No doubt with his English public in mind, the English poet, in adapting the story from the French, has modified to some extent the tenderness and sentimentality, even at times the poetic descriptions, of his French original (compare vv. 1117-1194 of the French with the corresponding English vv. 457-72), and has omitted the enumeration of gems and of precious stuffs suggestive of an elegance perhaps unintelligible to an English speaking and hearing public at this time. The wonderful cup, to the description of which 67 verses (431-498) are devoted in the French romance, in the English poem is dismissed with 17 verses (163-184). The garden so elaborately described in the French, vv. 1724-1835, in the English poem occupies only vv. 685-732. The description of the knife (_grafe_), which serves no other purpose than that of external adornment in the French version (vv. 788-799), is entirely neglected in the English translation. The translator’s method is well illustrated in the case of the description of Floris’s equipage preliminary to setting out on his journey. The description of the saddle and harness occupies 37 verses (964-1000) of the French poem, and is dismissed by the English translator with 5 (vv. 382-389), _I ne can telle ȝou noȝt Hu richeliche þe sadel was wroȝt_, and three verses following.
To sum up, the English version is a free, somewhat condensed, translation from the French I. version. The translator has introduced almost no new traits, and the extent of the condensation may be judged by considering the 1296 verses of the English as compared with the 2974 verses in the French I. version. The manner of the condensation has been indicated. But with all the condensation, especially in the descriptive passages, it is important to note that in the essential features of the story, the translator follows his original faithfully, so that the main outline of the story is preserved as accurately in English as in French.
[Footnote I-20: This same consideration, as we have seen, probably explains _in part_ the difference between the English King Horn and the Norman French _Horn et Rigmenil_.]
In Fl. and Bl. as in King Horn it is difficult to distinguish certain criteria of dialect on account of the variety of orthography in the different manuscripts. Here again the only safe guide is the rimes, and the evidence of these is not entirely uniform for the different texts. There is a great difference in age between MS. C, the oldest, and MS. T, probably the youngest of the four MSS. Further there is a difference in the dialects represented by the different scribes. The scribes of MSS. C and Cott. were evidently southerners, and seem, here and there, to have twisted the verses around to make them fit the Southern dialect. On the other hand the later scribe of MS. T seems to have changed verses to make them fit his later dialect. Either the phrases are less stereotyped than in Horn or the poem was not so well known; in any event the scribes of the individual texts seem to have allowed themselves greater independence. The result is that the rime test here is not a sure one. The evidence of rimes in MS. C is not necessarily valid for MS. T, and _vice versā_; and which rimes indicate the pronunciation of the original composer, it is often difficult to say. If we bear these points in mind we may perhaps draw some satisfactory conclusions from the following criteria: