Structures and Traditions

  • Catherine Batt
Part of the The New Middle Ages book series (TNMA)

Abstract

Froissart recounts, in his Chronicles, how two enemy knights in the Hundred Years’ War are astonished to find they bear identical heraldic devices, “une bleue dame ouvrée de broudure ou ray d’un soleil sus le senestre brach” [a blue lady worked in embroidery with a sunbeam to the left side]. The Frenchman Clermont accuses the Englishman: “Chandos, Chandos, ce sont bien des posnées de vos Englès qui ne scevent aviser riens de nouvel; mès quanqu’il / voient, leur est biel.” [Chandos, Chandos, these are indeed the vaunts of you English, who know nothing about devising anything new, but whatever they see is fine for them (to take)].1 Historically, the replication of arms proper among knights of the same country gives cause for concern, and there are procedures to decide on prior claims, as the dispute between Sir Richard le Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor, 1385–90, famously illustrates.2 In the Chandos-Clermont dispute, the parties meet at a time of truce, just before the Battle of Poitiers, and the issue has no official settlement, although Froissart notes darkly that some think Clermont’s verbal altercation with Chandos plays no small part in the former’s subsequent death, slain on the battlefield with no quarter given.3 The pragmatics of war, possibly combined with English vindictiveness, serve to silence the Frenchman rather than to prove his claim wrong. The incident invites interpretation as illustrating French assumptions about English cultural parasitism,4 as the extant heraldic rolls record no historical association between this ambivalent image of religious or secular devotion and a Chandos or a Clermont.5 The design is more reminiscent of the fanciful personal emblems chosen for tournaments or described in romance than of the inherited family charges knights used to identify themselves on the battlefield.6 The sign is indeed associated with Arthur—whose shield, as some texts describe it, bears a Madonna—rather than with historical knights.7

Keywords

Boron Galles Bors Topo Detritus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Jean Froissart, Chroniques, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, 25 vols. (1867–77. Repr. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1967), 5:418–19.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ronald Stewart-Brown, “The Scrope and Grosvenor Controversy, 1385–1391,” Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 89 (1937): 1–22.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Richard Firth Green, Poets and Princepleasers: Literature and the English Court in the Late Middle Ages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), p. 10.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    The dame may (from the details of sunbeam and garment color) be a Madonna, but a secular interpretation is also possible. Froissart notes the knights are “Jone et amoureus” [young and in love], Chroniques, 5:418. Thanks to Karen Watts of the Royal Armouries, Leeds, for discussing the dame’s ambiguity. The arms of the John Chandos who died in 1370 are (according to English sources), or, a pile gules (gold with a red charge). Of the Clermonts, none has a “dame bleue.” On Chandos, see Joseph Foster, Some Feudal Coats of Arms (Oxford and London: James Parker, 1902), p. 45, and Anthony Wagner, Historic Heraldry of Britain (Chichester: Phillimore, 1972), p. 52. For Clermont, see S. M. Collins, The French Rolls of Arms, An Ordinary and an Armory (Unpublished TS, London: College of Arms, 1942). Thanks to Robert Yorke, archivist at the College of Arms, for generously supplying bibliography on this subject.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See Gerard J. Brault, Early Blazon: Heraldic Terminology in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, with Special Reference to Arthurian Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Helmut Nickel, “Heraldry,” in The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, ed. Norris J. Lacy (New York: Garland, 1996), pp. 230–34 (p. 230). Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae has a device of the Virgin on his shield at the Battle of Bath: Ed. Acton Griscom (London: Longmans, 1929), p. 438. In the 1464 The Chronicle of Iohn Hardyng, ed. Henry Ellis (London: Rivington, 1812), Arthur’s “chiefe” banner has: “An ymage of our Lady of golde enthronde / Crowned of golde” (p. 122).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    See Lesley Johnson and Jocelyn Wogan-Browne’s comparison of manuscripts of LaƷamon’s Brut in “National, World, and Women’s History: Writers and Readers of English in Post-Conquest England,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 92–121 (pp. 94–100).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    W. R. J. Barron, “Arthurian Romance: Traces of an English Tradition,” English Studies 61 (1980): 2–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    Michelle R. Warren, History on the Edge: Excalibur and the Borders of Britain, 1100–1300 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Julia C. Crick, The Historia regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth: IV Dissemination and Reception in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 1991). Some 215 manuscripts of the Historia proper survive (p. 9).Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Robert W. Hanning, The Vision of History in Early Britain: From Gildas to Geoffrey of Monmouth (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), pp. 152–54. See also Martin B. Shichtman and Laurie A. Finke, “Profiting from the Past: History as Symbolic Capital in the Historia Regum Britanniae,” Arthurian Literature 12 (1993): 1–35.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Michelle Warren, History, pp. 25–59; Lesley Johnson, “Etymologies, Genealogies, and Nationalities (Again),” in Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. Simon Forde, Lesley Johnson, and Alan V. Murray, Leeds Texts and Monographs n.s. 14 (Leeds: University of Leeds, 1995), pp. 125–36.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Ad Putter, “Finding Time for Romance: Medieval Arthurian Literary History,” Medium Ævum 63 (1994): 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    “Ne tut mençunge, ne tut veir”; Le Roman de Brut, ed. Ivor Arnold, 2 vols. (Paris: Société des anciens textes français, 1938–40), 2:515, l. 9793.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    For a differently nuanced account of the following issues, see Catherine Batt and Rosalind Field, “The Romance Tradition,” in The Arthur of the English, ed. W.R.J. Barron (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1999), pp. 59–70.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Michel Zink, “Une mutation de la conscience littéraire: Le langage romanesque à travers des exemples français du XIIe siècle,” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, Xe–XIIe siècles 24 (1981): 3–27; Rita Copeland, “Between Romans and Romantics,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 33 (1991): 215–24 (216).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 18.
    Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski, “Old French Narrative Genres: Towards the Definition of the Roman Antique,” Romance Philology 34 (1980): 143–59; Barbara Nolan, Chaucer and the Tradition of the Roman Antique (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    On the importance of the Trojan myth to historiographical writing in French, see Gabrielle M. Spiegel, Romancing the Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-Century France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). On the Trojan myth and the later-medieval production and promotion of French national identity, see Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France, trans. Susan Ross Huston, ed. Fredric L. Cheyette (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Francis Ingledew, “The Book of Troy and the Genealogical Construction of History: The Case of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum BritanniaeSpeculum 69 (1994): 665–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 23.
    Siân Echard, Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 24.
    Over 160 manuscripts of parts of the Vulgate are extant, though only eight exemplars of the full cycle survive. See Richard Trachsler, Clôtures du Cycle Arthurien: Étude et textes (Geneva: Droz, 1996), pp. 557–64.Google Scholar
  22. 26.
    For Nolan, Chaucer, p. 353, the Cycle self-consciously corrects the secular tendencies of the roman antique. E. Jane Burns, Arthurian Fictions: Rereading the Vulgate Cycle (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1985), argues for the Vulgate’s more playful authorial attitude. For biblical echo, see M. Victoria Guerin, The Fall of Kings and Princes: Structure and Destruction in Arthurian Tragedy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), pp. 19–86.Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    Warren, History, chapter six, pp. 171–221 (pp. 171–72). On aristocratic investment in Chrétien’s romances, see Beate Schmolke-Hasselmann, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance: The Verse Tradition from Chrétien to Froissart, trans. Margaret and Roger Middleton (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Donald Maddox, The Arthurian Romances of Chrétien de Troyes: Once and Future Fictions (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991). See also Peter Johanek, “König Arthur und die Plantagenets,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 21 (1987): 346–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 28.
    Les Prophecies de Merlin, ed. Lucy Allen Paton, 2 vols. (New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1926–27).Google Scholar
  25. 29.
    La Mort le roi Artu, ed. Jean Frappier (Geneva: Droz, 1964), p. 263: “Gautiers Map […] fenist ci son livre si outreement que après ce n’en porroit nus riens conter qui n’en mentist de toutes choses” [Walter Map here finishes his book so completely that afterward no one can tell any more without lying on every count]. Translation, modified, from Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation, gen. ed. Norris J. Lacy, 5 vols. (New York: Garland, 1993–96), 4:160. Future translations from the Cycles are in the text, by general editor, volume, and page number. Ralph Hanna cites Deuteronomy 4.2; “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it,” as “the oldest statement of canonicity,” in: Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and Their Texts (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), p. 177.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    Elspeth Kennedy, “Études sur le Lancelot en prose. I: Les allusions au Conte Lancelot et à d’autres contes dans le Lancelot en prose. II: Le roi Arthur dans le Lancelot en prose,” Romania 105 (1984): 34–62 (46), notes how the romances develop from a promised to an actual inclusiveness as they become part of larger cycles.Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    Fanni Bogdanow, The Romance of the Grail: A Study of the Structure and Genesis of a Thirteenth-Century Arthurian Prose Romance (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1966), introduction. See also her introduction to and edition of the text, La Version Post-Vulgate de la Queste del Saint Graal et de la Mort Artu: Troisième Partie du Roman du Graal, vols. 1, 2, 4i (Paris: Société des anciens textes français, 1991-), 1.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    Eilert Löseth collates the Tristan texts in Le Roman en prose de Tristan: le roman de Palamède et la compilation de Rusticien de Pise: analyse critique d’après les manuscrits de Paris (1891: repr. New York: Burt Franklin, 1970). See also further research by Emmanuèle Baumgartner, Le Tristan en prose: Essai d’interprétation d’un roman médiéval (Geneva: Droz, 1975), pp. 15–87.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Cedric E. Pickford provides a full overview of this manuscript and its French prose romance contexts, in L’Évolution du roman arthurien en prose vers la fin du moyen âge d’après le manuscrit 112 du fonds français de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris: Nizet, 1960).Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Larry D. Benson argues against full availability of the Vulgate: Malory’s Morte Darthur (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), p. 8.Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    Emmanuèle Baumgartner, “Les Techniques narratives dans le roman en prose,” in The Legacy of Chrétien de Troyes, ed. Norris J. Lacy, Douglas Kelly, and Keith Busby, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1987, 1988), 1:167–90, notes that the French Gawain is not central to narratives tending toward closure, such as the prose cycles: he can then function as an ever-available hero, in a delimited Arthurian space and time (p. 169). The self-contained episodic aspect of Gawain narratives may account as much for the hero’s popularity in English as does the idea that he is a “local hero.” On Gawain’s lack of “coherent identity” in insular literature, see Thomas Hahn’s edition of Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales, TEAMS Middle English Texts Series (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1995), pp. 1–35 (p. 3).Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    Felicity Riddy, “Reading for England: Arthurian Literature and National Consciousness,” BBIAS 43 (1991): 314–32 (330–31). On the popularity of the Brut, see Lister M. Matheson, “The Middle English Prose Brut: A Location List of the Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions,” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography 3 (1979): 254–66, and emendations in his “Historical Prose,” in Middle English Prose: A Critical Guide to Major Authors and Genres, ed. A. S. G Edwards (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1984), pp. 209–48 (pp. 232–33).Google Scholar
  33. 37.
    Joseph of Arimathie, ed. David Lawton (New York: Garland, 1983); see also V. M. Lagorio, “The Joseph of Arimathie: English Hagiography in Transition,” Medievalia et Humanistica n.s. 6 (1975): 91–101.Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    For London mercantile interest in French as in English romance, see P. R. Coss, “Aspects of Cultural Diffusion in Medieval England: The Early Romances, Local Society and Robin Hood,” Past and Present 108 (1985): 35–79 (40). On mid-fourteenth-century mercantile and courtly audiences for romance, see John Simons, “Northern Octavian and the question of class,” in Romance in Medieval England, ed. Maldwyn Mills, Jennifer Fellows, and Carol M. Meale (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 1991), pp. 105–111 (p. 106). See also John J. Thompson, “Popular Reading Tastes in Middle English Religious and Didactic Literature,” in From Medieval to Medievalism, ed. John Simons (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1992): pp. 82–100, on the Cursor Mundi poet’s assumption of audience knowledge of languages (pp. 85–86).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 40.
    Lee C. Ramsey, Chivalric Romances: Popular Literature in Medieval England (Bloomington, Indiana, 1983), p. 10. Michael Chesnutt, “Minstrel Reciters and the Enigma of the Middle English Romance,” Culture & History 2 (1987): 48–67, posits an interplay between the oral and the literary more complex than an “evolutionary” model (from “oral” to “written” mode) acknowledges.Google Scholar
  36. 41.
    M. T Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record. England 1066–1307 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), pp. 197–223.Google Scholar
  37. 42.
    Douglas Kibbee, For to Speke Frenche Trewely: The French Language in England, 1000–1600: Its Status, Description, and Instruction (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1991); On Anglo-Norman as a lingua franca, see William Rothwell, “The Role of French in Thirteenth-Century England,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, University of Manchester 58 (1975–76): 445–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 43.
    Ian Short, “Patrons and Polyglots: French Literature in Twelfth-Century England,” in Anglo-Norman Studies 14. Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1991. Ed. Marjorie Chibnall (Woodbridge, UK: Brewer, 1992), pp. 229–49 (p. 230), finds a strong connection between “England’s unique trilingual culture” and its “literary precocity.”Google Scholar
  39. 44.
    Thomas H. Bestul, Texts of the Passion: Latin Devotional Literature and Medieval Society (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), p. 12.Google Scholar
  40. 45.
    Thorlac Turville-Petre, England the Nation: Language, Literature, and National Identity, 1290–1340 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 46.
    Robert Mannyng of Brunne: The Chronicle, ed. Idelle Sullens (Binghamton, NY: Binghamton University, 1996), pp. 349–50, ll. 10769–72. Lesley Johnson, “Robert Mannyng of Brunne and the History of Arthurian Literature,” in Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to John Taylor, ed. Ian Wood and G. A. Loud (London: Hambledon Press, 1991): pp. 129–47, examines how Mannyng negotiates and intercalates English and French narrative traditions.Google Scholar
  42. 47.
    Of Arthour and Of Merlin, ed. O. D. Macrae-Gibson, 2 vols., EETS o.s. 268, 279 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973, 1979), 1:5, ll. 25–26. Vol. 1 contains the edited text, 2 the commentary: future references are by line number.Google Scholar
  43. 50.
    William Rothwell, “The Trilingual England of Geoffrey Chaucer,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 16 (1994): 45–67 (56).Google Scholar
  44. 51.
    Carole Meale detects English interest in French romance into the sixteenth century: “Caxton, de Worde, and the Publication of Romance in Late Medieval England,” The Library 6th series 14 (1992): 283–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 52.
    On the relation of language to ethnic identity in premodern states, see John Armstrong, Nations Before Nationalism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), Chapter 8, “Language: Code and Communication,” pp. 241–82.Google Scholar
  46. 53.
    L. Delisle, Recherches sur la librairie de Charles V, 3 vols. (Paris: Champion, 1907), 2:177, 193–95. On the borrowing of romances, see Cedric E. Pickford, “Fiction and the Reading Public in the Fifteenth Century,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester 45 (1962–63): 423–38 (426–27). Patrick M. de Winter, La Bibliothèque de Philippe le Hardi, Duc de Bourgogne (1364–1404) (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1985), p. 168, notes, inventoried in 1384, a “roumant de Merlin” either given or loaned by her aristocratic employer to “la demiselle qui garde lez enffans” [the young woman who looks after the children].Google Scholar
  47. 54.
    Susan H. Cavanaugh, “Royal Books: King John to Richard II,” The Library 6th series 10 (1988): 304–16 (304).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 55.
    Juliet Vale, Edward III and Chivalry: Chivalric Society and Its Context 1210–1350 (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1982), pp. 42–56.Google Scholar
  49. 56.
    Susan Cavanaugh, A Study of Books Privately Owned in England, 1300–1450, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1980, p. 456. Edith Rickert, “King Richard II’s Books,” The Library 4th series 13 (1933): 144–47 (145).Google Scholar
  50. 57.
    Jeanne Krochalis, “The Books and Reading of Henry V and His Circle,” The Chaucer Review, 23.1 (1988): 50–77 (64). Mary de Bohun, Henrys mother, owned a copy of the Vulgate Lancelot (now BL Royal MSS 20.D. iii and iv)(54).Google Scholar
  51. 58.
    Margaret Kekewich, “Edward IV, William Caxton, and Literary Patronage in Yorkist England,” Modern Language Review 66 (1971): 481–87. Janet Backhouse, “Founders of the Royal Library: Edward IV and Henry VII as Collectors of Illuminated Manuscripts,” in England in the Fifteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1986 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Daniel Williams (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1987), pp. 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 59.
    Madeleine Blaess, “L’Abbaye de Bordesley et les livres de Guy de Beauchamp,” Romania 78 (1957): 511–18 (512, 513).Google Scholar
  53. 60.
    For Simon Burley, see V.J. Scattergood, “Two Medieval Book Lists,” The Library, 5th series 23 (1968): 236–39 (237–38); For Gloucester, see Viscount Dillon and W. H. St. John Hope, “Inventory of the Goods and Chattels Belonging to Thomas, Duke of Gloucester,” Archaeological Review 54 (1897): 275–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 61.
    Madeleine Blaess, “Les Manuscrits français dans les monastères anglais au moyen âge,” Romania 94 (1973): 321–58 (341, 355).Google Scholar
  55. 62.
    Ethel Seaton, Sir Richard Roos (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1961), pp. 547–48. H. L. D. Ward, The Catalogue of Romances in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, 1883, 1893), 1:341–42; 354–55.Google Scholar
  56. 63.
    R. S. Loomis and Laura Hibbard Loomis, Arthurian Legends in Medieval Art (London: Oxford University Press, 1938), pp. 89–130.Google Scholar
  57. 65.
    G. A. Lester, “The Books of a Fifteenth-Century English Gentleman, Sir John Paston,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 88 (1987): 200–17. H. S. Bennett, “The Production and Dissemination of Vernacular Manuscripts in the Fifteenth Century,” The Library 5th series 1 (1946–47): 167–78 (171–72). Bennett estimates that some sixty-five of the eighty-four extant romances are so preserved. Derek Pearsall’s study concludes that sixty-five of ninety-five verse romances were extant in fifteenth-century manuscripts: “The English Romance in the Fifteenth Century,” Essays and Studies 29 (1976): 56–83 (58).Google Scholar
  58. 66.
    La Suite du Roman de Merlin, ed. Gilles Roussineau, 2 vols. (Geneva: Droz, 1996), 1: XLIII–XLV.Google Scholar
  59. 68.
    Carol M. Meale, “Manuscripts, Readers and Patrons in Fifteenth-Century England: Sir Thomas Malory and Arthurian Romance,” Arthurian Literature 4 (1985): 93–126.Google Scholar
  60. 69.
    John M. Ganim, Style and Consciousness in Middle English Narrative (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 16–54; Geraldine Barnes, Counsel and Strategy in Middle English Romance (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 1993).Google Scholar
  61. 70.
    Elspeth Kennedy examines cyclic and noncyclic versions in “The Rewriting and Re-reading of a Text: the Evolution of the Prose Lancelot,” in The Changing Face of Arthurian Romance: Essays on Arthurian Prose Romances in Memory of Cedric E. Pickford, ed. Alison Adams, Armel H. Diverres, Karen Stern, and Kenneth Varty (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 1986), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  62. 72.
    For the context of Lancelot of the Laik, in Cambridge University Library MS Kk.I.5., parts vi–vii, see Gisela Guddat-Figge, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Middle English Romances (Munich: Fink, 1976), pp. 103–05. For the Thornton Miscellany, see pp. 135–42.Google Scholar
  63. 73.
    For the Awntyrs’ possible connection with the Neville family, see Rosamund Allen, “The Awntyrs off Arthure: jests and jousts,” in Romance Reading on the Book: Essays on Medieval Narrative Presented to Maldwyn Mills, ed. Jennifer Fellows, Rosalind Field, Gillian Rogers, and Judith Weiss (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996), pp. 129–42.Google Scholar
  64. 74.
    R. Howard Bloch, Etymologies and Genealogies: A Literary Anthropology of the French Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983); Alexandre Leupin, Le Graal et la littérature: Étude sur la vulgate arthurienne en prose (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1982); Burns, Arthurian Fictions.Google Scholar
  65. 75.
    Lancelot. Roman en prose du XIIIe siècle, ed. Alexandre Micha, 9 vols. (Geneva: Droz, 1978–1983), 8:243 (Lacy 2:177). All future references are in the text, by editor and page number.Google Scholar
  66. 78.
    David A. Fein, in “‘Que vous en mentiroie?’: The Problem of Authorial Reliability in Twelfth-Century French Narrative,” Philological Quarterly 71 (1992): 1–14, argues that similar authorial intrusions in other texts acknowledge a failure to establish narrative authority, and so complicate the audience-narrator relation. For Baumgartner, the Lancelot passage ratifies the authority of the narrator over “li contes” (“Les Techniques narratives,” pp. 176–77).Google Scholar
  67. 80.
    Micha prints the “Robert de Boron” account of Merlin BN MS 110 substitutes for this passage, in an appendix, 7:459–62. Elspeth Kennedy also discusses four manuscripts that omit these details in: “The Scribe as Editor,” in Mélanges de langue et de littérature du moyen âge et de la renaissance offerts à Jean Frappier par ses collègues, ses élèves et ses amis, ed. J. C. Payen and C. Régnier, 2 vols. (Geneva: Droz, 1970), 1:523–31 (pp. 525–26). For Leupin, Le Graal, pp. 78–80, the Satanic element in Merlin’s genealogy radically disrupts the narrative’s orthodox lineage (p. 80).Google Scholar
  68. 81.
    L’Estoire del Saint Graal, ed. Jean-Paul Ponceau, 2 vols. (Paris: Champion, 1997), 1:4 (Lacy 1:4). Future references are by page number, in the text.Google Scholar
  69. 84.
    Leupin, Le Graal, p. 36; Rupert T. Pickens, “Autobiography and History in the Vulgate Estoire and in the Prose Merlin,” in The Lancelot-Grail Cycle: Text and Transformations, ed. William W. Kibler (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994), pp. 98–116 (p. 111).Google Scholar
  70. 87.
    La Queste del Saint Graal, ed. Albert Pauphilet (Paris: Champion, 1980), pp. 279–80 (Lacy 4:87). Future references are by page number in the text.Google Scholar
  71. 90.
    Le Roman de Tristan en prose, ed. Renée Curtis, 3 vols. Vol. 1 (Munich: Hueber, 1963); Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1976); Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 1985), 1:39–40 (p. 39).Google Scholar
  72. 91.
    R. Howard Bloch, Medieval French Literature and Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
  73. 92.
    Joerg O. Fichte conflates what he calls English “historiographic fiction” and the Vulgate as “imaginative poetic elaborations” of “historical ‘facts’” in “Grappling with Arthur or Is There an English Arthurian Verse Romance?” in Poetics: Theory and Practice in Medieval English Literature, ed. Piero Boitani and Anna Torti (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 1991), 149–163 (p. 156). But for Fichte, in other Middle English texts, the Arthurian court’s participation in historical process destroys its idyllic uniqueness and paves the way for “individual interpretations” of its meaning (p. 163).Google Scholar
  74. 93.
    Michèle Perret, “De l’espace romanesque à la matérialité du livre: L’espace énonciatif des premiers romans en prose.” Poétique 50 (1982): 173–82.Google Scholar
  75. 94.
    The Auchinleck Manuscript: National Library of Scotland, Advocates’ MS 19.2.1., intro. Derek Pearsall and I. C. Cunningham (London: Scolar Press, 1977).Google Scholar
  76. 95.
    Laura Hibbard Loomis, “The Auchinleck Manuscript and a Possible London Bookshop of 1330–1340,” PMLA 57 (1942): 595–627 (627).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 96.
    An Anonymous Short English Metrical Chronicle, ed. Ewald Zettl, EETS o.s. 196 (London: Milford, 1935 [for 1934]). References are by line number in the text. The variants of this chronicle Zettl points out (pp. lxi–lxiv), in terms of “fact” and interpretation, attest to the flexibility of English treatments of the Arthurian legend.Google Scholar
  78. 97.
    Receuil général et complet des fabliaux des XIIIe et XIVe siècles, ed. Anatole de Montaiglon and Gaston Reynaud, 6 vols. (Paris: Librairie des bibliophiles, 1872–90), 3 (1878), 1–39. R. Howard Bloch discusses this in the context of Arthurian “chastity test” narratives, in Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 94–97. Bloch describes the Arthurian fabliau as “a generic perversion,” possessed of “scandalous indeterminacy” (p. 94); perhaps it is so recognized because the French prose texts ostensibly promote a firmer sense of the parameters and decorum of Arthurian legend than English treatments provide.Google Scholar
  79. 104.
    For tags as literary markers of English romance’s “traditional quality,” see Carol Fewster, Traditionality and Genre in Middle English Romance (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 1987), pp. 22–38 (p. 30). Tim William Machan uses minstrel tags to consider the importance to English romance of orality and literacy’s ostensible interrelation in “Editing, Orality, and Late Middle English Texts,” in Vox Intexta: Orality and Textuality in the Middle Ages, ed. A. N. Doane and Carol Braun Pasternak (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), pp. 229–45.Google Scholar
  80. 106.
    G.V. Smithers, “The Style of Hauelok,” Medium Ævum 57 (1988): 190–218. Smithers, in his edition of Kyng Alisaunder, 2 vols., EETS o. s. 227, 237 (London: Oxford University Press, 1952, 1957), 2:30–40, finds Old French literary models for the romances’ battle imagery and seasons topoi. (As only 410 lines of Kyng Alisaunder survive in Auchinleck, the text of the romance is from Bodleian Library, Laud MS Misc. 622).Google Scholar
  81. 108.
    LaƷamon’s “Arthur”: The Arthurian Section of LaƷamon’s Brut, ed. and trans. W. R. J. Barron and S. C. Weinberg (Harlow, UK: Longman, 1989), ll. 10636, 10644–10645: “[…] ligeð i Þan straeme stelene fisces; mid sweorde bigeorede heore sund is awemmed; heore Scalen wleoteð swulc gold-faƷe sceldes; Þer fleoteð heore spiten swulc hit spæren weoren.” (ll. 10640–43)Google Scholar
  82. 109.
    Havelok, in Medieval English Romances, Part One, ed. A.V. C. Schmidt and Nicholas Jacobs (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1980), pp. 37–121: ll. 2689–92.Google Scholar
  83. 112.
    Joyce Coleman, Public Reading and the Reading Public in Late Medieval England and France (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 141–42.Google Scholar
  84. 113.
    Le Morte Arthur, ed. P. F. Hissiger (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), ll. 1–8. Future references are by line number in the text.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 115.
    See also Roger Dalrymple, “The Literary Use of Religious Formulae in Certain Middle English Romances,” Medium Ævum 64 (1995): 250–63 (258).Google Scholar
  86. 117.
    Lancelot of the Laik and Sir Tristrem, ed. Alan Lupack, TEAMS Middle English Texts Series (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1994), ll. 299–313. Future references are by line number in the text.Google Scholar
  87. 119.
    Bertram Vogel, “Secular Politics and the Date of Lancelot of the Laik,” Studies in Philology 40 (1943): 1–13. Walter Scheps, “The Thematic Unity of Lancelot of the Laik,” Studies in Scottish Literature 5 (1967–68): 167–75, reads the poem as a means to link Arthurian legend and Christian orthodoxy (p. 175). See also Douglas Wurtele, “A Reappraisal of the Scottish Lancelot of the Laik,” University of Ottawa Quarterly 46 (1976): 68–82.Google Scholar
  88. 122.
    Judith Ferster, Fictions of Advice: The Literature and Politics of Counsel in Late Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), p. 9.Google Scholar
  89. 124.
    On distinguishing between the “post-colonial” as political situation and the “postcolonial” as relation between cultures in process of continual change, see Vijay Mishra and Bob Hodge, “What is Post(-)colonialism?” in Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory. A Reader, ed. Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman (Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993), pp. 276–90. On the “elasticity” of the concept of the postcolonial, and the range of critical practices postcolonial criticism and theory adumbrate, see further, Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics (London: Verso, 1997), pp. 5–21 (especially pp. 11–14).Google Scholar
  90. 125.
    Ruth Evans suggests the potential fruitfulness of exploring medieval translation practice in terms of postcolonial theory, as well as advising caution on employing such theory as a template for the medieval cultural condition: see “Translating Past Cultures?” in The Medieval Translator 4, ed. Roger Ellis and Ruth Evans (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1994), pp. 20–45, and “Historicizing Postcolonial Criticism: Cultural Difference and the Vernacular,” in The Idea of the Vernacular: An Anthology of Middle English Literary Theory 1280–1520, ed. Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, Nicholas Watson, Andrew Taylor, and Ruth Evans (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1999), pp. 366–70. For translation as a “problematic,” see Tejaswini Niranjana, Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), p. 8. Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture, p. 5, sees the “translational” as a space of cultural productivity.Google Scholar
  91. 126.
    From the four ways of making a book, in Commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, in Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism, c. 1100-c. 1375: The Commentary-Tradition, ed. A.J. Minnis and A. B. Scott, with the assistance of David Wallace (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 223–38 (p. 229). I do not claim for the term “compilation” any sense more technical than “anthologizing.” For a caveat against confusing the English and Latin terms, and some account of the flexibility of the term “compilatio” in the Middle Ages, see R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse, “Ordinatio and Compilatio Revisited,” in: Ad litteram. Authoritative Texts and Their Medieval Readers, ed. Mark D. Jordan and Kent Emery, Jr. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), pp. 113–34 (especially pp. 119–20). Pickford questions the literal truth of Gonnot’s declaration that he has only followed “authorized” books (L’Évolution, p. 24), but see Fanni Bogdanow, “Part III of the Turin Version of Guiron le Courtois: A Hitherto Unknown Source of MS. B.N. 112,” in Medieval Miscellany Presented to Eugène Vinaver, ed. F. Whitehead, A. H. Diverres, and F. E. Sutcliffe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1965), pp. 45–64). Gonnot’s skill as a compiler is more at issue than his “originality.”Google Scholar
  92. 128.
    Susan Amato Blackman, The Manuscripts and Patronage of Jacques d’Armagnac, Duke of Nemours (1433–1477), unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1993. On the Duke’s political career, see Bernard de Mandrot, “Jacques d’Armagnac, duc de Nemours, 1433–1477,” Revue Historique 43 (1890): 274–316; 44 (1890): 241–312.Google Scholar
  93. 133.
    Judson Boyce Allen, “The Medieval Unity of Malory’s Morte Darthur,” Mediaevalia 6 (1980): 279–309. For Allen, Malory’s and Gonnot’s writings have the same exemplary aims (285).Google Scholar
  94. 136.
    Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, ed. B. A. Windeatt (Harlow, UK: Longman, 1984), Bk. 2, ll. 17–18. Future references are by book and line number, in the text.Google Scholar
  95. 137.
    Harry Berger, Jr., “Bodies and Texts,” Representations 17 (1987): 144–66 (147).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 138.
    This is not to endorse Bhabha’s view of the Middle Ages, for example, in “DissemiNation: time, narrative, and the margins of the modern nation,” in Nation and Narration, ed. Homi K. Bhabha (London: Routledge, 1990), pp. 291–322 (p. 308), which, as Carolyn Dinshaw observes, act as totalizing fall guy to his ideas about hybridity: Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities, Pre- and Postmodern (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999), pp. 16–21 (p. 18).Google Scholar
  97. 139.
    Sherry Simon sees Bhabha’s own privileged status as “transnational” academic as partly accounting for his positive position on translational culture: Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Catherine Batt 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Batt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations