33

The Mediæval Journal, 5.1 (2015), @@–@@ BREPOLS PUBLISHERS

10.1484/J.TMJ.5.107362

Give and Take: A Reinterpretation of King

Horn Line 800

John Ford

John Ford (john.ford@univ-jfe.fr) is Maître de conferences, Centre Universitaire Jean-

François Champollion.

Abstract: Since the publication of Joseph Hall’s 1901 edition of King Horn, scholars have

almost unquestioningly followed him in interpreting tak in line 800 as ‘give’. This makes

sense of a difficult passage in lines 799‒804, where King Thurston advises his son not to

make Horn a rival in love. While this gloss permits a logical reading, it is neither the only

possible nor the most satisfactory interpretation. Nevertheless, subsequent scholars have

usually deferred to Hall in defining tak as ‘give’, or they have essentially concurred that

something is being bestowed rather than accepted. This paper will show some of the fallacies

in the arguments for defining tak as ‘give’, and will then demonstrate that contemporary usage

of the word, the context of the passage, and the word’s employment elsewhere in the text in

the same syntactic construction, all suggest that the word would be better glossed as ‘take

[from]’.

Keywords: King Horn, Middle English verse romance, Middle English syntax, Middle

English lexicon, symbolic exchanges, editing medieval texts, give, take.

Introduction

Amongst the five or six scores of medieval verse romances,1 the thirteenth-century King

Horn holds a uniquely prominent place in that it is not only one of only a handful to be

classified as pertaining to the Matter of England (as opposed to the more extensive traditional

matters of France, Britain or Rome2), but it is also considered the oldest extant metrical

romance in Middle English. Lacking the sophisticated verse structure of later romances such

as Beves of Hampton or Guy of Warwick, whose six- or twelve-line tail-rhyme stanzas

sometimes lead to complex if not convoluted syntax, the short rhyming couplets of King

Horn, which Billings refers to as the ‘national rhyming verse’, permit a relatively simple

syntax which usually makes Horn surprisingly easy to read.3 Surviving in three manuscripts,

1 Although there are roughly 120 extant Middle English verse romances, it is difficult to assess the actual

number because, in addition to some being accepted as romance by some but attributed to other genres by

others, amongst the texts universally accepted as romance it is not always clear when different manuscript texts

should be classified as different versions of the same romance or entirely separate romances. 2 The traditional literary cycles of the Matter of France (dealing with Charlemagne), the Matter of Britain

(dealing with King Arthur) and the Matter of Rome (dealing with stories of classical antiquity, including Greece

and the East) were established by Jean Bodel in the twelfth century. 3 Billings, A Guide to the Middle English Metrical Romances, pp. 8‒10.

34

it recounts the adventure of Horn, the son of King Murry of Suddene, who is killed by

‘Saracens’ who overrun his kingdom.4 Unwilling to kill Horn outright, they set him adrift in

an unrigged boat with several attendants; the youths drift aimlessly across the sea to

Westernesse, where they are taken in by King Ailmar, who recognizes Horn’s innate nobility.

Horn is subsequently forced to flee Westernesse when his secret betrothal to the king’s

daughter, Rymenhild, is revealed by a jealous companion. He then sails to Ireland where he

presents himself at the court of King Thurston under the alias of ‘Cuthbert’. Again his

dignified bearing and physical attractiveness distinctly mark him as high-born, and the king

graciously welcomes him. The king then draws attention to Horn’s beauty by advising his

son, Berild, not to compete with Horn in affairs of the heart, for the handsome Horn is always

sure to win.

While the gist of this scene is clear, and despite the aforementioned simplicity of

syntax and usual ease of reading, here as in a few other places in the narrative the language

itself presents something of a conundrum for modern readers, and one with which editors

have struggled for over two hundred years. The difficulty lies in the exact interpretation that

should be given to line 800: ‘Tak him thine glove’. This passage occurs just after King

Thurston advises Berild to entertain the visiting ‘Cuthbert’, before warning his son thus:

Go nu, Berild, swithe,

And make him ful blithe.

And whan thu farst to woghe,

Tak him thine glove:

Iment thu havest to wyve,

Awai he schal thee dryve;

For Cuthberdes fairhede

Ne schal thee nevre wel spede. (797‒804)5

4 The relevant manuscripts are: Cambridge, University Library, MS Gg.4.27(2) (hereafter MS C); Oxford,

Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 108, fols 219v‒228r (hereafter MS O); and London, British Library, MS

Harley 2253, fols 83r‒92v (hereafter MS L). 5 Due to its accessibility, the text of reference for this article is the critical edition of King Horn produced

for the TEAMS online text project by Herzman, Drake, and Salisbury. It was originally published in book form

by the same editors along with Havelok the Dane, Bevis of Hampton, and Athelston in Four Romances of

England (pp. 11‒70). This edition is based primarily on MS C, but provides readings from MS O and MS

L. Although the line numbering at this point in the text corresponds to that of MS L, the reading provided for

this particular excerpt is taken from MS C, which Hall considered ‘the best text’ for this passage (King Horn,

ed. by Hall, p. 142). The TEAMS edition has been regularized according to modern editorial procedures for

electronic publications, using <th> in place of thorn, <gh> in place of yogh, <s> in place of <ſ>, reassignment of

<u> and <v> as well as <i> and <j> according to the letter’s vocalic or consonantal usage, and silent expansion

of abbreviated nasals. The only substantial orthographical change is the use of ‘thee’ for ‘þe’, presumably to

prevent confusion with the definite article. Despite slight variations in orthography, including pluralization in

MSS L and O, the three manuscript versions provide essentially the same line here in terms of lexicon and

syntax. MS C: ‘Tak him þine gloue’; MS O: ‘Tak hym þine glouen’; MS L: ‘Tac him þine glouen’. These

quotations all come from the parallel text edition of the three versions in McKnight’s edition (‘King Horn’,

ed. by McKnight, p. 36). Due to McKnight’s decision to provide line numbers for the various gaps in the

individual manuscripts so that corresponding lines always have the same number, our line 800 is line 848 in his

edition. (Hall numbers the versions individually in his edition of the same year, where this line appears as line

823 for MS O and line 794 for MS C, while, as we have stated, MS L has the same line number, namely 800.)

For ease of referencing the parallel text editions, McKnight’s version would clearly be preferable, though here,

as elsewhere, there is a qualitative preference for Hall’s edition. In consideration of other passages treated in this

paper, unless otherwise noted there are no significant discrepancies among the manuscript versions in terms of

content, context, syntax or lexicon. Slight differences appearing in the passage cited here (i.e. lines 797‒804,

corresponding to McKnight’s lines 845‒52) are in the last couplet, both lines of which are missing in MS O,

while MS L replaces ‘Cutberdes fairhede’ with ‘godmodes feyrhede’, a regular alteration throughout the latter

manuscript. None of these differences, however, would necessitate a different way of reading our line 800.

35

The crux of the problem lies in determining exactly what is meant by tak in this instance.

When following modern rules of English grammar, the use of the modern reflex take results

in the following interpretation: ‘Go now Berild, quickly, and make him happy. And when you

go wooing, take him your glove; if you intend to marry, he will drive you away, for

Cuthbert’s great beauty will never serve you well’. Although grammatically possible, this re-

articulation is not only awkward but also semantically confusing given the context of the

story. The implication is clearly that an exchange of gloves of some sort ought to take place

so that the youths do not become rival suitors for the same woman because, in that case,

Berild would never have a chance of success in the face of Horn’s great attractiveness, and

perhaps in order to make quick sense of the line, editors have traditionally opted to translate it

as ‘give him your glove’. But what is really being said? Is Berild meant to give Horn a glove,

take a glove to him, or something else? If the sense really is ‘give’, why use the word tak

when the word give would certainly suffice for reasons of metre and prosody if that is what

was truly meant? The ambiguity has perplexed scholars for over two centuries, though only a

few have really seen fit to attempt to clarify the matter, perhaps because the general thrust of

the passage, that an exchange of gloves represents a pact of some sort, is unquestionably

evident.

Most early editions and commentaries, such as those of Ritson (1801),6 Michel

(1845),7 Horstmann (1872),8 and Zupitza (1915),9 either avoid addressing the issue

altogether, or, like those of Mätzner (1867), Wissmann (1881), Kölbing (1883), Lumby

(1866)10 and McKnight (1901), they offer acceptable paraphrases or interpretations

(examined below), but stop short of attempting to provide a solid definition of tak/tac in this

decidedly uncertain instance. Though members of the latter group did draw attention to this

troublesome line, sometimes with lengthy explanatory notes offering periphrastic readings

that are contextually acceptable when interpreting the line as a metaphor, none dared to

define explicitly the actual lexical items in the context of the line’s syntactic arrangement.

Prior to the twentieth century, Morris (1882) was the only one to offer a definition of

the word as it occurs here, ultimately defining it as ‘give up to’, but as will be shown, he

apparently did so hesitantly.11 Perhaps for that reason few subsequent editors, including all

those listed above who published after him, followed his example. Although he never cites

Morris, Hall essentially concurred with him in his 1901 edition, but he too seems to have

done so with a great deal of reservation as shown by the apparent caveat he attaches to the

definition of tak/tac as ‘give’ in this instance in the glossary of his parallel-text edition.12

6 Ritson, whose line numbering corresponds to ours, provides the equivalent lines from the French version

of the romance in MS Oxford, Harley 527 for lines 801‒04. While the French version supports the idea of Horn

(as Cuthbert or Godmode) as a threat, it in no way suggests a reading for line 800, and Ritson notes that the

French version is not a direct source for the English in any case. For the line in question, his version provides

‘Tac him thine gloven’, essentially the reading from MS L with regularized spelling. (‘The Geste of Kyng

Horn’, ed. by Ritson, p. 124.) 7 Michel’s line 820 offers ‘Tak him þine glove’, the reading from MS C with <v> substituted for

consonantal <u>, with no accompanying note or explanation other than the variants in the apparatus. (‘The

Geste of Kyng Horn’, ed. by Michel, p. 229.) 8 Horstmann’s is a composite text with apparatus and the briefest of introductions in which he mentions

peculiar orthographical forms, but does not address tak/tac or the line in question. His line 823 (page 50) reads

‘Tak hym þine glouen’ the variant offered in MS O, with no accompanying note or variations in the apparatus.

(‘King Horn’, Horstmann, p. 50.) 9 Although Zupitza’s edition was one of the earliest and therefore deserves inclusion, in fairness it ought to

be acknowledged that he attempts no interpretation of line 800 because his edition is only a selection of the first

154 lines of King Horn. 10 McKnight’s edition is a re-edition of Lumby, whom he credits on his title page. 11‘King Horn’ ed. by Morris, p. 490. 12 King Horn, ed. by Hall, p. 141.

36

Nevertheless, his edition quickly became recognized as the definitive text of the day, and it is

perhaps in deference to Hall that all subsequent editors have seen fit, for better or worse, to

gloss tak as ‘give’ in line 800. However, considering the context of the passage,

contemporary usage of the word, the flexibility of Middle English grammar in respect to

preposition deletion with datives, as well as the author’s own use of this lexeme elsewhere in

the text, rather than ‘Give him your glove’, it actually seems that a better interpretation would

be ‘Take your glove from him’.

Background before Hall

Attention to the problem of line 800 of King Horn was initially signalled by the

aforementioned nineteenth-century German scholars in the vanguard of medieval English

studies. Mätzner, Wissmann, and Kölbing wrestled directly with the problem, but they admit

that their possible interpretations are largely speculation. Mätzner has ‘Tak him þine gloue’ in

his edition, which, as its title suggests, was originally undertaken in order to produce a

comprehensive dictionary of what he called Old English, but which is essentially Middle

English.13 What he completed of the dictionary was very thorough and was highly praised;

unfortunately, he died before getting any further than the entry for misbeleven, so one cannot

know how he ultimately would have treated tak in this instance. In his note to the

troublesome passage, however, he says:

The words, ‘when you go out to pay court, give him your glove’ are ambiguous. The handling

of gloves can be the token of the renunciation of goods and heritage […] or the sending out of

the messenger […] so that we could suggest either ‘surrender’ or ‘make him your

messenger’.14

It is interesting that in his own translation (into German) he uses gieb, an obsolete alternative

form of the second-person singular imperative of geben, ‘to give’. As the rest of his

explanation clarifies, however, the actual meaning that should be attributed to the passage,

including the word that he translates as ‘give’, remains uncertain.

For his part, Wissmann ultimately comes to the rather unsatisfying conclusion that ‘in

our position the tone probably lies on woʒe: If you want to go courting make him your

messenger, that is to say he will, because of his beauty, be a welcome wooer. However, if you

intend to marry Awai he schal þe driue (817), because he will drive you off’.15 Wissmann

then admits that for this interpretation to make sense one would need to change ‘Awai he

schal þe driue’ to ‘Awai þu schal him driue’, the implication being that Berild should drive

off Cuthbert/Horn before the latter supplants the former in the affections of a prospective

bride. Although his interpretation is sometimes followed, there is no support for it in any of

the exemplars. Furthermore, his construal also ignores the problem of how actually to define

the word tak in this instance by completely replacing the difficult line, interpreting it as a

metaphor for ‘make him your messenger’, an idea earlier proposed, but not entirely accepted,

by Mätzner. And while Wissmann does manage to produce a glossary for his edition which

13 ‘King Horn’ ed. by Mätzner, p. 220, line 794. 14 ‘King Horn’ ed. by Mätzner. Concerning his lines 793‒94, Matzner says: ‘Die Worte “wann du ausgeht

zu werben, gieb ihm deinen Handschuh” sind mehrdeutig. Die Darreichung des Handschuhes kann das Zeichen

der Verzichtleistung auf Güter und Erbe […] oder der Entsendung des Boten sein […] so dass wir deuten

könnten, entweder, “so leiste du Verzicht” oder “so mache ihn zu deinem Boten”.’ 15 Das Leid von King Horn, ed. by Wissmann, p. 95.

37

includes an entry for take, like Mätzner he never directly tackles the word in this instance,

skipping over this peculiar usage where a gloss would be most welcome.16

In his commentary on Wissmann, Kölbing sums up his interpretation with the

following:

Whenever a prince pulled out of the country for any purpose, then he had to leave someone

‘to hold court’ (Sir Tristem, line 1985), and with the necessity of doing this, makes

provisions; that is my opinion here of the sense of ‘tak þe gloue’. When the king proposes to

his son to do this to Cutberd, he thus confirms only the ease of wording, cf. lines 807‒08:

‘Tak him thi lond to werie, / Ne schal noman derie hit’.17

In other words, Kölbing suggests that the king simply parrots the turn of phrase Berild used

less than ten lines before, when the latter advised the former to entrust his lands to Horn

(disguised as Cuthbert); for Kölbing our contested lines are therefore simply a formulaic

choice of words in which gloue is slipped into the place of lond as nothing more than a

metonym for Berild’s authority. The implication, therefore, is that it is not a literal directive,

but a way of saying that Berild should entrust his lands to Horn/Cuthbert if he ever goes off

in quest of a wife. However, the literal act of exchanging gloves could indeed have a

symbolic function as Mätzner, Wissmann, and even Kölbing point out in their references to

analogues where it does.

Furthermore, it ought to be added that Kölbing’s reliance on the earlier phraseology of

Berild in order to justify his interpretation is, perhaps, questionable. As Kölbing was aware,

MS C had bitak in that line (his line 807, our line 791), a lexical choice which usually had a

different meaning. Among the many definitions of now obsolete bi-taken, as opposed to

simply take(n), figures the widely attested primary sense of ‘to commit; entrust’;18 this

meaning, and therefore the different lexical item, would indeed be appropriate in the context

of Berild’s speech about land, but such is not necessarily the case in respect to the king’s

discourse concerning a glove or gloves some lines later. Furthermore, the use of bitak in MS

C itself suggests that either the scribe of MS C found the usage of tak with the sense ‘give’

awkward enough to change it, or if bitak was the original word, then MSS L and O transmit

errors. Given the metre it seems that the first option is the most likely,19 in which case it

seems that the use of tak/tac with the sense ‘give’ was troubling enough to the C scribe to

merit an emendation. But it also seems likely that if that scribe had deliberately changed tak

to bitak in this case, then the same would also have been done less than ten lines later if its

usage there was perceived as identical in meaning (as Kölbing purports) and therefore equally

disturbing. Thus, while it is arguably acceptable to provide the sense ‘give’ in the first

16 Das Leid von King Horn, ed. by Wissmann, p. 145. 17 Kölbing, ‘Bemerkungen’, p. 156: ‘Wenn aber ein fürst zu irgend einem zwecke ausser lands zog, so

musste er jemanden zurücklassen, to hold þe court (Sir Tristem v. 1985), und diesen mit der dazu nöthigen

macht ausstatten; das ist meiner auffassung nach hier der sin von tak þe gloue. Wenn der köning seinem sohne

dazu Cutberd vorschlägt, so bestätigt er damit nur die annehmlichkeit von dessen worten, v. 807 f.: Tak him þine

lond to werie, Ne schal hit noman derie.’ (nb. Kölbing’s orthography has not been corrected for capitalization,

etc.) The couplet to which he refers, lines 807‒08 in his edition, correspond to our lines 791‒92 and McKnight’s

lines 839‒40. 18 See, for example, entry for bi-taken in A Concise Dictionary of Middle English, ed. by Mayhew and

Skeat, p. 28. More recently, the Middle English Dictionary has five listings for bītaken, viz.: 1) To give or grant

(sth.); 2) To entrust (sth. to sb.); 3) To commend (sb., sth. to God); and 4) To assign or allot (sth.). The fifth

entry is indeed ‘To take or accept (sth.)’, but the earliest attested usage of this meaning comes from the fifteenth

century. 19 Treharne notes, for example, that ‘the versification is couplets of three stresses per line’ (‘King Horn’,

ed. by Treharne, p. 463). Her edition, based on MS L, does not use bitak, and the line is thus metrically regular:

‘Þi lond tac him to werie’ (her line 791); although other versions and editions have inverted word order (e.g.

Kölbing’s ‘tak him þi lond to werie’), the lexical items are the same with the exception of a choice between

tak/tac and bitak; in all cases, the choice of the latter disrupts the metre.

38

instance, it does not follow that such should be the case in the second. In any case, it seems

that in the first case a different word, namely bitak, should be substituted to avoid ambiguity.

Indeed, despite the metrical difficulty it presents, almost all modern editors have likewise

preferred bitak to tak in line 791 when compiling composite texts, a preference with which

Kölbing could not have been unaware, and one which, in its general acceptance, therefore

rather undermines his argument.

Prior to Hall, Morris did attempt a definition of tak in this instance, quietly including

it in his comprehensive glossary as an example of the lemma taken with the sense ‘give up to’

(a sense more closely related to the meaning of betaken in general) in the imperative

singular.20 He makes this inclusion without fanfare, comment or justification, which is

curious considering the obvious difficulty this occurrence of the word had presented to all

previous editors who cared to treat it. It is also noteworthy that of the eighteen selections of

Old and Middle English in his three volumes, totalling some 280 pages of primary-source

texts, this is the only instance where the word is so defined. It is furthermore the sole

illustration for the last of five definitions (thus, presumably, the least frequent), the previous

entry being an identical imperative form with two citations from the same story with the

meaning ‘take’. All of this suggests that if tak does mean ‘give’ in this case, even by Morris’s

reckoning it is something of an anomaly. Given that he seems to provide this definition as

something of an afterthought, one wonders to what extent he himself was convinced of its

validity. It is also worth reiterating that of the six aforementioned scholars who produced

editions of King Horn after Morris and before Hall, none dared to take up this definition.

When early twentieth-century scholars took up the torch, they too initially avoided the

issue to a considerable degree. McKnight’s 1901 revision of Lumby’s 1866 edition for the

Early English Text Society provides a lengthy note to the line, relying on previous

scholarship by Wissmann and Kölbing, in which, like them, he explains the relevance of the

exchange of gloves in several other romances. He ultimately concludes by stating: ‘One thing

seems certain; in our poem (K. H.) the king’s meaning is that Horn should be left alone’.21 Be

that as it may, it still evades efforts to ascribe a concrete definition to the word tak in this

instance. As further sign of his hesitancy to attack the problem directly, McKnight’s glossary

defines take as ‘take, give’,22 which might leave open the possibility that he would consider

providing the second sense in a tricky case like this; tellingly, however, he shies away from

actually doing so. Like Wissmann’s lexicon, McKnight’s glossary skips this particular

occurrence of the word in its list of citations. Thus, while he is willing to accept that tak could

perhaps mean ‘give’ in some instances (of which more later), he is not actually willing to

ascribe it that meaning in this case. Like the majority of those who went before him, he

refuses to address the issue.

Hall’s Edition and its Influence

In the same year as McKnight, Hall independently produced his own parallel-text edition,

complete with a glossary in which he — like Morris, whom he does not cite, but who is his

only solid precedent — provides ‘give’ as a definition of tak in this instance, citing its use in

our line 800,23 as well as one other instance from our line 1064, as evidence.24 This last

20 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Morris, p. 490. 21 ‘King Horn’, ed. by McKnight, p. 143. 22 ‘King Horn’, ed. by McKnight, p. 169. 23 King Horn, ed. by Hall, p. 44‒45. He identifies this line as MS L line 800, MS O line 823 and MS C line

794.

39

occurrence, which appears as an independent clause in our couplet ‘Have her clothes myne /

And tak me thi sclavyne’, deserves attention before turning to Hall’s treatment of line 800.

This couplet occurs in the context of an exchange of clothes with a pilgrim so that

Horn, in the spirit of Odysseus, can enter his own halls undetected disguised as a beggar.

That being the case, it is certainly true that ‘give’ would appear to be a more appropriate

definition than ‘take’ for tak in this situation because it is unquestionable that Horn wants the

pilgrim’s coat (his sclavyne) for himself; he is clearly asking for it to be handed over to him

as opposed to offering for the other to take it. But this line, and thus its interpretation, does

require some special consideration. While it appears in MS C, our base text, as ‘Haue her

cloþes myne, & tak me þi ſelauyne’, the corresponding lines in MSS L and O are somewhat

different: MS O provides ‘Tac þou me þi ſelauyne / And haue þou cloþeſ myne’, while MS L

renders it as ‘tac þou robe myne / ant ʒe sclaueyn þyne’.25 The significant variation amongst

the otherwise very similar manuscript versions indicates the difficulty these lines apparently

posed for the scribes who copied the passage. The syntax of MS O, with the second-person

singular nominative pronoun and a first-person singular oblique (dative) pronoun, suggests

that the line would best be translated as ‘bring your pilgrim’s coat to me’; although a bit

unusual, the use of an indirect-object first-person pronoun makes such an interpretation

grammatically plausible. The couplet of MS L is even less troubling, with the same verb

being used across the lines for both subjects: ‘[you] take my gown│and I [take] your

pilgrim’s coat’. Almost the same formation can be used in modern English (‘take my gown

and I your coat’) with the sense of take being unambiguously ‘take’ (and not ‘give’) for both

parties. If anything, then, it seems that tak in MS C, which the majority of editors have

retained, is the faultiest of the three versions, and given the variance amongst the manuscript

versions, it is evident that some, if not all, of the versions are corrupt. Thus, while Hall’s

interpretation might make sense here, to a large extent it seems somewhat contrived in order

to make sense of faulty readings.

Tenuous as it might be given the various manuscript discrepancies, this example may

have nevertheless encouraged Hall to likewise include the sense of ‘give’ as a definition for

tak in line 800 as well. Like Morris, however, he ultimately shows himself to be somewhat

unconvinced. At the end of his glossary entry for take — and probably in relation to his entry

for our line 791, where, as mentioned above, the bitak of MS C is usually preferred to the tak

of MS O or the tac of MS L in order to justify the meaning ‘entrust’ — Hall notes: ‘A[nglo-]

S[axon] betǣcan, entrust, confused with Icel[andic] taka’.26 In other words, he is implying

that any usage here of take/tak/tac with a meaning of ‘give’, ‘give up to’ or ‘entrust’ is clearly

an erroneous use of take as a faux ami for Icelandic taka when the author, if not the scribes,

really meant to write bitak. Here he seems to be grasping at straws. It seems unlikely that the

romance’s compositor, or even its scribes, so evidently competent in English elsewhere in the

text(s), would here have confusion with Icelandic vocabulary in relation to this one word in

this one position. His need for such an informative proviso actually goes a long way towards

implying that such was not the case, suggests that the form had not been generally adopted

into the language with that meaning along with the host of other Scandinavian loanwords,

and it ultimately insinuates that take in all its forms should really never mean ‘give’.

24 King Horn, ed. by Hall, p. 227. Hall’s citations of this usage gives the impression that there are two

examples, when he identifies it as MS O lines 1054 and 1096. Since line 1054 his edition of MS O reads ‘Þe

ſoneday was hy ſprong’, and neither his MS C nor his MS L contain a form of take at line 1054, the former

citation is clearly an error for line 1054 of MS C, which actually corresponds to MS O 1096. So what appears to

be two separate citations are in fact one in the same, and it is noteworthy that MS L gives a different reading

altogether, suggesting corruption in the manuscripts at some point. The examples shall be considered presently. 25 King Horn, ed. by Hall, p. 60‒61: MS L, ll. 1061‒62; MS O, ll. 1096‒97; MS C, ll. 1053‒54. All

correspond to McKnight, p. 48, ll. 1133‒34. 26 King Horn, ed. by Hall, p. 227. Abbreviations expanded in square brackets. See also footnote 18.

40

Furthermore, in addition to this qualification in which it seems that Hall protests too

much, he also feels compelled to give a great deal of justification to this interpretation in a

lengthy explanatory note to our line 800. Although he relies on different primary sources to

illustrate his inferences, he provides essentially the same arguments as McKnight, and relies

on the same scholarly references with the addition of Mätzner as a source for Wissmann.27 He

then concludes rather unenthusiastically: ‘So our place may mean, “When you go a wooing,

you may as well give Cutberd your gloves, for you cannot succeed where he is present”’.28

Despite his clear hesitation — indicated at the outset by his use of the subjective qualifier

‘may’ in stating his case — his, at least, is the first attempt to translate the entire couplet into

modern English as opposed simply to paraphrasing it as a metaphor, thereby finally providing

a direct translation in situ for the awkward lexical item in this context. But although his

interpretation makes sense of this difficult line, his over-insistence ultimately makes his

conclusion seem somewhat contrived.

After Hall

Despite his implicit qualms, subsequent editors, a bit like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants,

have more or less contented themselves with deferring to Hall when forced to produce a

definition for tak in this line themselves. Most have been content to carry over this precedent

explanation for a decidedly difficult passage by a respected scholar instead of troubling

themselves with unravelling the puzzle that Hall himself implies is unsatisfactorily elucidated

in his analysis. With time and repetition, however, this self-acknowledged conjecture has, for

better or worse, ultimately become accepted as received wisdom.

French and Hale, for example, readily admit to following Hall and Lumby (via

McKnight) in their 1930 edition based on MS C, providing some additions from other

manuscripts in brackets but omitting the line numbering.29 They avoid providing their own

translation of the line, stating simply in a note to their line 794 that ‘the king urges [Berild] to

exchange gloves with Horn, probably as a ceremony to show that they had agreed not to be

rivals in love’.30 This view is perhaps close to the mark as it suggests that gloves are to be

taken as well as given, but the text makes no explicit reference to an actual give-and-take

exchange. Furthermore, French and Hale make no attempt to define tak specifically in this

instance; indeed, their glossary entry for this word even provides a second sense ‘entrust,

give’, which is the alternate most often suggested in place of ‘take, seize, receive, lift’, their

primary sense; however, although there are six different citations given from six different

romances in their collection to illustrate take as ‘give’, none of these examples is from King

Horn.

Nevertheless, Sands also concurs with Hall’s interpretation in his 1966 edition,

cautiously suggesting that the lines should be read thus: ‘When you [Berild] go a-wooing,

entrust him [Horn] with your glove [i.e., as a symbol that he will not compete with you]; [but

if] you intend to marry, he’ll drive you away; because of Cutberd’s handsomeness, assuredly

27 King Horn, ed. by Hall, p. 141. He refers to Mätzner (p. 220), who points out that messengers

sometimes used gloves as a symbol of their authority, and who suggests the possibility that the king means for

Berild to make Horn (in the guise of Cuthbert) his messenger. Hall observes that Wissmann followed this line of

reasoning, which Mätzner himself ultimately rejects, in making his own interpretation (Wissmann, p. 95). Hall

rejects Wissmann’s interpretation because: ‘But [MS C] 739, “When you set out a wooing”, is hard to reconcile

with the idea of employing a messenger’. 28 King Horn, ed. by Hall, p. 141. Emphasis added. 29 ‘King Horn’, ed. by French and Hale, p. 24. 30 ‘King Horn’, ed. by French and Hale, p. 48.

41

you’ll never succeed [in love]’.31 He acknowledges that ‘the passage is disputed’,32 and

perhaps for that reason he too neglects to use this occurrence in his list of illustrative

examples for tāken, where he does give a secondary sense of ‘give, commit’,33 though the

sole example he cites, from Lai le Freine, is itself dubious.34 For his part, Garbáty, whose line

numbers are the same as ours, also defines tak as ‘give (as a pledge)’ in his running glossary,

but then states in a note to lines 799‒804 that they form ‘an obscure passage. Perhaps Berild

is being advised to give Horn his glove to insure that he will not interfere in Berild’s wooing;

Horn’s handsomeness would otherwise prove too much competition’.35 Despite all these

reservations, even as late as 1999 Herzman, Drake, and Salisbury state that ‘Sands agrees

with Hall’ and that his reading ‘seems to make sense here’, though they too admit in the same

note that ‘editors disagree about the meaning of these lines’.36 Ultimately, therefore, it seems

that almost a century after Hall made his cautious proposition, his influence was (and is) still

being felt, though like him, few actually seem to be entirely satisfied with it.

In the meantime, Allen’s 1984 edition has ‘Tak him þine gloue’ (her line 812), with

the variant glouen listed in the apparatus for MSS L and O.37 In her note to lines 812‒16 (our

800‒04), she gives a concise review of previous scholarship and interpretations, including

seven symbolic meanings from Hall’s lengthy note alluded to above, of which she proposes

four as relevant: 1) a covenant: ‘strike a bargain with Cuthbert so that he shall not be your

rival’ (also McKnight); 2) name a deputy: ‘leave Cuthbert behind’ (cf. Kölbing and

McKnight); 3) hand over a glove in renunciation: ‘let Cuthbert have the girl’ (cf. Mätzner);

and 4) appoint a messenger: ‘make him your messenger, his beauty will make him welcome,

but after the wedding he’ll take your place’ (suggested by Matzner but adopted by

Wissmann).38 She notes that the fourth of these options is impossible without Wissmann’s

emendation, and says that she finds the third the most likely, though again, there is no

translation proposed for the line in question.

Allen does, however, provide a fuller entry in her glossary than most previous editors,

and in her entry for take she does address its usage in her line 812 (our line 800).39 There she

notes as a secondary meaning of take the sense ‘give (imper[ative])’ and along with her line

812, she lists as examples her lines 1078 and 1151 (our 1064 and 1139 respectively). The

second of her three examples is the same as Hall’s second example, treated above, where it

was shown to be based somewhat on conjecture by forcing the definition to fit the word in

that context. Her third example, however, is an original addition from a line that reads ‘Horn

tok hit his ifere’.40 In this instance, Horn is handing a goblet (the referent of the pronoun hit,

provided as þe coppe in MS O), which he passes to his company (ifere), but there is really no

need to translate tok as ‘give’ in this instance. Instead of saying ‘Horn gave it to his

31 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Sands, p. 25. Interpretations given in brackets appear as such in the original. 32 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Sands, p. 36. 33 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Sands, p. 393. 34 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Sands, p. 240. Even here the line in question from Lai le Freine could arguably

make sense with ‘take’: finding the infant girl at his church, the porter picks her up, carries her to his house,

‘And tok it his daughter and hir besought / That hie schuld kepe it as she can’ (200‒01). Sands’ line 200 could

just as easily, and probably preferably, be translated as ‘and took it to his daughter […]’ rather than ‘and gave it

to his daughter […]’. 35 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Garbáty, p. 162. It is also interesting to note that on the same page Garbáty prefers

bitak to tak in line 791, but instead of glossing it as ‘entrust’ or ‘give’ as others often do, he glosses it as ‘take’. 36 Herzman, Drake and Salisbury, TEAMS on-line edition note to King Horn lines 799‒804. 37 King Horn, ed. by Allen, p. 90. Somewhat confusingly, Allen refers to MS O as MS L, for Laud. 38 King Horn, ed. by Allen, p. 305 (referencing Hall, p. 141). 39 King Horn, ed. by Allen, p. 407. 40 This line is essentially the same in the three manuscripts. Hall (p. 64‒65) has MS L, line 1129: ‘horn toc

hit hiſe yfere’; MS O, line 1164: ‘Horn tok þe coppe hyſ fere’; and MS C, line 1129 ‘Horn tok hit his ifere’,

which is our reading.

42

company’, as Allen’s listing of the word tok with the definition ‘give’ in this instance implies,

one could just as easily, and probably more logically, say ‘Horn took it to his company’.

Again, ascribing the meaning ‘give’ to a form of take seems forced rather than natural.

At the end of her glossary entry for take, Allen also provides an addendum

reminiscent of Hall’s in which she seemingly provides a fourth citation, although she does

not include it in her examples listed above. She notes in square brackets: ‘O[ld] N[orse] taka,

influenced by some sense of O[ld] E[nglish] (bi)tæken “give”, cf. 1083 variant where C

scribe thought toc “accepted” meant “gave”’.41 The line in question (our line 1069) is part of

a larger passage edited as a single sentence by Herzman, Drake, and Salisbury in their

TEAMS edition, which reads thus:

His sclavyn he dude dun legge,

And tok hit on his rigge,

He tok Horn his clothes:

That nere him noght lothe.

Horn tok burdon and scrippe

And wrong his lippe. (1067‒72).

Allen presumably believes the C scribe was confused because MS C renders the line as ‘He

tok horn his cloþes’, whereas MS O has ‘Ant tok hornes cloþes’ while MS L provides ‘Þe

palmere tok hyſ cloþes’.42 It is true that contextually and syntactically the last two variants are

fairly straightforward. They can be respectively translated as ‘And [he] took Horn’s clothes’

and ‘The palmer took his clothes’. This sense of taking does not seem to come through so

readily for MS C because in modern English such a construction indicates that the subject

‘he’ took his own clothes to Horn; one can say ‘he took Horn’s clothes’ (as MS O), or ‘he

took his clothes’ (as MS L), but ‘he took Horn his clothes’ (as MS C) makes Horn an indirect

object according to the rules of modern English grammar, and that changes the sense entirely

(i.e., ‘he took his clothes to Horn’). In order for the line in MS C to render the same meaning

as MS O and MS L in modern English, the meaning of tok does indeed need to be altered to

‘gave’. But such was not necessarily the case in Middle English grammar, and this is where

Allen perhaps errs in supposing that the C scribe misunderstood the text.

For one thing, the use of the possessive pronoun following a proper noun to substitute

for a possessive case of that proper noun is so well attested that in later epochs it was often

erroneously assumed that the enclitic ‘apostrophe S’ marking possession descended from an

abbreviation of his. This led to a misguided and happily brief effort to reintroduce the usage

by some more pretentious writers. Perhaps more to the point, however, is the fact that Middle

English, like Old English, was rather less punctilious about preposition usage with

dative/oblique-case indirect objects. While all native speakers of English today inherently

know that in the absence of a defining preposition in cases such as line 1069 there is only one

possibility that can be inserted, namely, to; but such was not the case in Middle English. One

might indeed wonder whether the imposition of this rule of modern English grammar, which

must have undoubtedly seemed as natural to Morris and Hall as it does to us, is at the very

root of decades of confusion, for although the Old English case endings that marked syntactic

relationships had already largely been lost, the obligatory usage of specific prepositions had

not yet become as fully prescribed in Middle English as it is today. As such, almost any

preposition could be deleted, and therefore re-inserted where wanting; given the context of

this particular line, it seems that in this case the missing preposition could and probably

should be from, rendering ‘He took from Horn his [i.e. Horn’s] clothes’. If there were any

41 King Horn, ed. by Allen. Abbreviations expanded in square brackets. Note that her line 1083

corresponds to our line 1069 and McKnight’s line 1139. 42 All quotations from Hall, p. 60‒61: MS L, line 1067; MS O, line 1102, MS C, line 1059.

43

doubt that this interpretation is the correct one, the ambiguity is completely alleviated in the

next line, ‘that nere him nought lothe’, which shows that the beggar is happy about receiving

something rather than giving. Although the loss of his own garments might be no great loss, it

makes little sense for him to be happy (‘not lothe’) about it; however, it makes a great deal of

sense for him to be overjoyed by receiving Horn’s fine apparel. It is not, therefore, the case

that the C scribe has confused toc, meaning ‘accepted’ with the sense of ‘gave’, but more

likely that Allen has misunderstood the C scribe, probably under Hall’s influence.

It is also worth pointing out that the word order in this example from Allen is identical

to that of our line 800: both ‘He tok Horn his clothes’ and ‘Tak him thine glove’ have a verb

followed by a dative/oblique indirect object, itself followed by a possessive pronoun that

qualifies a direct-object noun.43 If it can be established that the former case has the sense ‘he

took from Horn his [i.e. Horn’s] clothes’ — which is undoubtedly the intended sense — then

it stands to reason that the latter case, our line 800, should likewise be interpreted as ‘take

from him your glove’. In further support of this argument, the next two lines after the

exchange of clothes also use the verb in this sense. The description of Horn putting on the

pilgrim’s clothes and screwing up his face in disguise is described thus: ‘Horn tok burdon and

scrippe │ and wrong his lippe’ (1071‒72). The burdon (staff) and scrippe (bag) are articles of

the pilgrim’s clothing, thus tok here clearly indicates Horn’s taking of them, not giving them.

Thus, while Allen’s logic might be sound in differentiating between take and betake, it

actually better fits the example of her line 1078 (our line 1065) than it does her line 1084 (our

line 1069), to which she attributes it. In any case, that would not imply that tak was ever

meant to be interpreted as ‘give’, an interpretation demonstrated to be highly unlikely, but if

anything there was an erroneous use of take in the place of betake at some point in

transmission.

The possibility of deleting or inserting prepositions other than to is also tacitly

acknowledged by Dunn and Byrnes, who likewise supply a different preposition to make

sense of the line. In their 1990 edition based on MS L, their line 800 reads: ‘Tac him° thine

gloven°’, where the degree signs direct the reader to their running gloss and commentary

where one finds ‘for him’ for the first sign and ‘gloves as pledge’ for the second.44 Although

they opt for for rather than from, rendering the line as ‘Take for him your gloves as pledge’,

the use of a preposition other than to in Middle English in such cases is acknowledged.

Interestingly, they do not attempt to define tak/tac, which has usually been considered the

contentious word, but apparently feel that the sense of the word as ‘take’ is indeed correct

with the supplying of a preposition. The preposition they supply, however, namely for, is one

that results in an awkward construction that, although it retains the sense of ‘take’ for tak,

results in a contrived circumlocution dependent upon the preposition in order to convey the

idea that the glove is still to be transferred from Berild to Horn. In other words, while Dunn

and Byrnes define tak as ‘take’, they are unwilling to go behind the interpretation of Hall and

all who concur with him in determining the line’s ultimate meaning. In point of fact, their

desire to be in accord with former interpretations is apparently further demonstrated by their

definition of gloven as ‘gloves as pledge’, which is more a commentary than a gloss, and one

which recalls the old interpretations of Mätzner, Wissmann, Kölbing, Lumby, McKnight,

Sands, etc., in making an allusion to a symbolic glove exchange. So while their proposal does

make sense of the line, it rather skirts the issue of how exactly to translate the line and its

words in context, which, as shall be demonstrated, ultimately seems to result in perpetuating

a common, and commonly accepted, misreading.

43 Though the subject pronoun of line 1069 is not present in line 800, this discrepancy is negligible. Line

800 is an imperative, with the subject ‘you’ (or in this case ‘thou’) being understood; such omission is, of

course, not possible in line 1069, which is in the indicative. 44 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Dunn and Byrnes, p. 132.

44

Despite their otherwise original interpretation, not entirely unlike the one proposed

here in the supplement of a preposition, few subsequent editors have seen fit to follow it,

most returning more or less directly to the definitions established by Hall and other early

commentators. In her 1993 edition, based essentially on that of French and Hale, Fellows, for

example, concurs with Sands in following Hall by glossing tak in her line 794 as ‘give’.45 In

her notes, she further explains: ‘Among the possible interpretations of this line is that Horn

should be used as Berild’s messenger in a courtship (just as Cesario/Viola is used in

Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night).’46 It is a plausible argument that innovatively relies on

subsequent literary works as opposed to antecedents to make its point. However, Fellows

does not give a tangible empirical reason why the word tak should be used with the sense of

‘give’; she simply relies on previous scholarship, itself shown to have been more of a

postulation than a conclusion by those who initially proposed it, both to justify her

interpretation and to dodge the thorny issue of why the word tak should, or even could, ever

explicitly mean ‘give’.

Perhaps considering the problem as nit-picking, Treharne avoids giving a word-for-

word interpretation in her 2004 edition, also based on MS L. Rather than providing a gloss in

the right-hand column as she usually does for tricky vocabulary or constructions, she notes

that ‘Tac him þine gloven’ should be understood as ‘gloves as a challenge’.47 This is in line

with interpretations given by French and Hale, who admitted to following Hall, though it

seems somewhat at variance with what Fellows suggests, and entirely contradictory to the

inference made by Dunn and Byrnes. Thus, though there is clearly still no consensus amongst

editors concerning what the symbolic glove exchange is actually meant to represent, it is

clear with Treharne, as with others, that a trade should take place in order to alleviate the

possibility of Horn supplanting Berild in the affections of a prospective spouse. Ultimately,

however, it seems that the tradition of Hall is again at work in providing a precedent for

circumventing the need to offer a solid definition of the word tak/tac in this instance, though

doing so might render moot the need to determine whether the glove exchange is to be seen

as a challenge, a pledge, a means of making Horn a messenger, or simply a way to leave him

alone.

New Interpretation

Ultimately it seems that all of these commendable efforts to make sense of the line, either

through interpretation, paraphrasing or definitions, achieve their ends by concluding that

Berild is being told to give his glove to Horn, take it to him, or, awkwardly, take it for him.

As stated at the outset, this is a grammatical possibility since the dative/oblique pronoun him

could be rendered as ‘to him’, thus giving a possible translation of line 800 as ‘take (i.e. give)

your glove to him’. There is, however, as we have suggested, another possibility. While to

might be the only possible preposition that can be supplied in modern English, we concur

with Dunn and Byrnes in noting that Middle English permitted a variety of other prepositions

to be admitted in such situations as well. They suggest for, thereby giving essentially the

same interpretation of all the other editors in determining that a glove or gloves is to be

transmitted from Berild to Horn. But from could just as easily, and perhaps less awkwardly,

45 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Jennifer Fellows, p. 22. Note that Fellows has the same line numbering as French

and Hale. 46 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Jennifer Fellows, p. 279. 47 ‘King Horn’, ed. by Treharne, p. 479. Note that Treharne has the same line numbering as our base text,

so that the line under consideration is also her line 800.

45

be supplied, giving the reading ‘take your glove(s) from him’. As take generally had, and still

has, the implication of acquiring something for oneself, there is every reason to believe that

this should be the preferred reading.

The OED gives some support for such an interpretation. Definition III of take is given

thus: ‘ordinary current sense, i. With material object’.48 More specifically, definition III, 15

reads as such: ‘[t]o transfer by one’s own direct action (a thing) into one’s possession or

keeping: to appropriate’.49 The first example of the word take being used with this meaning is

dated to c. 1200. As King Horn is generally dated to 1280 and no later than 1300,50 it is more

than likely that the author would have been familiar with this usage. Further support can be

gleaned from the Middle English Dictionary. There, definition 6a(a), attested from 1250, is

given as ‘To obtain (sth.), get’, which fits with our proposed usage.51 This seems to be a

fairly common usage given that there are 55 entries for this one word.

Use of the word with the sense ‘give’, however, seems rather less probable. This

meaning is perhaps closest to the OED’s definition IX, 57b: ‘[t]o carry or bear (a thing) with

one; to carry to some place or person’. This is essentially the definition ascribed to take by

most of our editors who attempt to tackle the word directly, including Dunn and Byrnes, who

nevertheless leave it as ‘take’, but with the sense of taking the glove or gloves to or for Horn

rather than taking it or them from him. But as the numbering of these definitions indicates,

this is a relatively infrequent usage, and in any case it does not correspond exactly to the

sense ‘give’. Indeed, no entry in the OED for take does so. Finally, this usage is not attested

before c. 1390, approximately a century and certainly a lifetime after King Horn was written.

It therefore seems highly unlikely that take would be used with that sense in this early

romance.

Interestingly, however, the Middle English Dictionary does have an entry that defines

taken as ‘to give’. Definition 31a(b) is provided as ‘to give (sth.), hand over’,52 which exactly

fits the sense used by the majority of editors. The citation employed to illustrate this entry,

however, is our very own line 800 from King Horn as it appears in MS C: ‘Whan þu farst to

woʒe, Tak him þine gloue’. So although the MED attests to taken being used with the sense

of ‘to give’, it must be excluded in this instance for the obvious reason that the illustration

cannot serve as a supporting precedent for itself. It is furthermore additional evidence of

influence of editors on their successors, in which it appears that a fallacious argument

becomes accepted as fact not through empirical analysis, but simply though it being

repeatedly passed on as received wisdom. Such circular reasoning was the primary reason

that, for a dozen centuries or more, and despite the physical evidence to the contrary, medical

practitioners somewhat foolishly insisted and repeated that the human liver had five lobes

instead of two simply because Galen, who apparently based his claim on the study of animal

organs, had said so in the third century.53 While our rectification is doubtlessly less profound,

the erroneous reasoning in both cases is essentially identical.

Furthermore, as has been shown, the manuscripts use the word take in the same

syntactical construction as our line 800 elsewhere in the text, where it clearly has the sense

‘take from’. To reiterate, when the pilgrim ‘tok Horn his clothes’ in line 1069, a line whose

48 Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 17, p. 557. 49 Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 17, p. 557. 50 Billings, A Guide to the Middle English Metrical Romances, p. 22. 51 Middle English Dictionary, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-

idx?type=byte&byte=203172524&egdisplay=compact&egs=203803194&egs=203320812 [accessed 27

November 2014]. 52 Middle English Dictionary, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-

idx?type=byte&byte=203172524&egdisplay=compact&egs=203803194&egs=203320812 [accessed 27

November 2014]. 53 See, e.g., Kelly, Rees and Shuter, Medicine Through Time, p. 63.

46

structure is nearly identical to our ‘tak him thine glove’ in line 800, the context makes it

absolutely clear that he is not rendering the clothes to Horn, but receiving them from him. It

seems that the context of line 800 not only permits one to translate tak as ‘take from’, but

because it does not require one to force an unsuitable new definition on a commonly used

straightforward word, it positively encourages one to do so.

Thus, based on evidence derived from the general denotation of the word at the time

of the writing of King Horn, the usage of various forms of take elsewhere in the manuscripts

— especially those examples that are similar in structure and context, and the flexibility of

Middle English grammar in respect to modern grammar, which has heretofore apparently

been something of a stumbling block, it seems likely that the traditional reading of line 800 as

‘give him your glove’ would be better translated as ‘take your glove from him’. Taken

literally, such a wording might imply that Berild should use the other’s glove in order to

present himself as Horn/Cuthbert, or more metaphorically, to present as his own some of

Horn’s more appealing attributes. Thus, rather than Horn serving as Shakespeare’s

Cesario/Viola to Berild’s Orsino, as Fellows suggests, it might be better to consider this a

suggestion from the king that Berild play Rostand’s Christian to Horn’s Cyrano —

appropriating with complicity the superior attributes of a possible love rival by recruiting him

as an ally in wooing. Such an interpretation at once allows one to retain an uncomplicated

definition of the word tak, while making the line easily translatable in the context of the story

and rendering the troublesome passage clear.

47

Works Cited

Manuscripts

Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, MS Gg.4.27(2).

London, British Library, MS Harley 2253.

Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 108.

Primary Sources

‘Aus dem Leid von King Horn’, ed. by Julius Zupitza in Alt- und mittelenglisches Uebungsbuch mit

einem Wörterbuch, ed. by Albert Eichler, 12th edn (Vienna: Braumüller, 1922), pp. 126‒30.

Das Leid von King Horn, ed. by Theodor Wissmann (Strasbourg: Trübner, 1881).

‘The Geste of Kyng Horn’, in Horn et Rimenhild; Recueil de ce qui reste des poèmes relatifs à leurs

aventures composés en françois, en anglois et en écossois, ed. by Francisque Michel (Paris:

Bannatyne, 1845), pp. 259‒338.

‘The Geste of Kyng Horn’, in Ancient English Metrical Romances, ed. by Joseph Ritson, 3 vols.

(London: Nicol, 1802); rev. edn, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Goldsmid, 1885), pp. 99‒145.

‘King Horn’, in Middle English Literature, ed. by Charles William Dunn and Edward T. Byrnes (New

York: Garland, 1990), pp. 114‒49.

‘King Horn’ in of Love and Chivalry: An Anthology of Middle English Romance, ed. by Jennifer

Fellows (London: Dent & Sons, 1993), pp. 1‒41.

‘King Horn’, in Middle English Metrical Romances ed. by Walter Hoyt French and Charles Brockway

Hale (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1930), pp. 25‒70.

‘King Horn’, in Medieval English Literature ed. Thomas J. Garbáty (Lexington, Mass: Heath, 1984),

pp. 142‒80.

‘King Horn’, in Four Romances of England: King Horn, Havelok the Dane, Bevis of Hampton, and

Athelston, ed. by Ronald B. Herzman, Graham Drake, and Eve Salisbury, (Kalamazoo: Medieval

Institute Publications,1997); (published online 1999)

<http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/hornfrm.htm> [accessed 19 July 2014].

‘King Horn’, in Altenglische Sprachproben nebst einem Wörterbuche, ed. by Eduard Mätzner, vol. 1:

Poesie (Berlin: Weidmann, 1867), pp. 207‒31.

‘King Horn’, in King Horn, Floriz and Blancheflur, The Assumption of Our Lady, ed. by

George H. McKnight, Early English Text Society, Original Series, 14 (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1901), pp. 1‒70.

‘King Horn’ in Specimens of Early English, ed. by Richard Morris, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1882) vol. 1: From ‘Old English Homilies’ to ‘King Horn’ A.D. 1150‒A.D 1300, pp. 237‒86.

‘King Horn’, in Middle English Verse Romances, ed. by Donald B. Sands (New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston, 1966), pp. 15‒54.

‘King Horn’, in Old and Middle English c. 890–c. 1400: An Anthology, ed. by Elaine Treharne, 2nd

edn. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 463‒93

48

King Horn: A Middle English Romance, ed. by Joseph Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901).

King Horn: An Edition Based on Cambridge University Library MS Gg 4.27, ed. by Rosamund Allen,

Garland Medieval Texts, 7 (New York and London: Garland, 1984)

King Horn, with Fragments of Floriz and Blauncheflur, and of the Assumption of Our Lady, ed. by

Joseph Rawson Lumby, Early English Text Society, Original Series, 14 (London: Trübner,

1866).

‘King Horn nach Ms. Laud 108’, ed. by Carl Horstmann. Archiv für das Studium der neueren

Sprachen und Literaturen, 50 (1872), 39‒58.

Secondary Studies and Reference Dictionaries

Billings, Anna Hunt, A Guide to the Middle English Metrical Romances (New York: Holt, 1901),

A Concise Dictionary of Middle English from 1150‒1580, ed. by A. L. Mayhew and Walter W. Skeat,

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888).

Kelly, Nigel, Bob Rees, and Paul Shuter, Medicine Through Time, 2nd edn (Oxford: Heinemann,

2002), p. 63.

Kölbing, Eugen, ‘Bemerkungen zu Wissmanns Ausgabe des King Horn’, Englische Studien, 6 (1883),

153‒57.

Middle English Dictionary, ed. by Robert E. Lewis, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001);

(updated online 2013) http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/ [accessed 1 December 2014].

Oxford English Dictionary, ed. by Robert W. Burchfield, Edmund Weiner, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1989).