a source of interest in Havelok, Bevis, and Guy. Yet not very much is made of it. In Bevis it is only the wife who seems much affected by the long separation. In Guy there is the tacit approval of the departure of the husband at a time when he is aware that he is to be a father. Scarcely anything is made of the relationship of mother and son. The meeting of Horn and Godhild, furnishing such a splendid chance for pathos, is barely mentioned (v. 1383).⁶⁰ In Bevis the mother's attitude is entirely unnatural. The mother of Havelok is not mentioned; and the mother of Guy is neglected after the beginning of the romance. The relation of father and son is of greater importance. It is necessary that the hero's father should be a man of rank and might as an assurance of the hero's qualifications. The death of the father may introduce the motive of quest for vengeance (Homn, Bevis); the hero may take pride in his father (Bevis, w. 613 ff.). But scarcely anything is made of filial affection.⁶¹ Much less is made of fraternal affection. As a rule the hero of romance is an only child, at least of both father and mother; so Guy, Horn, Bevis. The sisters of Havelok perish too early to play a significant part. It is true of romance literature in general that the fraternal relation is unimportant.⁶² The relation of subject and lord is, as has already been indicated, one of importance. But when the most is made of all this, one need only think of Chaucer to realize that the appeal of these early metrical romances is to a limited range of emotion.

Summary

In order to see clearly what each of these romances has contributed to medieval character-writing, it is necessary to consider them separately, summarizing, for the most part, the conclusions already stated.

King Horn.

—In this romance the characterization seems to harmonize perfectly with the rough, uncouth background of life and nature. Horn is a fighter first and a lover second. Indeed, as a lover, while faithful, he is not ardent. His long sojourn in Ireland does not seem sufficiently motivated if he is greatly in love. He does not absolutely refuse the Irish princess. He hesitates to accept Rymenhild's love when offered. His caution and self-command are almost too great. He is more anxious to receive knighthood and to become a warrior than to be the accepted lover of the royal princess. Yet he is a simple, manly, engaging figure. Rymenhild is equally simple, but her simplicity is that of primitive passion. Passionate love and passionate anger seem to bound her emotional range. The minor characters are barely sketched. Perhaps there is a touch of character contrast in the presentation of Fikenhild and Abulf, both Horn's companions and subjects, both bound to him by ties of friendship, both receiving knighthood at his hands, but Fikenhild is throughout the type of the unfaithful as AIulf is the type of the faithful vassal. Other characters are merely conventional figures—the porter, the palmer, Arnoldin, King Modi.

In presenting character, emotion, states of mind, use has been made of dialogue and action. A little is said of personal appearance, there is a hint here and there as to the feelings of the dramatis personœ, but these are comparatively unimportant. The dialogue reveals the progress of the love affair. The abundant action, of course, often reveals mood and attitude. Elsewhere all is left to the imagination of reader or hearer—the intention, the state of mind, even the character. The simplicity of character and emotion is emphasized by the sketchy presentation.

Of the human relations involved, only one is treated elaborately—namely, love. This is a human, popular, primitive passion, careless of fashion, free from coquetry, faithful, but without adoration. The woman woos, the man somewhat passively accepts the offered love. The love of comrades, manifested in Horn and Abulf, while not developed, furnishes an additional interest, opposing the "envy" of Fikephild, that scarcely understood hatred of the hero which apparently arouses very little resentment on the part of the one who suffers from it. The Saracens, however, arouse fiercer passions, although these are barely suggested. The darker passions remain unelaborated.

Havelok.

—In Havelok the atmosphere has changed. Not knights, but the folk fill the stage. Havelok is a good servant, can put the stone beyond the farthest, and can break heads with a door-tree. He is good-natured, cautious, simple. There is no hint of passionate love or keen thirst for glory. Grim is a sturdy, loyal fisherman. The more vivid minor characters are fishermen (Grim's children), a cook, an innkeeper. Goldborough is scarcely the sketch of a queenly figure. Akelwold, a character of some importance, is an ideal king from the point of view of the peaceful, law-abiding middle class. Godrich and Godard, almost indistinguishable, are typical traitors. There is greater interest in states of mind than in Horn. There is greater individuality of character. This, seems to be due to a changed point of view, as if the writer were not a minstrel seeing life through the spectacles of a courtly nobility, or even a crude, rough nobility, but some one—a priest, perhaps—who sees life with the eyes of the laborers or tradespeople of provincial England.

Here the author has more to say about his characters—Akelwold, Havelok, Godard, and others. The soliloquies reveal both character and intention. With less dramatic situation, the dialogue is comparatively unimportant. Action, of course, is important for revealing character, especially as purpose and mood, out of which action arises, are made clear. On the other hand, there is far less passion than in Horn, since the situations are so much less vivid and emotionally significant. Character apparently is more consciously in the mind of the author, and is emphasized by the more obvious means—soliloquy, general narrative, and direct statement—but the emotions springing from dramatic situation are neglected.

The field of human relations is again comparatively narrow. Love is almost absent. The relation of subject and king is perhaps most important, exemplified by Grim, Ubbe, and Grim's children, and, negatively, by Godard and Godrich. There is a national outlook absent from Horn, not present to an equal degree in Bevis and Guy. The relation of parent and child is intimately connected with the deaths of Akelwold and Birkabein. There is a glimpse, too, of the relation of servant and master. However, there is not the dramatic tension of strong passions which makes human relations of great significance for the story. The interest centers largely in the interaction of the hero and his environment—his conduct when famine reduces Grim to poverty, his conduct as the cook's servant, his success in the game of putting the stone, or of breaking heads. The chief emotion of the poem is the sense of triumph felt by the audience as it sympathetically followed the progress of the hero.

Bevis.

—In Bevis, as in Horn, character has little interest for the author. He does not stop to describe character, and seldom to indicate mental states. Yet the main dramatis personœ are not unimpressive. We seen somehow to be again in the presence of fierce, primitive people and emotions. Bevis is a fighter, who joys in battle more than in love. He is fierce and even cruel—a stern, irresistible, brutal warrior, whose claim to admiration is unmeasured valor. Josian loves as Rymenhild loved—violently. She does not shrink from inflicting death on a persecutor. Other characters have an equal fierceness, without the redeeming faithfulness. Bevis's mother, the Emperor of Almaine, Ascopard, and most of the Saracens are people to inspire terror. There is not much said of states of mind, but so far as they are not purely conventional romantic material, due to the translator, they have the same fierceness and primitive, quality that mark the entire romance.

Character is presented by means of situation and dialogue. Not much is made of soliloquy. Scarcely anything is said in the way of direct characterization, and not much in regard to emotions. However, the dialogue is sharp and characteristic, and the situations swiftly succeeding one another have a cumulative effect, especially in connection with the impression made by the hero. It may be noted that there is a slightly humorous character in Ascopard.

What was said about human relations in Horn may almost be repeated here. There is the unrestrained love of the heroine, faithful and heroic; and there is, too, the lukewarmness of the hero. There is the development of the friendship of fellows-in-arms. There is the same background of Saracens versus Christians, as a basis for hatred and war. There is, however, greater fierceness and cruelty than in Horn. We are moving in the atmosphere of unrefined knighthood, of untempered fanaticism, and unbridled brutality, relieved somewhat by faithful love in wife and comrade.

Guy of Warwick.

—Guy is a long step from Bevis. Here chivalry has softened warrior and war. Guy is an irresistible warrior like Bevis, but he is an adoring lover, and becomes a devoted palmer, doing penance for his sins. His character is less simple; he feels the conflict of love and religion; he suffers as well as triumphs. Felice is no Rymenhild, who invites her favorite to her bower that she may throw herself into his arms; she is to be won only after years of ardent seeking and repeated rebuffs. The stage is full of dramatis personœ. There is the maiden who plays the foil to Felice. Father and mother of Guy appear, playing natural, human parts. In addition, there is almost a host of dramatis personœ who are the conventional knights and kings and giants of romance. A greater elaboration distinguishes the character-material of Guy from that of Bevis, Horn, and Havelok.

Likewise more care and more time are devoted to the exposition of character and mental states. There are long soliloquies. Dialogue is sustained. There are definite statements from the author in regard to states of mind. At least one character—the maiden of Felice—is introduced to make feeling and attitude vivid by contrast. The action is very often significant of character. In the attention to character this romance is allied to Havelok.

But Guy differs very widely from Havelok in the field of human life from which character and emotion spring. Love is again of great interest—the love of knight for lady—an adoring, chivalrous love. This love conflicts with the relation of man and the church, or of man and God, and succumbs to the exalted desire for penitential sacrifice. Thus there is an elevation above the normal emotions of Horn, Bevis and Havelok. There is here, again, the same or greater emphasis on love of comrades. There is a new touch of filial affection. There is a current of patriotism found in Havelok, but not in Horn and Bevis. Thus there is in Guy a broadening and heightening of character and feeling.

What remains to be said is merely this. In these four romances there are striking differences and striking resemblances in the treatment of character and emotion. The differences seem to indicate great variation of type. Horn is the representative of an undeveloped, unsophisticated, warlike society, and might well be at base a material version of a popular tale which had absorbed romantic motives. Havelok is written for and about provincial, lowly or middle class Englishmen. Bevis is essentially a chanson de geste. Guy is a chanson de geste made over into a romance of chivalry. Yet in the very structure of three of these metrical stories is the exile-and-return motive, with the dramatis personœ which it implies. Corresponding dramatis personœ appear in Guy, but belong less closely to the main structure of the romance. Nevertheless, this resemblance of the four romances in respect to dramatis personœ and the structure which they imply should not be made too much of in searching for the conditions from which the tales originally sprang. If they once were very similar, they became dissimilar. At least Bevis and Guy were worked over if not created by Frenchmen and developed into metrical tales of widely different type. But in the English dress in which we are examining them there is no evidence that the English redactors felt very keenly the distinction of types. Stock romantic material is found throughout, especially in Horn, in Bevis, and in Guy. There are the same stock dramatis personœ; there are the same stereotyped ways of expressing emotion; there are the same stereotyped phrases in the mouths of dramatis personœ, and in the mouths of the authors talking about the dramatis personœ. At least the stereotyped phrases are in a large measure the property of English romance, and the freedom with which they are employed everywhere seems to indicate that they were regarded as appropriate for any kind of story, that there was no distinction made between romantic and epic tale. What in France was intended for diverse audiences came in England into the hands of one set of minstrels reciting to one popular and undiscriminating audience, which welcomed a hodgepodge of narrative material that must have been very foreign to their natural interests. I must modify this statement by saying that in Havelok we seem to have a truly popular hero, not entirely created in the image of crude or chivalrous knighthood. But he is the exception that proves the rule. It is certainly not in the dramatis personœ of English metrical romances that we are to look for a clear image of medieval English life.

Notes

¹ "The Character Types in the Old French Chansons de Geste," Pub. Mod. Lang. Asso., vol. xxi, pp. 279 ff.; "The Heroic Ideal in the French Epic," Quarterly Review, April, 1908.

² Many suggestions as to method have been obtained from the studies in narrative of Professor W. M. Hart, especially Ballad and Epic, Harvard Studies and Notes, vol. xi, Boston, 1907.

³ References are made to the following editions: King Horn, ed. by Joseph Hall, Oxford, 1901; Havelok the Dane, ed. by W. W. Skeat, Oxford, 1902; Bevis of Hamtoun, ed. by E. Kölbing, E. E. Text Soc., Ex. Ser. xlvi, xlviii, lxv, London, 1885-1894; Guy of Warwick, Auchinleck and Caius Mss., ed. by J. Zupitza, E.E.T.S. Ex. Ser. xlii, xlix, lix, London, 1883-1891.

⁴ Leo Jordan, Über Boeve de Hanstone, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für rom. Phil. (xiv, Halle, 1908), pp. 41 f.; gives a list of dramatis personœ in French exile stories which is not quite the same as the one above. However, it is interesting as showing that practically this same group of characters appears in a number of chansons de geste. Among the English romances, Generydes furnishes the list of dramatis personœ most nearly parallel.

⁵ Not counting Akelwold, the father of a heroine.

⁶ In King Horn it is not actually stated that Reynild loves Horn, though marriage is suggested to Horn by her father. However, in Horn et Rimel and Horn Childe, the love of Lembure and Acula (corresponding to Reynild) is a prominent feature.

⁷ Nevertheless, cf. P. C. Hoyt, "The Home of the Beves Saga," P.M.L.A., 1902, pp. 237 ff., who thinks the resemblance between Bevis and Horn sufficient to indicate that the former is derived from the latter.

⁸ In Horn Childe the porter's shoulder bone was broken (HCh vv. 958 ff.).

⁹ In John de Reeue (Percy Folio, vol. II), vv. 719 ff., is a similar dispute between hero and porter, with the result that John

"hitt the porter vpon the crowne,
With that stroke hee ffel downe,
fforsooth as I you tell."

In Sir Cleges the hero gains admission to the king by agreeing to give the porter one-third of the gift he shall receive, and asks that the gift be twelve strokes, of which the porter gets his share in due time (vv. 247 ff.). Cf. Kölbing's note to Bevis, A 1. 419. Also see Hall's note to Horn, vv. 1067, 8; Tristram, vv. 619 ff.; Gautier, Chivalry, Eng. transl. by Henry Frith, London, 1891, pp. 369 ff.; C. Boje, Über den Altfranzoösischen Roman von Beuve de Hamtone, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für rom. Phil., xix, Halle, 1909, pp. 71 f. The porter sometimes plays a different part; cf. Gawayn and the Grene Knyght, vv. 91 ff., and Floris and Blancheflor, vv. 749 ff.

¹⁰ As in Sir Cleges; cf. note preceding.

¹¹ Cf. Generydes, vv. 4630 ff., where the maid takes the part of the knight against the reproaches of her mistress.

¹² Edited by Brede and Stengel, Das Anglo-Normannische Lied vom Wackern Ritter Horn, Ausgaben und Abhandlungen, vol. viii.

¹³ From these instances it is evident that the maid plays in medieval romantic literature the same part which maid or attendant so often plays in the later dramatic literature.

¹⁴ Referred to above, p. 436.

¹⁵ For Kay at his worst, cf. the French romance Ider, in which he is guilty of the use of poison. See, too, G. Paris, in Hist. Litt., XXXI, p. 160, apropos of Kay in the Escanor of Girard d'Amiens: "II parait avoir pris surtout le type du senechal dans les romans de Chrétien oii, comme ici, sa mauvaise langue est le plus grave de ses defauts."

¹⁶ Cf. Arthur and Merlin, vv. 80 ff.; Squire of Low Degree, vv. 283 ff., etc.; Sir Triamore, vv. 61 ff., etc.; Merline, vv. 47 ff.; Amis and Amiloun, vv. 205 ff.; Sir Degrevant, vv. 1633 ff.; also 'ffalsesteward" in "Sir Aldingar" (Child, No. 59).

¹⁷ Of course there are good stewards now and then, as is the case with Guy's father. However, the association of steward with self-seeking and an ugly disposition seems widespread. In this connection it is interesting to compare No. LXII of the Fables of Marie de France (ed. by Warnke, Bibliotheca Normannica, vol. VI), "De Aquila et Accipitre et Columbis".

¹⁸ For cases in French medieval narrative where there is an exchange of clothing with a palmer, cf. Boje, p. 70.

¹⁹ Cf. Prologue to "Man of Law's Tale" (Cant. Tales, B, vv. 127 ff.), where merchants are apostrophized:

Ye seken lond and see for yowre wynnynges;
As wise folk ye knowen al thestaat
Of regnes; ye been fadres of tidynges
And tales, bothe of pees and of debaat,
I were right now of tales desolaat,
Nere that a marchant—goon is many a yeere—
Me taughte a tale, which that ye shal heere.

²⁰ Two giants, brothers, whom the hero meets at different times and slays, seem a convention; cf. in Bevis Grander and his brother (vv. 1721 ff.; 1859 ff.); Eglamore, w. 300 ff., 513 ff.; Daurel (Hist. Litt., XXX, p. 137).

²¹ This suggests the "s waes g d cyning" of Beowulf, although the term "good" is perhaps even more conventional in the romances.

²² The very enumeration of the classes who loved him is suggestive.

It was a king bi are dawes,
Pat in his time were gode lawes
He dede maken, an ful wel holden;
Hym louede yung, him louede holde,
Ern and barun, dreng and kaygi,
Knict, bondeman, and swain,
Wydues, maydnes, prestes and clerkes,
And al for hise gode werkes.
(vv. 27 ff.)

²³ W. W. Comfort, "The Character Types in the old French Chansons de Geste", P.M.L.A., XXI, pp. 279 ff., distinguishes three treatments of the king in the chanson de geste. He is represented (1) as grandiose and epic, less only than God; (2) as weak, old, sometimes cowardly; (3) as a mere political necessity—this last under the influence of the Breton cycle where the king is only "a fixed point of support, on which the leading characters in the story are made to lean". The noble king of Havelok seems English. However, the weakness of the kings in Horn, Bevis, and Guy seems to relate them to class (2). The Emperor of Almaine (in Guy) is clearly of this class; his capture while on the chase is an incident connecting him with stories of Charlemagne.

It may be worth while to note here that both Bevis and Guy had fathers who were good stewards. They furnish the nearest parallels to the account of A'elwold. Bevis's father Guy "kept well Englond in his days".

He set peas and stabelud the laws,
Pat no man was so hardye,
To do another velanye.
(M. MS. vv. 43 ff.; passage missing from one set of Bevis MSS.)

In Guy, Syward was a steward of similar virtues.

þei a man bar an hundred pounde,
Opon him, of gold y-grounde
Per nas man in al Pis londe
pat durst him do schame no schonde
pat bireft him wor, of a slo,
So gode pais Per was to.
(vv. 137 ff.)

In Abelwold's time one could carry red gold upon his back and find none to trouble him (Havelok, vv. 45 ff.).

If one thinks of Chreétien's romances, one recognizes how incongruous similar lines would appear if found in them. The same is equally true of nearly all of the super-refined chivalric romances. Compare, too, the Alexander romances. Generosity, not justice, is the chief virtue of the chivalric king.

²⁴ For numerous parallels, see Hall's notes. Medieval romancers were inclined to insist, as here, that their heroes were the most beautiful in the world; cf. William of Palerne, vv. 4437 f.

²⁵ The shining face is common, but more frequently belongs to women. In Chrétien's Cliges the hero and Fenice are so beautiful that they make the palace shine (vv. 2755 ff.).

²⁶ It is worth noticing here that something is said in regard to Guy's dress apart from armour; when he first calls on Felice he was arrayed in a "silken kirtell" that was so "well setting" that there was no need to amend it (vv. 211 ff.).

²⁷ Cf. W. W. Comfort, P.M.L.A., XXI, pp. 307 ff. on the Hero in the chansons de geste. See p. 325 for distinction between hero of earlier and later chansons de geste: "If any differentiation were attempted between the heroes of the earlier and those of the later poems, it would consist in this: the heroes of the later poems are less passionate, less flery, less implacable; they feel the softening influence of woman and of many of the principles of Christian charity which the later Middle Age included in the terms chevalerie and courtoisie." A comparison in these respects of Bevis and with Guy is suggestive. But even in the latest chansons de geste, according to Comfort, there remains in the hero "an unmistakable trace of his genealogical connection with the paladins of Charlemagne. In spite of his love adventures, and the lorn maidens, and the kind fairies, his mind harks back to his old-time foe, the Saracens, and to his duty to God. If we are not mistaken, this undercurrent of sturdy faith, this seriousness of purpose, was just the quality which was sought by a portion of the public as contrasted to the more imaginative, fantastic, and vain heroes of the Breton cycle."

²⁸ As an instructive contrast, an examination of this same character elsewhere is valuable. In Horn Childe (the later English version) and Horn et Rimel she has lost her primitive traits. She is not wholly passionate; she devises plans. In HCh

þe miri maiden hir bithouyt
In what maner þat sche mouyt
   Trewe love for to ginne.
(vv. 364 ff.)

She wins Horn's favor first by costly gifts. Even more striking is the equanimity with which she learns of the deceit which the steward has practised in substituting Haberof for Horn (vv. 349 ff.). The heroine of HR is also a highly developed character, eager, it is true, but not merely impulsive.

²⁹ Apparently of the same type, but interesting as tending away from it, is Melior, the heroine of William of Palerne. After falling in love with William, who apparently is somewhat mildly attached to her, she analyzes her feelings in a fashion which Josian and Rymenhild would never dream of. Yet she is the really active one of the pair; is the pursuer rather than the pursued indeed, acting, however, through her maid Alexandrine. William's love, it seems, becomes really passionate as the result of a dream which Alexandrine, by some magic power, introduces into his mind while he sleeps. Even then he merely stops eating, makes no effort to win the beloved; who comes to him while he is asleep in a garden. This figure is so much sophisticated as to seem considerably removed from Rymenhild and Josian. Yet she is not much farther removed from the type than is Rimel of Horn et Rimel.

³⁰ In the Celtic romances elaborate descriptions of dress as well as personal beauty are found. Cf. Libeaus Desconus, vv. 868 ff.; Launfal, vv. 926 ff. The brightness of the woman's face is characteristic. In Richard Coer de Lion a lady is "bryght as the sunne thorugh the glas" (v. 76); Cf. Legend of Good Women, Prologue B, vv. 232 f., Le Bone Florence of Rome, vv. 184 ff.; also the ballad "Lamkin" (Child No. 93), in which the head of a murdered woman, hung in the kitchen, makes the hall shine. On the personal appearance of women of chansons de geste, cf: Gautier, Chivalry, pp. 306 f.

³¹ Josian was educated in "fysik and sirgerie" and "knew erbes mani and fale", by the use of one of which she was able to make herself undesirable. This accomplishment is hardly comparable to the learning of Felice. The manner of its introduction is also significant, as it is told merely to account for Josian's ability to pick out the right herb. Knowledge of herbs, however, was not an unusual accomplishment and seems connected with skill in leechcraft. Acula, in HCh (vv. 790 ff.) and Gouernail in Tristrem (vv. 1200 ff.) are instances. This accomplishment is in no sense characteristic of the romance of chivalry, but is rather a popular element which survives in the romances.

³² On frankness of speech and other characteristics of women of the chansons de geste, cf. Gautier, Chivalry, pp. 308 ff., and Comfort, op. cit., pp. 359 ff. See discussion of love, pp.

³³ Cf. Comfort, op. cit., pp. 307 ff., on the relations of vassal and lord in the chansons de geste.

³⁴ However, the companions of Horn are not named. In HCh, where less is made of minor characters than in HR, the companions are named and carefully disposed of. The twelve companions may be faintly reminiscent of the twelve peers of Charlemagne, who, in turn, go back to the twelve apostles; cf. Gautier, Les Epopées (1st ed.), I, pp. 173 ff.

³⁵ As comedy is rather rare in the romances, it seems worth while to enter into this feature in somewhat greater detail. Perhaps the chief comic scene in the romance is the one of the baptism of Ascopard.

For Ascopard was mad a koue;
When þe beschop him scholde in schoue,
A lep anon vpon þe benche
And seide: "Prest, wiltow me drenche?
þe deuil þeue me belle pine,
Icham to meche te be christine!"
(vv. 2591 ff.)

The incident of the dragon fight has also its comic opportunity. Bevis and Ascopard arrive in the neighborhood of the dragon, when

Ascopard swore, be sein Ion
A fote ne dorste he forther gon.
Beues answerde and seide po:
"Ascopard, whi seistow so?
Whi schelt pow afered be
Of ping pat pow miyt nouyt sen?"
A swor, alse he moste pen,
He nolde him neiper hire ne sen;
"Icham weri, ich mot haue reste;
Go now forp and do pe beste!"
(vv. 2747 ff.)

The "Icham weri, ich mot haue reste", coming from the mouth of the giant who carried the horse Arondel in his arm (v. 2564), in itself no doubt amusing to the medieval audience, must surely have raised a laugh.

Thus, slightly as the character of Ascopard is developed on the humorous side, and dangerous as he proved to be, here is a clear case of the introduction of a character with whom amusing incidents may naturally be connected.

Comic characters like Ascopard are found in a highly developed state in certain chansons de geste. Cf. W. W. Comfort, op. cit., section entitled "Bourgeois and Vilain", pp. 279 ff. For other comic baptismal scenes see Ferumbras, vv. 5715 ff., and the chanson de geste Aliscans.

³⁶ That the scribes did not keep the dramatis personce clearly in mind is evidenced by curious blunders. Thus Clarice, the daughter of the Emperor of Constantinople, is called "Blauncheflour" in both the Auchinleck and Caius MSS. at one point (v. 4497). Again, in a battle with the Saracens, the King of Nubia, after being struck down by Guy, immediately afterward is summoned by the Sultan to attack the Christians (v. 3506 ff.). This is only in the Auchinleck MS.; in the Caius MS. it is the King of Armenia whom the Sultan sends against the Christians, which, no doubt, is the correct reading.

³⁷ There are 137 lines in the poem, including the prayer of Havelok at Grimsby (vv. 1359 ff.), which possess the nature of soliloquy. An excellent example is the soliloquy in which Havelok determines that he must "swinken" for his "mete" (vv. 790 ff.).

³⁸ Cf. vv. 73 ff., 283 ff., 394 ff., 421 ff., etc.

³⁹ The second interview of Guy and Felice fills one hundred lines, and there is real progression, giving a clear view of the characters of the principal actors.

⁴⁰ Cf. Hart, Ballad and Epic, p. 56.

⁴¹ With King Horn should be compared Horn et Rimel, the author of which shows decided interest in mental states. As has been stated, Herselote's importance lies in her part as Rimel's confidante. Rodmund can hardly decide on the fate of Horn and his companions. Rimel's impatience and anxiety to obtain an interview with Horn appear when she sends for the seneschal.

Ele demaunde souvent dan Herlant quant
  vendra.
(v. 529)

She gazes in her mirror and inquires anxiously as to her appearance (vv. 526 ff.). Herlant's mental distress at Rimel's request to see Horn, his sleeplessness, his arguments with himself, are related in detail (vv. 662 ff.). The scene in Rimel's chamber when Haperof is trying to convince Rimel that he is not Horn but is unable to do so, presents an interesting psychological situation. This interest in emotional states is prominent throughout the romance, and the length of this redaction is largely due to this characteristic.

⁴² It may be noted that little is said about the heroine's feelings, as contrasted with Horn et Rimel, for instance, where there is a pretty thorough study made of the feelings of Rimel, much more subtle indeed than the study of the lover's feelings in Guy.

⁴³ Caius MS. only, v. 4013.

⁴⁴ See Hall's note to this line, Breul's note to Gowther, v. 546, and Schmirgel's list of stereotyped phrases in Bevis (in the Introduction to Kölbing's edition), p. XLVI.

⁴⁵ Kölbing says no parallels found.

⁴⁶ See Schmirgel for additional parallels, p. XLV.

⁴⁷ Sir Cleges (v. 90 of the romance so named) swoons from thinking of his misfortunes. In William of Palerne the Emperor swoons six times "for sorwe & for schame" when William elopes with Melior (v. 2098); in Chaucer's Legend of Good Women (v. 1342) Dido swoons twenty times (but this is hardly meant to be exact). Charlemagne and his hundred thousand followers faint for grief at the death of Roland (Chanson de Roland, v. 2916); in Renaud de Montauban the four sons of Aymon faint on seeing their paternal castle after an absence (Gautier, 1st ed., II, p. 192).

⁴⁸ Additional proof of conventionality of these and many other expressions may be obtained by consulting Schmirgel's list of typical phrases in the introduction to Kölbing's Bevis, the introduction to Zielke's edition of Sir Orfeo, as well as the notes to Kölbing's Bevis, Zupitza's Guy of Warwick, Hall's Horn, etc.

⁴⁹ Fainting, weeping, and tearing of the hair apparently run through medieval narrative literature. In the roman d'aventure the most violent grief is for unsuccessful love, in the chanson de geste for loss of comrades, although exceptions to this rule may be found. Sickness resulting from love is of course a strictly romantic feature. With Guy's illness may be compared the "fever" of Troilus in Troilus and Criseyde, v. 491. Fainting seems to have been almost a necessary part of romantic courtship. In the French Amados & Ydoine (cf. Hist. Litt., XXII, p. 761) the scornful lady is won by the hero's fainting in her presence. In the chanson the fainting is more likely to be on the lady's side. In Enfances Guillaume when Orable, the Saracen maiden, is hearing from her brother an account of the beauty of Guillaume, whom she has never seen, she says she will faint if he says another word (Gautier, 2nd ed., IV, p. 297).

⁵⁰ A comparison of Bevis with the Old French Boeve de Haumtone (ed. by Stimming, Bib. Normannica, Halle, 1899), which represents pretty closely the version which the English translator had before him shows very few cases of parallclism of emotional expression.

⁵¹ The love in William of Palerne is not quite of the chanson de geste type. But in Amis and Amiloun it very clearly is. Belisaunt threatens Amis with death if he does not accept her love (Am. and Amiloun, vv. 625 ff.). Octavian (S. Eng. version), vv. 1201 ff., tells of a Saracen maid loving a Christian knight, who makes advances to him and finally becomes a Christian.

⁵² More than twenty girls go to the beds of knights in chansons de geste, according to Gautier 1st ed., I, p. 478.

⁵³ Cf. the English Sir Ferumbras, vv. 5763 ff. In this case Floripas, who has been converted, seems fired with religious zeal.

⁵⁴" Cf. the conduct of Charlemagne's queen Galienne in Garin de Monglane (Gautier, 2nd ed., IV, pp. 138 ff.). Three maidens seek Garin's love in Enfances de Garin (Gautier, IV, pp. 115 ff.). Even the chanson de geste hero wearies of the boldness of the women; cf. complaint of Girars de Viane, mentioned by Gautier, 1st ed., II, p. 90.

⁵⁵ Usually sexual relations with an unconverted Saracen woman were strongly condemned. Cf. Merline (Percy Folio, I, vv. 410 ff.):

King Anguis had verament
a daughter that was faire & gent,
that was heathen Saracen;
& Vortiger for loue fine
vndertooke her for his wiffe,
& liued in cursing all his life.

⁵⁶ Good summaries of several romances of this type may be found in Langlois, Société Française au XIIIe Siècle D'après dix Romans d'Aventure (Paris, 1904); cf. Le Chatelaine de Couci, for example.

⁵⁷ Even in war there was less consideration for Saracens than for Christian enemies; a twelfth century church council forbade the use of the crossbow against Christian enemies.

⁵⁸ Fikenhild hi dude todrabe (Horn, v. 1492).

⁵⁹ Possibly stepbrother?

⁶⁰ It is interesting to note that in Ponthus and Sidone the reunion of mother and son is elaborated and made the basis of pathetic appeal.

⁶¹ The relation of father and son is more important in some romances; cf. Generydes, Perceval, Libeaus Desconus.

⁶² Numerous references to the relationship are of course found; cf. Oliver and Aude, Percevale and his sister. But it is not made the basis of emotional appeal to any great extent.