ARTHURIAIV STUDIES f I
T H E ALLITERATIVE MORTE ARTHURE
ARTHURIAN STUDIES I ASPECTS OF MALORY ed. T. Takamiya and D. Brewer I11 THE ARTHURIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY I: AUTHOR LISTING
ed. C. E. Pickford and R. Last
THE
Alliterative Morte Arthure A REASSESSMENT OF THE POELM
Edited by Karl Heins Gazer
D. S. BREWER
0 Contributors 1994
All Rights Resewed. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner
First published 1994 by D. S. Brewer Transferred to digital printing ISBN 9784-85991-075-0 D. S. Brewer is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IPl2 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA website: www.boydeIlandbrewer.com A CiP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
This publication is printed on acid-free paper
Contents
T h e Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
Kevin Crosslty-Holland
A Summary of Research
Karl Heinz GiiEler
Reality versus Romance: A Reassessment of the Alliterative Morte Arthur
Karl Heinz Giiller
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature
Maureen Fries
T h e Audience
Jutta Wurster
The Language and Style: The Paradox of Heroic Poetry
Manfred Markus
Formulaic hlicrostructure: The Cluster
Jean Ritrke-Rutherford
FormuIaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle
Jean Ritzke-Rutheford
Armorial Bearings and their Meaning
Karl LiMe
The Figure of Sir Gawain
Jorg 0 . Fichte
T h e Laments for the Dead
Renate Haas
The Dream of the Dragon and Bear
Karl Heine GolEer
T h e Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
Anke Jan~sen
Notes
Preface
The following colIection of essays on the Alliterative Morte Arthure grew out of a series of lectures given by participants from the Regensburg University Department of English at the ~ 1 1 t hInternational Arthurian Conference, which took pface at Regensburg in August, 1979. It was felt that a reassessment of this unique and previously negIected poem was necessary, The present essays are the result of a joint effort by members of the English Department and colleagues from abroad who shared our view of the poem. The articles are meant to form an integrated whole, whereby each contribution deals with a particular aspect of the same problem. Thanks are due to the native speakers of the English Department who helped polish up the English of the following essays. All of us owe a special debt of gratitude to Jean Ritzke-Rutherford who invested a generous amount of time in our project. For her as for all other members of the team, work on the Alliteratiz'veMarte Arthure (endearingly referred to as AMA by the contributors) was a labour of love and an imperative. Further thanks are due to the publishing firm, in particular to Richard Barber, Marcia Vale and Derek S. Brewer for their continued support.
K.H.G.
The Dream ofthe Wheel of Fortune
KEVIN CROSSLEY-HOLLAND
3218 Then this handsome king, as chronicles tell. Quickly and gaily gets ready for bed; Adroitly he strips and slackens his girdle And fatigue overcomes him, he falls asleep. But one hour after midnight his mood entirely altered; In the early hours he met wondrous dreams! And when his dreadful dream had drifted past and finished, The king trembles for fear as if afraid for his life; He calls for his wise men and tells of his terror: 'Truly, since I was born, I have never been so afraid! Apply yourselves with a11 speed, explain my dream to me, As I shall rehearse it to you, readily and fully. 3230 I thought I was in a wood, lost and alone, And had no idea which way to turn Because of wolves and wild boar and evil creatures; They walked in that wilderness, looking for trouble; The most loathsome lions licked their lips there, Longing to lap up the blood of my loyal knights! I fled through that forest, where flowers grew tall, T o find a hiding-place from those horrible beasts; I came to a meadow surrounded by mountains. The most delightful on rniddIe-earth ever seen by men! 3240 The entire close was encompassed and surrounded, Covered with clover and colourful small flowers; That valley was encircled by vines of silver That bore grapes of gold (more succulent Than any other) and friezed by furzes and all kinds of trees Herdsmen were standing amongst splendid pastures; Every fruit that grows on earth flourished there O n fine boughs, in a well-fenced orchard; There was no dampness of dew to injure anything, All the flowers were dry with the day's dryness.
3250 Then down from the clouds. and into that valley, a duchess Descends, richly dressed in damasked clothing,
A subtly-coloured surcoat of silk
2
3260
3270
3280
3290
Kevin Crosslq-Holland Overlaid with otter-fur right down to the hem, And a ladylike train a yard long. All its edges trimmed with ribbons of gold; Brooches and bezants and many bright stones Were pinned all over her back and her breast. She wore a caul crowned with a golden chaplet, And no woman's complexion was ever so clear! She whirled a wheel with her white hands. Spun it most skilfully as she had to do; This wheel was wrought of red gold and precious stones, Adorned with riches and many a ruby; T h e spokes were inlaid with splinters of silver. Each springing a spear-length from the hub; O n the wheel was a chair of chalk-white silver. Chequered with carbuncle of ever-changing hue; A row of kings clung to the rim, Their gleaming gojd crowns were cracking apart. Then one after another six of them suddenly Fell from on high. each repeating these words: "That ever I reigned on this wheel I rue for ever! No ruler on earth was so rich as I! When I rode with my company, I cared for nothing But hunting by the river, revelry, extortion! For as long as I lived this was my life-style And so I a m damned utterly and forever!" T h e first man spreadeagled under the wheel was a little fellow, His loins were skinny and loathsome to look at. His locks were grey and a yard long, His face and body were badly diseased; O n e of his eyes winked brighter than silver, T h e other was yellower than the yolk of an egg. "I was lord", said the man, "of many a land. And all men on earth did me obeisance; Not one rag remains now with which to cover my corpse, But all at once I a m lost, let each man recognize it!" Certainly the second lord who spun off the wheel Looked to me more steadfast and more mighty in war; Between his deep sighs he spoke these words: "I sat on that throne there as sovereign and lord, And ladies loved to enfold me in their arms, And my estate is lost now, laid Iow for ever!" T h e third was very fierce, with thickset shoulders, A fearsome man to fight with, even thirty to one; His crown, adorned with cut stones And inlaid with diamonds, had dropped to the earth;
The Dream ofthe Wheal of Fortune
3300
3310
3320
3330
3340
3
"In my time", he said. "I was the terror of many a kingdom. And now. damned to die, my sorrow is all the greater!" T h e fourth was handsome and strong in arms, With more fair a figure than any man before! "My faith", he said, "was resolute while I reigned the world, Famed in far-off lands, flower of all kings; Now my face is ashen. foul things engulf me. For I a m sunk so low and left friendless." T h e fifth was a finer man than many of these others. Powerful and fierce and foaming at the mouth; H e gripped the rim tightly and wound his arms around it But failed notwithstanding and fell fifty f e ~ off: t Even so he sprang up, sprinted, and spread his arms, And bv the spear-length spokes he speaks these words: "I was a lord in Syria, and ruled there alone As sovereign and seigneur over sundry demesnes; Now, from such pleasure, I am suddenly toppled, And because of my sin I rue I sat in that seat!" T h e sixth had a psalter. superbly bound With carefully stitched covers of silk, A harp and handsling with nuggets of flint; Soon he speaks of what sorrows he has suffered: "In my time", he said, "men took me to be As active at arms as any man alive; But on earth I was injured when I was most strong By this maiden so meek who moves us all." Two kings were climbing and clawing their way up. Anxious to reach the top of the wheel. "And then", said both, "chosen on earth As two of the foremost, we will lay claim to this carbuncle chair!" T h e men were chalk-white, cheeks and alI, But neither achieved the goal above him: T h e first looked noble and had a fine forehead, Fairer of face than any man before; And he was dressed in rich royal blue, Covered with a flourish of gold Reur-de-lys; T h e other wore a coat made completely of silver And a fine gold cross - four finely-wrought Small crosses nestled around the crucifix. Whereby I knew that king. who seemed to have been christened. Then I approached that proud woman and greeted her warmly, And she replied, "Welcome! You d o right to come now: O f a11 the valiant men that ever lived on earth, You ought to honour my will, as you well know how; For a11 your fame in war was won because of me;
4
3350
3360
3370
3380
Kevin Crassley-Holland
I have been your friend and a foe to others; You and your followers found that out, indeed, When I felled Sir Frolle and his evil knights; Because of that, all the bounty of France is yours to command. You will attain the chair. I choose you myself Above all the leaders acclaimed on earth." She lifted me up lightly with her slender hands, Set me gently in the seat, and gave me T h e sceptre; skilfully she combed my hair So that my head was ringed by curling locks; She adorned me with a dazzling diadem. Then proffers me an orb studded with precious stones And enamelled with azure, the earth depicted on it Encircled by the salt sea on a11 sides As a sign that I truly was sovereign on earth. Then she handed me a sword with a gleaming hilt And bade me brandish the blade: "The sword is my own, Its stroke has drained the lifeblood of many young men; For white you worked with that blade, it never betrayed you." 'Then, pausing as it pleased her, she peacefully walked over T o the edge of the orchard -never was one finer O r planted better by princes on earth. And none so splendidly dressed save in paradisc alone. She bade the boughs stoop, and set in my hands T h e best that they bore on their soaring branches; Then, I telI you truly, they all bowed to her command, Even the highest in each copse, completely and utterly: She told me not to hesitate but try whatever I liked. "Triumphant man, try the most tasty, Reach for the ripest and enjoy yourselfl Rest, royal king, for Rome is your own! And I shall readily whir1 the wheel as fast as I can And draw you rich wine in rinsed cups." Then she walked to the well a t the edge of the wood, A wonder that bubbled and streamed with wine; She caught up a cupful and covered it properly; She bade me sweetly take a draught, and drink to herself. And thus for one hour she led me around With all the liking and love any man could hope for. But a t midday exactly her mood changed entirely, And she began to menace me with threat upon threat; When I begged her to stop. she knitted her brows: "King, by Christ that made me, your carping is useless! You will forfeit these pleasures. and your life afterwards. You have enjoyed comforts and kingdoms enough!"
The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
3390
3400
3410
3420
3430
5
She whirls the wheel and whirls me off and under So that my four quarters were crushed and broken into pieces! And my spine was chopped into two by that chair! And I have shivered for cold since all this happened to me. Then, truly, I awoke worn out by my dream, And now you know my sorrow, speak as you think fit.' 'Man', says the wise man, 'your Fortune has left you! You will find her your foe now; test it when you like! You are a t the height of your powers, I tell you truly! Whatever you essay, you will achieve it no longer! You have shed much blood and, in your arrogance, Killed innocent men in many kings' lands: Confess your guilt and prepare for your end! Take heed of your warning, my lord. if you are pleased to, For you will fall headlong within five winters! Found abbeys in France (you will reap the benefit) For Frolle and Feraunt and their fierce knights Whom you, a stranger in that country. killed in battle: Take heed now of other kings -remember T h a t they were bold conquerors, crowned on earth: T h e oldest was Alexander, the whole earth bowed before him; T h e second, so chivalrous. was Hector of Troy; T h e third Julius Caesar, a giant of a man. Judged by lords to be gentle in each undertaking; T h e fourth Sir Judas, noblest of jousters, T h e masterful Maccabee, strongest of all men; T h e fifth was Joshua. that stout-hearted leader, Whose army enjoyed such success in .Jerusalem; T h e sixth was David, dearly beloved, Deemed to be one of the bravest kings ever crowned. For with a sling (and skilful aim) he slew T h e giant Goliath, the grimmest man on earth; I n later years, he composed all the psalms. T h e dear distinctive words inscribed in the psalter. One of the climbing kings. I know it for certain, Will be called Carolus, the king of France's son; He will be fierce and cruel, hailed as conqueror, And by force overcome many a country; H e will capture the crown that Christ Himself wore, And the same lance that leaped to His heart, When H e was crucified on the Cross, and that knight will win All the sharp nails to be held by Christian men. T h e other will be Godfrey; and on Good Friday God will take revenge on him and his brave knights; H e will be lord of Lorraine, by leave of his father,
6
Kevin Crossly-Holland
And later enjoy great success in Jerusafem For. by feats of arms, he will recover the Cross And then be crowned king. anointed with chrism; Yet no duke in his days will endure such a destiny Nor suffer such trials, when put to truth's test! Therefore Fortune fetches you to complete the numberNinth of the men named as noblest on earth. This will be read in romances by noble knights, 3440 Told and praised by joyful kings And on domesday judged a feat of arms Unsurpassed by any man that ever lived on earth: Thus countless kings and scholars wilI celebrate your deeds And record for all time your conquests in chronicles! But the wolves in the wood. and the wild beasts. Are certain wicked men -aliens and armies From other countries-arrived in vour absence T o attack your people and make war on your Iands. 3450 FYithin ten days I believe you will be told That some harm has happened since you left home; I advise you to count and confess your errors Before you swiftly repent all your ruinous deeds! Man, mend your ways before you meet with disaster, And humbly beg mercy for the saving of your soul!'
A Summary of Research
KARL H E I S Z GOLLER
T h e text of the Alliterative Morte Arthum' (henceforth AMA) is now available in several adequate editions. D. S. Brewer and A. E. B. Owen have published a facsimile edition of the Thornton manuscript together with a useful analysis of its characteristic features.' I n 1865 G. G. Perry edited the text for the Early English Text Society, as did Edrnund Brock in 1871. both under the number 0.S.8.3In 1900 Mary M. Banks supervised a new edition of the poem, which Erik Bjijrkman used in 1915 in his edition of the AMA in the series Alt- und Mittelenglische T e ~ t e . ~ Bjorkman's edition was regarded as the standard text of the poem for many decades. It contains, however, hundreds of unnecessary emendations. most of which are based on the work of the Bonn School of Metrics (e.g. Trautmann and Mennicken). Thus Bjijrkman's edition was already out of date a t the time of its appearance. T h e discovery of the FYinchester MS. of Malory's Morte d'Arthur (1934) made a new edition of the AMA imperative.' I t was promised by O'Loughlin in 1935.6 In I959 the prospective editor announced that the new edition was 'nearly ready'.' In the meantime several other editors have stolen the march on him. John Finlayson edited an abridged study edition in 1967 (York Medieval Texts).' In 1972 this was followed by S. D. Spangehl's edition, an as yet unpublished dissertation for the University of Pennsylvania? In 1974 Larry D. Benson presented a simplified version 'for readers who have had little or no training in Middle English'." T h e best edition of the AMA-in spite of its shortcomings -is Valerie Krishna's. which appeared in 1976; i t contains an extensive introduction, a complete glossary, and a separate commentary which has taken the entire spectrum of research into account. I n a surprising consensus of opinion, nearly all critics agree that the AMA is one of the most significant works of the Alliterative Revival, or even, possibly, of Middle English literature. Helaine Newstead has called the poem 'one of the most powerful and original treatments of the Arthurian tradition'." John Gardner once termed it 'a major poetic a ~ h i e v e m e n t ' , ' ~and John Stevens, 'one of the best poems of the Alliterative Movement'.13 T h e pathos, humour and realism of the AMA have been stressed by both the histories of literature and encyclopedia^.'^
T h e connection of the AMA with the B r u ~tradition was seen by the first schoIars who dealt with the poem." In regard to further sources beyond this tradition, a major contribution was made by B r a n s ~ h e i d . ' ~ Matthews hvpothesised a fourteenth-century French source, and traced the influence of certain Alexander-romances." Finlayson suggested the connection of the poem to Sir Firurnbras. Destruction of Troy, and further works. as for instance Vows of the Heron." The relationship to the French chansons de geste has been mentioned a number of timesgQIt would seem that determination of the genre of the AMA depends on the sources postulated for the poem.'O More recent critics dispense with attempts to assign the poem to a certain genre. Instead, they note differences in form and content from other 1i;erar-y traditions of England and, more often, of the Continent. M.'. R. J. Barron identifies realistic elements, but also a certain degree of national consciousness which he sees as typical of the Alliterative Revival (including Layamon's Brut). H e regards the dynastic theme centred on the figure of Arthur as the basis of the poem." Whereas the epic-heroic character of the AMA was emphasised by the older generation of critics. it is now, in concordance with Matthews, considered a medieval tragedy of fortune." And yet even today there is still disagreement as to the message of the poem. Particularly controversial is the question of whether the poet describes the rise of a morally blameless Arthur during the first part of the poem, or whether he presents the king as corrupt and evil from the very beginning.23 In this respect, critical opinions contradict each other to such an extent that one has the feeling the critics are not even speaking of the same work. Roger Sherman Loomis, for instance, denies that the poet attributed any guilt to King Arthur.24 Similarly, Helaine Newstead refutes the idea of retribution, and sees the poem as an affirmation of Arthur's greatness.25 Matthews, on the other hand. claims that Arthur was sinful from the start." Most critics, however, take the middle road. D. S. Brewer speaks of the upward and downward movement of Fortune's wheel, thus taking the traditional concept of tragedy as his point of departure." A similar position is voiced by Finlayson in several major contributions to the study of the poem." Even a cursory glance a t critical evaluations of the AMA makes it clear that essential problems have not yet been solved. Thus there has been no close analysis of the dream of the Dragon and Bear, although it contains significant clues to the intention of the poet.29 T h e dream of Fortune, however, has often been treated, usually in connection with the problem of genre.30 T h e topos of the Nine IVorthies, its derivation, and function has also been the subject of extensive treatment. H. Schroeder's major work on the topos, however, has been completely overlooked by Anglo-Saxon critics, although it must be regarded as the standard work on the subject; similarly. other important
A Summap of Research
9
research articles written in German have been i g n ~ r e d . ~ ' Closely connected with the problem of how Arthur is to be judged, is the role his knights play in the poem. T o some extent they have been seen as contrasting figures and foils for the King. This is particularly true o f c a w a i n . Opinions on his character are no less contradictory than those on King A r t h ~ r . O ~ 'n the one hand he is seen as an embodiment of the entire gamut of courtly virtues. and on the other. as a projection of Arthur's ambition,33Mordred presents a unique problem. O'Loughlin is convinced that Arthur's fall in the AMA 'is brought about by the Aristotelian hamartia of his begetting h l ~ r d r e d ' , , 'while ~ Charles Regan finds no sign in the poem that the traitor is Arthur's son, 'not as much as a hint from either the poet or a c h a r a ~ t e r . 'Naturally ~~ these positions are mutually exclusive, but the text itself contains sufficient evidence for the solution of the problem. A number of questions have hardly been treated by the critics, or remain to be dealt with adequately. There is. for example, the poet's unique brand of h ~ r n o u r . 'his ~ tendency towards irony and parody, and above all his subtle use of indirect connotation and innuendo. which ultimately contribute to indirect characterisation of the figures. Some authors recognise ambiguities in the A M L ~ ,and ~ ' deduce that the poet has a n ironic, o r a t least ambivalent attitude towards Arthur and his Barnie speaks of 'unresolved ambiguity in the poet's attitude towards A r t h ~ r ' . ? Other ~ critics focus on the degeneration of the protagonist from the majestic champion of Christianity to a brutal conqueror.'"' T h e formulaic character of the AMA was recognised and dealt with very early, particularly in connection with the Huchown question. O n the basis of language, metre and verse formation. several critics attempted to prove that the same poet had written several alliterative works, including the AMA.4' A refutation of the theory is no longer necessary. For quite a number of years it has been clear that nearIv all so-called 'parallels' were 'accidents of convention in the alliterative type'.42 T h e conclusions drawn by the same school on the basis of metre were equally tenuous. Trautmann and hlennicken claimed that the alliterative long-line of the AMA was to be read with seven stresses, and that emendation was needed wherever a line did not comply with this r e q ~ i r e m e n t hlennicken .~~ sometimes resorted to desperate measures to achieve his goal. as for instance by sounding the end -e, even before a folIowing which is contradictor); to the historical evidence as shown by Luick."'J. L. X. O'Loughlin has pointed out that irreGguIarities in metre and alliteration follow a certain pattern, and that the stress a n d rhythm of the poem were not half as rigid as had been claimed.46 In the meantime a new approach has been taken to the problem of metrics in the poem. Duggan and Vaughan have argued that runs
I0
Karl Heinr G&ller
of alliteration indicate four-line strophic str~cture.~' What has given rise to difficulty is the fact that the metric criteria drawn from Old English cannot be appIied without alteration to the contingencies of Middle English because of the greater flexibility of long-line in the latter. LVith the application of the so-called 'oral formulaic theory' to Old and Middle English, the phenomenon of repetition in medieval paetry was seen in a new light. It soon became apparent that there was more to the formula than a mere syntactical pattern or 'mould', and that meaning and function had to be taken into consideration as well. Finlayson and those after him thus rightly objected to Waldron's formalistic a p p r ~ a c h : ~but ' Lawrence later defended its usefulness when applied in conjunction with the ustial techniques of orat formulaic a n a l y s i ~ . ~Although " there have been some attempts to formulate consistent and adequate definitions of the oral formulaic eIements as used in Middle these have generally been disregarded by critics dealing with the AMA. The lack of progress in this direction has led to recent negative statements, such as Tonsfeldt's contention that verbal style and formulaism in the AMA are far less interesting than the narrative formulaic elements it contain^,^' or that of Turville-Perre, whose recent book on the Alliterative Revival states polemically: 'Fourteenth-century altiterative poetry cannot . . . be described as formulaic in any meaningful sense . . .'." Many scholars writing before Turville-Petre have chosen to describe verbal repetition in Middle English alliterative poetry in terms of word c o l l o c a t i ~ nbut , ~ ~few except Finlay son have seen a connection between this phenomenon and the oral formulaic theory of Parry and Lord. Only Finlayson and Turville-Petre have dealt with coilocations of more than two words or those extending beyond two lines in length. Most who have dealt with the AMA have noted areas where formulas and verbal repetition are heavily concentrated in contrast to the rest of the poem,54 and a connection between these and the so-called 'runs' of alliteration on the same letters has been noted, although no causal relationship was postulated .55 Most scholars agree that the AMA and many other middle English poems were meant to be recited, and thus made use of and were influenced by the style and conventions of oral popular poetry, even though they were composed in writing.56 Thus some inconsistencies in the AMA, such as the fact that Lucius apparently dies twice, have been attributed to the process of oral c o r n p o s i t i ~ n . ~ ~ More controversial than the question of oral or written composition in Middle English is that of the metrical function of the formula. Much early research on formulaism in the AMA made a distinction between formulas of the first haff-line, and those of the second.s8 One recent definition of the Middle English formufa requires. among other things,
A Summary of Research
11
that it be repeated 'in similar contexts and in the same metrical position'.59 This is, however, true neither of Old English poetry nor of Middle English. Many formulas do occur in both half-lines and in various contexts. In addition, there is no economy in the older sense of that word6' (namely that a given idea was always expressed in the same way), although one recent author has claimed the ~ o n t r a r y . ~ ' A major step in formulaic research was the recognition that the interpretative value of formulaism rested in the function and meaning of formulas and formulaic elements in the context of the whole. Here. too lay the answer to the question of poetic creativity and originality within the framework of stereotyped convention. Parallel to a shift of interest to such matters in Old English research. a call was issued for more attention to the meaning and function of formulaic expressions as a key to our understanding of the text and of the work of the poet. Examples from the A M A made it evident that a hierarchy of values could be observed: semantic meaning might be sacrified to fulfil metric contingencies (alliteration). while metric correctness, in turn, might be sacrified in order to retain the habitual wording of the f ~ r r n u l a . " ~ O t h e r studies of individual formulas and their significance followed. emphasising the originality and individual achievement of the poet to a ~ ~ Gross greater degree than earlier critics, such as F i r ~ l a y s o n .Laila analysed the use of the word ' r i o t ' i n formulas and elsewhere, postulating that formulaic occurrences of the word would exhibit little o r no change of meaning.64 T h e individual and creative use of formulas placed in an alien context was pointed out by Tuwille-Petre, who noted that the two-word coI1ocation 'king' and 'crown' generally used for Arthur is significantly applied to Gawain at the end of the poem.65 LZ similar phenomenon has been mentioned by Grenier. namei? the reversal of a stock motif, 'exultation over a fallen foe'. Both Frederick and Mordred lament the death of' Gawain rather than. as usual. taunting the fallen foe.66 Little work has been done on formulaic themes in the poem. Finlayson concentrated on battle and knighthood in his 1963 article, and his work has been extended by T~nsfeldt.~'Johnsonhas attempted to prove the occurrence of an Old English 'theme' called 'The-Hero-on-the-Beach' in the In short. i t is evident that work on the creative use of formulaic style in the A M A has only begun. T h e date of composition of the AMA has been a matter of controversy since its first publication. The manuscript can be dated at about 1440. since the name of the compiler, Robert Thornton. and his biographical details have come down to us.69 The date of the text is more difficult to determine; critics have had to turn to intrinsic indications in the poem itself. The first historical interpretation of the AMA was offered by G. Neilson in his book on Huchown of the Awle Ryale." Neilson made
Huchown the author of nearly a11 extant Middle English alliterative verse, a supposition which proved much more tenuous than his very interesting study of historical parallels, which even today has to be given careful consideration. According to Keilson, the battle of Sessoyne is CrGcy, the Sea Battle is Winchelsea, Mordred is Mortimer, and the ?'iscount of Rome is the Miknese V i ~ c o n t i . This ~ ' would place the date of the text at about 1365. Inman pointed out that allusions to Edward 111's reign d o not necessarily mean that the poem originated during Edward's lifetime.72 T h e first attempt to use the description of costume as a criterion for dating was by H. E a g l e ~ o n .In ~ ~the long sleeves (lappes} of Lady Fortune, he saw a parallel to feminine dress of Edward III's period. J. L. N.O'Loughlin noted a resemblance to a description in Wynnere and Wastoure ('slabbande sleues sleght to be grounde', 41 1). and therefore concluded that the AMA must have originated shortly after that poem, which was written in the winter of 1352-53.74 The doubtfulness of this kind of argument became apparent when E. Schroder tried to demonstrate that Wynnere and Wastoure was dependent on the AMA. thus arguing for a n even earlier date of the T h e element of the pilgrimage to Rome was brought into the discussion by G. B. Parks.76 He takes the view that the author of the AMA himself made a pilgrimage to Rome. probably in the Holy Year of 1350. His arguments are based on the author's intimate knowledge of details of the route to Rome. A further criterion for the dating of the poem was seen in the vows the Arthurian knights made on the vernacle, a n emblem of the veil of Veronica, which was worn by pilgrims to Rome in the fourteenth Other critics commented on the connection between historical conditions and the realistic description of battle in the poem. T h e first to point out the uncourtly character of King Arthur a n d his knights was Dorothy Everett in 1955; her seminal article initiated a new line of thought in regard to the poem." I n his book on the Tragedy ofArthur (1960)- William hfatthews argues for a date 'soon after 1375. . . when the ordinary Englishman was weary of the tragic futility of his rulers' imperial conquest^'.^^ Larry Benson accepts Matthews' view that the poem truly portrays the fourteenthcentury attitude toward3 warfare. At the same time, however, he warns against drawing a concrete parallel between the treason of Guinevere and Mordred and that of Isabella and Mortimer. Benson also remains unconvinced that the poet drew 'a portrait of Arthur in the likeness of Edward III'.'O Another critic who followed in the footsteps of G. Neilson in looking for historical parallels was Roger Sherman Loomis. who recognised in the AMA the spirit of the fifties.'l In his opinion, the poem is a panegyric on Edward 111's exploits on the Continent. Later. even Benson. following Dorothy Everett's lead, came to recognise historical parallels
A Summary of Research
13
which made the AMA a poem of its own place and period.82Thus. for example, he perceived in Arthur's grim humour a parallel to the character of the Black Prince. Finlayson, on the other hand, remained sceptical towards historical parallels. The description of Fortune's lappes is in his opinion too vague to suggest a particular date. He would deny nearly a11 of Neilson's parallels. with the one exception of the Battle of Lt'inchelsea. Although he admits that the poem reflects the reign of Edward 111 in a general way. he rejects the idea of a roman ci
~1~6'~
In his modern English translation John Gardner takes up Seilson's and hlatthews' historical parallels, although he himself is not convinced that the poetic power of the poem lies 'chiefly in what may ha1.e been its immediate political purpo~e'.'~Gardner emphasises 'that the reader who enters into the situation behind the poem will appreciate more than the reader who does LIlop-sided view of the historical parallels was presented by G. Keiser. who dismisses the entire palette of allegcd topical allusions: 'The complete uncertainty about the authorship and the dating of the poem as well as the circumstances in which the poem was written would seem an unsurmountable problem for those who would find a pattern of " c ~ p t i c "allu~ions.''~ A more balanced view of' the problem is presented by .J. Barnie in his book on IVar in Mediem1 Society. He sees the poem as far too subtle to be regarded as a mere catalogue of topical allusions and political parallels. Contrary to his own premises and promises, he only deals with the AMA in an appendix, thus indicating his doubts as to the historical source value of works of this kind." Investigation of the historical and political background of the poem will no doubt continue. Larry D. Benson's articre of 1976 has focussed on the year 1400, in view of the fact that no derailed description of the travel route to Rome was a\-ailable prior to 1402 fiom which the poet could have drawn the Italian place-names. Though he recognises Richard I1 in Mordred and Henry IV in Arthur. Renson. too. rqjects the idea that the poem is a roman ci cleJ8'J. \'ale. as well. is con\-inced that contemporary conditions are reflected realistically in the AiZfA. and that 'it provides a remarkable insight into the attitudes and preoccupations of a diplomat and administrator in the second half of'the reign of' Edward III.'89 According to this theor).., the author of the ALMA may have been a public senant at the court of King Edward t IT. Promising conclusions and affirmation of the necessity of taking the historical and political background into account may be expected fi-om the forthcoming book by Beate Schmolke-Hasselrnann entitled Der arthurische
Versroman uon Chrestzen bis F r o i s s a ~ t . ~ ~ Modern literary criticism now tends to take literan works of art. including the romances. far more seriously - not onl) as sources of historical facts, but also as comments on and even interpretations of the
Karl Heznz Goller course of contemporary events by those who were in a position to understand them. In this sense literature is a reflection of what people thought, feared and hoped, Works such as the AMA are even more outspoken in this respect than the chronicles, and the picture presented is more comprehensive. But it is subtly encoded in the form of literary devices and thus in need of interpretation by the literary critic. It is the aim of the authors of the following essays to contribute to this goal.
Reality uersus Romance A Reassessment of the Alliterative Morte Arthure KARL HEINZ GOLLER in co-operation with R. GleiRner and M . Mennicken
The AMA has been classified by literary critics as a romance, an epic, and a chanson de geste. as well as a tragedy, an exemplum of the virtue of fortitude, and a Furstenspiegel. There are sound arguments for each of these categories, and this alone is proof of the fact that it is impossible to ascribe the poem to a single literary genre. Like many other masterpieces of world literature, the A M A defies neat pigeon-holing. It was almost inevitable that a new, detailed study of the A M A and its relation to contemporary chronicles. history, and literature would lead to a reassessment of this many-faceted work of art. A historian recently called the poem 'quite unique in fourteenthcentury English romance'.' If it could at all be called a romance. it is one with a very peculiar twist to it. The A M A has outgrown its genre historically. While still clinging to its traditional framework, stock characters and themes, it has become its own opposite. This is particularly evident in the light of its contemporary near relation, the so-called stanzaic Morte Arthur. with its love story and pure romance character. When compared with works of this kind, the A M A can and should be called an anti-romance. This term. of course, is not meant to designate a new literary genre, an undertaking which would be more than difficult. Even the problem of defining romance. with its immense spectrum of applications. has never been satisfactorily ~ o l v e dSuffice .~ it to say that 'romance' is generally regarded as 'a fictitious narrative . . . of which the scene and incidents are very remote from those of ordinary life.'3 In the case of the AMA the figures and events are taken from a literary tradition which was at the time and even is today connected with what could be called prototypical romance. But this is only a very thin veneer. a kind of historical drapery. which - for large portions of the poem is insufficient to disguise the contemporaneity of the main characters and their actions. Since Neilson there has been general agreement that in the AMA familiar literary figures are used to represent contemporary rulers and the problems of the time; the degree and scope of this reciprocal relationship, however, have remained controver~ial.~
16 Karl Hez'nz GEiller in co-operation with R. Glegner and M. Mennicken At the same time. familiar literary genres of romance are criticised or even satirised. having become nothing more than empty clich&s,widely divorced from any historical o r contemporary reality. The poet seems particularly interested in unmasking the trivialised and romanticised fbrm of literary portrayal of war and heroism. by confronting it with the moral and physical results of real war. Thus the AMA is in two respects a n anti-romance: it ushers in personalities and problems of contemporary Iife in the costume of distant centuries: but even more important, it destroys commonplaces of chivalry and knightly warfare through inversion, irony and black humour. T h e figures and events are traditionally familiar but they have undergone a sea-change. Arthur is still the admired head ofstate, but is shown to be morally corrupted by his growing power, Lancelot is no longer the most prominent and best knight of the Round Table; instead he is placed on a par with L'alyant. Ewayn and Loth, and there is no love intrigue with Guinevere. Gawain is the leading figure among the knights. but he is far from being a perfect model of knighthood. He is arrogant and frivolous. acts rashly and impetuously. usurps command and oversteps his power. His metaphors are hardly courteous, for he promises to subdue the enemy to a state of meekness likened to the 'bouuxom' willingness of a bride in bed (2858). In the AMA, the opening boudoir scene of' the stanzaic Morte Arthur (Arthur and Guinevere lie in bed, chatting about bygone adventures) has been replaced by the battlefield. A tragic parting before the king leaves for war marks Arthur's relationship with his wife. Guinevere in her turn w~ickedlc conspires with Mordred and even bears him two children although she is usually represented as barren. Mordred is no simple traitor. H e regards himself as a rightful pretender to the crown; in the final battle he changes his arms accordingly and wears the three leopards of England. I n the AMA the reality of war in all its gruesomeness and the contemporaneitv of the fourteenth century clash heavily with the world of romance. Nearly ail the stereotype scenes of courtly literature are recognisable. but they are embedded in new contexts and ridiculed either by comic-ironic parody or by confrontation with the historical reality of the fourteenth century. Indeed the burden of topical allusion weighs so heavily that Arthur appears almost as a contemporary fourteenth century king. Even those episodes which up to the present have been seen as pure romance, e.g. the Priamus episode (2501-27151, achieve, by virtue ofthe poet's subtle use of irony and inversion of traditional motifs. the very opposite effect. Romance is negated and even reduced to absurdity. O f overall importance is the poet's attitude towards war. 'Two souls dwell in his breast. for he is simultaneously a patriot and an opponent of war - a t times holding positions that would nowadays be called
A Reassessmenf ofthe Alliterative Morte Arthure
17
pacifist. This dichotomy is responsible for the ambivalence of the poem in matters Arthurian. T h e king is at one and the same time the greatest ruler that has ever Iived on earth and yet a doomed soul.
T h e overall message of the poem can only be seen against the background of Arthurian tradition as a whole. From the very beginning the figure of King Arthur had strong political implications. This was already true of Geoffrey of hilonmouth's Historia Regum Britannia. which saw King Arthur as an incarnation of the idea of the Empire.' Most English kings after the conquest have regarded themselves as lawful heirs and successors of King Arthur. An entire series of kings had no objections against being styled as Arturns rediuiuus. Henry 111 led his troops under the Arthurian banner of the dragon.' Edward I was an 'Arthurian enthusiast' and held jousts and tournaments which he called 'Table Rounds'.' T h e same is true of Edward 111. the founder of the O r d e r of the Garter: [he] toke pleasure to newe reedefy the Castell o f Wyndsore, the whiche was begonne by kyng Arthure; and thpr firste beganne the Table Rounde, wherby sprange the fame of so many noble knightes throughout all the w~rlde.~ John Lydgate called Henry V 'of knyhthode Lodesterre. . . . Able to stond among the worthy nyne', which recalls King Arthur as the most famous of the wort hie^.^ Particularly the Tudor and Stuart kings were connected with King Arthur. Henry VII called his first-born son Arthur. I n the seventeenth century the designation 'Arthurian' was practically synonymous with ' r o y a l i ~ t ' . 'Thus ~ Arthurian literature always had a political cast, whatever the period. It follows that during the fourteenth century and after, the audience of the A M A would have expected topical allusions to the reigning English monarch. T h u s it also seems quite likely that Arthurian poets, and among them almost certainly the author of the A M A . used their work as a vehicle for political instruction, as a 'mirror for magistrates' or Furstenspiegel. This should not tempt us to read the A M A as a roman 2 cEq% or to draw a oneto-one relationship between specific historical personalities and major figures in the poem. T h e poem is a literary work which illustrates parallels and analogies to historical persons and events by means of an imaginative story (parable). T h e events of the Hundred Years War obviously form the background of the poem, but fourteenth century disillusionment with royal war and its consequences has been transferred to a faraway and fictitious world usually having romantic associations, and therefore
I8 Karl Heine Goller in co-operation with R. GleiJher and M . Mennicken well suited to make the miseries of the age stand out in relief. Even as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century, chronicIers regarded the idea of a society based on chivalry as no more than a fiction. The ideaIs of the poets and the moralists became more and more remote from reality, and, conversely, the code of chivalry was increasingly reduced to a mere alibi -to a literary bauble and a socia1 game. Thus in 1344 King Edward 111 vowed to found an Order of knights based on the code of honour of King Arthur and his Round Table, although. only two years earlier, French propaganda had accused him of raping the Countess of Salisbury in a most uncourteous fashion." In various passages historical persons and events are reflected in a recognisable way. Thus the author mentions that Arthur holds a large council before his decision to wage war, just as English kings were accustomed to do. The response of Arthur's councillors in this matter is described in a way similar to political discussions in England preceding the Hundred Years CZ'ar, where the idea of war was greeted enthusiasti~ally.'~ The mention of the Commons (274) is of particular note in this connection. Arthur refuses to recognise Lucius' demand for tribute because the alleged rights of this Roman Emperor cannot be based on treaties with English kings: on the contrary, they have been granted the Romans by the 'comons': They 'couerd it of comons, as cronicles teHes.' (274) The word comons, in this context, refers to the representatives of the shires and the boroughs. Thus English parliamentary history is reflected here. During the fourteenth century the commons gained more and more power over king and nobles in the approval of tax levies not, of course, without resistance on the part of the king.13 This is also evident in King Arthur's incriminating remark on the commons, which must be seen as a reflex of the tensions between the king and nobility on the one hand and the commons on the other. Further details support the conclusion that the poet used concrete events of the fourteenth century to give the work a contemporary veneer. Thus he states that Arthur's ceremonial sword Clarent was kept in iYaIlingford Castle. a place which is not mentioned anywhere else in Arthurian literature. There may be no traditional connection of Arthur (or Guinevere) with Wallingford, but there certainly is one with the royal family, since it belonged to the Black Prince from 1337 onwards. Various ladies of the royal house were quartered in Wallingford Castle during the fourteenth century, as for instance Edward 111's mother Isabella; the wife of the Black Prince, Joan of Kent; and Richard 11's second wife, Isabella of France.I4 It is therefore not surprising that Guinevere, King Arthur's wife, is connected with Wallingford in the poem. Arthur's wardrobe was located there, and it was in this castle that Guinevere took unlawful possession of Arthur's sword Clarent
A Reassesment of the Alliterative Morte Arthure
19
a n d passed it to Mordred. A similar connection to historical events can be seen in the cryptic formulation of the poet that the Duchess of Brittany who had been abducted by the giant of Mont St Michel is a relative of Arthur's wife ('thy wyfes cosyn', 864). Geoffrey and Wace refer to the giant's having ravished Helen. the niece of Arthur's kinsman. Howel. Layamon describes the abducted lady as the daughter of Howel, a nobleman of Brittany. It is highly probable that the poet of the AMA is alluding to the Duchess of Brittany and that the contemporary audience would have interpreted his words as an allusion. She is referred to as the king's 'wyfes cosvn' and the poet emphasises this relationship by the special tag, 'knowe it if be iykez.' (864). Neilson tried to establish a relationship between Philippa of Hainault, Edward 111's wife, andJean de Montfort, one of the claimants to the Duchy of Brittany, but he had to admit that 'Pedigrees are troublesome things. and I do not profess them."' Xeilson overlooked the fact that there were two claimants to the Duchy in the fourteenth century. T h e problem of succession in Brittany was a matter of bitter dispute which marked the beginning of the wars between France and England. In the eyes of the French. Jeanne de PenthiPvre was the true Duchess of Brittany and she was actually related to Philippa by her marriage to Charles de Blois.16 Edward 111 supported Jean d e Montfort, while Philip, king of France, went to the aid ofJeanne d e Penthievre. T h e poet's explicit reference to the Duchess of Britanny a s a relative of Arthur" wife is probably an indication that he intended to allude to Edward 111's involvement in Brittany. T h e detailed description of warfare in the AMA is a significant feature with a close connection to the historical background of the period. Contemporary methods of waging war are recognisable in i great number of passages. Thus, for instance, Arthur's tactics in the battle of Sessoyne have been viewed as parallels to the commands and the strategy of Edward 111 a t the battle of Cricy, for instance the development of bowmen, which in the period was both revolutionary and decisive for the outcome of a battle. Some passages have given rise to speculation that Arthur had his knights dismount, as Edward had done a t the battle of Cricy. Similarities have also been seen in the battlearray of Arthur's troops. T h e great sea battle at the end of the poem has been compared to the sea battle of FVinchelsea, a t which Edward conquered a Spanish fleet. The author of the AMA says quite unexpectedly that Spaniards ('Spanyolis', 3700) went overboard, when he should have spoken of the Danes who were Mordred's mariners (3610, 3694). These, in turn. have been associated with the Danish plunderers who ravaged the English coast during the Hundred Years bVar.I7 T h e poet of the AMA gives evidence of his knowledge of the martial laws of his time. T h e conditions under which the Roman ambassadors
20 Karl Heinr GdZer in co-operation with R. Glegner and M . Mennicken are guaranteed their safety and granted free passage are much the same as those given to historical embassies during the fourteenth c e n t ~ r y . ' ~ When Arthur promises the Duchess of Lorraine a dowry for herself and her children from the revenues of the estates of her husband, who himself will have to remain a prisoner until the end of his Iife, he is implementing a common pi-actice of the time (308&9).19 This is very similar to the situation which arose after Edward 111 had given his daughter away in marriage to Enguerrand de Coucy in return for his promise of absolute loyalty. As a dowry the couple were given a number of estates in England. When Coucy went over to the French king in 1379, Isabella was given his English estates to provide for her and her The personal names of the figures also remind the reader of historical personages. Among the companions of Gawain are men called Montagu ('Mownttagus', 3773). This family played a dominant r6le during the reigns of all three Edwards. W;illiam Montagu, second earl of Salisbury, fought at the battles of Crecy and Poitiers and was one of the original Knights of the Garter." In conclusion it can be said that there is a close relationship between historical persons and events and their reflection in the poem. In addition to these direct allusions to figures and events, which were more or less undisguised and thus easily recognisable to a contemporary audience, there are indirect allusions and references which are communicated by means of irony and other literary devices, some of them very sophisticated and subtle. Since appreciation of such passages is onIy possible in the light of the historical background of the time, modern readers are no longer in a position to recognise the significance of all the veiled or ironic allusions made by the poet. An obvious example of this kind of irony occurs when Arthur receives the senators from Rome and a banquet is prepared for them which Arthur claims is but 'feble' fare (226). From the exceedingly detailed description of the actual meal served, it is obvious that Arthur's understatement is intentional. The senator says that Arthur is the 'lordlyeste lede pat euer I one lukyde' ( 138).Through the long list of dishes served at the feast the poet highlights Arthur's weakness for luxury and pomp, a fact ofparticular significance in the light ofcontemporary prohibitions. Edward 111 had passed a law limiting the number of courses with the object of reducing expenditure on rich food: 'no man, of what estate or condition soever he be, shall cause himself to be served in his house or elsewhere, at dinner, meal, or supper, or at any other time, with more than two courses, and each mess of two sorts of victuals at the utmost, be it of flesh or fish, with the common sorts of pottage, without sauce or other sort of victuals . . .'." In the light of this Statute, the king's banquet was highly immoderate and even illegal, an allusion which a contemporary audience would most certainly have understood. Almost
A Reassessment of the Alliterative Morte Arthure
21
the same meal is put on the Waster's table in H$nnere and was tour^. so that there can be little doubt that the king, be it Arthur or Edward, was considered a glutton and a waster par excellence. T h e poet's descriptions of the king's rich dress are in all likelihood a form of covert irony intended to reveal his disapproval of the sumptious fashions of the time. Although King Edward himself had passed one law in 1336 and a second one in 1363 relating to 'the outrageous and excessive apparel of divers people against their estate and degree to the qreat destruction and impoverishment of all the land'. he failed to moderate his own dress.23 T h e Monk of Mafmesbury criticised this extravagant fashion in his Chronicle, denouncing i t as more fit for women than men.24 After Arthur's dream of the Wheel of Fortune, there is a detailed description of his marvellous clothes. The poet admires them only on a superficial level. After Arthur's fall from the Wheel. when he has been told to repent. they appear in a negative light in comparison with those af the pilgrim, Cradoke, who scathingly comments to Arthur. whom he does not recognise: whoever you think you are. for all your rich clothes and finery, you cannot stop me from going on my pilgrimage to Rome. despite the war that is going on (cf. 3492-6). A strange comparison between war and pilgrimage runs in the form of a n undercurrent through the whole work. At the beginning of the poem, Arthur's knights all swear by the vernicle, the kerchief of St Veronica, that they will wage war in Italy and kill Lucius. Obviously there is a connection between Italy and St Veronica's veil because it was displayed in St Peter's at Rome. At the same time the vernicle was the symbol of those who made the pilgrimage to Rome." The overt irony of the vernicle motif lies in the fact that Arthur's knights all swear a'sacred oath, as if they were going on a pilgrimage, but their true intent is slaughter. I n the light of Cradoke's later mention of a pilgrimage to Rome despite war, and in view of the irony of the sham-pilgrimage in the episode of Mont St Michel, topical allusions seem highly probable. e.g. to the exposition of Veronica's veil in 1350, or to the fact that King Edward I11 forbade his subjects to go to Rome for theJubilee because of the war.26
I n spite of what has been said by Benson concerning the relationship of romance and reality in the fifteenth century, it is safe to say that the idea of warfare based on chivalric laws was recognised as outdated by the fourteenth ~ e n t u r y . 'War ~ had developed its own laws which were no longer compatible with the lofty sentiments of idealistic dreamer-poets.
22 Karl Hein2 Giiller in co-operation with R. GLeiJner and M. Mennicken T h e author of the AMA is certainly not one ofthem as becomes evident In his conscious departure from the traditional motifs, stylistic devices and stereotypes of classical and post-classical Arthurian romance, whenever these stand in the way of his intention to expose and even explode the myths of romance. He makes use of older literary traditions, e.q. the chansorl de geste, in which he apparently sensed the presence o t 8 kindred spirit.28Art outward s i , p of this is his use of the alliterative long line. which differs from that found in other Arthurian works of the alliterative revival. Even the criteria of language, e.g. vocabulary, metre, and stylistic devices. seem intended to convey a certain message. This is true even if the aIliterative mode was not chosen to express resentment against the court of London and its French bias, as has been suggested. The alliterative long line is a n unsriitable vehicle for the gentler tone of the typical romance. For the same reasons the author has abandoned the auenture structure which is an essential feature of other Arthurian prose and verse romances. Only two episodes of this kind remain. and they must be completely redefined, namely Arthur's battle with the Giant of hlont St Michel (840-1 221 ) and the Priamus episode (2501-27 15). T h e battle of Arthur with the giant of hfont St Michel has been called a 'purely romantic element in the story'.z9 It is certainly the poet's major expansion of the episode as recounted by Geoffrey. FYace and Layamon a n d is a n entertaining mock auenture which serves something of the purpose of the inversion or even parody of a knightly combat. There is the traditional setting, a locus amoenus, Arthur's arming, and the romance situation of a damsel in distress to be rescued. But neither the damsel, nor the giant are true to orthodox romance. The giant is a preposterousIy grotesque monster whose body is a weird conglomeration of parts drawn from twelve different animals. ranging from a boar to a badger. Obscenity was taboo in medieval courtly literature, yet the poet describes the giant's unshapely loins and does not omit the fact that he was not wearing breeches. reminding us of the devits in medieval mystery plays. In the fight Arthur severs this 'myx's' (cf. 989) genitals with his sword. After a rough-and-tumble wrestling match which is very far removed from chivalric battle. he eventually succeeds in subduing his opponent. Arthur does not even strike the final and fatal blow himself. Instead he asks Bedever to stab the giant to the heart. T h e damsel is no less a personage than the Duchess ofBrittany herself whom the giant abducted while she was out riding near Rennes (853). T h e duchess in the poem is not rescued in true Arthurian spirit, and the poet spares us no details when he explains that the giant 'slewe hir vnslely a n d slitt hir to be nauvll'. (979). T h e battle with the giant of Mont St Michel is certainly a very twisted 'romantic element in the story'. Arthur's humour and irony, the emphasis on bawdy and grotesqueness, all this turns the episode into a burlesque auenture.
A Reassessment oJthe Alliterative Morte Arthure
23
As far a s the Priamus episode is concerned, the poet has set it between two grim battles, and the result is what may be called 'structural irony.'30 His purpose is obvious. He wants to highlight the frivolity and triviality of knightly combat in order to use it as a foil for the brutality of' war. I n the episode, even the wound that Gawain inflicts upon Priamus is highly fantastic and bears no comparison with those of the battlefield. Gawain splits the knight's shield in two and wounds him so seriously that his liver is exposed to the sunlight (2560-1). Cawain. on the other hand, has no drop of blood left in his veins (2697). \..\'hen Gawain and Priamus clash swords, flames flash from their weapons and their helmets. Priamus' and Gawain's wounds are treated with the magic water of Paradise which Priamus carries with him in a golden phial and the knight is as fit as a fish ('fische-halle', 2709) after four hours. By bringing romantic fiction into a strongly realistic context. the author is confronting the audience with the idea that chivalricjousting was nothing more than a ridiculous game. Finlayson seems to have had something similar in mind when he spoke of an implied 'detrimental judgement on this particular form of chivalric action.'" By inserting this romantic aventure. the poet relativises the whole concept of romance. setting it in a world of reality. Romance as a literary genre is ironised by its use as a foil juxtaposed to hard facts. But not only structural irony is instrumental in debunking- the cliches of romance; the poet's descriptional mannerisms also sewe purposes which differ greatly from those of the usual portrayal of knightly combat. T h e way which the poet chose to describe the actual fighting on the battlefield evokes disgust in the reader today. The hideous details have little to d o with knightly courtoisie. \Var historians have pointed out that battle strategy had basically changed in the fourteenth centurt. and that chivalric singIe combat had been replaced by mass battle in which the old norms of conduct barely played a part. Revolting and disgusting injuries to the human body are described in detail. IVhen Sir Floridas kills Feraunt's kinsman, a mixture of entrails and excrement falls at the horse's feet (2780-3). T h e liver and lungs of a foe remain on the lance when it is pulled out of his body (2168). The ground is red and slippery with the blood of the dead. The dying lie torn open, while others writhe in agony on their horses (2143-7). It is notable that the author seems to have been mildly obsessed with wounds 'below the belt'. As has already been noted, Arthur enrages the Giant of Mont St Michel by slicing his genitals off. kCl'hen he kills the Viscount of Valence, the place of injury is described by using the pubic region as a point of orientation. even though it seems superfluous to d o so: T h e spear penetrates the short ribs one span above the genitals (2060-1). In view of this little idiosyncrasy of the poet's, mention of a knight named 'Ienitall' ( 2 1 12) need not necessarily be regarded as a slip of the pen in want of emendation. hlany editors have proposed
24 Karl Heinz GiiEler in co-operation with R. Glnyner and M . Mennicken corrections, and Krishna changes 'Ienitall' to 'Ionathal'. Most likely 'IenitaH' was a highly telling name, or a Freudian slip on the part of either the author, or the scribe. The terrible descriptions of death are not to be found in the sources or forerunners of the AMA. although Old Xorse Tales, French chansons de geste and English chronicles (e.g. Layamon's Brut) are not exactly squeamish when describing combat and bloodshed. The purpose of such descriptions in the AMA seems evident. Obviouslv they enhance the heroism of Arthur's men. The greater the opponent, the worse a death he deserves. Revenge mobifises the knights' last atom of strength. In literature as on the battlefield, the death of a foe was a source of pleasure for a fourteenth-century knight. In his Chronicle, Geoffrey le Baker of Swinbroke describes how the Black Prince, then a sixteen-year old boy, w-on his first honours at Cricy, sewing as an example of chivalry to his comrades by brutally killing the enemy.32 The audience is, however. confronted not only with the heroism of Arthur's men, but also with their tragic death. Lines 2146-52 are a lament for all those killed in war: Fair faces are disfigured, and bloodstained dying men lie sprawling on the ground; others, mortally wounded, are carried off by their galloping mounts. Gawain, 'the gude man of armes' (3858). is killed by Mordred, who stabs a knife into his brain (385fi-7). Sir Lionel's skull is split open, the wound is as large as the breadth of a hand (2229). Sir Kay is killed from behind by a cowardly knight who pierces his flanks with a spear. breaking open his bowels and spilling his en trails (217 1-43). O n e further feature which, among others, is responsible for the antiromantic character of the AMA is the poet's peculiar brand of humour which at times approaches a form similar to what we now call black humour. This term is applied to a technique in which 'grotesque or horrifying elements are sharply juxtaposed with humorous or farcical a literary feature that is by no means a modern phenomenon. As B. J. Friedman put it: 'I have a hunch Black Humor has probably always been around, always will."' According to Mathew Winston, who draws a line between the absurd and grotesque shades of the technique, the grotesque form of black humour is 'obsessed with the human body. with the ways in which it can be distorted, separated into its component parts, mutilated, and abused.'35 It is this very obsession with the human body and the ways it can be mutilated and distorted which forms one of the characteristics of the poet's narrative. A farcical element is introduced when the mutilation is ludicrously improbable. When Arthur kills the E
A Reassessrnmt of the Alliterative Morte Arthure
25
to the ground, while his horse gallops away with the lower half of his body. This is foilowed by the ironical. even farcical comment of the narrator: 'Of bat hurte, alls I hope, heles he neuer' (2204-9). Several of the so-called tags contain snide comments by the narrator, which relativise the gruesome descriptions. It is certainly ridiculous to say that a knight 'rode no more' after a spear has pierced his heart and he has fallen dead to the ground (2792-5). Another knight is described as speechless (2063) after a spear has pierced him, and splent and spleen stick to the spear (2061). Lucius is injured by a lance piercing his paunch. His stomach is decorated with the pennant of the lance, while the tip of the weapon juts out half a foot beyond his back (207340),and yet he is not dead. One hundred and fifty lines later Lucius reappears, obviously still alive, with the lance presumably still through him (2220). When Arthur kills the giant Golapas. he first cuts him clean in two at the knees, and there is a grotesque picture of his upper half toppling down and a pair of legs standing on their own (2133-9). This is the same kind of description as that used by HelIer in Catch-22 when Kid Sampson is sliced in two by the propeller of a plane: '. . . and then there were just Kid Sampson's two pale, skinny legs, still joined by strings somehow at the bloody truncated hips, standing stock-still on the raft for what seemed a fuH minute or two before they toppled over backward into the water finally with a faint, echoing splash and turned completely upside down so that only the grotesque toes and the plaster-white soles of Kid Sampson's feet remained in view.'36 Arthur calls out to Golapas in a grimly ironic tone that he'll make him even more handsome, and with that he cuts the giant's head off his torso-a macabre jest. The poet's comment is an ironic use of a proverb 'Thus he settez on seuen with his sekyre knyghttez' (2131); to 'set on seven' is an allusion to the creation of the world in seven days, and the phrase was transferred to men doing wonders and rnira~les.~' T o compare slaughter with God's creation stops just short of blasphemy. Arthur himself has a weird, macabre sense of humour. After his victory against Lucius, he has the bodies of the emperor and of sixty senators and other knights embalmed and wrapped in silk and then in lead to preserve them. The coffins are strapped on camels and other mounts; the emperor's coffin is put on an elephant, a macabre bow to his bigher rank. The king then calls an assembly saying to the captives 'Here are the chests with the taxes you wanted. This is the only tribute Rome will get from me' (2341-7). Arthur's word seems a grim joke, but one in keeping with the times. Froissart describes a similar form of cynicism in his Chronicle: 'Than the prince sayd to two of his squyers and to thre archers, Sirs, take the body of this knyght on a targe and bere him to Poycters, and present him fro me to the cardynall of Pyergourt, and say howe I salute hym by that token.'3u
26 Karl Hein2 Gd;ller in co-operation with R. Glegner and M . Mennicken
In the poem, Cradoke, the pilgrim. says he is going to Rome to get his pardon from the Pope, war or no war, and that he will probably come across Arthur who is waging war there, that 'noble' Lord with his 'awfull' knights (cf. 3493-3502). O n the surface he utters admiring words for his king, but there is a second layer of meaning in which he criticises him for waging war, and thus stopping pilgrims from going to Rome. A contemporary audience would have appreciated the allusion to war versus pilgrimage. Finlayson talked of Arthur's 'just' war turning into a n 'unjust' one.39There can be no doubt that the poet is saying that every war is unjust. It is not only the knights on the battlefield who lose their lives, but innocent people who suffer as a result. For the civilian population. pIundering and pillaging are martyrdom. For the heroic aggressor, war is glory. In his Tree of Battles (1387). Honor6 Bonet utters his discomfort and displeasure a t the suffering of the people: 'My heart is full of grief to see and hear of the great martyrdom that they inflict without pity o r mercy on the poor labourers and others who are incapable of ill in word o r thought; who toil for men of all estates; from whom Pope, kings, and all the lords in the world receive, under God, what they eat and drink and what they wear. And no man is concerned for them . . There was a t least one who cared: the author of the AMA, who says that it is the 'comouns of be countr6, cler
A Reassessment of the Alliterative Morte Arthure
27
an obvious indication of his criticism of the wastefulness of war. It is Arthur who causes misery: 'wandrethe he wroghte' (3157) and he 'turrnentez be pople' (3 153). Lines 3032-43 are similar to a description of a cheuauchie in Edward's reign where villages were pillaged and burnt and everything devastated. The poet exclaims: 'The pyne ofbe pople was pet6 for to here' (3043).After this brutal assault, the common people are seen streaming out of the town into the woods, helpless refugees clutching their goods and chattels (3068-71). In Metz, minsters, hospitals, churches and chapels are struck down and razed to the ground, and of course, houses and inns as well ( 3 0 3 8 4 2 ) . When the city of Como is besieged, the poet mentions poor people and herdsmen who are leading the swine to pasture (3120-1). Arthur's men slay everyone in their path (3126). Eventually, all upper Italy is laid waste. Here, as in many other countries, Arthur 'has schedde myche blode and schalkes distroyede, Sakeles. in cirquvtrie' (3398-9). T h e AMA poet was not alone in his condemnation of war. Gower, FVvcliff, Brinton, Langland, Chaucer and Hoccleve are some of the names associated with the attack on war in the second half of the fourteenth c e n t u ~ y . ~ Gower ' bitterly criticised the aristocrats for their greed and covetousness: 'It is nothing to you if the downtrodden people bewail their sufferings, provided that the general misfortune brings in money to The discussion was by no means restricted to court circles in London. The AMA, among other works, is proof of the fact that wider circles in England had become involved in the concern about the evils of war. Philosophers and theologians had fully recognised the devastating consequences of war. They were aware of the misery it inflicted on the common people. And yet they were still convinced that war was unavoidable because of man's inherent imperfection. For this reason it was not war itself that was called into question, but the justness or unjustness of individual conflicts. In numerous publications legal scholars attempted to codify the laws of war, and in so doing achieved such widespread recognition in Europe that their work can be regarded as the beginning of international martial law.43 N'ycliffites, however, adopted a progressively more radical position in regard to the question of war.44Several of Wycliff s pupils and foliowers voiced the opinion that war was sinful, whatever the reason behind it. Thus they concluded that war was unjustifiable - both from the secular and from the spiritual point of view. This revolutionary doctrine was made public in the famous Twelve Conclusions, which were nailed on the doors of Westminster Hall and St Paul's while Parliament was in session (1395). The most important points were as follows: Lpe tende conclusiun is, bat manslaute be batavle or pretense lawe of rythwysnesse for temporal cause or spirituel with outen special reuelaciun is expres contrarious to be newe testament, qwiche is a lawe of grace
28 Karl Heinz GCller in co-operation with R. GleiJner and M. Mennicken and ful of mercy. [. . .] Rut jx lawe of mercy, bat is newe testament, forbad a1 mannisslaute: in euangeliu dictum est antiquzf, Nun occides [in the gospel it was said to them ofold time, Thou shalt not kill; cf. Matt. 5, 121. And [. . .] knythtis, bat rennen to hethnesse to geten hem a name in sleinge of men, geten miche maugre [displeasure]ofbe king of pes; for be mekenesse and suffraunce aure beleuve was multiplied, and fvthteres and mansleeris I hesu Cryst hatith and manasi t. Qui gladiu percutit. gladio peribit [all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword; cf. Matt. 26. 52].45 Such partial statements, which from the point of view of the twentieth century would be styled pacifist, were regarded as a shocking provocation. Together with other Lollard tenets, they were condemned as heretic by the Pope and the English bishops. It is probable that the author of the AMA was familiar with such ideas, although he was not a Lollard himself. From the very beginning of his poem he is critical of war and a11 things pertaining to it. In this respect he is unorthodox for his time. The poet exemplifies this message through the figures of Arthur and Gawain. Both live by the sword and die by the sword, and thus fulfil the Biblical passage quoted in the Xth Conclusion: 'They that take the sword shall perish with the sword.' At the same time, the fate of King Arthur is a warning example for the medieval concept of contrapasso: 'per que quis peccat, per idem punitur et ipse.' ('Wherewith one sins, therewith shall he be p~nished.')~" T h e AMA must be viewed as a kind of Furstempiegel, one not nkcessarily directed towards a historically identifiable ruler. It is a typological admonishment ta every monarch involved in war. Arthur, in his pride and arrogance, has raised the banner of the dragon, meaning war, and has shed the blood of the innocent. The philosopher tells him: 'Thow has schedde myche blode and schalkes distroyede, Sakeles, in cirquytrie.' (3398-9). It is one of the unsolved problems of this puzzling work, that the criticism levelled against un-just wars does not diminish the poet's enthusiasm for the description of war. The subject fascinated him, not onIy because he was more than familiar with the rich tradition of English heroic poetry. And yet a11 these heroic and war-like deeds are, in his opinion, proof of human iniquity and vainglory. Just as St Augustine admired the achievements of the great pagan philosophers, so, too, the poet of the AMA admired the war-like deeds of Arthur and his knights. Nevertheless he aIso views them as being 'awke' (13), and therefore praeter viam and In conclusion we can say that the poet has used the conventions of romance, and the traditional personages and themes to present the problems of his own age. The AMA is a kind ofdeath knell, a lament on the ideal of knightly ethos which is unmasked as a fiction incompatible with the reality of war and with Christian ethics. But King Arthur will not rise again in this world, for war has feHed him like any other mortal.
A Remessmat of the Alliterative Morte Arthure
29
T h e subject of the entire poem is the Death of Arthur, and as such it is also entitled Morte Arthure in two places: at the beginning and end of the manuscript. Much like Henry 11, the poet evidently wanted to see Arthur safely in his grave, and therewith refute the myth of Arthur's second coming.48 But even Chretien de Troves had voiced the premonition that Arthur's fame would last forever: 'I agree with the opinion of the Bretons that his name will live on for evermore.'49 I n a very similar way the poet has the philosopher say to King Arthur: 'This saI1 in romance be redde with eya11 knyghttes, Rekkenede and renownde with ryotous kynges, And demyd on Domesdaye. for dedis of armes. doughtyeste pat euer was duellande in erthe; For So many clerkis and kynges sail karpe of goure dedis. And kepe goure conquestez in cronycle for euer.' (3440-5) This statement stands unreconciled beside the vanitas-vanitaturn topos of the poem. Therefore it is by no means incomprehensible, or even illogical, that the scribe affixed the following inscription to the manuscript: Hic jacet Arthurus. rex qondam rexqw futurus.
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature
MAUREEN FRIES
Conventionally, Arthurian literature has been divided into two main streams, which are usually called the chronicle and romance traditions. But even the earliest chronicle was preceded by much traditional material -myth and folklore -not confined, as R. S. Loomis thought, to Celtic sources alone but international in provenance.' This early oral conception of Arthur survives, unfortunately, only in written records which are considerably later than the earliest chronicles.' Scholars, for example, date the important Welsh poet Aneirin's battle poem, The Gododdin, from the late sixth century, but it survives only in a much later manuscript, of the thirteenth century. Similarly, the Black Book of Carmarthen, containing four obviously early mentions of Arthur, dates in written form only from about 1200; like The Gododdin, it is therefore later even than the three major Arthurian chroniclers, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Y a c e and Layamon. The lateness of this material, at least in written form, has led Richard Barber to argue persuasively that there was no historical Arthur, as has been claimed by a number of Arthurians (all of whom could be divided into those who believe -as the late translator of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Lewis Thorpe, once put it -and those who do not); rather, Barber sees Arthur as 'a late intruder' into ready-made sour~es.~ What do these sources tell us about Arthur? The earliest information is fragmentary and often contradictory. Battle poems like The Gododdin use him as a standard against which to measure other, lesser men: thus, of a Welsh warrior it is said that 'he glutted black ravens . . . though he .~ is called an exalted prisoner in the Black Book was not A r t h ~ r ' Arthur of Carmarthen which in its 'Stanzas on the Graves' section refers also to the difficulty of finding out about his grave.' Fuller references supply narrative detaiIs. The Black Book's amusing and sometimes puzzling dialogue with Arthur's porter, Glewlwyd, who refuses to let his lord enter, elicits from him a recital of his own (and Kay's) exploits -some of which are known elsewhere, as in 'Culhwch and Olwen', and some of which are not anywhere else extant. Such exploits are dramatised rather than recited in the two Welsh works 'Culhwch and Olwen' and 'Spoils of Annwfn'. In the former, Arthur helps his young cousin win a bride, and his hunt for a boar is the central episode of the poem; in the latter, he seeks a magic cauldron from the Celtic hell. All of these late survivals
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature
31
of what seems to have been a thriving tradition of oral Arthurian literature present us with the heroic if occasionallv flawed figure who is to emerge in Geoffrey of h.lonmouth's incarnation of the regnum idea and eventualIy in the AMA. From similar sources we get a glimpse of the elementary plot from which Geoffrey developed his chronicle. The IVelsh Triads, thought to have been first written down in the ninth century but only preserved from the twelfth or later, give us this ambiguous tale in their linked lists of threes. Barber describes the confusion of the story thus: 'Either because of Medrawd's assauIt on Gwenhwvfar, or because of a quarrel between Gwenhwyfach [Gwenhwyfar's sister] and Gwenhwyfar, Arthur fought Medrawd at Camlann with apparently disastrous result^.'^ We have the plot even more clearly from other sources: for instance, it constitutes an episode in the life of St Gildas by way of illustrating the power of the saint's spirituality. Arthur has attacked Glastonbury to get Guinevere back from Melvas of the Summer country, but cannot achieve his goal; he therefore must accept the saint's aid to make peace and effect his queen's return. Other media also exhibit a similar interest in the tale, notably the archivolt of the Cathedral of Modena, in which a woman (Winlogee) is held captive by a man, Mardoc, in a fortress besieged by Artus and three of his knights: Isdernus, Galvaginus and Che.' Thus to the idea of Arthur as a pre-eminent warrior is added the abduction of his queen by a hostile figure, a schema which was to persist into the fourteenth century and to be incorporated into the AMA. But not aI1 early mentions of Arthur are admiring, as is evident from his appearance in the lives of the Welsh saints, collected 1220-30; as with the Gildas episode, Arthur's secular power is ineffective until he is finally forced to turn to the saint for aid. Similar victories appear for the saints, and not the hero, in his encounters with St Cadoc and St Padarn. Only in the earliest of these lives, that of St Columba, is there no pattern of secular presumption rebuked by holy authority -and even St Columba predicts Arthur will die in battle. This negative conception of a powerless secular hero carries over, through whatever channels, into the romances of Chr6tien de Troyes, the French Prose Vulgate Cycle, and ultimately the alliterative poem's concluding phase. In spite of saint's life, triad, folktale and battle poem, Arthur's name cannot be found in the earliest chronicles, for instance, in Gildas' De excidio et conquestti Britanniae. Gildas' hero is Ambrosius Aurelianus, the last of the Roman survivors of the Saxon devastations, who leads the remnants of the Britons. Mount Badon is also mentioned as the last and one of the greatest victories, but its hero is not specified.' Bede, toa, in his Histoty of the English Church and Ptople, copying the account of Gildas mostly word for word, mentions Ambrosius and Mount Badon, but not Arthur. Only with Nennius does the figure of Arthur begin to be
32
Maureen Fries
assimilated into the growing corpus of national British myth. Nennius's Historia Britonum expands greatly upon the bare outline suggested by Bede and Gildas. Detailing events of the Saxon invasion and British response more fully than any previous chronicler, he makes several significant mentions of Arthur as a prominent warrior in the patriotic battle. Here for the first time Arthur is called dux bellomm, and his campaign is expanded to twelve battles. Here, too, he is a Christian leader, no longer ignoring holy things but, in the eighth battle, bearing the Virgin's image on his shoulders; and in his single slaughter of nine hundred and sixty enemies at Mount Badon he exhibits the same superhuman prowess as in the b'elsh tales. Additionally, in the Mirabilia attached to the Historia, Arthur's dog's footprint and the tomb under which lies the son he killed are mentioned. Nennius therefore adumbrates powerful themes which will reappear in Geoffrey of Monmouth and eventually in the AMA, although in an ambivalent way: the taIent for leadership, the championship of Christianity, the killing of a closely related male. These themes are reiterated in slightly different form in the Annales Cambriae, a tenth-century MS found in B.L.Har1. 3859 which has the best Nennius text. Although the latter's Historia is undoubtedly earlier, its manuscript version is late, like other material heretofore considered, probably around 900. The entry for the year 516 states that at the Battle of Radon, Arthur carried the Cross for three days and nights; and under 537 we read that Arthur and Medraut feIl at the battle of Camlann.' T h e carrying of the Cross bears an obvious Christian significance, and the second entry gives a name hitherto unknown to Arthurian Iiterature -and not yet specifically inimical to Arthur, or even related to him." Such a relationship and enmity are developed in the most important of all Arthurian chronicles -without which the AMA might never have been written - Geoffrey of ,Monmouth's Historia regum Bntanniae. " Geoffrey's genius emerges most clearly in his reworking of traditional and pseudo-historical material into a remarkably coherent whole. Beginning with Brutus and ending with Cadwallader as Nennius had done, he makes the story of Arthur, which occupies about one-fifth of his whole Historia, its spiritual centre. Since his structure was to supply the basic framework for the AMA, a brief summary folIows, After Arthur's mysterious conception, birth, hidden childhood, and difficult accession to the throne, he conquers his domestic enemies, the Picts, Scots, Saxons and others; kills Frollo, Roman viceroy of France; and with great difficulty subdues that country. O n his return to Caerleon, after five years of peace, he is recrowned, but is then challenged bv the Roman emperor Lucius, who says he has infringed upon Roman territory." At this crisis in his career, Arthur assigns the defence of Britain to his nephew, Mordred, and his queen, Guinevere. First killing the giant of
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature
33
Mont St Michel, he engages and defeats the army of the Roman emperor, Lucius, who is killed in battle. He plans a march upon Rome itself, when he hears that Mordred has usurped his crown and his queen. Returning home, he defeats Mordred and all of his conjoined domestic enemies, and then - mortally wounded - is carried to Avalon to have his wounds tended.13 This account of Arthur spawned a chain of Arthurian chronicles, extending into the sixteenth century, of which it is necessary here to mention only two, Wace's Geste des Bretons, called familiarly the Brut, as is Layamon's poem.14 The former dates from 1/55, the latter from around the end of the twelfth century. Brace's work marks the beginning of a long French interest in Arthurian material, and Layamon's is the first Arthurian poem in Middle English. While Geoffrey had made every attempt to sustain chronicle veracity, these two vernacular writers used an ever more marked freedom in the elaboration ofdetail, although they did not depart from the plot laid out by their learned predecessor. Partially as a result of this, Wace is twice as long as Geoffrey, and Layamon twice as long as Wace. Working from hints in Geoffrey, Wace added contemporary interest through details connected with chivalry and courtly love.'5 Gawain praises its uses to Arthur in his lively debate with Cador over the Roman challenge: the love of ladies is better than war for encouraging valour in young men, he says. And Mordred, too, has indulged a courtly passion for Guinevere before he is left as Arthur's deputy. Neither of these elements was to be retained by the AMA author, nor was Wace's description of Arthur's end as doubtful, nor Wace's repression of Arthur's cruelty to enemies. More important, perhaps, is Wace's mention of the Round Table, the first written reference to it, although he says the Bretons tell of it; he stresses its purpose, to end quarrels of precedence, as we11 as the bravery of its knights. This hint is taken over by Layamon, who develops it into an elaborate tale. A fight over precedence follows, which Arthur ends by killing the men involved and cutting off the noses of their kinswomen so that they will have no progeny. Arthur is also cruel and dictatorial to his most intimate warriors, as at the council of war and elsewhere, even after the Round Table is made. Opposed to this emphasis upon cruelty is the other side of Layamon, by far the most romantic of chroniclers: Arthur's birth is attended by gift-bearing fairies; at his death they carry him to Avalon on a magic boat; in between, his weapons are magically made. A striking addition is Arthur's dream of his own fall and, near the end of the poem, the confirmation of the dream by a messenger. T h e AMA author adopted this combination of prophecy and fulfilment, although he changed the details of the dream as well as the ideal of the Round Table: its concept of equality is expressed, not as a physical symbol, but in the relations of Arthur and his men as a brotherhood, especially at the beginning and end of the poem. He also retained
34
Maureen Fries
Arthur's cruelty and anger. But he uses the supernatural only in the Priamus episode, and even there with an ironic twist. T h e AMA is thus deeply rooted in the chronicle tradition. The narrative content is indisputably Galfridian, but it deals only with the latter half of Arthur's career. from the Roman emperor's challenge to the King's death. Although he unquestionably knew both French and English romance traditions, the plot he selected was the chronicle one in which the wars of aggression rather than Mordred's incestuous relations with Guinevere and seizure of the kingdom cause Arthur's downfall as he is about to become world conqueror; and not the romance one, in which the tragedy is caused by the failed Grail quest, the illicit love of Lancelot and Guinevere and Arthur's incestuous begetting of Mordred, He ruthlessly pruned from his story all traces of romance added by Wace and Layamon; but he retained from Layamon Arthur's fierceness and cruelty. Using actual place names, accurate references to fourteenthcentury warfare, minute description of arming, and referring in his last line to a Brut as his source, the poet sought to suggest verisimilitude everywhere. But because his conception of his material was highly original, he also made changes in the chronicle structure. Of these changes the most striking is a reduction of the whole first part of Arthur's traditional career to a cataIogue of his early victories, which grows to include some found nowhere else. The first major episode is the Roman embassy, swollen to seventeen rather than twelve ambassadors. Their speech is provocative, but they are soon frightened bv Arthur's angry response and awed by the wealth he displays in a ceremonial feast for them. This feast, a surprising addition to chronicle accounts, reflects both the traditional literary topos and the poet's critical, even ironical, utilisation of its potentials.16 It is matched by another original feast, this one meagrely described, for the cardinal who offers Arthur the crown of Rome just before his dream of his own fall from Fortune's favour. In the war council which follows, the debate over peace and war between Cador and Gawain is omitted; only Cador's praise of war is retained, as Geoffrey's model suggested. Gawain does not speak at all here which -considering his later prominence in the poem - is sornewhat surprising. T o the chronicles' speeches by Arthur, Hoel, and Aguisel, the poet has added further declarations by the Welsh king, Yvain, Lancelot and Lot; and all of these are cast as vows. A frequently proposed source for this addition is Jacques de Longuyon's Les Voeux du Paon, which is paralleled by a derivative poem, Les Voacx du Hiran." But there are substantial differences between these French works and the AMA. In the Voeux du Paon, the vows are made over a roasted peacock during a feast, in the Voeux du Hiron over a roasted heron during a feast, and prisoners and women are included as vowers in the former, a woman in the latter. In the alliterative poem, the vowers are all male;
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature
35
the vows occur after the feast, at a war council. Matthews states that 'the vows themselves have not been found elsewhere in Arthurian story'.18But there is in the French Prose Vulgate an episode with enough similarity for the poet to have used it as a model. After the tournament celebrating King Brangoire's coronation, the twelve runners-up to Bohort make vows to accomplish difficult tasks which they mean to carry out, as can be seen when Lancelot encounters Patrides, shortly after, trying to fulfil his vow.'9 This could not be an exact source, since Lancelot frustrates Patrides, and the other eleven knights are not mentioned again; but unlike the other French sources, the vowers here are all free and male, and the vowing takes place after and not during the celebration. That it occurs in the Lancelot section of the Prose Vulgate, and that Lancelot and Yvain. both Vulgate characters, are among the named vowers, suggests this as a more likely source. Arthur's anger at the war council and his suggesting the march on Rome, which Hoe1 and Aguisel initiate in the chronicles, may also have been inspired by passages in the Vulgate Merlin and La Mort Le Roi Artu, but the war itself has little place in the French prose To underline his patriotic intent in the AMA, the army Arthur gathers is from Britain alone and not from his acquired European empire, many thousand troops being promised in the course of the vows alone. Other additions include the parliament at York at which Arthur asks the assent of sacred and secular lords to his appointment of Mordred as his lieutenant. But the most original element of this section of the poem is the reaction of Mordred himself to the proposed regency. For the first and last time in Arthurian literature, Mordred is reluctant to act as regent for Arthur, a stance at odds not only with chronicle but with romance tradition. Mordred pleads that his uncle choose another; he cannot fill the role, and is also being deprived of a chance to win martial renown. But Arthur callously does not heed his plea. Geofiey's usual noncommitaI, pseudo-historian's statement announcing Mordred's regency was elaborated by Wace into a motive, Mordred's love of Guinevere; and both \trace and Layamon condemned the nephew's future treachery to his uncle. The French Prose Vulgate Mort Artu, which the AMA poet certainly knew, has Mordred suggest himself; and in the Middle English stanzaic Morte Arthur, only slightly earlier than the alliterative poem and drawn from the Mort Artu, a council of knights suggest him as the securest choice. The completely original version we find in the AMA results in a different kind of shaping of the most important component of the action. Mordred's desire for fame fits in with the kind of society his uncle has created and raised him in. The implicit comparison with his cousin Gawain will not emerge untiI much later in Mordred's lament for his dead relation, because Gawain is not, as yet, a prominent actor in the poem. And the change
36
Maureen Fries
from the courtly love motif in klace and Layamon suits a poem in which warlike exploit is the greatest good, at least until its consequences become overwhelming. as at the end. Just as unprecedented as Mordred's reluctance is Guinevere's weeping, death-wishing, swooning farewell to Arthur, which the author undoubtedly borrowed from romance, where such reactions to a knight's leavetaking are ubiquitous. Arthur's dream of a battle between a dragon and a bear is traditional in the chronicles; the most suggestive change is Arthur's philosophers' saying that the dragon (Arthur) comes to drown his people. 'The King's encounter with the giant of Mont St Michel shows the poet's ability to combine similar narremes into a more effective whole: he incorporates into the traditional giant the figure of Ritho(n) who made a hobby of collecting kings' beards and had wanted Arthur's. The King encounters the giant singly, while the terrain had been He also tells Kay reconnoitered by Bedevere as scout in the chroni~les.~' and Bedevere he is going on a pilgrimage and keeps his exploit secret until it is successful. Similar emphasis upon the lone hero emerges early in the Roman campaign, with the commencement of Gawain's considerable rofe in the poem, totally unprecedented in the chronicles where he had been a minor figure without importance. This enlargement begins with the embassy to Lucius, an episode in which Gawain had figured as a mere instrument, provoked to battle by others. Now, however, he himself is the initiator of the conflict. Significantly, the Emperor is about to sit down to a sumptuous dinner (an echo of Arthur's feast), which Gawain interrupts with insults and invective, to which Lucius returns a sharp and threatening reply. As in the chronicles, Gawain strikes off the head of the Emperor's relative, but here his uncle's rather than his nephew's, not for the sake of alliteration as Valerie Krishna believes, but for the greater seriousness of the offence against a senior relative as opposed to a junior." As with Arthur's exploit at Mont St Michel, earlier chronicle emphasis upon group effort is replaced by stress upon the individual hero; and considering Gawain's prominence from this point until his death, the poet may have meant a parallel with Arthur's exploit. Cleges (also drawn from romance) and Cador (in the chronicles a sober soldier) repeat the motif of individual action shortly thereafter, in Cador's transportation of the Roman prisoners to Paris, as opposed to the chronicles"roup military action. Arthur's reactions to these exploits by his vassals (two of whom are also his relatives) is to assert kingly principles more nobly than in the chronicles, first in placing Yvain's recovery ahead of ransom, and second in deploring Cador's rashness as a cause of unnecessary slaughter of his knights. Single knightly action continues to dominate the poem in the major engagement with Lucius; as with Cador's mission, general military
The Poem in the Tradition ofArthun'an Literature
37
concerns such as battle tactics are neglected so that the vows made earlier can be fulfilled, in the very order in which they were made. Arthur especially augments earlier victories through his engagement with the Emperor himself, single-handed as in the Mort Artu and as in his defeat of the giant earlier and Mordred Iater. Important changes also include the elaboration of Kay's death with his dying request to Arthur to greet the Queen, her ladies and his wife; Arthur's berserk fighting to revenge Kay in battle; his injunction to Cador to take no prisoners until Kay is avenged (as with Yvain earlier); and the burial of Kay a t Caen. The 'tribute' sent to Rome is increased from Luciusalone to sixty other senators as well, escorted by two surviving senators with shaven heads, and accompanied by dead kingly allies. as Arthur orders. Throughout this major episode the British king is depicted both as individual knight and as sovereign monarch. Emphasis upon individuality continues in the poet's most original and longest addition to previous Arthurian chronicle material, occupying about one-fifth of his poem and including Arthur's further European campaigns and Gawain's encounter with Priamus. Previously, Mordred's treachery occurred directly after the defeat of Lucius and his army, but the AMA author's addition creates a hiatus in which both Arthur and Gawain develop in ways which make their respective ends more plausible. At a council parallel to the one occasioned by the Roman challenge early in the poem, but void of the voices of Arthur's men and their vows. Arthur announces he will take Lorraine, whose lord, he says, has been rebel to him, Lombardy, which is lawless, and Tuscany to temper its tyrants. The speech contains hints that it is the richness of these Iands which realIy tempts him; he also promises to spare the Pope's holdings, a promise which he obviously does not intend to keep. Arthur's conquests proceed as he had anticipated until, camped at Viterbo, he is offered the sovereignty of Rome and its crown at the Pope's hand by the most cunning of the cardinals. This arrival upon Rome5s doorstep becomes, in the AMA, the climax of Arthur's career as would-be emperor. Sandwiched into Arthur's campaign against Lorraine is the episode of Priamus, also original, which again brings Gawain to the foreground. But on the eve of his conquest of Rome, that is immediately before reaching the apex of his career, Arthur has a prophetic dream of Lady Fortune and her wheel. Matthews has cIassed the dream as an addition to the poem, but analogues are contained in two works the poet unquestionably knew, Layamon's Brut and the Mort art^.*^ At this turning point of Arthur's career, Layamon had invented a different dream than that of the AMA: in it, as Arthur and Gawain sit astride the roof of a hall, Mordred hews down its posts with a battle axe and Guinevere pulls down the roof.24 Arthur and Gawain fall, Gawain breaking both arms and Arthur his right one; with his good arm and his
38
Maurm Fries
sword, Arthur cuts off Mordred's head and hacks Guinevere to pieces. Then a messenger, who had arrived the night before the dream, interprets it in terms of the fact that Mordred has indeed seized queen and country, and Arthur returns to face civil war. Layamon's dream messenger = return is echoed in the structure of the AMA, even though the details vary. Arthur's dream in the French prose Mort Artu is placed differently: it is the second of two which occur on separate nights before his final battle with Mordred, on Salisbury Plain. In the first. Gawain appears, saved, to warn his uncle against fighting Mordred; in the second, the beautiful Fortune lifts him up on the highest seat of her wheel, warns him of earthly pride as he looks upon the whole world, and then casts him down so roughly he feels he has broken all his bones. This second dream only, positioned like that in Layamon's Brut and similarly involving physical injury to the dreamer, is elaborated in the AMA by a catalogue of the Nine Worthies. Immediately after the dream of Fortune King Arthur learns of Mordred's treachery. Geoffrey's famous passage at the end of his Book X on Mordred's incestuous relationship with Guinevere was followed by a refusal to comment upon it, at the beginning of Book XI; M'ace used a courtly love affair to explain it; and Layamon's dream illustrated the results of the combined sin and treason. But in none of the chronicle or romance versions does Mordred get Guinevere with child; she is, in all other versions, barren.25 The Mort Artu, with its invention of Mordred's children, who try to take over the kingdom and are killed by Bors and Lancelot after Arthur's passage, may have suggested this outcome. The sons of Mordred there could hardly have been Guinevere's - they are grown and hardy knights, and the Queen, having previously fled to a convent, takes vows for fear that they wilI kill her. The children in the alliterative poem, as we see somewhat later, are those of Mordred and Guinevere. Also entangled with Mordred, Gawain continues, in the poem's final stage, to play a prominent part he had not previously been given. His boldness, grim determination and brilliant success in the sea battle (at which Arthur's ship bears the banner displaying the Virgin Mary and the [three] crowns) are tragically aborted by his death at the hands of his cousin in the battle on the beach. The double battle owes something to Layamon, but not the details of Gawain's death, anonymous in Geoffrey and M'ace and due to a Saxon earl in Layamon. Only in the AMA is Gawain killed by Mordred; in romance sources its author knew, including the Mort Artu and perhaps the stanzaic Morte Arthur, and in Malory's Morte Darthur which owes some debt to the alIiterative poem, Gawain receives his death wound from Lancelot. It is possible that this fateful blow in the Mort Artu inspired the Mordred/Gawain tragedy; and cousin against cousin is a more potent symbolic clash than
+
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature
39
friend against friend. Interest turns again to Arthur in the final battle. Ignoring Sir Wichere's advice that he is outnumbered -advice echoing that of Gawain and an archbishop in the Mort Artu- the King proceeds to Cornwall, following the fleeing Mordred who here (as nowhere else) warns Guinevere to flee with her children. Only in the Mort Artu, the AMA and Malofy's Morte is Arthur outnumbered; in the chronicles he is represented as having sufficient troops. The unequal match (here, sixty thousand against eighteen hundred) of course makes for Arthur's greater glory as he defeats Mordred and his army. As nowhere in previous Arthurian story, Arthur's battle with Mordred is a single combat; and. unlike the romance tradition, the A M A offers no hope of a resurrection. While the A M A displays a chronicle plot and a chronicle concern with warfare and heroic action rather than with courtesy and love. it also contains a large number of motifs which derive from the chanson de geste, romance and other literary genres, doubtless well-known to the learned author. At the same time, however, the meaning of these motifs has been transformed though placement in a new context as well as through the ambivalent, at times openly critica1, attitude of the author. Mordred's reluctance to be regent for chivalric reasons is organically related to his treason; battles described in the manner of individual knightly encounters tend to bring out typical Arthurian faults of rashness and arrogance. There is, besides, the immensely enlarged and chivalric figure of Gawain, who at times seems to crowd Arthur from the poem, and who appears almost as Arthur's second self. These and other plot elements, such as the laments over Gawain and Arthur's final lament, had no place in thv sober, if pseudo-, 'history' of the chronicles. They are mostly drawn from French sources, usually Arthurian and especially the Mort Artu, but sometimes Alexandrian and sometimes the chansons de geste which clustered around Charlemagne and Roland. Indeed, some of the elements which seem to be gleaned from Arthurian and/or Alexandrian sources have their ultimate source in the Charlernagne material. Influence from the A M A poet's own fourteenth-century alliterative tradition was inevitable, and appears, for instance, in narrative pattern^.'^ T h e most admirable innovation in the Arthurian tradition per se appears in the A M A poet's handling of characterisation. Lancelot appears in this poem, not in his original guise as picaresque knight who incidentally saves a non-loving Guinevere (in Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's Lanzelet) nor in his later guise, after his transformation into Guinevere's lover (in Chretien's Conte de la charette), as King's as well as Queen's Champion, but as a junior warrior in Arthur's comitatus, as he himself states when he makes his vow in the council scene. His supremacy as a knight, achieved in the French Prose Vulgate, of which his section -the
40
Maureen Fries
Lancelot -is the longest (twelve hundred pages in a modern edition), is only referred to indirectly by Cador, once.*' In the AMA, Gawain thus regains the position of the supreme warrior he had gradually lost to Lancelot with the development of French prose romance, and which he was unlikely to have had at this period in any French source. Guinevere, developed in the Prose Vulgate from ChrEtienYscharacterisation in the Charette into a subtle female portrait in the Lancelot and the Mort Artu, and even further individualised in the stanzaic Morte Arthur and Malory's Morte, is diminished in the alliterative poem. Her warmth and her anger, her jealousy and her capriciousness, are here reduced to two briefly described scenes. The first is her leavetaking of Arthur, with tears, groans and a swoon - and just a hint of the M'aceinvented courtly love affair with Mordred in Arihur's description of him as a knight much praised by his Queen. The second is her response to the repentant Mordred who. fearful for her as for himself as objects of Arthur's vengeance, warns her to flee with her children to Ireland. Instead, weeping and sobbing as before, the Queen goes to Caerleon and takes the veil. not, as in the Mort Ark, the stanzaic Morte and Malory's Morte, out of repentance, but out of consciousness of her own falsehood and fear of the King's hand; and, incidentally, showing no concern for her children. This reduction of Guinevere, like that of Lancelot. was a necessity to the chronicle plot which required Guinevere's seizure, whether willing, as in Wace, or not, by Mordred. U'herever Lancelot and Guinevere are lovers and causers of the Arthurian tragedy, as in the Mort Artu, stanzaic Morte and Malorv, Guinevere successfully resists hlordred's importunities by shutting herself up in the Tower of London. But that was part of a very different story which the AMA poet knew but did not choose to tell. Mordred is the third to Lancelot and Guinevere's passionate entanglement in the romance tradition: the shadow side of their love and its danger to their society. An important figure in the chronicles, as Arthur's nephew and regent until his revoIt, he plays a different part in those works where Lancelot has usurped his role. Chrgtien does not even mention him, and for Guinevere's abductor creates the otherworfdly figure Meleaganz. But he plays a major role in the Mort Artu, stanzaic Morte and Malory. Helping Agravain to foment suspicion about the Queen's adultery, joining the unfortunate party to discover her and Lancelot injagranti delicto (and in Malory its only survivor), encouraging Arthur t a the overseas war with Lancelot, he is ever more villainous. Only in the AMA is he made sympathetic. Arthur alternately bribes him with promises of the crown and threatens him should he refuse the regency, a choice suggested by Mordred himself in the Mort Artu and a council of knights in the stanzaic Morte. In Malory, Arthur also chooses Mordred, because he is his son, a reason only hinted at much later in the alliterative poem. The AMA's author has eliminated all further
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature
41
negative aspects of Mordred, found in the Mort Artu, the stanzaic Morte, and Malory: his urging Arthur to continue the Lancelotian war overseas, his volunteering to look after Guinevere, his falling in Iove with her in courtly fashion, his forging of a suppositious letter from Arthur alleging the King's mortal wounding by Lancelot. Thus the early sympathy the reader feels for Mordred, who has been denied the glory of war by his uncle (father?), is maintained, and the tragedy seems as much Arthur's doing as Mordred's. htordred's essential motivation emerges from his threnody over Gawain, who had the chance he craved, yet he does not revile but praises his cousin: except for Arthur's choosing, there could have gone Mordred. Denied the opportunity to win martial honour, he turns to political ambition. His admonition to Guinevere is not only an evidence of his concern for her and their children but also a desire to ensure succession; and thus they must be killed, at Arthur's orders, to ensure the death of that ambition. All of this is the material of chronicle, and admirably suited to the alliterative taIe. The heroes of the A M A , Arthur and Gawain, are also very much changed in reputation from their romance selves. Gawain, originally in the chrmicles a warrior-nephew overshadowed by his king-uncle, had become in romance a very different character. Beginning even in Wace's chronicle with his speech connecting prowess in arms with love of women, he had come to fill the role of archetypal lover as we11 as warrior. Though Gawain warns Yvain, in Chretien's poem, against the enfeeblement a knight necessarily encounters in marriage, Chrttien gave Gawain no poem of his own in which to act out his ideas, as they appear in later French works, such as the Prose Vulgate. Gawain's choice of promiscuity runs counter not only to his earlier role as warrior but also to the ideal of true 'courtly love'. In the French Prose Vulgate, especially, the character of Gawain suffers a great deal by comparison with that of Lancelot. In the Mort Artu Lancelot's overwhelming repentance for his mistaken killing of Gawain's brothers contrasts with the latter's continuing vindictiveness. Unlike previous and later works, the AMA suppresses all love interest in Gawain's character, except for a passing reference in a war exhortation, and redirects his anger toward more appropriate objects than Lancelot, the Romans and ultimately Mordred. Finally there is, inevitably, Arthur. Like Lancelot, like Gawain, he had undergone changes in his passage through the romance tradition. Beginning with Chretien's tales, in which glorious adventures of young knights started and finished at his court, Arthur himself had become limited and static. His role evolved from the bold challenger (of, say, the giant of Mont St Michel) to the sedentary monarch, initiator of capricious hunts, assenter to rash vows. Sometimes, disastrousIy, Arthur became a roi fai&ant. a figurehead. Like Charlemagne in a
42
Maureen Fries
similar role in the chansons de geste, he aged: in the Mort Artu, he is ninety-two. h'ith the quests, the gre', too, passed to other men - the new men, of whom Lancelot was prime. Enfeeblement, inactivity, begot foolishness in the Prose Vulgate. Since Arthur goes to bed with an enticing sorceress the same night as Guinevere goes to bed with Lancelot, the lovers' blame is diminished. Even in his moments of activity he is changed: willing to burn Guinevere without any proof of her guilt, unable to control the conduct of Gawain and his brothers, unable to heal the feud between Lancelot and Gawain in the Mort Artu, the stanzaic Morte and Malory. The poet of the AMA rehabilitates Gawain from the questionable status of his later reputation by adding favourable traits. In a very similar manner, he restores Arthur, if not to his former moral stature, at least to his former strength and activity. The British king is energetic and dynamic down to the end of the poem, although sometimes eclipsed by Gawain. The most human of Arthurs, his anger is quickly aroused and thoroughly satisfied, his grief equally swift (as in the laments over Gawain and, later, over all his dead troops) and unassuageable. His ironic, at times sardonic, humour has been often noted; and his gradual, eventually insatiable, desire for power is believable and works believably if at times regrettably upon his character. Since he is represented as a man of flesh and blood there is, of course, no hint that he will come again. Arthur's behaviour is further echoed and reinforced by that of his chief knights, especially Gawain; and its conclusion is syrnbolised by the wheel of Fortune of which he dreams. Unlike the chronicles, where Arthur's sinlessness was stressed and his enemies subsequently made more evil, or the romances, where Arthur was largely displaced or at least made secondary by the tragedy of Lancelot and Guinevere, the alliterative poem emphasises Arthur's own responsibility. The poet displays a vision unique in the long and rich tradition of Arthurian literat~re.'~ Romance elements -plot narremes, characterisations, motifs worked into a chronicle structure fed by centuries of folklore materials - saint's life, triad, tale and battle poem, climaxing in pseudo-history: these formed the stuff of the AMA. What the poet did with his material determined the shape. and William Matthews identified it twenty years ago, rightly, as a tragedy: a special kind of tragedy, belonging to its own period, the Middle Ages, and requiring a special form which the poet was, happily, able to draw from his materials. Geoffrey of Monmouth's simple casus, or fall caused by circumstances outside the hero, became in the alliterative poem a complex cams, or fall caused by the hero's own fault(^).^^ That he achieved this goal not only as a man learned in the Arthurian idioms of the past, but also surrounded by other writers in the
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature
43
fourteenth-century Arthurian tradition (The Arunprs off Arthure. Arlhour and Merlin, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. and othcrs) shows an ambition of purpose amply realised in the final product. That he made changes in such traditional characters as Arthur. Mordred and Gawain which were consonant with his original vision of them and their story bodies out a boldness of invention. Such boldness, ambition, and independence were to attract later writers such as Sir Thomas Maiory, who. as we now know, drew heavily upon the alliterative poem for his account of the Roman wars of Arthur, and the author of Golagros and Gawane, whose attitude toward Arthur and Gawain remains much the same as that of the author of the A M A . I n his poem we may obsewe an admirable melding of Arthurian tradition and individual talent. drawing on the past and on the poet's imagination to create a new and fully tragic vieu of old and often ambivalent materials.
The Audience
JUTTA M'URSTER
Until we11 into the twentieth century, the author of the Middle English romances was seen in the romantic image created by antiquaries and writers of a century earlier, such as Bishop Percy and Sir Walter Scott. He was envisaged as a minstrel who recited his works at the festivals held at provincial courts, in market places and at country fairs.' In the meantime, however, it has become clear that, in the late Middke Ages at any rate. the terms 'minstrels' and 'minstrelsy' were applied almost exclusively to musicians and musical performances, and that in many cases the authors of the anonymous romances are to be found among clerics of varying degrees of learning.' Recently, it has been doubted whether the minstrels played any role at all in the oral transmission of romances. It is a matter of controversy whether, in the fourteenth century, romances were still recited to an audience or whether it had become more usual for them to be privately read (either silently or aloud) .3 T h e problems of the uncertain authorship of the Middle English romances, of their mode of transmission and of their audience, are obviously matters which have a direct bearing upon each other. Formerly, scholars assumed that the audience of a large majority of the middle English metrical romances belonged to a comparatively low social stratum: 'The audience of the MiddIe English romances is primarily a lower or lower-middle-class audience, a class of social aspirants who wish to be entertained with what they consider to be the same fare, but in English, as their social better^.'^ This hypothesis was based on lines in the romances in which, for instance, the minstrel addresses the iewed men or asks for a sip of beer; from references such as these critics concluded that a listening audience was being a d d r e s ~ e d . ~ However, in the light of modern research on narrative techniques, whose results may profitabIy be applied to medieval literature in p a r t i ~ u l a r the , ~ identification of the author with the narrator no longer appears self-evident. It seems that, in the late Middle Ages, the framework of the actual recitation, which is most obvious in the so-called minstrel interpolations and which may very well be a survival from the oral stage of textual transmission, had become part of the fiction, a kind of topos or clichi in the written version of the text. If that is the case, then the audience which is being addressed at the beginning of most
The Audience
4.5
romances may be fictitious as well, and thus quite different from the historical audience for whom they were actual& intended.' T h e alliterative romances represent a fascinating sub-genre of the Middle English romances.' Most scholars have taken it for granted that the Middle EngIish metrical romances wJere addressed to people of a lower social standing than were those of the Alliterative Revival. The audience for these 'popular' texts has been sought among rhe burgesses of the expanding towns, craftsmen. and yeoman hrmers, whereas the recipients of works such as the AMA or Sir Gawain and the Green Kn{.ght have generally been thought to belong to the nobility. Recent studics. however, have suggested that tlie metrical romances were aimed at a higher social stratum than has hitherto been assumed; scholars no longer ar
46
Jutta Wurster
existed at the London court. But historians have not been able to discover evidence of that political opposition -apparently there was none during the middle years of the fourteenth century, when the Revival came into existence. There were indeed great feudal lords who opposed Edward I1 and Richard I1 - both kings were finally deposed and murdered -but there seems to have been no opposition under Edward 111, at least not before about 1370. The Mortimers, Bohuns and Beauchamps in fact stood firmly behind the King in the war against France; but that was not pointed out until 1959, when May McKisack published the volume The Fourteenth Century, in the Oxford History of England. Her description of the bellicose atmosphere at Edward 111's court at the beginning of the Hundred Years Wart3exactly mirrors the situation in the AMA, where the members of Arthur's royal council respond to the Roman Emperor's challenge with an exuberant desire to join arms with their king. The historian summarises her findings on the middle years of the fourteenth century in the following words: 'Thus did the winter of baronial discontent give place to glorious summer.' I4 These new conclusions of historical research required a modification of the theory of baronial opposition. It was provided by the late Elizabeth Salter. She abandoned the idea of baronial opposition, but she re-asserted the role of the provincial magnates as patrons and recipients of the works of the Aliiterative Revival. The reason for this support of literary activities is no longer seen in the magnates' oppositional stance, but rather in their optimism, coupled with patriotic feeling: CZ'hatever the state ofaffairsin the earlier part of the century, and whatever the later developments, the first signs of renewed activity in this field [i.e. the production of alliterative verse] must surely be seen as one of the results of the optimism, energy, and strongly patriotic spirit of the period which began with victory at Sluys and came to a high peak with the peace of Bretigny in 1360-1. Edward 111's barons had every incentive to encourage the composition of poetry in a traditional English form-as they also had incentive to encourage the illumination of their prayer books and psalters by English artists.'> Professor Salter cited Henry of Lancaster, Humphrey Bohun of Hereford, Thomas of Woodstock, and Thomas I11 of Berkeley as examples of magnates with well-developed literary interests, and she discussed Oakden's suggestion that the Gawain poet should be sought in John of Gaunt's retinue.16 Though her study is weH-documented and provides a mine of background information, it has no direct application to the Alliterative Revival, apart from the fact that the author is confident that she can positively exclude a member of the gentry as the patron of the Gawain poet: '. . . the poem has not emerged from a household of the minor gentry but from a household maintained by a lord of considerable standing.'I7
The Audience
47
Professor Salter's attempt to explain the reasons for the Alliterative Revival is characterised by a somewhat mechanical procedure: now that the theory of the baronial opposition no longer fits the facts presented by the historians, it is simply transformed into its opposite - baronial optimism. Another weak point in Professor Salter's argument is her attribution of fervent patriotism to the French-speaking English nobility. John Barnie postulates a quite different interpretation in which the English nobility, like their Continental counterparts, did not regard themselves as exclusively English, but had a European outlook and would have had little sympathy with the nascent nationalism of other social strata. If we are to look for patriotism, we are more likely to find it among the gentry and the burgesses. Their reading material was written by authors such as Lawrence Minot who, using a heavy alliterative metre, composed highly chauvinist battle descriptions. I-Iis works, instruments of royal propaganda. influenced public opinion even out in the provinces, more intensively and cleverly than ever before." Finally, it is significant that there are no illuminated manuscripts of alliterative poems, which might have been expected in the light oftheir suggested noble patronage, considering that so many lavish manuscripts of religious texts which were written for the nobility have survived. We may therefore conclude that neither baronial discontent nor baronial optimism suffices as an explanation for the Alliterative Revival: there is no historical evidence to justify the hypothesis of a noble audience. It is no easier to determine the regional origin of particular poems than it is to find an explanation for the exterior causes of the Revival. T h e first obstacle to such an attempt is the fact that many alliterative works have been preserved in only one copy; in addition to this. most of these manuscripts are fairly late and not contemporary with the date of composition. The original dialect of a poem has quite often had one or even more writers' dialects superimposed upon it, thus increasing the difficulty of pinpointing its regional origin. The unique exception is the B.L- MS. Cotton Nero A.X., which contains the Garetain poet's four works.I9 It is evident that the scribe of this manuscript has hardly altered the author's language at all, which makes it possible to analyse the dialect, narrowing down its origin to 'a very small area either in South-East Cheshire or just over the border in North-East Staffordshire7.*' The so-called Thornton Manuscript (Lincoln Cathedral hfS. 91). containing, amongst other items, the only surviving text of the AMA and one of the four copies of the Awntyrs offtlrthure, poses a much more difficult problem.21 There is in fact a second Thornton Manuscript (B.L. MS. Add. 31042) which has preserved several alliterative works. namely the unique copy of Wynnere and Wastoure, the Parlement ofthe Thre
48
Jutta Wurster
Ages, the Quatrefoil of l a v e , and the Siege of Jerusalem, as well as two other metrical romances which are characterised by their consistent use of alliteration, The Sege of Melayne and Rowlande and O t t ~ e l l There . ~ ~ is hardly any doubt that Robert Thornton, a country gentleman from East Kewton near Pickering in the North Riding of Yorkshire, compiled both manuscripts, although other scribes may have had a hand in them.23 T h e Lincoln Manuscript probably dates from about 1430-40; it was written a t anv rate after 1422 and before 1453/54. Scholars were in agreement as to the West Midland provenance of the A M A until Angus kfcIntosh published his findings in 1962.24He came to the conclusion that the Thornton Manuscript reveals the dialectal traces of two scribes who must have copied the text before Thornton, a n d that these point to the East Midlands, and, more precisely, to Lincolnshire, as the poem's place of origin. Such a premise implies that the AMA was a fairly late work, because the Alliterative Revival began about 1340 in the South-West Midlands and spread to the Northern parts of the \Vest hfidlands around the middle of the fourteenth century. During the closing years of the century it reached the North and the East, and flourished in Scotland during the fifteenth Thus, a dialect analysis of the AMA suggests that it has its origins in Lirtcolnshire, and an analysis of the Thornton manuscript connects it with Yorkshire - these conclusions indicate that the transmission of the poem must be associated with the East of England. M'hether or not we are entitled to assume (and here the absence of manuscript evidence discourages any firm conclusions on the matter) that the AMA held little o r n o appeal for people in other regions of the country, it is quite clear that it did appeal to the East ,Midland audience. hlore important than the knowledge of the geographical location in which the audience of the AMA Iived, is a consideration of the social strata from which they came. A study of patrons and authors and their places in society, of the ownership of books in various social classes, and of the form and contents of the manuscripts themselves would seem to be the most promising point of departure in the effort to answer this question. In nearly a11 cases, including that of the AMA, we do not know the patrons or authors of alliterative poems. T h e only patron whose name is documented is that of William of Paleme. T h e fact that it was Humphrey d e Rohun who commissioned the translation of this poem from French into English has always been used to justify the assertion that the works of the Revival were composed for a noble audience. The poet. who calls himself William, asks the audience to pray for his patron: Prei~esfor bat p d e lord Pat gart Pis do make, be hende erl of Hereford. Humfray de Bounebe gode King Edwardes doiqter was his dere moder(5529-3 1)
The Audience
49
But Thorlac Turville-Petre has pointed out that this does not in fact reveal anything about the audience of the poem. whom the poet then proceeds to describe in the next two lines: He let make pis mater in kis rnaner speche For hem pat knowe no Frensche, ne neuer vnderston." (5532-3)
This makes it absolutely clear that the translation was not meant for the ears of the Earl of Hereford and Essex, but for those whose more limited education would not have equipped them to understand the original French. Turville-Petre assumes that they were members of the gentry who ran the Earl's vast estates in Gloucestershire. The Earl may have had the benevolent intention of providing them with something like a courtesy book.*' It seems a bit far-fetched. however, to suggest that the work was intended merely for the entertainment of the servants who worked in the Earl's kit~hens.~' The only manuscript containing the longest of all alliterative poems. The Destruction of Troy (GIasgow C.L. M S . Huntrrian V. 2.8)29,announces 'the nome ofthe knight bat causet it to be made, and the nomeofhym that translatid it out of latyn into engiysshe' in the list of contents. Unfortunately, however, this promise is not fulfilled. The manuscript is fairly late, dating from the first halfof the sixteenth century, whereas the poem was probably written at the end of the fourteenth century.30lye must of course be wary ofdrawing any conclusions as to the status of the patron on the basis of the word 'knight'; i t was during the fourteenth century, through the influence of kings such as Edward I and 111, that the ethical code of 'knighthood' became the universal idea1 for the aristocracy as a whole, inspiring the nobility and the gentry alike. In literature, at least, as is shown in the AMA (649, 678 etc.), it became possible to use 'Sir Knight' as a mode of address even for princes of the royal blood. In real Iife, however, the fourteenth century witnessed the division of the aristocracy into the nobility and gentry, a process which is evident in the separation of the two Houses of Parliament, with the 'knights' as part of the gentry, belonging to the House of common^.^' For this reason it seems unlikely that the translation of The Destruction of Troy was commissioned by a lord of high standing; the social development points to a member of the gentry. Information about the number and nature of the books owned by individuals and institutions (above all, monasteries) in the hliddle Ages is furnished by wills, deeds of gift and invent~ries.~' Quite often such sources contain detailed lists of books, since those constituted very valuable possessions. Although three-quarters of the population could speak only English by the end of the fourteenth century, French books on secular subjects outnumbered their English counterparts by far.33 The information that can be gleaned from these records suggests that
50
Jutta Wurster
members of the nobility were not among the owners of literary manuscripts in English. On his death in 1397 the inventory of the library of Thomas of FYoodstock, Duke of Gloucester, comprised eighty-four 'livres de diverses rymances et estories', the only books in the vernacular being three bibles.j4 Sir Simon de Burley, a courtier who was executed in 1388 at the instigation of the Merciless Parliament, was the owner of twenty-one books, among which were eight manuscript volumes of French romances and only one book in English, probably on hunting.35 As late as around 1450 a man like Sir John Fastolf, councillor of the Duke of Bedford, had a collection of twenty books, aH of which were in French. His tastes were admittedly rather old-fashioned.36 Research on the patrons of alliterative poets and investigation into book ownership during the late fourteenth century indicate, for lack of any evidence to the contrary, the probability of a non-noble audience. A study of the manuscripts themselves, however, may reveai positive evidence which points to a distinct group of listeners and readers. During the first half of the fourteenth century the book underwent a process of secularisation. C p to that time the most exquisite manuscripts had belonged excIusively to the ecclesiastical sector, where they were intended to contribute to the greater glory of God. Gradually secular rulers, of whom Jean Duc de Berry is perhaps the most notable example, felt the desire to own beautifully illuminated books not only for the personal pleasure which they afforded, but also, no doubt, as objects which reflected their power and status. The wish to foilow fashion led the nobility to take an interest in books which were beautifully decorated and lavishly bound; the contents of these volumes was of only secondary imp~rtance.~' T h e manuscripts of the Revival are in complete contrast to these splendid books; almost without exception they are 'unpretentious, workmanlike and unadorned manuscript^'.^^ It is true that most of these manuscripts date from the fifteenth century, but even the few contemporary manuscripts are plain and simple. One example of these is King's College, Cambridge, MS. 13, which is the earliest of fourteenthcentury Revival manuscripts, and contains the unique copy of William of P ~ l e r n eThe . ~ ~ exceptional nature of the manuscript which contains the works of the Guwain poet (BL Cotton Nero A.X.) and dates from not later than 1400, is underlined by the fact that it is illustrated with twelve coIourful pictures. This, however, does not automatically suggest an audience of higher social standing, as the quality of the pictures has been described as 'amateurish' and even 'dreadful'. In the case of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, perhaps the most aristocratic of the works of the Revival. a patron from the gentry has recently been surmised; the heraldic evidence points to someone living in the area of Staffordshire Thus Turville-Petre could be right in his conjecture and Che~hire.~' 'that the artist was a member of the family playing with paint^'.^'
The Audience T h e two Thornton Manuscripts, however. are more typical than the
Gawain Manuscript of the form in which alliterative poems have been preserved. In the case of the A M A it is estimated that there is a period of about fifty years between the origin of the poem and its first appearance in written form. This relatively short interval suggests that it may be worth undertaking an investigation into the person of the srribc in order to obtain information about the poem's original audience, with whom he probably shared certain traits. This procedure seems all the more justified if one takes into account the continuity of the taste for alliterative poetry among the gentry of the \Vest and East h l i d l a n d ~ . ~ ' Robert Thornton became lord of the manor of East Newton in 1418. H e must have died between 1456 and 1465, because his wife remarried in 1465.43H e did not attend either of the two universities. The manuscripts d o not look a t all professional, but are the work of a 'gentleman amateur with literary tastes'. Probably they formed part or even the whole of Thornton's library, which he copied from manuscripts then in c i r ~ u l a t i o nIn . ~ these ~ two incomplete volumes some of the capital letters have been decorated in inexpert fashion and there are a few vigorous, but artless drawings. As to their content, the Lincoln kfS. is a miscellany comprising secular ( 198 foIios) and religious ( 1 16 folios) texts, whereas the London MS. may be classified as a religious miscellany. since the religious material just exceeds the secular in quantity (90 folios ofreligious material to 86 folios ofsecular writings).45 Although Turville-Petre believes otherwise, Thornton surely did make a n attempt to arrange his texts in some definite order.46 In the Lincoln MS., a group of ten romances (among them also tail-rhyme romances, including the only version of Sir Percyuelie of Gales) and some other narrative texts (such as two legends and a satire on friars) is followed by a group of religious texts, mainly by Richard Rolle (or ascribed to him), together with tracts by Walter Hilton. Thus the manuscript represents a n important source for English mysticism. T h e inclusion of strictly liturgical texts in Latin is an unusual feature, and at rhe end there is also a medicaj tract. And so the manuscript may be said to consist of three sections; an entertaining one, an edifying one and a useful one. In the London MS., however. the edifying items are by far the most numerous. T h e four romances are of the militant Christ'ian type, with the two Sieges being placed next to each other.47 In addition to these, the manuscript comprises legends. didactic and religious verses by Lydgate, prayers. a paean to the Virgin Mary (The Quatrefoil of Loue) and, a t the end, two debate poems, The Parlement of the Thre Ages and Wynnere and Wastaure, both containing critical comments upon their times. Thornton was capable of detecting amnities between his texts. His piety did not stand in the way of his interest in social satire. He was an educated man with good literary taste and could write Latin (albeit
52
Jutta wurskr
imperfectly). In choosing his texts he was guided by his firm adherence to Christian morality; this applies not only to the religious material, but also to the romances. Those in the Lincoln MS. belong almost exclusively to the category of moral didactic romances.48 By grouping the AMA and the Awntyrs off Arthum together with the latter type of romances, Thornton shows that he has perceived the moralising character of these . ~may ~ be assumed that recognition of the two works of the R e ~ i v a l It didactic qualities of the AMA may also be attributed to its East Midland audience some fifty years previously. In all probability this audience consisted primarily of members of the landed gentry, who also held public offices in the provinces. It may in addition have comprised the country clergy and substantial landowners, who. like Chaucer's Franklin, sought to emulate the chivalric lifestyle.50 I t is possible to glean intrinsic information about the audience from the work itself by inquiring into the person of the poet, i.e. by investigating the extent to which the text reveals his personality, and the evidence it affords about his intentions and interests. Such an investigation may begin with a look at the narrator's direct comments, the statements he makes in the prologue, the type of material he uses, and the way in which it is selected and presented. The interests and the intentions of the poet of the AMA seem to have been varied and wide-ranging. M'e may conclude that the contemporary audience was similarly disposed. Undoubtedly the poet of the AMA thought and felt like an Englishman, even if one can probably not describe him as a thorough-going patriot or even a nationalist. He clearIy identifies himself with the English cause, speaking very often of 'oure men' (1815; 2473; 37671, 'oure knyghttez' ( 1630; 4 I26), 'oure biernez' ( 1958). Gawain is referred to as 'owre ferse knyghte' (3865). and Arthur is 'oure wiese kyng' (39 19). and 'oure Prynce' (4224). The French soldiers in Arthur's army are described as weak and inexperienced (2484f.). It is also certain that the author was not a Scot: in the enumeration of the countries conquered by Arthur, Scotland is singled out as being 'scathyll' ('dangerous' 32); and Sir Cradoke tells Arthur that Mordred has made all lowborn Highlanders knights in his army (3535). This hostile attitude is not surprising since the Scots in the fourteenth century were often more trenchant enemies of the EngIish than the French. In ailiterative poetry a feeling for the importance and individuality of the native language goes hand in hand with national consciousness. The Revival must be seen against the background of the emancipation of the English language from French dominance. During the fourteenth century the vernacular gradually established itself as a literary medium. An important stage in this development is the lively discussion on matters of language in verse narratives and, above all, in chronicles such as those by Thomas of Castelford and Robert Mannyng of Brunne, who
The Audience
53
came from the North-East and East Midlands respectively and whose works date from the first halfof the century. The translation of the Bible in the 1380s by Wycliff and his followers represents another great step forward in the progress of the vernacular. Among the alliterative poets, anti-foreign feeling is far less prominent than in the writings of the chroniclers and poets of the verse romances, some of whom indulge in virulent anti-French sentiment. In the case of the latter writers, their awareness of geographical distinction is further demonstrated in their observation of North-South animosity within their own country. An exception among the alliterative poets is the author of Wynnere and Wastoure, who describes himself as a 'western wight' (8) and expresses a hostile attitude towards the South. The dialectal divisions which existed in England did not concern the AIMA poet in his work, although he does show a great interest in other languages and in the predicament of an Englishman abroad. Gawain challenges Priamus with the English cry Arthure ('one Inglisce "Arthure!" he askryes', 2529). In Italy, Arthur addresses Cradoke in 'Latyn corroumppede7 (3478) and recognises him as a fellow-countryman because of'his 'brode speche' (3508). In a previous part of the poem the destruction of France by the Roman Emperor is described as being so devastating, and the effects of foreign invasion so radical, that its very language was threatened with extinction (1250). The concern of this passage might be interpreted as a somewhat ironic reflection of fears which were current in England during two parliaments (1344 and 1388); it was rurnoured that the French were planning to extirpate the English language, should they succeed in conquering The poet's interest in foreign languages must be considered in connection with his detailed knowIedge of roads and cities in France and Italy. The significance of Metz for Lorraine is likened to that of London for England (2418). Scholars have frequently drawn assumptions about the AMA's possible date of composition from the author's detailed knowledge of the pilgrim's route to Rome, but such descriptions need not necessarily be based on personal experience. T h e poet reveals an extensive knowledge of such specialised subjects as heraldry (e.g. the description of coats of arms), diplomacy (e.g. the negotiations with the Roman a r n b a s ~ a d o r s and ) ~ ~ military affairs ('e.g. armour, tactics in sieges and battles). The author need not, however. have been a herald, diplomat or soldier by profession in order to have acquired such knowledge. Finally, it becomes clear from the poem that the author, who was writing for the provinces, is thoroughly conversant with courtly culture. He has seen the pageantry at court, knows about lavish feasts with elaborate dishes and exquisite wines (e.g. the banquet scene) and is also fond of describing magnificent clothing (e.g. that of King Arthur after ~ the poet's great interest in the figure of the Dream of F ~ r t u n e ) . 'From
54
Jutta Wurster
the ruler. we may conclude that he was acquainted with the Furstempiegel tradition of his age." Intrinsic information in the poem does not susgest an audience that was provincial and uncultured. but rather one that was intellectually active and educated and had a wide range of interests. Although extrinsic evidence makes a noble audience seem very improbable, intrinsic features do not justify rejection of the possibility that, in addition to the gentry. the courts of the nobility in the East Midlands may have formed part of the audience of the AMA. Remarks addressed directly to an audience, a common feature in tailrhyme romances where they are used to indicate the beginning of a new stage in the action. are extremely unusual in the works of the Revival. I n Emare the narrator says at the end of one sequence: At be emperour now leue we .And of be lady yn see I shalle begynne to telle.55
(310-12)
T h e movement from one section to another in a work like the AMA is, however. indicated by subtler devices, such as a description of nature. Through the author's skilful use of traditional topoi, he shows respect for the audience's intelligence, as well as his mastery of poetics. This is especially true of the Prologue to the AMA (1-25) which, at first glance, merely contains the usual elements: the prayer, the exhortation, and the synopsis of the story.S6But in actuality it differs in a fundamental way from the introductory passages in metrical romances such a s Eglamour. Sir Degreuant, Isurnbras or even the stanzaic Marte Arthur (in which. of course. there is no prayer). We are struck immediately by the unusual length of the prayer and the strength of feeling it conveys. the use of the uanitas-motif, and the unfavourable comparison of earthly life with life after death. The narrator goes on to ask for divine guidance to enable him to find words which will be neither void nor vain, but will contribute to the greater glory of God and provide pleasure and profit for those who hear them. These lines have been interpreted both as a n indication of 'oral-formulaic composition' and as a self-portrait of the poet. who clearly sees himself as an inspired vates. an instrument of God.57In both cases the critics have probably read too much into the text and have taken too little account of the conventions which govern this type of composition. More significant is the linking of the Biblical maxim with the Horatian one; the words pleasant andprojtable could even be taken as the motto for the whole poem and for the Thornton MS. In the exhortation it is significant that the listeners are not addressed as Lordingis, as is frequently the case in the metrical romances (cf. Le Morte Arthur, Amis and Amiloun, The Earl of Toulous, etc.). The use of this term certainly does not imply that the metrical romances were addressed to a
The Audience
55
noble audience, but must be seen as part of the poet's efforts to win The poet of the AMA does not use this form favour with his audi~nce.'~ of address. The last section of the Prologue to the AMA. the synopsis. provides. in conventional fashion. a kind of summary of the story (cf. Le Morte Arthur, 5-8) and is interesting in several respects. There is the striking fact that the narrator's preview only covers the events in the poem up to the point when Arthur's military power is at its zenith and does not mention anything about the fall of the king or of the destruction of the Arthurian world. Here the poet structures his story by deliberately qiving only a partial preview: the synopsis includes only Arthur's rise in power before the Dream of Fortune, which represents the turning point in Arthur's fate and thus the most important caesura in the work. At this point the philosopher who interprets Arthur's dream assumes the function performed by the narrator in the Prologue in a perfectly natural way; he warns Arthur of his approaching end and thus concludes the preview of the events of the poem. By making the functions of the narrator and of the philosopher parallel, a skilful narrative de~~ice. the poet lends so much more weight to the latter's words that they seem to embody the view of the narrator, and to act as a vehicle for the poet's moral verdict on Arthur. There is yet another connection between the narrator in the Prologue and the philosopher in the Dream of Fortune: both their commentaries illustrate the contradiction between the emphasis on the transience of this world and the mortality of its great men. on the m e hand. and the admiration for knightly virtues and glorious deeds of battle on the other.s9 In the Prologue we find the prayer with its rejection of the 'wretched worldt and the strangely ambiguous reference to the 'awke dedys' (13) of eartier generation^.^^ This corresponds to the philosopher's prediction of Arthur's fa11 and the condemnation of the bloodshed he has caused. In contrast, the narrator in the Prologue praises the Knights of the Round Table as being exemplary in their courtl!. behaviour and on the battlefield, and the philosopher celebrates Arthur as the Ninth Worthy and as the greatest warrior ever. The entire work reflects the tension between these irreconcilable attitudes; in terms of narrative technique, the Prologue and the interpretation of the drekm constitute the two passages where the poet spells out his own view on these conflicting attitudes. Both represent the narrator's point of view and are very detaiIed and personal. We could not wish for a clearer picture of the personality of the author, his commitment to Christian values, and, above aI1, his awareness of the difficulties involved in being a kniqht in the war-torn world of the fourteenth ~ e n t u r y . ~ ' It is also possible to interpret these commentaries as the expression of views on the objectives and obligation of a poet. The Prologue states that the poet must work for the greater glory of Cod as well as provide
entertainment and instruction. This traditional triad. however, is much less interesting than the philospher's comments on poetry, for the latter occurs on a higher level of literary theory, entirely separate from the events in the poem: King Arthur is spoken of as a literary figure, the account of all his deeds, both good and evil, can be seen as a romance and a chronicle. T h e philosopher shows Arthur the path to eternal salvation, repentance and penance; but he shows him another realm, too, in which he will live on: that of literature. Here the way is being paved for a secular view of literature, according to which its task is to portray the greatness of man, a greatness which can even transcend his wrongdoing and downfall. As in the case of Chaucer. we can only speculate as to whether the contemporaries of the poet were aware of these subtleties of his work. Nor is this knowledge very important. What is important is that we have now come closer to discovering the implied reader of the poem, the audience which a work of art like the AMA creates for itself. It is an audience which is able to appreciate the many facets of the poem, the wealth of information it provides with regard to contemporary historical events and their social and cultural background, as well as its timeless importance as a masterpiece of narrative art.
The Language and Style: The Paradox of Heroic Poetry MANFRED MARKUS
There are probably many reasons for the Alliterative Revii.al as a whole. National, northern, heroic, traditional, religious, and, above ail, anti-French impulses certainly exist in the movement. But, as even these partly contradictory catchwords reveal, the common denominator is difficult to find and there are always exceptions: Pearl is not heroic, Piers Plowman is not northern, etc. It seems, therefore, that what most aIliterative works in Middle English have in common is their very sense of heterogeneity, to be found in the clash between the old and the new, between the heroic and the Christian ideals, between the French and the English language and culture and, what is closely linked with these. between the different social Ievels of the members of the audience. Whereas the London area had experienced smooth cultural development during the Middle English period and had had more time to come to terms with the foreign superstratum, particularly the language, the 'provinces' in the Midlands and the North must have been under the impact of culture shock in the fourteenth century, realising that their English, influenced by Norse, was quite different from the Gallicised southern standard, and that heroism, chivalry, and the whole feudal system so long believed in were a t odds with the new social and militar? situation.' O n the other hand, the provincials were aware that they had a national tradition of their own with which to counter foreign infiltration. A11 this must have resulted in a deep feeling of uncertainty and in a sense of the ambivalence of most things. Feelings like this cannot be proved, but in the present case there are symptoms, two of which should be mentioned. One is that the spiritual history of the later Middle Ages and of the early Renaissance in England is full of aspects revealing the fading belief in an absolute world order. In theology, mysticism (cf. Robert Mannyng, Richard Rolle. Dame Julian of Norwich) emerges versus scholasticism; in philosophy, a strong swing towards nominalism ('post rem universalia') can be seen in William of Ockham's conceptualism and in the various schools initiated by him2; in painting, the multiplicity of the external world and the individuality of personal appearance zraduaHy find expression during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and the technique is noticeably As for the dominated by a new sense of perspective and f~regrounding.~ history of literary genres, precisely those types of literature seem to have
58
Manfred Il4arkus
thrived after the thirteenth century which in some way emphasise the personal or even subjective perspective, be it the medieval predecessors of Elizabethan drama, visions like Pearl or Piers Plowman, confessions like Gower's The Lover's Confession, or the Harley Lyrics with their surprising emotionalism. A second symptom of late-medieval relativism can be seen in the inherent ambiguity within individual works. Boccaccio's Decamerone and Chaucer's Canterbuly Tales are only two striking examples of the general trend towards presenting life in its manifold and contradictory aspects rather than sub specie aeternitatis, and although religion is hardly ever totally ignored, it is very often reduced to a position of limited relevance or -as in the case of Chaucer's retractatio -dearly becomes a mere convention. The Gawain poet affirms and at the same time calls into question the perfection of the best Arthurian knight (Sir Gawain) and the religiosity of the first-person narrator in Pearl. A good example of this late-medieval attitude is the AMA. This heroic epic neither glorifies nor condemns the chivalric code, but reduces ad absurdurn those norms that have formerly been unquestionable. The author of the AMA is not just telling an old story from the Brut with only slight modifications; between the lines he is really discussing the truthvalue of the old ideals, particularly of heroism and chivalry. He reveals such an attitude of distance and sophistication that the traditional patterns of language must be taken. not at their face-value, but as part and parcel of an overall relativistic concept of the heroic world. The oId ideals of the perfect knight, the absolutely powerful king, the faithfulness of subjects, the relevance of single combat and of the chivalric mode of war have. like the genre of heroic poetry, become major problems by the end of the fourteenth century. I intend to point out this ambivalence as regards laqguage and style, starting from lexis and syntax, moving on to the specific use of formulaic phrases and the alliterative long line, then on to the larger units of description (spatial structure) and action (temporal structure) and concluding with the means employed to capture the audience's or reader's imagination. The most striking aspect of Iexis in the AMA is the frequency of variation by means of synonyms. Thus. King Arthur is referred to variously as 'the Kyng', the Conquerour', 'the Soueraign', 'Sir Arthure', 'the roy reall7. 'the bolde kyng' and so forth. Benson has counted the instances of variation in the first 1000 lines and argued that the protagonist is 'almost always' referred to as 'Arthur'. 'Conqueror', or 'kyr~g'.~ The giant of Mont St Michel, on the other hand, is designated by a new synonym almost every time he is mentioned, the function of the synonyms thus being contrastive characterisation. Two points, however, have to be added. Though Arthur's 'unchanging n o b i l i t v h a y be suggested by the mode of designation in contrast to that of the giant,s his stability is, in fact, called into question,
The Language and Style: The Paradox
af
Heroic Poetry
59
a s can be seen from the end of the poem. FVithin the last I000 lines of the
AMA Arthur is not even once referred to as 'conqueror' (as against 14 times in the first 1000 lines) or 'sovereign' (as against 3 times). but he is more impartially designated as 'King Arthur' ( 7 times) or otherwise referred to with striking periphrastic variations, such as 'the comelyche kynge' ( I 3 18), 'the burliche kynge' (3557). 'this wyesse kynge' (3562). 'the bolde kynge' (359 I , 3628, 398 I , 1330). 'oure semliche kynge' (3955)' 'the gud kynge' (3949). 'the corownde kyng' (3955) etc. All in all, there are I8 synonyms to be found, and except for Arthur being called bold. none of the epithets is used more than once. Though they are almost exclusively appreciative, the general impression on the reader is that Arthur, cast down by Fortune's wheel, gradually loses his own identity. with none of the epithets seeming more than situationally appropriate. T h e author does not comment on Arthur's fall. but his technique of referring to him in relative terms underlines the vanity of 'the bolde kynge', which becomes evident when he is buried in the way 'pat any wy ['man'] scholde' (4330f.). A second point has to be emphasised vis-h-vis Benson's interpretation. Synonyms and periphrases applied to the main character are very common in most poems of the Alliterative Revival. Piers Plowman being one of the few exception^.^ Many critics, e.g. Brink and Borroff, have shown to what extent alliterative poets were inclined to vary their vocabulary, not only with reference to the main characters but to persons in general and also to God.' Thus. when in the AMA we read about warriors or men, one of the synonyms frequent in Sir Gawain and many other alliterative poems would be used: freke, gome, hathel, lede, renk, schalk, segge, or wy3e (toye).' And Menner was the first to discuss the general reference to God by means of periphrastic phrases or clauses such a s 'He bat spedeg vche speche." T h e usual explanation of this common trend towards lexical variation is a contextual one, the synonyms functioning in their specific context. Thus, Brink emphasised the elevating and idealising effect of the synonyms used for Arthur as opposed to those applied to the giant.Io Borroff and Turville-Petre have in the main repeated the argument." O n the other hand, the obvious metrical function of the synonyms and of periphrastic constructions has been pointed out; no doubt the more choice the author had from a lexical point of view, the easier was the a l i i t e r a t i ~ n . 'Both ~ arguments are valid and could also be used with reference to Old English poetry, yet since alliteration was not an absolute necessity in the fourteenth century the question remains: IVhy this trend to sophisticated lexical variation? Surprisingly. the periphrastic designation ofGod. though common in the alliterative tradition and also widespread in non-alliterative Middle English works,I3 is totally avoided in the AMA. The reIative clause normally used for the purpose, however, seems to have been available to the author. \%h' en
60
Manfred Markw
Arthur is going to meet the giant on Mont St Michel, he refers to him as 'this maystermane bat this monte ~ e m e z (938), ' thus ironically using the well-known formulaic pattern.14 This indicates that the motivation for the usage of synonyms and periphrastic constructions in the AMA is more subtle and profound than has so far been realised. Since God as the surnmum absoluturn is obviously felt to be beyond the scope of periphrastic phrases, it seems fair to assume that the flexibility of lexis is generally due to the author's strong bias towards presenting human beings and worldly matters in changing and transient terms. Flexibility of lexis is the quality that best sums up many more of the characteristics of the AMA, apart from periphrasis. This is true of the enrichment of traditional vocabulary by a wealth of technical terms, be it in the field of haute cuisine (175ff.), armour (904ff.), personal appearance ( 1079ff.), fighting Cpassim), or landscape (922ff.). In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the special vocabulary used in connection with meals, architecture, and hunting is particularly striking. TurviflePetre has shown by means of many examples that alliterative poets were One should add generally fond of rich description full of technicalitie~.'~ that fourteenth-century audiences must have been more aware than today's native speakers of the 'Frenchness' of certain topics and terms as compared with the mainly oral and every-day Scandinavian loan-words and also with the native diction, which evokes associations of Beowulf and The Battle of MaEdon. And more than 'suthren men' like Chaucer, who adapted himself to the Gallicised cultural standard, the poets of the Alliterative Revival seem to have had a strong sense of the differences between words as to dialect, age (archaisms vs. modernisms) and social level.'6 This would explain why critics have found it so difficult to come to an agreement on these points. The author of the AMA, like that of Sir Gawain, is on the whole less interested in 'solid, realistic description' than in the illusory and fortuitous quality of reality." The contrasting use of various codes of language underlines the semantic unreliability of each of them. Some critics who have checked the semantic quality of individual words in alliterative poetry, particularly those of high 'alliterative rank', have come to the corresponding conclusion that many of them 'have wide notion spheres', as Finlayson put it (gird 'strike' and cayre 'go' are given as examples)." Borroff found that many adjectives in alliterative poetry (such as stffi have an idealising and typifying function rather than a precise denotative meaning.Ig The same could be said of the old synonyms for man mentioned above such as burne, frake, gome, etc. The author of the AMA uses not only archaic synonyms, but also, contrarily, newly invented ones, formed by means of substantival (or absolute) adjectives ('be hende'). This construction was well-known both in Old and Middle English, but in the Alliterative Revival it
Language and Style: The Paradox of Heroic Poetry
61
appears so frequently that Oakden regards i t as a distinctive feature of the movement.20 In Sir Gawain and the A M A it is also extremely common, though not with reference to God." Again the question arises as to how these d a t a can be explained, the more so since the late Middle English period tended to avoid the absolute adjective. at least when used for persons in the singular, or otherwise to mark it by the prop-word one.2z It is more than likely that both authors were aware of the constant discussion of medieval grammarians and philosophers on the modus sign$ccandi of Universalists such as Abklard did, of course. make a clear ontological distinction between the nomen substantivum and the nomen adiectimm, and while even Duns Scotus developed a metaphysical system of various modi signiJicandi, the Ockhamists entirely rejected them.24 Seen within this frame of reference, the substantivation of adjectives in the A M A and in the Alliterative Revival in general means a rejection offormerly held positions concerning the different meanings of substantives and adjectives. Things and people are no longer seen as more 'substantial' than qualities; indeed the old medieval dichotomy between substantia and acciden~ia is - in line with nominalism annulled.2s A mistrust of the 'substantiality' of words can also be deduced from some characteristics of syntax in the AMA. The style of most alliterative poems is generally marked by the juxtaposition of clauses and phrases rather than subordination. Asyndeton is quite common. and if there are connectives they are in most cases merely additive (and) or vaguely anaphoric (pa, pane. !ere). Moreover. the lack of causal coherence reveals a clear pattern. As Benson has demonstrated, the 'typical period in alliterative poetry is a short statement extended from a single half-line ~, throughout a series of verses by a r n p l i f i c a t i ~ n ' ~e.g.: This was Sir Gawavne the gude, be qladdeste of othirc. And the graciouwste game that vndire God Iyffede, Mane hardveste of hande. happeste in ames. And be hendeste in hawk vndire heuen riche. . . . (38769)
Nrhen Arthur has been challenged by Lucius' ambassadors he decides: Bot I sall tak concell at kynges enoyntede. Offdukes and duspers and doctours noble. Offe peres of be parlement. prelates and ober, Off be richeste renkys of Rounde Table: Pus srhall I take avisemente or\aliant beqns. M'yrke aftyre the wytte of my wves knyghttes; ( 1 44-9)
This is not a realistic description of what Arthur is going to do, but a verbose variation of what is said in the first half-line, namely that
Arthur wants to take counsel. Specification is carried to such an extreme that the details do not carry much weight. This fondness for the cumulative method of constructing a period has more than once been rejected by critics as a stylistic mannerism often without function. A most striking example of the technique discussed and criticised on aesthetic grounds by Waldron is the extremely long period in the AMA which begins with 1.26 ('Qwen that the kyng Arthur by conqueste hade wonnyn/ Castells and kyngdoms and contreez many, . . .') and in the next 20-odd lines catalogues three dozen countries conquered by Arthur.'" There are a few cases of parallelism and anaphora in this period. What is more, the character of a catalogue is emphasised by two more periodic sentences (though shorter ones) again opening with when. This cumulation of conquests. words and syntactic parallelisms, however, should not, as is done by Waldron, be interpreted as an artistic weakness. It is more likely that the author employed the device deliberately to indicate by means of ironic exaggeration that Arthur's conquests are vain. The irony, to be sure, is very subtle. Syntactic subordination using when is far less typical of the AMA than conjunction using then. The whoIe passage thus creates an impression of stylistic bombast which well corresponds to the overemphasis of worldly success and of Arthur's somewhat hybrid arbitrariness; the latter is also vaguely hinted at by the frequent use of 'as hym Iykez' or some variant, formulaic though it isz8 Formulas and the alliterative long line have already been studied in detail. Critics have compared the specific use of the alliterative long line in the AMA with that in Beowulf; they have listed and analysed formulas and more complex formulaic 'clusters', argued against the early fondness for emendation and emphasised the force of the formula in The more general reasons for the use of cases of irregular alliterati~n.'~ formulas and alliteration in late Middle English poetry have, however, been dealt with less satisfactorily. References to the oral character of romances cannot fully explain the fondness for formulas and even less The addressing of listeners and other signs of oral that for alliterati~n.~' minstrelsy (cf. AMA 12-25) are formulaic in themselves and do not prove that formulas were primarily used as a mnemonic device. In any case, the practical reasons could be complemented by aesthetic ones. What urged the author of the AMA to be particuIarly conservative in his use of the alliterative pattern3' may well have been a strong sense of a normative structure needed to bring home his art of subtle variation. T h e main variants are: the number of stressed and unstressed syllables in each line, the number and pattern of alliterating sounds, the relation of the two half-lines to each other. the grouping of two or more lines by a single aIliterating sound, etc, While these are signs of creative freedom, the alliterative Iong line as a whole was no doubt a more restrictive code of poetic language than, say, Chaucer's heroic couplet, not to mention
Language and Sple: The Paradox of Heroic Poetry
63
prose. This combination of a codified norm and a wide range of variations within the norm seems to have been a suitable medium for a critical discussion of the old norms of war and chivalry. T h e formulaic technique in the AMA has a similar function. Here the frame of reference is not the unit of the line anticipated by the audience, but the listeners' or readers' associations rendered possible through a treasury of common literary experience and of conventional verbal collocations. Critics such as Finlayson have shown that this conventionality of diction does not necessarily preclude individuality in the handling of formula^.'^ But even taking for granted that many of the second half-lines do not make semantic sense in their contexts, e.g. 'bat hyrn lykez' in 1. 1776 (where the phrase refers to the dead Sir Berell), they are often, as Krishna has put it, 'like a refrain that helps to set the mood of a passage.'33 We may go even further, saying that 'tags' such as 'as hym Iykez', 'as cronicles telles' and many others pointed out by GolleP4 function as a kind of leitmotif, regularly reminding the reader of the general norms discussed in the AMA: tradition ('as . . . telles'), combat ('. . . he strykes'), appearance ('. . . to schewe'), or God's help ('so me God helpe'). The references, it is true, have a symbolic haziness (and also ironical implications) beyond the clarity of the plot. The extremely frequent tag 'as hym Iykez', fbr example, makes us think of the importance or rather - in the light of Arthur's or Sir Berell's fall the vanity of human wishes. But then a fourteenth-century audience would have been less interested in the plot and would have paid more attention than present-day readers to formal features hinting at some secondary sense.35 This strong medieval sense of form, more than any other characteristic of the poem, urges us to search for a more abstract meaning in cases where a contextual interpretation would end in absurdity. Thus formulas are in principle ambivalent, both conventional and. in the individual context, original; both stereotyped and, on a more general level of meaning, expressive. The 'meaning' of words is far from being absolute; it only functions in relation to tradition and convention. Looking at the larger units of stylisation in the AMA, i.e. those of description and action, we again find an attitude of ambivalence. No matter what the author describes at length or presents to us in a vivid scene, there are always two meanings involved: one which suggests very concrete images to the audience. and a second one which is more abstract and symbolic. The locus arnoenus described just before Arthur's fight against the giant may be taken as the first example which illustrates this point (920-32). Elliott's and Finlayson's diametrically different opinions on the passage are equally one-sided, the former overemphasising the stereotyped conventionality of the description and the latter its original ~haracter.'~ The author is neither 'mastered' by rhetorical descrzfitio loci nor is the
64
Manfred Markus
passage simply 'an integral part of the AMA' irrespective of its conventional quality.37 The author rather wants us to be aware of the conventionality of the topos. The conventional purpose of l o r n amoenus is of course to suggest, as Curtius put it, a 'form of earthly paradi~e'.~' Accordingly the primary function of the description is 'to set the atmosphere of an idealised or Other World' which. in Finlayson's view, is an appropriate setting for Arthur's perfection as a Christian knight.39 I t is true that while Arthur is fighting the giant his Christianity is very often at issue, nor can there be any doubt that the giant is stylised as an incarnation of evil. Yet the symbolism is manifold and causes ambiguity. The giant is a traditionally ambivalent figure, and in the present text he is emphatically referred to as 'a saint' (cf. 897,936, 1162). which is of course a punning allusion to Mont St Michet, but also provokes the question of the truth or falsity of 'saints'. In addition, the monster is ambiguously described in terms of various 'bad'animals. e.g. a frog or a boar4', but also in terms of a bear (1089), which reminds the audience of that other bear in Arthur's dream fighting against the dragon; according to medieval bestiaries. not the bear but the dragon is the traditional svmbol of the Antichrist."' Arthur for his part is not only depicted as the Christian king helped by God. The brutality of the fight, the blows to brains and bowels and the splitting of genitals throw rather a negative light on Arthur, and it seems sheer irony to proclaim such a fight a 'pilgremage' (896). The emphasis on Arthur's rich clothes and armour (900ff.) suggests the heroic ideals of his strength and power rather than religious humility; of course descriptions like this were traditional, but the author had to add the present one to his immediate sources. the Brut versions of Wace and L a ~ a m o n . ~ ' H e also added the landscape description which is here at issue, the main emphasis being laid on harmless animals such as roe deer or cuckoos. This suggests less a parallel to Arthur's alleged perfection than a contrast with the wild beasts mentioned later to characterise the giant. A contrasting pattern is also involved when the author rounds up the description of the Zocus amoenus with the remark that such an ideal world 'myghte salue hym of sore pat sounde was neuere' (932). This reminder ofsare supports the impression that the description of an ideal landscape is in fact, as Elliott had judged. 'a good instance of incongruity' in the AMA43-but it is one intended by the author and meant to suggest that Arthur's ideality as prescribed by tradition may be incongruous with the 'sores' of reality. be these in the form of a symbolic giant from Italy" or of a war against the Romans which Arthur felt to be necessary. There is as yet no open criticism of Arthur in the present passage, but his picture is split into conventional images of perfect strength, happiness and goodness on the one hand and first symptoms of imminent weakness and brutaiity on the other. Not without reason does
Language and Style: The Paradox of Heroic Poetty
65
Arthur play with his identity, introducing himself to the old woman as 'one of be hathelest of Arthur knyghtez' (988), a joke not to be found in the sources. Although he has not yet Iost his identity, he will do so only too soon. There are three more instances of descriptio loci in the AMA. two immediately before and after Gawain's joust against Priamus (250 1-12; 2670-7), the fourth one preceding the appearance of Fortuna in Arthur's second dream (3230-49). These passages need not be discussed here in detail; Finlayson has done this, demonstrating that the traditional elements ofdescription were skilfully used or modified by the author of the AMA. The common function of the four descrzptiones, however, does not become entirely clear in Finlayson's paper. Like Arthur's meeting with the giant, Gawain's joust against Priamus and the vision of Fortune's wheel are, of course, central scenes of the AMA as a whole. the general function of descnptio loci thus being to underline the structural relevance of these scenes. But they are not only a formal means of emphasis. In each case a contrast is established between conventional idealism and actuaI realism. The second of the four passages at issue (2501-1 2) evokes an idealised atmosphere by picturing a peaceful summery landscape seemingly in keeping with Gawain's alleged prudence and strength. The ensuing 'adventure' ('wondyr'), however, appears rather unmotivated and unnecessary and can by no means be considered an act of knightly perfection. T o an even greater extent than in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Gawain is ironically criticised. The two knights start fighting without further ado and take a personal interest in one another only after they have been wounded; Priamus praises himself to the skies, associating his lineage with as many as five of the Nine Worthies (2595K)45; moreover, it seems inappropriate in several respects that Gawain (he, too) should be joking about his identity (2620ff.) in spite of his wounds. Yet an even greater inconsistency lies in the fact that the two combatants -- Gawain with a gaping shoulder (2689), Priamus with his liver disclosed (2561) -should withdraw to a meadow (the third locus amoenus on our list) and enjoy the lilting birds 'with lowde laghttirs on lofte' (2673). While the first three instances of descriptio loci discussed so far provide a contrasting foil of the idea1 as opposed to the less and less perfect Arthurian world, the fourth passage contains the contrast itself. Arthur as a dreamer first finds himself in a wilderness, and only after fleeing from savage beasts does he come to a type of earthly paradise. Finlayson, who has compared the text to other medieval works, has pointed out the originality of the combination of the motifs involved: the savage animals, the flight from the wilderness, and the arrival in the locus anoen~s.'~ But emphasis should also be laid on the general contrasting technique of the author which here becomes quite evident;
66
Manfred Markus
the other loci anoeni in the AMA were surrounded by the 'wilderness' of war and life), but now the contrast is condensed into one descriptio. There are many references suggesting analogical coherence with the rest of the AMA: the beasts remind us of the giant's beastly attributes, the dream vision will be associated with Arthur's first dream and the beasts' blood-thirstiness with that of both the giant and Gawain, etc. The ideal landscape described in 3238-49 also sets a contrasting scene in view of what follows. The static beauty of the conventional lorn amoenus effectively contrasts with the ideas of vanity and the fall expressed by the wheel of the Goddess Fortuna. T h e four central descriptiones iucz in the AMA, being both conventional and original, thus generally serve the purpose of providing a background of values so that the story may be judged by the audience in terms of ideality and perfection versus their opposites. In addition, the plot is full of parallels which call for a contrasting analysis on an ethical basis, the essential question being whether the personal behaviour of Arthur and his knights, and also the battles they fight, find less and less moral justification in the course of the tragedie. The author gives an undeniable formal indication that he wants the action to be understood on two levels, the one concerning the plot and the other a more general and abstract meaning. This is made clear by the use of two narrative tenses instead of one, namely of the present tense side by side with the usual preterite. Critics seem to have been at a loss to explain the frequent use of the 'historical' present not only in the AMA, but also in Sir Gawain, Pearl. The Wars 4Alexander. The Azemtyrs off Arthura and other alliterative poems. In the prefaces to Finlayson's and Krishna's editions the point is not even mentioned. Linguists and early literary critics who did deal with it mainly described its occurrence, but hardly tried to analyse its stylistic function. This was made evident in an earlier publication. where the functional use of the present tense in the four Gawain works was studied in detail and on a quantitative basis.47The analysis revealed that the use of the narrative tenses functions as a means of expressing temporal perspective, and as an indication of the contrastive difference between actions in the foreground and background. The genera1 purpose of the present tense in a narrative context is not, as has often been suggested, to create temporal actualisation, but to mark any type of deviation from the focus of the normal narrative. As for the AMA it again seems impossible to attribute a static grammatical function to the present tense. The author uses the device to separate individual phrases from their textual surroundings (e-g. 62ff.), to mark a short digression (619ff.) or a lengthy tableau (738ff.). Many scenes, particularly those of fighting, are made much more dramatic by the use of the present tense, e.g. that of Arthur fighting the giant ( 1 1 lo),
Language and Style: The Paradox of Heroic Poetty
67
but this is not a device used with absolute consistency. Quite often the switching of tenses signals the change from one scene to another (e.g. 625, 736, 756, 1223). This constant switching of tenses is not at all identica1 with the jwaesens historim of medieval rhetorics and of C h a ~ c e r . ~While ' the tradition called for a sparing use of the present tense, the author of the AMA probably employed it as often as he did not. The overall effect of this technique of spotlighting almost half of the action is that the AMA gives the impression of having a sort of double plot: on the fore-stage we mainly see the valiant deeds ofArthur and his knights (present tense), whereas the preterite tense generally seems to be reserved for the more circumstantial parts of the action, implying the author's point of view and appealing to the reflective rather than the imaginative side of the listener's perception.49 Although the borderline may not be clear-cut, there are definitely two poles. This is all the more striking since the sources of the AMA are strongly dominated by a linear temporal structure: the episodes are narrated in chronological order and mainly connected by then. In the AMA, we have a more sophisticated narrative pattern in which the heroic action is overIaid by a level of meaning which reveals a more distant and detached attitude on the part of the narrator. Instead of arguing clearly the author seems to be strongly motivated by that fondness for ambiguity5*which is typical of the late medieval period in general. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Gawain is an ambivalent figure, and so are the protagonists of Pearl, Patience and Purity. Mehl is one of the many critics who have noticed an overall irony in Chaucer, and as Clemen has said, i t is 'typical of a transitional period that its writers make play with what had formerly been firmly-established and traditional forms.'s1 Thus it is not surprising that the author of the AMA, instead of establishing a clear position pro or contra, emphasises the 'two sides' of things, i.e. their relative truth-value, so that the audience's sympathies are bound to be divided. One proof of this is the contrast, throughout, between the author's implicit irony towards ArthuP2 and the narrator's explicit sympathy with him. Again and again Arthur's knights are referred to as 'oure cheualrous knyghtez' ( 1362) or 'Oure folke' (4179)' with many instances even towards the end of the AMA.53In addition, the audience is regularly reminded that the battles are being fought between pagans ('Sarazenes', 2906) and Christians, and it went without saying in the Middle Ages that 'Paien unt tort e chrestiens unt dreit' (Chanson de Roland, 1015). T h e old French word paien brings us to a second point which reveals the narrator's ambiguous attitude: the unintegrated and often punning choice of words. 'Cl'hen Arthur, before his last battle against hfordred, bursts out in blind hatred that he will 'euer pursue the payganys pat my
68
Manfred Markus
pople distroyede' (4046), he is not only a boaster (in the face of his imminent death), isolating himself from his knights in his passion. but the very words he uses reveal the narrator's subtle distance: payganys does not occur elsewhere in the AMA, the normal term being h e m . The Latin word is hardly appropriate for an irate nationalist utterance like Arthur's; nor is the pun which is added three lines later when we are told that none of the knights of the Round Table dared to 'paye pat Prynce with plesande wordes'. Krishna, partly following Matthews, has mentioned a few more instances of word pIayYs4likewise to be found in the Gawain workss5 We need not discuss further individual passages here, the general function of the device being to express ambi
Language and Style: The Paradox of Heroic Poety
69
extremely functional: the events are interesting both as part of the plot a n d as a n indication of the observer's mental attitude. Thus after the first fatal blow during the final battle there is a list of losses, but everything is described as seen by Arthur: be Kyng comly ouerkeste knyghtes and othire . . .' (3932: cf. 3939/40, 3949). The passage reaches its climax when Arthur faces the dead Gawain, and again there is a perception indicator ('Lokes one his eye-liddis', 3953), vaguely suggesting what Arthur must have felt and thought vis-&-vis the 'leaden lips' a n d the 'fallow c o m p l ~ ~ i o n ' . ~ ~ No doubt Robertson was right in pointing out the modern reader's fondness for tension: We demand tensions in literary art-ambiquities, situational ironies, tensions in figurative ianguage. tensions between fact and symbol or between reality and the dream.6' But it seems questionable whether Robertson was correct in saying that 'the medieval world was innocent of our profound concern for tension'. T h e author of the AMA like the author of the Gazeain works is particularly fbnd of tension in the very sense of the term used above. O n the basis of its characteristics of language, style and point of view. the AMA is a typical example of the many paradoxes of its time and in particular of the paradox which heroic poetry had become by 1400. T h e author has not yet abandoned the ideals of heroism and chivalry, yet he reveals a deep scepticism in face of those truths that had formerly been taken for granted.
Formulaic Microstructure: The Cluster
JEAN RITZKE-RUTHERFORD
Today, more than ever, there is general disagreement as to the position of the alliterative Morte Arthure in the tradition of English literature, and particularly in that of English alliterative poetry. A close study of the treatment of battle in the poem using the methods of formulaic analysis may bring us nearer to a solution. Descriptions of battle dominate the poem to such an extent that some critics have regarded them as monotonous or even superfluous.' At the same time they comprise poetry's most ancient and conventional passages in general. Thus they are the most likely parts of a poem to turn to for traces of the poet's indebtedness to an existing literary tradition or style. or for signs of his innovation and his creative departure from it. Research of the past two decades has increasingly stressed the relationship of the AMA to the Old English atliterative tradition, linking it in form and style to the Battle of M ~ l d o nand other Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry.' The reasons are obvious. The poem employs an alliterative long line which strongly resembles the old Germanic one with its four lifts, division into two half-lines by a caesura, and aa/ax pattern of alliteration. It also makes use of incremental repetition in a manner which, as has been amply demonstrated, strongly resembles that of Old English
poet^-y.3 The idea that the style of the AMA may be the product of an unbroken and quite possibly oral tradition dating back to the Old English period is an intriguing one. Some form of oral or written transmission of the style seems all the more likely in view ofthe fact that we have written records of the continued use of alliteration in Early AhfiddleEnglish prose and p ~ e t r y .Up ~ to the present, this line of thought has been handicapped by the lack of concrete linguistic evidence. Middle English verbal formulas have seldom been traced to Layamon's Brut. let alone back to Old English, and the few found thus far are difficult to distinguish from the formulas of common speech.$ Formulaic analysis of the AMA and its treatment of the theme of battle can provide a key to the traditional nature of the poem, and at the same time to its uniqueness. A major revision of formulaic theory - the addition of a new concept called the cluster -may supply a method for determining whether the poet is drawing on techniques and language also present in Old English. a method which might also be used to trace
Formulaic Microstructure: The Cluster
71
the survival of formulaic patterns of language through both prose and In addition. use of the concept of the cluster provides a new explanation for the 'runs' or groups of lines alliterating on the same sound -a feature which is characteristic of the poem. Formulaic Theory (commonly known as 'Oral Formulaic Theory', although it has proven equally useful for the analysis of written composition) has been applied to Old English since 1953, when Francis P. Magoun's seminal article appeared. His description, particularly with regard to the 'Beasts of Battle" helped define a phenomenon that philologists had been trying to explain for generation^.^ The idea of developing a closed critical system for the analysis of medieval texts was revolutionary, and since then the theory has undergone much rigorous testing and revision. Not only has i t become plain that formuIaic techniques are used in written as well as oral works, but also the original premises of the theory as formulated by Parry and Lord in the thirties have been revised in the light of the specific poetry to which they have been a ~ p l i e d . ~ What is needed is a set of formulaic concepts that fulfils the major conditions of systematic description set up by Nelson Francis: ' 1 ) simplicity, 2) consistency, 3) completeness, and 4) usefulness for predicting the behaviour of data not brought under immediate observation when the theory was f ~ r m e d .Thus ' ~ the goal should be a system of definitions that is simple, in that it describes the phenomena and differentiates between them with a minimum of verbiage and no surperfluities. The system should contain no internal contradiction and should be consistent in its method of description. Moreover it should be complete, in the sense that no phenomena are left out of consideration and that each definition offers an adequate description of its object of reference. With the fulfilment of these conditions. one can hope that the system of concepts will then be capable of predicting the behaviour of formulaic phenomena, that is, prove an adequate tool for descriptive analysis and evaluation. Such a system can only be developed through an evolutionary process, as the synthesis of varying critical viewpoints, and the definitory work of Donald K. Fry and others comes as the culmination of nearly thirty years of scholarly discussion. The result is a critical apparatus that can be used to evaluate and explain formal repetition and its aesthetic implications in Old English poetry.'' Although there are a number of publications which apply the theory to Middle English, and in particular to the AMA, the present lack of a systematic study of all the concepts involved and their applicability to Middle English poetry is a major barrier to further progress in the field. Until such a step is taken, scepticism towards formulaic theory as a viable critical method in Middle English studies will be difficult to dispel." But even a t the present stage, the application of formulaic methods can give us
72
Jean Ritzke-Rutherford
valuable insights into paetic technique and intention in the AMA. T h e following abstract concepts form the basis of the theory and have been adapted from ones used in Old English research to meet the contingencies of ,Middle English alliterative texts the fonnula, the formulaic system, the theme and the type-scene.'* Examples have been drawn from the battle scenes of the AMA, although all parts s f the poem offer a rich selection of formulaic elements. In view of the copious formulaic analyses of the poem, it should not be necessary to prove here that the AMA is highly f ~ r m u l a i c . ' ~ The formula can be defined as 'a group of words, usually one half-line in length, which is regularly employed to express a given essential idea.'14 Repetition in this case is nearly verbatim; reversal of the word order and slight variations in case, gender and number are permissible, as is the insertion of single words. Two half-line formulas may occasionally be combined to form a repeated whole line. Two or more occurrences in the same poem are necessary to identify a phrase as a formula (particularly in the AMA where the poet has a tendency to double or repeat his phrasing, if only a single time). Many formulas occur as half-line tags or fillers in the second half-line. Although formulas of the first half-line are said to differ from those of the second,'$ there are a good number of exceptions. The following examples exhibit the half-line formula with slight variation, with reversal in word order, and with positioning in both the first and second half-lines: 1 I 1 la: 2239a: 2252a: 2518a: 2459a:
And with his burlvche hrande With a burlvche brannde With his burlvche brande Enbrassede a brode schelde With brode scheides enbrassede
+
120b: ruschte to erthe 224Ia: And he rusches to j x erthe 2794b: And rusches to be erthe T h e formulaic system can be defined as 'a group of half-lines, usually loosely related metrically and semantically, which are related in form by the identical relative placement of two elements, one a variable word or element of a compound supplying the alliteration, and the other a constant word or element of a compound, with approximately the same distribution of non-stressed elements'.16 Thus the system is generally a collection ofwhat could easily be formulas in which a stressed word, often that carrying the alliteration, varies. Use of this type of variation makes tag formulas particularly adaptable for metric or semantic purposes: 284b: be craftez of armes 256b: of dedez of armes 563b: with gude men of armes
Formulaic Microstructure: The Cluster 1193b: and his brvghte wapen 1349b: for hvs bryghte wedes 1414b: with theire bryghte swerdez Work in Old English has shown that there is a further compositional element on the language level which, when integrated into formulaic theory, provides an explanation for the recurrence of loose collocational word groups not subject to the confines of one or two consecutive lines of poetry-a phenomenon common in Middle English poetry, both alliterative and non-alliterative. With the following example of such a word group, we find the two words ME swap(en) and swerde habitually used together to express the idea of a word group both within the unit of the line and in the context of a larger collocation (ME swelt(en), szuoghe and swoun(en) to express the added idea of 'faintness' and 'fall7.* 3 14:
Ke no more schoune fbre be swape of thiere sharp su~rddes.
7157 16:
And then cho swounes full swythe. whe[n] he hys merde aschede, Twys in a moun_yng, melte, as cho walde.
1126- A swerde lenghe within be swarthe he swappe~at ones. 1129: That nere swounes be Kyng for mougke of his dvnttcz. Bot git the Kyng sweperly full swythe he byswenkez. Swappez in with the swerde bat it the swange brystedd; 1464- Swyftly with swerdes, they mappen thereaftyre, 1467: Swappez doun full sweperlye suxlltande knyghtez. That all swe/Ettez one swarthc that they ouerswyngen So many sweys in swogke swounande att ones. The integration of this type of repetitive phenomenon into the already existent system of concepts pertaining to formulaic theory makes a more adequate description of formulaic patterns in language possible. The new element can be defined as a group of words, usually loosely related metrically and semantically, which is regularly employed to express a given essential idea without being restricted to a certain form or sequence, or to a certain number of lines. I suggest that the term 'cluster' be used to designate the concept; for generally more than just two words belong to the group. The idea is not altogether new: a number of scholars, many of them working with Middle English, have seen the need to describe a larger and less rigidly structured type of verbal repetition, one which exceeds the narrower bounds of the formula or formulaic system. A. C. Baugh, on the basis of work in the Middle English romances, suggested a further compositional element, the 'predictable complement', in 1959; A. B. Lord spoke in 1960 of'clusters * The individual words ol'tkt cluster ar word group are printrd in italics, as opposed to the solid or broken underlining commonly used to mark the formula and lbrmulaic system. Elsewhere the colIocationnsign is used.
74
Jean Ritzke-RutheTfool-d
of formulas or of lines, which are frequently associated together and which recur;' Stevick in 1962 made a comparison to jazz composition, emphasising that the performer thought 'in terms of larger units, not merely in terms of such small elements as phrases and formulas'; and Finlayson, in 1963, pointed out that 'runs' of formulas with the same alliteration were peculiar to Middle English poetry, and used them as evidence of oral character." Randolph Quirk was mainly responsible for using the concept of associational word clusters bound by ties of alliteration, which he termed 'alliterative collocations'. He pointed out that they were not restricted to the half-line or even to single lines of verse, but could be expanded by the embedding of variations. He went on to explore the poetic and aesthetic implications of the phenomenon, demonstrating how parallelism or incongruity in word pairs could embroider or intensify poetic intention. Similar methods were employed by James L. Rosier, who dealt with clusters bonded by semantic rather than alliterative association, and who did not restrict his clusters to pairs of words only.18 In rMiddle English, both Ringbom and Turville-Petre have employed the concept of the loose collocation, although they generally restrict it to word pairs, and Spearing, like Quirk, confused ~ to the the collocation or cluster with the idea of the f ~ r m u l a . 'Up present there has been no attempt to integrate the concept into Formulaic Theory in a systematic way. Once thus integrated, however, the added element of the cluster enables us to form a closed system, with a correspondence between the elements of form (language and style) and substance (content and narrative structure). The latter elements, that is to say, the theme. type-scene, and motif, have proved even more difficult to define and differentiate than the elements already discussed. In order to provide a basis for common discussion, the definitions and concepts as presented by Donald K. Fry will be accepted here." The formulaic motif is very similar to the usual concept associated with that word in Iiterary criticism: a recurrent element of smaller dimensions connected with a specific action or event. The formulaic Qpe-scene is defined as 'a recurring stereotyped presentation of conventional details used to describe a certain narrative event, requiring neither verbatim repetition nor a specific formula content'. A type-scene might consist of a chain or sequence of motifs. One step further up the hierarchical ladder is the formulaic theme, which I prefer to see as something similar to the traditional meaning of that word in literary criticism. Fry offers a concrete definition: 'A recurring concatenation of details and ideas, not restricted to a specific event, verbatim repetition, or certain formulas, which forms an underlying structure for an action or description.' The definition is, of course, controversial, but the differentiation between the three elements named becomes clear in view of the example of the theme of battle or warfare.
Fornulaic Microstmcture: The Cluster
75
T h e theme is general and forms the underlying basis of the action of the poem. T h e type-scene, on the other hand, is restricted to a particular event, such as siege of a city, heroic single combat, chivalric single combat o r mass combat. T h e type-scene generally consists of a number of conventional motifs. For instance. the approach to battle type-scene is often concurrent with the motifs of dawn or sunrise, the glittering of weapons, and the sounding of trumpets. Viewed in this manner. a hierarchical correspondence can be seen between the formulaic microstructure (language and style) and the formulaic macrostructure (content and narrative structure). As the following hierarchical overview indicates, we thus have a closed system which may come one step closer to providing the stringent and consistent descriptional apparatus needed for the analysis and wa1uation of repetitive patterning in Middle English alliterative poetry:
FORMULAIC: MICROSTRUCTURE
FORMULAIC MACROSTRUCTURE
FORMULA: restricted to a half-line hardly variable in wording; extremely structured (by sound) often connected with a motif
MOTIF: restricted to an event hardly variable in content; extremely structured (by siqht) often connected with a fbrmula
FORMULAIC SYSTEM: restricted to a set of half-lines. but variable in wording: structured to a degree; contains a number of concrete elements (formulas)
TYPE-SCENE: restricted to a set of events, but variable in sequence: structured to a degree; contains a number of concrete elements (motifs) THEME: not bound to a specific event. or to a set order of t h e elements; underlying; and independent of the type-scene: non-structured; can contain type-scenes and motifs (usually the same onts)
CLUSTER: not bound to a specific metric unit. or to a set order of words: underlying and independent of the formulaic svstem; non-structured; can contain systems or formulas (usually the same ones)
T h e most important thing about the cluster is that it is amorphous, having no fixed form, one word recalling the others in the mind of the poet. I n the following example the cluster consists of the Middle English words dede-deme(n)-Dryhten, and dye(n), expressing the givcn essential idea of death, divine predestination, and last judgment. T h e cluster is, again, printed in italics. Not only is this cluster found in the other Middle English alliterative works. i t is also extremelc popular in Old English poetry, as the second group of examples below shows:"
Jean Ritrke-Rutherford MORTE ARTHURE
156.3- Desteny and doughtynes 1564: All es dmyd and delte
of dedys of armes. at D~yghtne~ wiH.
4240- That derfe dynt was his dede, and dole was be more 4241: That euer bat douxhtt)i sulde dy, bot at Dv,ghttyns will. 4305- Of this dere day werke. @ Dtyghtten be Iot~ed. 4306: That vs has destayede and dqyd to dye in oure awen.
OLD ENGLISH E X 0 542-43: d z g dmdurn fah. Drihten svlfa an pam meaelstede manegum dmed BWF 181:
d ~ d admend,
he wiston hie drihten god
BWF 441 :
d7yhtnes dome
se be hine deaa nimd
BM'F 1388:
domes ar deabe;
DRR 105-07:
on domdzge dtyhten selfa zlmihtig god. ond his englas mid, bxt hp pOnne wile deman. se ah domes geweald
b z t bit3 drihtguman
T h e popular Christian sentiment of the above cluster should not be difficult to trace in its continued use through Early Middle English writing u p to the fourteenth century. Another concept expressing death a n d the falling of the fated goes back to OEfige and the idea of death in battle as the privilege of the 'chosen'.22 Again we have the essential idea expressed in the amorphous form of the cluster used in Old English; but the form used in the AMA is closer to that found in Layamon:
MORTE ARTHURE 15351538:
We hafe foughten. in faithe, by 30ne fresche strandez. With be frekkestefolke, that to bi foo langez: of ferse men of armez. Fyftv thousaunde on felde M'vthin a furlange of waye, fay ere bylefede
2143:
So fele fay es in>
4086:
Fellis down gone fcye fotke,
42544255:
thane was be felde wonen, Qwen they had fenyste Pis feghte, And the falsefolke in the felde fqe are bvleuede;
appon be felde leuyde the felde sall be owrs:
Fornulaic-Mi~ostructure:Tha Cluster LAYAMON 767:
ber wes swi& strong feht
873:
7 feht unimete f ~ i eper feollen
1 1 72 1 :
folc feol to itolden
I3886b ... 13888: feollen here-rnarken flugen pa be mihten
feollen be fete
andfa.@-siaworhten rug to ban fmhten hege men swulten pa ueze b z r Feollen
OLD ENGI,ISH
MLD 103b-05:
pa was fmhte neh.
....
L2'aes seo tid cumen
p a t p a r f ~ q emen
ftalfan sceoldon
BRB 12:
,faQqefeollan feld dznncde
E X 0 169: ELE 117: RWF 2975:
fleahfw'ce gast. folc waes qchaqed.
O n p a t fmge folc
BRB 28:
fmge to gef?oh/e. Fife izpun
~
flana scuras
feofl on fofdan n z s he f~,qabe git
T h e cluster 'fight', 'folk', a n d f g g e or f y meaning 'fated' survives from O l d English, but it is augmented in the AMA by the word for 'field'. A t the same time, the feollan on foldan formula seems to have died out. a n d to have been replaced by a newer formula in the AMA, fy bileuede (cf. 985, 1250, 1538, etc.). Another example of a cluster which shows augmentation is that of the words for 'shield', 'shoot', 'sharp' and the archaic word for warrior schalk. Again we find the core of the cluster in O l d English a n d in Layamon, with a n augmented version (through the a d d i t i o i of the word 'sharp') in the AMA: h4ORTE ARTHURE 1856- They sherde in the srhiltrclne rce/&de knyghttez. 1857: Schalkes thev schotte thrughe schrcnkande maylrz. 2210- He schotte thorowe be schiltrouns with his scharp wapen. 221 1 : Schalkez he schrede thrughe. and schrenkcde maylez. 24272429:
The Kyng schonte for no sckot~e. ne no scelde askys. Bot schewes hvrn scharpely in his schene wedys
3841- And rnett h ~ m in the rnvde-sretde. and mallis hym thorowe: 3844: Bot the schnlke fbr the scharpe he schownttes a littill,
...
The schafte schoderede and schotte in the schirr henn.
78
Jean Ritzke-Rutherford
1 1 724: sceldes scenden scalkes pnnen reosen 13127: sceldes to-scened scalkes to-heouwen 13327: sceld a3ein scelde scalkes Per ueollen
BRB 17b-19a:
. .. .
OLD ENGLISH f>xrIzg secg manig
ofer scild scoten. JCD 304: scildburh sczron sceotendra fvll GEN 2062-64: sqlda and sceafta sceotendra fyll
....
under sceat werum scar@ garas There are many such clusters to be found, which lead directIy back from Middle English alliterative poetry through the writing of intervening periods to Old English, e.g. hewnheathens, helm-headnhard, bright-bynzie-beom, etc. The size of the cluster precludes the argument that they merely survived because they were figures of common speech, such as the two-word or doublet formulas. The concept of the cluster thus offers new possibilities in the search for linguistic evidence pertinent to the question of Alliterative Survival versus Revival. Whereas formulas and formulaic systems were subject to rigid formal restrictions and may easily have been lost in the process of language change, the cluster could easily have been more durable, surviving and adapting to new conditions and to the addition of new vocabulary, whether native or foreign. The clusters demonstrated above evidently correspond to similar ones in Old English poetry, and may well have survived through alliterative prose writing, or even through oral tradition. Formulaic poetic techniques were easily capable of assimilating new words and concepts into the body of older tradition, as has been shown in the case of the Old English adaptation of Christian vocabulary and motifs.23 Thus it is not surprising that a number of major clusters, particularly those connected with chivalry and courtly life, are based on words of French derivation. A far Iarger cluster than those aIready mentioned is to be found in connection with the essential idea of battle with a giant. The words for 'giant', 'jolly', 'gentle', 'jagged" and 'genital', recur as a group some fourteen times in the poem (two briefer examples are omitted below). The force of word association is so strong that it even leads to the coining of a highly unusual and hitherto unexplained name - that of Sir Ienitalle in Example 8." What is remarkable is the discernible progression towards Iarger groups of lines with the same alliteration seen, for instance, in Examples 2, 10, and 12. This is a phenomenon which makes the AMA distinct from other
79
Formulaic Micl-ostructure: The Cluster
alliterative poems of the same period, but a similar tendency is noticeable t o a minor degree in some poems towards the end of the Old English period. I t seems likely that 'runs' of the same alliteration a r e traceable to clusters that have grown in the course of their use within a particular tradition, whether O l d o r Middle English, and that the AMA is evidently o n e of the late products of such a development. T h e cluster examples shown below represent most of the occurrences in the poem:
I. T o the geauntes toure ioli(y he wendes With justzce< and iu,ggez, and ,gentill knyghtes
(245-6)
+
2. I salt be at journie, with gentill knyghres. On a 'ambv stede full jolyly graythide. r any journie begane to jwte with hym selfen. Emange alle his ,yaun& Genyuers and oPer (372-5)
3. Sexty - - - - geauntes before. engenderide with fendez (612) 4. The gentiieste jowell
ajugrqedewith lordes
(862)
5. Abouen pat a jesseraunt of jenp/l maylez. A jupon of Ierodyn jaggede in schredez (904-5)
6. Ewyn into iumette the gyaunt he hyttez, Iust to be genitales.
and jaggede ham -in- sondre. -----
( 1 122-3)
7. Enjoynede with a geaunf and jagyede hym thorowe; Johly this gentill forjustede anober
(20874))
8. And all theis geaunlez before. engenderide with fendez, Ic@ei-&-Si? I=!/.* and gentill knyghtez (21 1 1-12) 9. And thus at thejoygnge the geauntez are distroyede, And at Pat journey forjustede with gentill ----lordez f 2 1334) !
10. Bot one Iolyan of Iene. a geante full how~e, Has jonede on Sir lerante. a justis of LValis: Thorowe a jerownde schelde he jogqes him thorowe, And a fvn gesserawnte of ,gentill mavles Ioynter and gemows, h ~ j q ~ it~o&yr_e~ ~es On a jambe stede thisjurnee he makes Thus is be geante forjuste, that errawnte lewe. And Gerard es jocundr. and jqves him be more. (2889-96) 11. Gvawntis forjustede with gentill knvghtes.
Thorowe gesserawnles of Iene ja' qgede to be herte. -
(2908-9)
- - - - - w e -
!
12. The thirde .Julyus Cesare. bat ,geant was holden, In iche joum'jenfill. njuggede with lordes The ferthe was Sir Iudas. a-justere full nobill. L -
...
The fvfte was Iosue. pat jo!v mane of-armes. That in Ierusatem oste fill1 myche jaye Iymppede; (34Itk15) * Krishna's rmrndation to Sir Ionathal is unnrcessar).
80
Jean Ritzke-Rutherford
In Old English. semantic and alIiterative clusters seem to form underlying structures for the other verbal elements of formulaic composition (the fbrmula and the formulaic system), and often determine which formulas and systems are chosen. In other words, repeated use of the cluster seems to generate particular formulas and formulaic systems. T h e same phenomenon can'be observed in Middle English in the AMA, fbr instance in one of the most frequent clusters in the poem. Here the words for 'chief. 'chieftain', 'chivalry' (= cavalry). 'chase', 'chop down', and 'charge' are used to describe the swift action of mass mtl6e. T h e cluster appears a t least seventeen times in the course of the poem (again three briefer examples are omitted here). Particularly of note is the progression towards more rigidity; as the poet gains skill in using this particular cluster, we have an increasing incidence of formulas connected with it, some of which d o not occur elsewhere in the poem. We can conclude that use of the cluster has led the poet to create formulas and systems, and that the poet's continual use of a group of words leads to the formation ofsmaller and more rigid phrasal elements. T h u s our understanding of the individual formula is deepened by our knowledge of the formulaic system to which it belongs. And both the formula and the formulaic system and their use by the poet become clearer when seen in the light of the cluster which contains them. In other words, a formulaic unit must be viewed in terms of the larger context of which it is a part, as well in terms of the individual poetic context in which it occurs. T h e phenomenon of new formulas is marked in the following examples of the cluster by an exclamation point. I . Rot thare chase< on oure men cheuallrow knyghtez.
( 1399)
2. Of the cheualve cheefe of the kyngez chambyre. Seese them chase oure mene and changen hire horsez. And choppe doun cheftynes that they moste charsyde. 114046)
3. Of tha cheuaErous men that chayede thy pople. The cheefe chaunchelere of Rome. a ch@ayne full noble. (1540-1) 4. And for the cheefe chauncelere. the cheuafere noble, ( 1551)
5. Tolvardez Chartris the! chese, thes chatalrous knvghttez (1619)
6. Thus he chaces the childire of be Kyngez chamhire. And kitlei? in Pe champanyse c z . \.Vith a chasyng spere he choppes doun many. (18'2 1-3) 7. \i.hen be cheualv saw theire chej'tanes were nommen. To a cheefi foreste they chesen theire wayes, (1872-3)
8. Forthi the Kynq charger hym. what chaunce so befall Cheftqyne of the cheekke. with chetlalrous knyghttez. ( 198M)
Funnulaic Microstructure: The Cluster 9. Fare they see paire cheftape be chauffede so sore, They chase and choppe doun - oure - cheualrous knvghttes. (2236-7)
10. Thare myghte men see &$tapes on chalke-whitte stedez C h o ~ doun e in the cham cheualrye noble; (2268-9) ne cheftaynes noper, downn in the chasse, syche chawnse es befallen
1 1. Eschappide there ne cheuallrye,
Bott c&ede
(2367-81
12. He was chosen and chacgegide in chambire of be Kyng, Clr$ta_~neof pis journie with cheua/?ye noble; (2731-2) 13. Cheses to Sir CheIdrike. a cheftape noble, With a chavnx [spere] he chokkes him thurghe!
(2954-5)
14. bane oure cheualrous --- men changen theire horsez, Chases and choppeerdourn cheftqnes noble. (2989-90)
This study has suggested that the next step in Middle English formulaic research must be a systematisation of the concepts involved and their applicability, and has introduced a new concept called the formulaic duster. We have seen that clusters can often be identified with those found in OId English poetry, whereas half-line formulas or formulaic systems cannot. Thus they provide linguistic evidence for the connection of the battle scenes in the A M A with those of older alliterative poetry; above all, such clusters may be traceable through Earlv Middle English prose as well as (or possibly instead of) poetry as proof of the continuity of the alliterative style. Clusters tend to develop with use, a fact which ofTers a new explanation for the grouping of consecutive lines with the same alliteration in the poem. The continued use of a particular cluster also seems to determine the character of smaller formulas and systems, and to lead towards the formation of new ones which consist of elements once used separately. The concept of the cluster and its integration into formulaic theory makes it possible to show that the A M A is firmly rooted in earlier literary tradition, and that the poem reveals strong similarities in compositional structures to far earlier works dating back to the Old English period. At the same time, formulaic elements based on French vocabulary are used which are exclusively attributable to the Middle English period. Most important of all is that formulaic convention can only be fully understood in terms of the larger context in which it is embedded. and it is there that we must look for the key to the meaning of the poem. In late Old English poetry. the cluster is often consciously employed by the poet to reinforce the meaning of the poem. Certainly in the AMA the central motifs of mass warfare, the Round Table, king and crown, fortune, fate and destiny, death and destruction, to name only a few, are marked by extensive and frequent use of clusters.
Jean Rittke-Rutheford T h e basic principle that the larger context of formulaic usage colours and shapes the meaning of the smaller compositional unit is important for the aesthetic evaluation of formulaic style. The single occurrence of only one or two words of a cluster, such as ~ ~ h t e n - i e ,~he~all~e~ch(1sse, or ,geaunt-job evokes associations and audience responses which have been conditioned by repeated use of the cluster. In our case, the formulaic patterns of language in the theme of battle -even down to the tenor of a single word such asfage -set the heroic tone of the poem, and embed i t firmly in the older tradition of English alliterative style. That the poet utilises the full weight of formulaic convention to achieve effects that are both creative and innovative can be demonstrated using both formulaic patterns of language, and those of narrative. What we have seen thus far is only the surface structure of formulaic repetition; oral formulaic research can go far deeper to provide the key to the aesthetic achievement of a literary work of art like the AMA. To do so necessitates an investigation of the poetic and narrative function of the formulaic elements, both within the context of the work in question, and within the context of the school of which it is a part.
Fornulaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle
JE.4X RITZKE-RUTHERFORD
O n e of the weaknesses of oral formulaic research has been its tendency to establish the use of traditional patterning and repetition without going the necessary step further to inquire as to its function within the artistic framework of the poem. In work done thus far on the treatment in the AMA of formulaic elements of content - that is to say, the theme, type-scene and motif- most critics have emphasised poetic convention rather than innovation. Finlayson, for example, characterises the poem's treatment of the theme of battle as follows: What the poet is doing is putting Ioosely together a number of ready-made shapes to form a design or pattern which his audience would recognise, through familiarity, as a pattern of a particular sort, in this case, of battle. He is not endeavouring. as a more modern and 'literary' artist would be, to create his own original shapes and form, his own original pattern. He is not concerned to show the battle in a new way, from a difyerent angle. and thus contribute something new to his audience's reatisation of what battle is. . . .' This might apply to some examples of formulaic composition, but not necessarily to those of high quality and certainly not -as we shall see - to the AMA. As has been amply shown in Old English studies, the aesthetic creativity of the formulaic mode lies in its conscious manipulation by the poet -in the dialectical tension between the restrictions of compositional convention and the poet's attempt to transcend them through innovation in form, content, or contextual placement. This principle was originally defined by Stanley B. Greenfield in 1957: the art of the formula and its aesthetic effect rest 'in the degree of tension between the inherited body of meanings of a formula . . . and the specific meaning . ~ recurrent use a formula of that formula in its individual ~ o n t e x t 'With o r formulaic element accumulates certain associations in the consciousness of both poet and audience. Such associations form the basis for the appreciation of individual use of that same element in a particular instance. Recognition of the familiar and delight in the novel are two aspects of audience response which the creative poet can manipulate in formulaic composition. T h e same principle can be applied not only to the half- o r whole-line formula or system, but to all elements of
84
Jean Rit~ke-Rutherford
formulaic composition, including those which form the patterns of narrative - the theme, the type-scene, and the motif.3 In other words, artistic creativity in formulaic composition rests in the individual and concrete realisation of familiar formulaic patterns inherited from the literary tradition in new or even unfamiliar contexts. Application of the above principle to treatment of the Theme of Battle in the AMA shows that the poet makes subtIe and ingenious use of the conventional narrative patterns of older tradition in a twofold manner. First, he estranges familiar patterns by transformation of the traditional elements or by their placement in unusual contexts. Here the resultant function ofthe formulaic pattern is to draw attention to the medium and its character as literary fiction rather than as a reflection of reality. Secondly, he uses formulaic patterns to provide the structure of the poem, both of individual episodes and of the entire framework in which they are embedded. The whole forms a pattern of intricate design, one whose purpose is. as we shall see, '. . . to show the battle in a new way, from a different angle, and thus contribute something new to his audience's realisation of what battle is. . . .'4 The manner in which the conventional theme of battle is treated in the AMA can tell us a great deal about the poem. A number of articles have stressed the fact that battle scenes in Middle English are stereotyped. Baugh listed some forty-nine difrerent sctions or motifs for the depiction of battle in the romances: and others such as Rychner and Hitze have written entire books on the same topic in the Chanson de G e ~ t eSimilar .~ work has been done on early Germanic poetry, and on Old English.' But the battle scenes of Middle English alliterative poetry, and particularly those of the AMA have yet to be subjected to the same systematic study.' From the very beginning there have been two basic types of battle description- the one is single combat (often against a gigantic monster, as in Beowulfj, the other is mass combat or warfare (as in Judith). The latter subject can be portrayed as a series of single combats (as in the case of The Battle of Maldon), or as a panorama in which the action is expressed in terms of massed numbers and general bloodshed (as in The Battle of Brunanbzrrh). The courtly romances largely feature the singIe combat in which the knightly protagonist demonstrates his prowess as a hero. The so-called 'war poems' of the Alliterative Revival, such as the Wars of Alexander and Destruction of Troy give more attention to tendency no doubt the mass mCl6e and to the conduct of war-a reinforced by the manner in which medieval warfare had changed in reality. In the AMA the Theme of Battle determines the structure of the poem. which consists of a series of the same stereotyped narrative pattern (type-scene) of larger dimensions, composed of a number of smaller type-scenes and motifs whose number and sequence can vary
Fonnulaic Macl-ostmcture: The Theme of Battle
85
(an element can be doubled o r repeated, or even omitted, a t any point in the sequence). T h e repeated pattern is remarkably close to that found in Old English. O n e might argue that this is because it derives from the actual sequence of events in real war, but this seems less likely in view of the fact that the pattern found in the AMA also differs widely from that found in other Middle English alliterative poems. Reduced to an abstract system, the elements of the pattern are as follows: challenge or message (often in connection with a feast) strong emotion (rage or grief), council, vows; preparations or arming for battle. departure: dawn or a flashing light, or locus amomus; arraying of trwps. or takinq up of stance: exhortations (flyting, challenges, oaths or prayers); the exchange of blows; wounding, or death and fall: dying prayers. taunts for the fallen; grief or anger, laments and vows of revenge: renewed fighting, repetition of the above elements; victory and aftermath. prayer of thanksqiving. With only one exception - a significant one a t that -all the battles in the poem conform to the above pattern. There is cumulative evidence that the poet has made conscious use of an archaic and traditional theme.' Both in the micro-structure of individual episodes, and in the macro-structure of the poem as a whole, his approach is an innovative one. By placing the formulaic element in a new and startling context, he transcends the usual audience response, forcing a mental confrontation with both the formulaic device as a medium and with the message it traditionally conveyed. T h e structure of the poem is based on careful counter-balance of the scenes of single combat and mass warfare. The poem pivots on two major episodes of single combat, the first being Arthur's battle with the giant of Mont St Michel. Here we find the same elements as those listed for the conventional description of mass warfare. But there is abundant indication that convention here has been transmogrified. element by element. In each instance the context differs significantly from the traditional one, so that the whoIe emerges as a kind of mock-heroic parody of the original formulaic type-scene. For instance, we have the usual opening with a messenger, who tells Arthur of the death of a young relative, giving rise to Arthur's emotional outburst of grief and vow of revenge (840-79). But the messenger is a Templar, one of a n order of knights stilI notorious for their condemnation on charges of alleged heinous sexual and religious offences.'O And the death is not the usual loss of a young knight in battle, but rather the ignominious rape of a young girl, who is later described as having been 'slit to the navel'. Thus the first two elements of the type-scene have
86
Jean Ritrke-Ruthefo~d
been given an overtly sexual cast not present in the sources." Then Arthur makes his preparations, arms himself and departs (888-919). But the scene is ambiguous and open to double interpretation. The King departs under the pretence of making a pilgrimage to St Michael, a device which gives rise to later jests. The account of Arthur's arming rivals that of Sir Thopas in its elaborate detail, while the dazzling splendour of the armour makes its functionality questionable. The way to the giant leads through an idyllic garden, encIosed with trees, graced by a running brook, flowers and wild game, and thousands of birds in full song. L o w amoenus is used in its classic form three times in the poem. Here, as in the other two instances of the Priamus episode and the Dream of the Wheel of Fortune, it signals that something out of the ordinary is about to occur, something which lifts us above the plane of the purely natural." Further on, Arthur is guided by the (flashing) light of fires burning on the mountain-side (942-8). Then we have a repeat of the elements, a common procedure which is liable to be used at any point in the sequence. Here the elements of strong grief, lament and vow, are repeated; then Arthur takes counsel on the strategy to be used, before departing again to do battle with the giant, who is to be found by the light of a second fire (949-1040). When Arthur finds the foster mother of the dead girl at the top of the mountain, we have an echo of Arthur's death lament, but here the potential for pathos used, for instance, by Layamon, remains undeveloped. Instead the scene is made slightly ludicrous by the woman's brutal frankness in retelling the girl's manner of death and the sexual habits of the giant. After her lament the woman vows not to leave the spot for the rest of her life. Whereas in the sources Arthur took counsel with his faithful knight Beduer on the strategy to be used against the giant, here he takes counsel with the woman. and the scene is heightened by her condescending manner, and by the word play produced by Arthur's hidden identity, when he assures here that he has brought the giant the beard of Arthur as a gift f 1033-4). T h e motif sequence continues with a further repeat of several elements: Arthur, like a messenger, finds the giant at a feast and issues his challenge there. The emotional reaction to the challenge is shown and there is a kind of 'description of arms' as the giant rises and takes his stance to d o battle. In this case, however, nearly all of the elements are used in a completely different manner: the scene seems a direct inversion of the great feast of Arthur at the beginning of the poem. There the messengers approached from the fore, to challenge a noble king in rich attire, seated on the high dais. Arthur approaches from the rear, while the giant lies outstretched on the ground -apparently naked 'breklesse hym semede', (1048). In place of exotic fare, the feast is a gruesome mixed grill of human and animal flesh, and during Arthur's challenge the giant gnaws on a human thigh bone. In keeping with his
Fornulaic Macrostmcture: The T h m e of Battle character as mock warrior, the giant's only answer to the challenge is an inarticulate gnashing of teeth (in the sources there is a word exchange at some point in the battle). As the giant rises to his full height of five fathoms and takes his stance, there is a detailed catalogue of his horrid appearance, carried out in the traditional sequence used for knights and fair ladies -a progression from top to toe (1049-1 103). As usual there is an exchange of blows, and the final outcome is decided by a fatal wound and fall. In the aftermath there are taunts for the fallen foe, the spoils are divided, and the victor utters a prayer of thanksgiving ( 1 104-1 2 17). Here, however, the exchange of blows has an entirely different character. Although some of the blows struck are similar to those in the sources, they do not have the same effect. The hyperbole is boundless. When Arthur runs his sword through the giant's brain, the final coup degriice in M'ace, the monster merely wipes the blood from his face, and even when he strikes the giant in the thigh, as in Layamon, cutting through his entire abdomen in the process and severing the genitals, the monster fights on. Again the overt sexuality of the description in the AMA is striking. As in Layamon, the battle concludes with a blatant humour that borders on slap-stick. Not only the wounding, but also the fall of the giant exceeds all bounds of the natural. After a wild wrestling match, man and monster are shown tumbling down the entire length of the mountain in a clinch. They land at the bottom where Arthur's companions were told to wait - a 'fall' in the fullest sense of the word. The king's miraculous escape from major injury is greeted by his knights with jests on his 'pilgrimage' and the nature of the saint. A prayer of thanksgiving and a two-fold division of the spoils before and after the prayer mark the close of the episode. T h e element of buffoonery here is clearly far stronger than it is in those sources known to us. At the same time, the episode in the AMA is markedly different from the usual late Middle English performance of the giant." And while it is evident that the author of the poem has used the same conventional framework as the one he employs in the mass battle scenes, the formulaic elements have been integrated into a new context, thus giving an impression which approaches burlesque travesty of the original literary stereotype. Elsewhere the term 'mock-heroic' has been used for such treatments, and here it seems particularly apt.I4 Use of the formulaic narrative pattern for mass warfare in a scene of single combat suggests, however, that the author intended the episode to be linked to the other scenes of mass battle in the poem. The battle of Mont St Michel must be seen in close connection with the second major episode based on single combat; that of Priamus the noble pagan, and Gawain the good knight. Both episodes are introduced but the Priamus episode is set off by descriptions of a locus arnoen~s,'~ from the rest of the poem by its use of a different formulaic narrative pattern or type-scene, one taken directly from the conventions of
88
Jean Rittke-Rutherford
classical romance. The motif sequence differs from that of mass warfare,I6 and the contrast is intentional. Both the position of the episode in the climactic central section of the poem, and the episode's elaborate length: indicate that it was clearly intended as a foil for the rest of the work -a perfect picture of the chivalric single combat taken from the fictive world of Romance. In the midst of Arthur's siege of Metz, a mass-battle scene which occupies the centre of the poem, Gawain is sent off with a small party of knights to forage for supplies. On the way he encounters an unknown knight with a mysterious coat of arms. Again, as in the case ofthe battle of Mont St Michel, the motif of locus amoenus, this time incomplete, signals that something out of the ordinary, something not of this world, is to take ptace. Indeed, the battle is far removed from reality: the opponents clash with flaming swords and fire blazes from their helmets -a common image in older poetry and in the sources, but one used only once to this extent in the AMA. Both heroes are gravely wounded, but in the case of Gawain the description of the blow is retarded, striking as in slow motion through layers of rich, ornate clothing, listed i&rn by item. Here the timelessness of romance gives the action an almost dream-like quality greatly in contrast to the rapid cut and thrust of other battle scenes in the poem. At the close, Gawain has not a drop of blood left in his body, and Priamus' liver can be seen by the light of the sun. In this condition they exchange names and knightly courtesies in leisurely fashion. Priamus promises to become a Christian and heals both their wounds with miraculous water drawn from the four rivers of Paradise. All in all, the stereotype is just as overdrawn as that of the battle of Mont St klichel. What makes this apparent is the crucial placement of the episode at the turning point of the poem, when Arthur's campaign is transformed from a semi-justifiable war of defence into one motivated by vainglory and greed for power. Throughout the rest of the poem the description of battle in the AMA is characterised by its gory brutality. Thus, the juxtaposition of the highly romantic Priamus episode situated in a locus amoaus and the harsh bloodshed of mass warfare represent a clear opposition of two elements that might be termed, with due resen~ations,romance and reality. The effect, here again, is to estrange the familiar stereotype and to cause the audience to view it with new eyes. The formulaic function is one of alienation, and forces the audience to respond consciously rather than automatically and intuitively to the poetic device. T h e same technique of estrangement is employed in connection with the smaller unit of the motif. At the height of Arthur's power, he has a prophetic dream of Fortune and her Wheel, a dream distinguished by the employment of the true locus amomus, a walled or enclosed garden that rivals the enchanted one of Le Rmaunt de la Rose. Here, as at the
Formulaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle
89
beginning of the battle of Mont St Michel and of the Priamus episode, the motif signaIs the transition from the larger matrix of mass warfare to the realm of romance and the otherworldly. But the Priamus episode is both preceded and followed by other instances in which the conventional motif and its connotations are transformed and estranged from their usual context. The resulting effect is, again, one of alienation. Preceding the episode, we have a mention of 'one of the fairest spots on earth ever devised'; it is being trampled by blood-crazed warring knights on horseback, gruesome in their disfigurement and in their utter lack of consciousness of their surroundings (2 148-53). Similarly, when Priamus and Gawain return from their idyllic combat to the idyllic spot they set out from, their companions lie in the midst of natural beauty -weary and sated from 'the slaughter of the people' (2675).17 T h e real world of war intrudes on the idyli with a jarring note in both instances, and a little later the pastoral setting is exploited and itself reduced to an instrument ofwar, when it is used as a decoy for ambush (3120-7). With joy made ironic by the circumstances, simple people and shepherd boys stroll out of the besieged city with permission to tend their pigs and other livestock. The emerging pastoral scene is only an illusion, brought to an abrupt end by the violence of the ambush. Again, the familiar motif of nature's idyli has been shown to be misleading and illusory. Thus formulaic type-scenes, motifs, and even verbal formulas have been turned to purposes that are all but stereotyped in their implications. The phenomenon of contextual estrangement is a distinguishing feature of the poet's use of both patterns of narrative and patterns of language. Arthur's romantic-heroic single combat with the giant of Mont St Michel is transformed into a mock-heroic parody of the conventional type-scene, and is, at the same time, a mirror of the type-scene structure of mass warfare used elsewhere in the poem. Gawain's romantic single combat with Priamus is embedded in a setting of mass warfare and siege; and the idyllic motif of locus amoenus is punctured by the brutality of war. Thus, formulaic narrative conventions are reduced ad absurdurn by subtle manipulation of the context in which they are placed, and their iifusory and fictive quality is made transparent. The poet forces his audience to look twice. and to reconsider the intrinsic value of the stereotype. The theme of battle is not only important as one of the major elements in the poem - it also determines the entire structure of the AMA. The underlying principle is the opposition between the ideal and the real, or the single combat of romance and the mass combat of real warfare. The result is a symmetrical pattern of parallel episodes and figures. The romantic Priamus episode incorporates the old ideal, and the literary convention which was its idiom. It occupies the centre of the poem and forms its pivotal point, a view which reveals a number of parallels and analogies
90
Jean Rittke- Rutherford
otherwise unrecognisable, They support the argument that the poet has used the structure of a casus, one which can be viewed as a pyramid, with a rising and a falling of the action." Not only is the Priamus episode framed by the brutal siege of Metz and conquest of Lorraine. It is. at the same time, separated from its realism by double occurrences of locus amomus (2506-12 and 2670-7). Further down the pyramid, parallel use of locus arnoenus robs the motif of its idyllic quality by associating it with the cruelties of war, as pointed out in connection with contextual estrangement of stereotype elements (cf. 2 148-5 I and 3 1 16-27). These are quite in keeping with the tenor of the conquest of Lorraine and siege of Metz which frame the Priamus episode. The signs of aggression and unjust war are clearly marked in 2396-2401, where Arthur states that he 'covets' to know the lord of Lorraine and to have possession of his lovely lands, and in 3038-43, where Arthur's mercilessness in the siege of the city spares neither Church property nor the innocent: 'The pyne of f>epopIe was pet6 for to here.' The parallel serves as a larger frame for the whole, one which like the Priamus episode itself is based on the contrast between the ideal of knighthood and the reality of fourteenth century warfare. Thus the Priamus episode is significantly marked by the manner in which it is framed in double and contrasting passages which highlight the difference between the real and the ideal. The internal structure of the episode reflects the same principle: it actually falls into two parts. There is the romantic scene of single combat between Gawain and Priamus in the centre of the poem. but it is immediately followed by a view of the same two heroes in mass warfare, pitched against superior forces. Whereas they had just been seen at their knightliest, with not a thought for earthly needs, they are now strongly connected with pecuniary matters and the vulgar side of death. Priamus and his men desert their leader for lack of several years' pay (29 16-33), something entirely alien to the code of feudal loyalty. but probably common at the time the poem was written. Priamus' shield bears the 'changeable carbuncle', symbolic of the unreliabilitv of such mercenary troops as those he leads. At the same time it anticipates the changeable carbuncle mounted in the wheel of Fortune.19 T h e Priamus episode exhibits the same Janus-like ambiguity as the Dream of the Dragon, for both Priamus and Gawain are linked structurally with the figure of Arthur. As Matthews has pointed out, the long pedigree which Priamus recites identifies him with Alexander, while Arthur himself is also connected with Alexander several times in the poem, most notably in the Dream of Fortune. Although it is true that he placed too much emphasis on the importance of this, there is no denying that Alexander is the prototype of the proud conqueror, whose Priamus' main fault is, by his own hubris leads to his d~wnfalI.~* admission, his haughtiness (26 12-1 3), and his close connection with
Formulaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle
91
Arthur is indicated again in the last lines of the poem, when we hear that: 'Thus endis Kyng Arthure, as auctors alegges, / That was of Ectores blude, the kynge son of Troye. / And of Sir Pryamous, the prynce, praysede in erthe' (4342-4). But Gawain likewise functions as a proxy for Arthur. In the course of the rising action during the French campaign. as well as in the course of the falling action during the English campaign. we have the same sequence of action: first an instance of rash conduct in battle which is successful (Gawain against Lucius, and later Arthur against Mordred's troops in the sea battle), then an instance of rash conduct which incurs disaster and death (Cador against Lucius. and later Gawain against Mordred). Both are followed by Arthur's success in battle against the enemv where Gawain has failed (in each case it is Arthur who finally kills the enemy: first Lucius, and then Mordred). The pairing ofGawain and Arthur is further reinforced by conscious verbal devices. Thus the cluster crownr?kinp used so often for Arthur in the poem is suddenly applied to Gawain after his death, when Arthur praises him as the ideal knight." T h e structural symmetry caused by this 'doubling' of the major figures in the poem finds its explanation in the Priamus episode: the hubris of Alexander and Priamus, as we11 as the rashness of Gawain and Cador are epitomised in the episode, and are subsequently revealed in the second half of the poem, where they lead to Arthur's downfall and to that of the world he stood for. Structural use o f a further motif reinforces this conclusion: both Arthur (in 1 19 and 139) and Gawain (in 3831 and 3881) are compared to but the only other significant occurrence of the lion symbol in a non-heraldic context is in the Dream of Fortune. where Arthur envisions lions lapping up the blood of his knights. Indeed, the wasteful loss of Arthur's knights expressed throughout the poem (esp. in 3990) in terms of the image of blood, is brought about by the twin flaws of both ambitious pride (seen in the figures ofArthur and Priamus) and rashness (seen in the figures of Gawain and Cador), and the two motifs are skilfully interwoven in the structure of the poem. Such symmetrical repetition of both figure and incident extends to the structure of the entire poem. The ceremonial pomp of the oprning feast is mirrored in the solemn rite of the funeral which marks the conclusion of the poem. At the same time, however, another parallel is drawn through double occurrence of the formula with myrthis and melo+e. I n both instances the Romans attend a feast as Arthur's guests, but in the first instance (242) they have just approached him with a haughty challenge from their sovereign position as rulers of the continent. I n the second instance they humbly beg him to spare Rome (3174), and positions are reversed: Arthur is now sovereign. The connection is reinforced by further verbal echoes between the two passages (e.g. the formula 'with selcouthe metes' (75 and 3196). In a
Jean Ritzke-Ruthe~ford
similar manner the single combat with the giant of Mont St Michel is echoed in the final single combat with Mordred. And the widow's words to Arthur that he is no 'Wade or M'awayn' (964), and that he shall be 'fay' (971) are later echoed in the poem in Arthur's lament for Gawain and the epithet 'fey' which echoes throughout the poem in other contexts, only to be applied at last to the king. The cruellest instance of doubling and parallelism, perhaps. is that of the two swords. When Arthur catches sight of the second sword now carried by Mordred, he becomes aware of the full measure of Guinevere's betrayal. The irony lies in the fact that Arthur's death is caused by the very royal insignia Frolio's sword of France - that he had so eagerly strived to attain, and that royal wielding of the sword brings England very close to destruction. Further structural doubling is used to mark the two halves of the poem: just as a dream and its fulfilment open the rising action (the Dream of the Dragon and the battle of Mont St Michel), so, too, a dream and its fulfilment mark the beginning of Arthur's downward descent to death (the Dream of Fortune and Arthur's subsequent campaign against Mordred). In both instances. the motif of pilgrimage is involved, as many have pointed out. but in the first instance Arthur is no more than a sham-pilgrim. and in the second instance a true pilgrim is involved.23 At this point in the poem the doubled strands connected with the pilgrimage motif coalesce, and the contrast afforded by clothing, language, and behaviour underlines the structural significance of the scene. The fact that most of the elements discussed above were not included in the known sources makes it clear how carefully and subtly the poet has added details to achieve the intricate structure of the poem. In addition to the clearly symmetrical structure of the poem, there is a further principle at work. A recent article has suggested that the arrival of a messenger seems to mark the opening of the major sections of the poem, but this is only symptomatic of a far larger phen~menon.'~ As we have seen. the arrival of a messenger is the initial element in the type-scene of mass combat, and it is the repeated use of the type-scene, with its set sequence of certain motifs, that determines the shape of the poem as a whole. In other words, the theme of battle provides the structure. not only of the individual episodes of the poem, but also of their relationship to one another. T h e poem can be divided into five sections, each of which concurs with five major battles: the Dream of the Dragon and battle of Mont St Michel; the French campaign against Lucius, culminating in the battle of Sessoyne; the siege of ~Metzand Priamus episode; the Roman campaign and Dream of Fortune; and the English campaign against Mordred. In each case (with the exception of the Priamus encounter) the basic structure of the action derives from the same sequence of motifs that form the type-scene of mass warfare listed earlier.
Formulate Mmostmcture: The Theme of Battle
93
T h e same sequence also forms an envelope or frame for the entire poem, beginning with the feast on New Year's Day, the arrival of the messengers and their challenge, Arthur's reaction and the council with vows ( 7 8 4 12). In this case, the feast motif is repeated ( 166-230 and 288-7551, as is the motif of preparation and departure. In the latter case, the poet focusses first on the movements of Arthur's men, and then on those of the enemy (570-755). The prophetic Dream of the Dragon is woven into the departure motif; the interpretation of the sages functions nearly like a chorus in setting the stage for the coming action. In this first section of the poem, the battle with the giant of Mont St Michel shows the old heroic literary stereotype ofsingle combat with tongue in cheek. At the same time, the scene is linked to the others of mass warfare by use of the same type-scene structure. We are introduced to a heroic Arthur who acts 'for rewthe of be pople' (888), but are warned that he is not all that he appears. T h e second section of the poem. the French campaign against Lucius, shows Arthu~*'sfurther rise in power, again for the sake of the people who are being victimised by the Romans, but there is a new note to the formula drawn from the same system as the first one. This time he acts 'fore mendement o f . . . [hvs] pople' (1236). The stark reality of mass warfare is presented in a series of type scenes, and a tri-partite division of the action contrasts the king with his liege-men. Gawain and Cador, to show that Arthur is still 'the best of knights'. The culmination of the campaign in the Battle of Sessoyne evidences unusual mastery of the stereotype; the action is split into two different perspectives. that of Arthur's side and that of the enemy camp. and descriptive technique alternates between close-up and panorama with an effect comparable to that of the modern film cameram2$ T h e third section of the poem, with its double framework of mass warfare (the conquest of Lorraine and the siege of Metz) about a central type-scene of single combat lifted straight from romance has already been discussed in detail. T h e two-part Priamus episode shows us Gawain first as the traditional ideal of the knight, when his humility is contrasted with the haughtiness of Priamus. Shortly afterwards, when Gawain and Priamus engage in mass combat, the mercenary reality of contemporary knighthood takes precedence. The change anticipates that of Arthur, who now spares neither churches nor monasteries, and causes T h e pyne of be pople' (3043). Arthur has developed from a protector of his people into a wager of aggressive and merciless territorial warfare, one no longer conducted for reasons of knightly honour, but for purely mercenary considerations. T h e fourth section of the poem portrays Arthur's Italian campaign, a n d his further departure from the knightly ideal symboIised by the Priamus episode as demonstrated in a series of bloody battles and sieges in which the king emerges as a merciless tyrant 'who tourmenrtez be
94
Jean Ritzke-Rutherford
pople' (3153). The prophetic Dream of Fortune interrupts a motif sequence of the usual type-scene structure. and. as before, is embedded in the motif of departure. The sage who interprets the dream comments and sets the tone for the coming action, again much like a chorus. The type-scene continues with the motifs of arming (Arthur dresses royally), departure (he leaves the camp), and dawn. This section with its sudden turn of Fortune orpe7ipeteza leads directly into a continuation of the motif sequence with messenger, counciI, and preparations for departure. BattIe, here, provides the underlying structure of this section, but accounts of the action are reduced to their essence and kept in the background, a device that focusses attention on the significance of the dream and the king's confrontation with the pilgrim. The fifth and last section of the poem contains the English campaign, and the final battle against Mordred. Again there is a tripartite division of the action. This time Gawain's rashness costs him his life. Indirectly, it is Arthur who is responsible, for it is his sin of pride and of greed for power that brings about both his downfall and that of the knights of his Round Table. Arthur, and even Mordred, see in Gawain the ideal of knighthood, a role reinforced by Gawain's performance in the Priamus episode at the centre of the poem, by the fact that he fights as a proxy for Arthur, first against the Romans, then against Mordred, and -above all -by Arthur's long lament for Gawain. Not only a beloved knight, but the romantic ideal of knighthood and the decline of an entire way of life -are mourned here. And yet Arthur's comparison of Gawain with Christ shows that Arthur and Mordred are blind to the flaws of the ideal they would like to see in him. The action carries on to the final confrontation of Arthur and hlordred in single combat, a para1leI to the single combat with which the rising action of the poem opened. Final wounding and fall, the poet's lament and the final prayer of the king continue the normal type-scene sequence, completing the larger frame which circumscribed the action of the poem, and concluding the whole with a scene of funerary pomp which matches the feast as a parade of royal prerogative. Thus the theme of battle provides the structure of the poem, which must be seen as a series of interlocking and carefully positioned type-scenes. But beyond the resultant form of a medieval tragedy of Fortune, there are startling resemblances to the form of classical tragedy.26A long prologue is incorporated into the first section which leads us medias in res, there is a slow rise in action during the first three sections, climaxing in a blatantly fictional play within a play whose outcome is reported indirectly and at length by a messenger (teichoskopia); this is followed by a short fourth act with peripeteia and a rapid fall to the final catastrophe, It is quite possible that the poet was familiar with these features of the Senecan model of tragedy, or Italian adaptations of it. A translation was made in Italy at the beginning of the
Fonnulaic Maerost7ucture: The Theme of Battte
95
fourteenth century, and the poet's unusual familiarity with Italian place names and the route to Rome has long been recognised as being significant. It is worth noting that Lydgate. the poet's near contemporary, was an admirer of Seneca as a writer of tragedy." The AMA might even be the first reflex of truly classical tragedy in English literature; but in spite of cogent arguments, this remains no more than a supposition. The poet has used formulaic tradition to achieve surprisingly modern ends. Ancient conventions, such as the formulaic type-scene of battle, are reduced ad absurdurn by techniques of burlesque or contextual estrangement, but at the same time are deployed in a careful and elaborate design that recalIs the intricate structures characteristic of the best poems of the Ricardian era, such as Gawain and the Green Knight and Pearl. The Theme of Battle not only provides the overall structure of the poem; it also determines structures within structures. And yet, the conventional use of the theme was to glorify war and the knightly hero, and to stimulate the pleasurable identification of the audience with the action and its protagonist. The poet of the AMA, quite on the contrary, takes up that tradition and turns it to other purposes, embuing the same medium with a new message: war as an instrument of corruption and thing of growing horror, a law unto itself. The poet has constructed a war poem with an anti-war bias -and, above all, has hoisted the formulaic theme of battle on its own petard.
A mzoriat Bearincgs and their Meaning
KrZRI, LIPPE
Throughout the Middle Ages heraldry played a great part in the everyday life of the high nobility and the gentry. It was a reality which gradually made its way into the world of fiction. Historical heraldry deveIoped into an art or science with a set of strict rules, while in literature heraldic emblems were used side by side with other literary symbols. The descriptions of coats of arms were often incomplete or even incorrect, as if the shield were merely an ornament. adding colour to a jousting match or a battle scene. In literary heraldic descriptions there are various types of shields, for example the monochrome coats of arms of the 'Red, Green and Black Knights', which occurred only rarely in reality. There were also many svmbolic shields, such as those displaying boars, lions or gryphons. Each of these charges may indicate that its bearer possessed a certain property: valour, strength or villainy. These coats of arms are not used in the strict heraldic sense, but function as a kind of rebus. requiring interpretation. But this in its turn contributes to the understanding of the whole work in which they appear. There are, however, numerous descriptions of shieIds in literature which are heraldically correct. Sometimes these shields are so simple that thev d o not allow any conclusion as to historical bearers. In some instances complex shields can, however, be ascribed to historical personages and thus yield valuable information about the sources and original locality of the work in question, and also about the author's patrons. Unlike other Middle English romances the AMA gives a considerable number of descriptions of shields of arms, which are continually strewn through the narrative, from the beginning of the first fights till the last and final battle between Arthur and Mordred. In particular there are the following passages in which shields of arms appear: (I)
1374-5: a pagan from Persia Pane prescz a preker in, full proudely arayede, That beres all of' pourpour, palyde with syluer Then a lanceman presses in. all proudty arrayed; he bears [a shield] all of' purple paly of silver
Annorial Bean'n,gs and their Meaning (2)
1817 4 : the King of Libya The Kyng of Lehe has laughte a stede pat hyrn Iykede, And comes in iordely, in lyonez of sifuere The King of Libya has taken a steed that pleased him and comes in lordly: [his shield] shows lions ol'sitver
(3)
2050-7: the Viscount of Valence Thane the Vyscownte valiante, with a voute noble, Auoyeddyde the avawewarde, enuerounde his horse; He driss~dein a derk schelde. endenttyd kith sahlt. With a dragone engowschede, dredfull to schewe, Deuorande a dolphyn with dolefull Iates, In seyne that oure soueraygne sulde be distroyde. And all don of dawez with dynttez ofswerddezFor thare es noghte hot dede thare the dragone es raissede. The brave viscount, with a noble mien, left the vanguard behind and turned his horse round, He lifted a strong shield, endented with sable, with a dragon 'engowschede', dreadful to see, devouring a dolphin with painstricken face as a si?gnthat our sovereign should be destroyed, and his days should be ended by blows of the sword. For there is nothing but death wherever the dragon is raised
(4)
25214: Sir Priamus He bare gessande in golde thre grayhondes of sable, With chapes and cheynes of chalke-whytte slvuer [sic!], A charebocle in be cheefe, chawngawnde of hewes. And a cheefe anterous, chalange who lykes. He bore in a golden field three greyhounds of sable with collars and chains of chalk-white silver. O n the chief was a carbuncle of changing hues. The knight was an adventurous lord, challenge him whoever Iikes to.
(5)
2889-91 : Golyan of Genoa Bot one Iolyan of Iene. a geante full howge, Has jonede on Sir Ierant, a justis of M'alis; Thorowe a jerownde schelde he jogges hyrn thorowe But a certain Golian of Genoa, a verv huxe giant, encounters Sir Jerant, a justice of Wales; he stabs [the giant] through his ,pryrony shield
(6) 3332-7: Charlemagne and Geoffrey of Bouillon And he was buskede in a blee of blewe noble, With flourdelice of golde floreschede a1 ouer;
Karl Lippe T h e toper was cledde in a cote all of clene siYuer, M'ith a comliche crosse coruen of golde, Fowre crosselettes krafty by @ crosse ristes, And therby knewr I the kyng. pat cnstnede hym semyde And he was clad in [a coat of] royal blue, semP offleurs-de-lis of gold; the other was clad in a coat of pure silver, on it was a comely cross carved of fine gold, fbur crosslets rested by the cross. skilfully arrayed. Hereby I knew the King, who seemed to have been christened.
(7)
3646-5 1: King Arthur Buskes baners one brode, betyn of gowles, With corowns of clere golde, clenliche arraiede; Bot bare was chosen in be chefe a chalke-whitte Mayden, And a Childe in hir arme, pat Chefe es of Hewne; PVithowtten chan
e auenaunt, cluhylls he in erthe lengede He runs up banners of gules, lets them wave in the air, with crowns on them of clear gold, carefully arrayed. But on the chief he had chosen a chalk-white Maiden, with a child in her arms that is chief in heaven; these were the main arms of Arthur. the noble; he never changed them under threat, while he lived on earth.
(8)
3759: the King of Cotland Pat bare of gowfes full gaye with gowtes of syluere He bore [a shield of] splendid gules with silver drops [on the field]
(9)
386G9: Gawain Qwat gome was he this with the gaye armes, CVith bis gryffoune of golde, pat es one growfTe falIyn? What man was he, the one with the gay arms, with this gryphon of gold. who is fallen face downwards.
Bot the churles chekyn hade chaungyde his armes: He had sotheiy forsaken pa sawturoure engrelede, And laughte vpe thre lyons of whitte siluyre, Passande in purpre of perrie full riche, For be Kyng sulde noghte knawe cawtelous wriche; Because of his cowardys he keste of his atyre.
Annorial Bearings and their Meaning But the churlish man had changrd his arms: He had truly forsaken the saltire engrailed and taken up three lions of shining silver, passant on purple. adorned with preciot~sstones that the king might not know the crafty wwtch. who. because of cowardice. had giwn up his arms. Those familiar with English heraldry in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries will immediately recognise the then current terms, which can also be found in the rolts of arms of the period, Expressions such as palyde 'impaled' (OF paler), endenttyd 'endented' (OF endenter), engrelede 'engrailed' (OF engreskr) and moreover the designations of colours, e.g. gowles 'red' ( O F goules), sable 'black' (OF sable) are part of the technical vocabulary of heraldry; since the earliest English rolls of arms dating from around 1250, this language, called blazoning, has been used for the exact description of coats of arms according to the rules of heraldry. Among these technical terms: however, or 'gold' and argent 'silver' are not to be found in the AMA: instead we find gold and silver. This might either be a reflection of the heraldry of the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, which preferred the German names for the two metals, but it could also be due to the requirements of alliteration.' As the author of this text obviously had a profound knowledge of the technical terms, we may assume that he was familiar with the heraldry of his time, and that he had even an insight into the esoteric art of the heralds. On closer examination, however, one finds that there are also deviations from the strict regularity and matter-of-factness of heraldry, which should be credited to the poet whose aim was to write a literary work of art and not a dissertation on heraldry. The heraldic ambitions of the author were, of course, subservient to his intentions -a factor that has to be taken into consideration when interpreting the text. Historical heraldry does not employ, for example, ornamental epithets such as 'chalke-whytte siluer' ('silver as white as chalk'), 'a blewe noble'('nob1e blue'), 'clere gold' ('shining gold'), but is content with mentioning the tincture or the metal of the field, and the charge. The literary critic is, of course, prepared to overlook this neglect of the rules and to grant a good deal of licence to the poet, who is forced by the alliterative long line to observe the necessary number of staves and stresses. The fact that the descriptions of many of the shields of arms before us are incomplete or inexact causes graver problems, and casts doubt on the heraldic competence of the author. To give a few examples from the passages above: for the shield of Jolyan of lene ( 5 ) and for Mordred's saltire (10) no tinctures are mentioned. As regards the shield of the King of Libya (2) and the shieId of Gawain, only the colours of the charge are indicated, but not those of the field. The description of the arms of the Viscount of Valence (3) is equally inexact, as far as the
colours are concerned. Furthermore, the author does not mention the number of lions in (2). nor the number of pales in the shield ofthe pagan from Persia ( 1 ) . The shield of Priamus, however, is described almost completeiy; only the position of the carbuncle is uncertain: 'in cheefe' does not necessarily mean 'on the chief'. for it could also be located 'in the middte of the upper third'. As there is no tincture given for the chief, we should probably prefer the latter p~ssibility.~ The arms of the two Christian Worthies (6), Arthur's shield (7) and that of the King of Gotland (8).are described correctly. If 'in be cheefe' is interpreted as suggested above, the AMA contains five compIeteIy described shields of arms: in this respect the work exceeds most of the other Middle English romances, Like the shields of Priamus and hlordred. that of the Viscount of Valence does not belong to the tradition of Arthurian arms. This was probably the reason why it attracted the attention of scholars and played a not unimportant part in the discussion on the date of the AMA. As early as 1902, G. Neilson maintained that this shield of arms was an allusion to the Visconti family, the Dukes of Milan.3 This idea was taken up again by L. D. Benson and used to date the poem as having been written between the years 1399 and 1402.4 A comparison of this shield (a dragon devouring a dolphin) with the historical Visconti shield (argent. a curled snake palewise azure, devouring a man gules) shows that in spite of surprising similarities the shields differ considerably. Here a dolphin is devoured by a dragon, there a man is devoured by a snake. Although one can argue that 'snake' and 'dragon' are used indiscriminately, various reasons for such alterations can be suggested: either the author did not know the historically correct arms, he wanted to avoid an allusion which he felt was too pointed, or he wanted to ensure a particular interpretation, as is the case here. In this instance the charge functions as a symbol which means 'that our sovereign was to be destroyed'. In the fourteenth century it was common knowledge that the dolphin was the heraldic symbol of the Dauphin, the heir to the throne of France. 'Our sovereign' is thus a direct reference to someone with a legal claim to the sovereignty of that country. Arthur certainly sees himself in this role when he answers the call fbr help against the Romans who have invaded the land (1235ff.) But the audience of the poem would automatically have been reminded of Edward 111, who aspired to the title of 'King of France'. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Edward envisioned himself as a second Arthur and made the Round TabIe the emblem of his court. The shield, in the interpretation suggested by the poet, symbolises a threat to the Ring and his claim to France. But this means that the shield is not used here in the strict heraldic sense; indirect allusion and intentional ambiguity mark it as
Annorial Bearings and their Meaning
101
a literary symbol in need of interpretation. There have been attempts to date the work based on considerations as to when the Visconti family was in such bad repute all over Europe that a member of this family - recognisabie by his coat of arms -might have served as the model for a negatively portrayed character. These attempts are certainly misguided, based. as they are. on such meagre evidence. Perhaps the most puzzling shield in this text is that belonging to Priamus. Because of its composition, it is very unlikely that we have to deal with a shield that is purely fictitious. As there is no possibility of a symbolic interpretation either, we must assume that a historical shield of arms is represented here, even if it has not yet been identified.' The assumption that this shield of arms was known to the audience of the AMA is supported by the fact that the bearer's name is only revealed a long time after the description of the shield, thus giving the listeners the freedom to form their own picture of the hero beforehand. Furthermore, Priamus is basically a positive character, aIthough in the beginning he is one of Arthur's enemies. In the supposed source of the Priamus episode there are no descriptions of arms, so this detail must be considered an addition by the author himself, or it may go back to another, as yet undiscovered, ~ o u r c e . ~ In Malory's Morte Darthur Priamus' shield does not display three greyhounds, but three g r y p h o n ~ It . ~ has been pointed out that kfalory used a version of the alliterative Morte Arthur different from that of the Thornton Manuscript. E. Vinaver thought that Malory's source was more complete and closcr to the original version.' But even if we take three gryphons to be the correct reading, we cannot attribute these arms to a historical person. They remain a problem which might be solved by chance one day.9 The last shield of arms in this text which is not part of the tradition of Arthurian arms is that of Mordred the traitor. His saltire and also his red shield with the three silver lions do not belong to Mordred's original arrns.Ia Apart from the AMA this saltire engrailed can only be found as Mordred's shield in The Awntyrs ofArthure. We have to assume that the author of the latter work knew the AMA and adopted Mordred's arms from that poem." The saltire or St Andrew's Cross, and also the saltire engrailed are connected with Scotland.'' Its historical origin is to be found in the traditional death of the Scottish national saint, St Andrew, a s well as in the shield of arms of the Bruce family, whose members at times used to bear 'a saltire engrailed' in their coat of arms.I3 The fact that Mordred has a Scottish shield of arms might be an instance of a tendency, traceable in Scottish chronography, to present Mordred as the rightful heir to the English throne. Particularly in Bower's chronicle, Mordred is presented as the first-born son of King Loth of Lothian, and as the rightful heir to the throne without the slur of illegitimate
I02
Karl Lzppe
birth upon his name.'4 This explains Mordred's change of arms in the AMA. He gives up his hereditary Scottish shield 'because of cowardice', as the poet has it, and this is in sharp contrast to Arthur who never abandons his shield of arms. K. H. Goller has suggested the plausible theory that the reproach of cowardice, which finds no support in any other Arthurian poem, is probably due to a misunderstanding of a 'subtle trait' in the author's s ~ u r c e . Mordred '~ uses a red shield with silver lions on it for protection. He deliberately takes up a shield which closely resembles the English royal arms. As such a difference in the choice of metal was often used to mark cadency, the traitor thus openly declares his claim to the English throne.16 From other Arthurian literature we know that Mordred is Arthur's natural son, the result of an incestuous relationship with his sister. In the AMA Mordred is called 'the MaIebranche' (e.g. 4062) which obviously hints at his bastardy." Another sign of Mordred's doubtful birth can be seen in Gawain's remark 'of siche a engendure full IittylI joye happyns' (3743) 'from such an engendering comes no joy at all'. Several lines later Gawain again touches upon LMordred's illegitimacy: 'Fals fosterde foode, the Fende haue thy bonys!' (3776) 'perfidious bastard, the fiend have thy bones!'18 As Arthur receives his mortal wounds from Mordred's sword blows, we can rightly say that he is killed by the fruit of his own sinful deed. This is an example of the medieval concept of cotetrapasso, according to which everyone is punished with the outcome of his sins. G. Neilson thought that Mordred's lion shield was an allusion to the arms of the Earls of March, particularly to those of the first Earl, Roger Mortimer, who, having been the lover of Edward 111's mother and a traitor to his king, was the historical model for Mordred in this poem.'* From the heraldic point of view, this position has to be rejected, as the Earls of March used to bear one silver lion, probably rampant. and not passant, instead of three on a red field; Neilson himself was well aware of this." T o see in Mordred's shield a parallel or an allusion to these historical arms would require us to force the historical facts into a preconceived system and to deprive heraldry of any other power of suggestion. Generally speaking, one has to assume that an author who wishes to hint at historical persons by means of heraldic material would describe the shield in his work in such a manner that it was recognisable for his contemporaries, and thus it should be identifiable for us with the aid of heraldic rolls of the author's time. This would not be possible in this case, particularly as Mordred's shield is identical with that of Northwales (gules, three lions passant in pale argent).2' This shield, however, is also a variation of the English royal arms, where a change of metal also implies a loss of rank.22In any case, Mordred's shield is not that of the Earldom of March - that much can be said -but rather an allusion to the English royal shield which is significant for the meaning of the AMA.
Armorial Bearings and their Meaning
103
The other shields of arms described in the text are each part of a certain tradition of Arthurian arms. Gawain bears a golden gryphon; from the Awntyrs off Arthecre (508-lo), we can conclude that the field of his shield was green. The author in this instance does not make use of one of the typical Gawain shields familiar from French works, but, just as in the case of Mordred. shows himself influenced by another tradition, which can be ascertained by reference to rolls of arms and to descriptions in romance.z3 In the 'short romance', Libeaus Desconzcs, for instance, King Arthur grants the hero a golden shield on which a qryphon is d e p i ~ t e d . 'As ~ soon as we know that Libeaus Desconus is ~ a w a i n ' sson (cf. lines 8 and 82f. of MS. Cotton Caligula A.11) this passage attracts our interest: the hero is given the shield of his father. Also, Gawain himself appears in this romance bearing a gryphon (cf. lines 229-3 1 of the same MS.).2S In the AMA as well as in Libeaus Desconus the same shield is assigned to Gawain, although there is no proof of direct relationship between the two texts. This evidence raises the question as to how the authors of different romances managed to give the same shield of arms to the same hero. Without doubt, the Arthurian rolls of arms, collections of shields attributed to King Arthur's knights, must have played an important role in this practice. Often such collections of arms were incorporated into historical rolls of arms, e-g. into MS. Harley 2169, fo!. 4b, where 'Gawayne, the good knight' bears a shield 'vert, three gryphons passant or'.26 Clearly, the author of the A M A was indebted to this tradition in his choice of Gawain's arms, although their origin or propagation have not as vet been discovered. T h e Nine Worthies are a different case altogether. The histor), of this motif, both in literature and in the fine arts, has been the subject of many The first reference to them which can be proved is in the Voeux du Paon ( 1 3 10) by Jacques de Longuyon. An account of a pageant performed in Arras in I336 mentions that the nine heroes carried shields of arms. But already in the supposedly earliest pictorial representation of them in the town hall in Cologne (circa 1320-30) coats of arms are attributed to the nine kings and conquerors. King Arthur's shield shows three crowns (2: 1); and Charlemagne's escutcheon, the eagle of the Roman Empire impaling the fleurs-de-lis of France. In Arthur's dream of Fortune (3218-55) in the A M A two coats of arms of the Nine Worthies are described. Geoffrey of Bouillon as King of Jerusalem bears the shield of his kingdom and Charlemagne the so-called 'France ancient' shield. The first shield, which can be traced back to the twelfth century, is a rarity in heraldry as it violates one of the basic heraldic rules stating that two metals should never be joined together on one field. This particular exception to the rule has been explained in different ways. The use of the two noble metals, gold and silver, might indicate the very high prestige of the Kingdom of
104
Karl Lippe
Jerusalem among all the other realms. This view is supported by the fact that in some rolls of arms the shield ofJerusalem is listed first, even taking precedence over the arms cif the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire." O n the other hand the arms of the Kingdom 0f:Jerusalem may very well be older than this particular heraldic rule.29 From 1275 onwards, the large cross is depicted as 'cross potent', which some scholars thought to be an I overlying an H. the first two letters of the Greek word ' r t i ~ o Others interpret the five crosses on the shield a s being a n allusion to the five wounds of Christa3' T h e second shield of arms portrays Charlemagne as King of France. He bears the 'France ancient' (azure, semy of fleurs-de-lis or) as was common among the French kings and also, from Edward 111's time onwards, among the English kings until the beginning of the fifteenth century.32 Around 1375, Charles V introduced the so-called 'France modern' (azure, three (2: I ) fleurs-de-lis or). According to his own interpretation, the three fleurs-de-lis (or lilies) were intended to symbolise the Holy Trinity.33 The English kings followed his example (from Henry IV) and so did the figurative representations, miniatures, paintings and sculpture^.^^ From this evidence the source for this episode of the AMA probably has to be dated earlier than 1400. Finally, King Arthur's shield, or rather banner. is significant in terms of the poem. As presented in the AMA two of the symbols traditionally connected with him are welded into one.35 Above his three solden crowns on a red field, the Virgin Mary is enthroned on the chief, holding the Child in her arms. Both charges belong to a rich and elaborate tradition. T h e Virgin Mary is first mentioned in connection with King Arthur in Nennius' Historia Britonum (ninth century): 'Arthur portavit imaginem sanctae Mariae perpetuae virginis super humeros ~ u o s . It ' ~ is~ not a heraldic charge but a devotional symbol which is mentioned here, as has been rightly pointed out. In \i\*illiam of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum A~glorum ( 1 125) and in the Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth ( 1 136), the Virgin Mary is mentioned again as Arthur's cognizance, while Geoffrey transforms the religious motif into a heraldic charge.37 From two passages in the AMA we learn that this is Arthur's hereditary and favourite shield of arms, which by virtue of its religious power gives the British warriors hope and strength in difficult ~ituations.~' T h e origin of the three crowns is more complicated to trace. T h e crowns are either gold on a red field, or gold on a blue one. Perhaps these two combinations reveal the origin of the tradition to which a particular text belongs: the French tradition uses the colours blue and gold, whereas the English prefers red and gold. The three crowns occur i s King Arthur's arms for the first time in the second half of the thirteenth century.39 Identical arms were being attributed to certain
Armorial Bearings and their Meaning religious figures, such as St Edmund or to the Three Magi, who, during the mid-thirteenth century, were more highly revered than ever before. Furthermore, three crowns appear in the royal arms of Sweden. According to a legend. Helena of Colchester. the mother of the Emperor Constantine. brought this symbol to England.40 Later, they were used as an emblem of royal patronage, e.g. in the arms of Oxford University, Another possible source of' this charge in connection with King Arthur has recently been suggested. In the Prose Merlin i t is not Arthur but Leodegan who bears this shield of arms. Arthur and Merlin mentions the same shield in connection with Leodegan's daughter, Arthur's wife; so we can assume that the King of the Britons acquired these arms through marriage."' This view is supported by the poet's statement that not this shield but the one with the Virgin and Child is Arthur's hereditary shield. Another plausible explanation is suggested by some miniatures connected with the story of King Arthur. As man? as thirty crowns are sometimes portrayed in these illuminations, and the name of a country conquered by the British King is attached to each crown. With these illustrations in mind we can assume that each crown on Arthur's shield might well represent one of his realms: England, Scotland and Both charges combined in one shield of arms can be found on a wall painting in the castle of Valeria in Sion, Swit~erland."~ In this case one shield of arms is impaling the other: the Virgin Mary stands beside the crowns. However, the Virgin and Child on the banner in the AMA are enthroned above the insignia of temporal power, as if the author wanted to indicate that all worldly government is inferior to spiritual power, and that crowns and kingdoms are therefore sub-ject to the will of God. T h u s Arthur's shield in the poem s e n e s the moral and homiletic purposes of the poet. T h e study of coats of arms in the AMA has shown that the author of this work was familiar with the heraldry of his time, although in blazoning he sometimes permits himself poetic licence, which is, in fact, common practice in literature using heraldic materiaI. The problem lies in the fact that the poet is not primarily interested in adhering to the rigid and elaborate rules of heraldry. but rather in utilising their possibilities for artistic expression. Some of the shields of arms described in the poem belong to the tradition of Arthurian arms, as has been pointed out, while others d o not. O f all those shields outside this tradition, only the two escutcheons carried by Mordred offer ground for a convincing interpretation. T h e Arthurian arms of Gawain, King Arthur and -up to a point -of the Nine Worthies attest the author's knowledge of this tradition, although other sources are also drawn upon. For dating the work and for establishing its date of origin none of the arms found in the text offers usable clues. Nevertheless, the AMA provides interesting and valuable evidence of how heraldry is employed in fictional literature and thus ofthe mutual relationship between the two.
The Figure of Sir Gawain
J ~ R G 0. FICIHTE
O n e of the more prominent changes in the AMA noted by recent editors and literary critics alike upon comparing the work with its putative extant sources, the Historia Regum Brztanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth, M'ace's Roman de Brut, and Layamon's Bmt, is the greatly expanded role of Sir Gawain.' Next to Arthur he emerges as the leading figure, being involved not only in the various military campaigns, but also setting out on his own in search of knightly adventure. Needless to say this change in Gawain's stature has provoked commentary both from within the poem and from without, i.e. Gawain's achievements, his actions, and his character are assessed by other figures in the AMA, and they have likewise been evaluated by modern readers of the work. Interestingly this assessment has produced vastly differing opinions: the Gawain enthusiasts, including King Arthur and Sir Mordred have regarded him 'Of a11 knyghtes be kynge bat vndir Criste lifede' (3961) or even 'as a representative of Christ',' while the Gawain critics have seen in him 'den Typus des aggressiven Dra~fqangers'~ whose 'reckless, uncompromising bravery and utter disregard for consequences . . . would by chivalric and practical standards be condemned as partaking of desrne~ure'.~ In view of these two irreconcilable opinions on the nature of Gawain's character and his position within the AMA a reassessment seems to be called for -one which concentrates on the following three aspects: first, the comparison of the Gawain image with the Gawain character as it unfolds and exhibits itself in the course of the poem; second, the relationship of Gawain's character to that of Arthur; and third, the consequences of an interpretative reading drawn from such an analysis. Gawain's unfortunate death at the hands of Mordred gives rise to a series of graduated necrologues by the author, his slayer Mordred, and King Arthur himself. While the author depIores the passing of 'the gude man of armes' (3858), the other two characters deliver elaborate eulogies praising his virtues. Thus, Mordred, weeping and repenting his misdeeds, calls Gawain 'the graciouseste gome' (3877)' 'hardyeste of hande, happyeste in armes' (3878). 'be hendeste in hawle' (3879), 'Pe lordelieste of ledyng7(3880) and extols 'His konynge, his knyghthode, his kvfidly werkes, / His doyng, his doughtynesse, his dedis of armes' (3883-4). Arthur personalises the loss Gawain's death means to him by making Gawain the incarnation of salvation now lost:
The Fiqus-e oJ'Sir Gawain Dere kosyn o kynde. in kare am I leuede, For nowe my wirchipe es wente and my were endide; Here es be hope of my hele. my happynse oofarmes My herte and my hardynes hate one hym lengede. k l y concell, my comfbrthe, bat kepide myn herte. kynqe bat vndir Clriste lifede. Of all knyghtes Pou was worthy to he kyng. f>ofeI be corown bare; My wele and my wirchipe of all Pis weride riche CVas wonnen thourghe Sir Gawa?ne and thourghe his witt one. (395643) After some more lamentation and bitter self-reproach, Arthur kneels down and asks God to behold Gawain's blood 'sakles of syn' (3992) 'worthy to be schrede and schrynede in golde'((3991). Gawain in Arthur's mind takes on the stature of a holy martyr, who has died guiltlessly because of Arthur's own sinfulness. And in consonance with this sentiment Gawain's body is embalmed and carried to the cathedral of Winchester, where the proper rites for the dead are to be perfbrmed. A closer look a t these eulogies will reveal two virtues stressed in particular: Gawain's martial prowess and his judgment. Aside from the obvious military accomplishments praised by his two eulogists, Gawain is credited with 'konynge' (3883) and the ability of 'concell' (3960). Arthur in particular appreciates Gawain's wise counsel and understanding which, a s he says. have been responsible for bringing about his success. In short, both Mordred and especially Arthur consider Gawain to have been the embodiment of the traditional sapientia et fortitudo ideal. In their eyes he was the model exemplar of an ideal associated with the perfect hero. It is, of course, the nature of eulogy to praise the character and conduct of the deceased, to epitomise his virtues, and to present an ideal image rather than a reaIistic portrayal. And thus the very genre gives rise to questions about the apprapriateness of the praise bestowed upon the deceased. Moreover, it is important to remember that the condition and motivation of the speakers play a definite role in this context: on the one side we have the penitent Mordred remembering the past glories of the Round Table, in which he had once shared, and on the other side, we have Arthur facing a seemingly hopeless situation after having been deprived of the services of his doughtiest knight. T o blordred 'the Malebranche' (4062) the faithful Gawain serves as a reminder of his own treachery; to Arthur he serves as a symbol of the unquestioning, loyal support which he so desperately needs. Consequently, both men are eager to create an image of Gawain suited to their situation and particular needs, but one which does not necessarily correspond to reality -a fact borne out by the much more moderate praise bestowed on Gawain by the poet speaking in propria persona, who emphasises solely Gawain's military accomplishments, i.e. his.fortitudo; his sapientia, however, is not recalled. What are
108
Jorg 0.Fichte
we to make of this omission? Is it an oversight on the part of the poet or is it intentional? Has he purposefully limited the applicability of the traditional heroic ideal to the aspect of fortitude, or has he simply forgotten to mention wisdom? T o answer this important question we shall have to survey briefly Gawain's actions and conduct in the AMA because such a survey will clearly delineate a definite behavioural pattern attributed to the character of Gawain by the author. Qf special interest are the alterations or modifications the author of the AMA makes concerning Gawain's actions and speeches illustrating his interest in the creation of a unified character. There are four major changes in the form of omission of material, modifications of actions and addition of scenes, which si,gnal departures from one or more of the poet's putative sources. First. there is the suppression of Gawain's brief speech found in both Wace and Lagamon counselling peace after Cador has just welcomed the emperor's challenge delivered by his emissaries and spoken in favour of war.' Second, we find an alteration in the handling of the embassy episode. Arthur puts Sir Roice in charge, but Boice has no leading position. since Gawain takes command, insuits the emperor without provocation from either Lucius or his fellow ambassadors, and finally kills Sir Gayous after being taunted by him. The sources agree in making Gawain's companions egg him on to foment some kind of incident which would give them an opportunity to fight the R ~ r n a n sThird, .~ we have the addition of the extended Priamus episode, which ends with Gawain taking on the superior forces of the Duke of Lorraine, although he and his men are greatly outnumbered. Even though the foraging expedition is officially headed by Sir Florente, Gawain dominates not only the roman dJnuentureencounter with Priamus but also the ensuing battle with the Duke's army-a battle initiated upon his insistence against the advice of the nominal leader Sir Florente. Finally, there is Arthur's landing in order to encounter Mordred's forces. A very brief description of a sea battle, in which both Arthur and .~ of Monmouth and Gawain excel, is found solely in L a g a m ~ n Geoffrey LYace only report the landing during which Gawain is killed together with other Arthurian knights.' In none of the three sources do we find an account of Gawain's desperate fight against Mordred -a fight provoked by Gawain's monomaniacal desire for revenge. This briefsurvey, summing up the major alterations ofand departures from the most likely sources the poet drew on, shows clearly his interest in creating a Gawain figure which is distinguished by a superabundance of fortitude, but which lacks any degree of prudence. The poet takes great care to suppress any information pertaining to Gawain's sapientia. Denying him the opportunity to speak for peace, the poet withholds from Gawain the possibility of showing wisdom in council. Making him the spokesman of Arthur's embassy to Lucius, he demonstrates Gawain's arrogance and irascibilty. Sending him out on knight errantry
Io!~
The Figure of Sir Gawain
while Arthur's forces are in dire need of supplies. he ilIustratt.\ (;;iv:tiil's insufficient recognition of priorities. H a \ . i n ~hint disstradc Sir F ' I o r . c . t ~ t t ' from withdrawing before the Duke's vast]) superior arm!. hi. \ttt)\\s Gawain's lack of prudence. And making him attack klortlrtti ,tlrnt,st single-handedly. incited by thoughts of venyeancr. hr f i r ~ ; i l l \ c t t m t 811strates Gawain's irrationality and blind obsession. Aside from illustrating Gawain's basic lack of' sapienira ( ortil)~I S ~ I I E such qualities as political cleverness. prudence. and thr at>ilit\ t o I l t r c I,(. and direct his conduct rightly, these episodes arc arrang.~din clrc 11 ,111 order as to make up an incremental pattern. \Z'c arc not rt t t t t c . s \ l t l ~ occassional lapses from the fortitudo et sapientzn ideal app1it.d to ( ~ ; t \ \ ; t ~ n bv Arthur and Mordred. but are confronted ~vitha proqrc.s\i\c. ; t t l t i deliberate de-emphasis of the sapiential asprcts. I n c-ontra\r to 111t. t<)ttyt~ speech assigned to 1,ucius' ambassador asking. Artht~rlixr st111nit4410tt. Gawain's demand that Lucius withdraw his in\.ading arm\ i\ c ~ t ~ ~ r - i t . l i r insulting. He calls the emperor 'fals heret? ke- ( 1307). 'c ttk(w , t l t l r . ' (1312) and 'alfyn' ( 1343). Consequently, he is not t~nit~stl\ r-i.hrihc.d I,\ Lucius, who upbraids him for his discourteous c.c~nduc.t. (;;tw ;i i r i - , behaviour, however, is not only discourteorrs, it i s also prcrrltl 111 r l l c . sense of boastful, contentious, and q u a r r e l ~ o m eas . ~ we11 as arroq;irlt rid scornful. Arrogance and scorn are seen as branches of I'ridc- in tht. t w o 1.;r1~lis11 translations of the Somrne le Roi: Ayenbile of f n r ~ y t anrl The BnoX cr/ Vices and Virtues from which the fbllowing-two quotations arc. taht.ti. Pe briddc braunche of pride is arroe;lrlnce or prrsttmptic~n. bat is ouerholdenesse. pat is whan a man werieb (11-rriqtcb more to hymself pan he schofde; pat is to sc\cs. \that1 hr mc.rtc.b or trow+ hyrnself he rnorc. wctrp ban ht- IS. o r bat Ilr nl,t\ r t l r ) l t do pan he may. or pat he weneb hy msrlf'rc>n\nqcr ban lit- 14 . be fik twigge of pis stoke is sc.ornynqt.. lor pat is bc ~ 0 1 1 ~ of heuery proude surquidotls man. H ~ r nb\nkrb not \ r l c m t o dt.,1)1.1. in his herte o b r e bat han not he qracrs pat hc \\c.nc+ h.tgtt-. t ~ t t t makep his game and scorncp . . .Io Moreover, Gawain and his men are called 'irous' ( 1 :$?!I) h\ t ttc. I-rnpc>ror. an appellation not inappropriate in ref'crencr t o Ciawain '15 \ \ I * sliali see." Once he is insulted b? Sir Gayouc. who pa\s (;a\\icin \t.rh;tll\ back in kind 'Than greuydc Sir Gawayne at his Krctt \\or.d~*\. 1 Graythes towarde ix gome with grucchande hrrte; / \\'ith h \ s ste'l\n brande he strykes of hys heuede . . .' (1352-4). Gauaiu's rcac.ticin i s a clear sign of ire defined in the Parson's Tale as 'wikked wil to hccrl avenged by word or by dede. Ire. after the philosphrt*, is thc fcnc.111 blood of man yquyked in his herte, thurgh which he wole harm t o h!m that he hateth.'I2 T o be sure Gawain has acted as a result of prenoc ation, which should be counted as a mitigating circnmstanc.c~:still tht' whole episode is presented in such a way. that the rcadc.r is Icfr ~ i r h (
the uncomfortable feeling Gawain has precipitated the quarrel and then over-reacted once he has been rebuffed. In the second episode, the rash attack on the army of the Duke of Lorraine, Gawain's headstrong character and lack of prudence as a military leader is exemplified. Although he is only a member of the foraging party led by Sir Florente, he quickly assumes the role of leadership. As senior officer. who is addressed by Sir Florente as 'Fadyre' 62735). he should render wise counsel; and as subordinate to Florente he should follow his advice,I3 even though Florente defers the final decision to Gawain, 'owre wardayne' (2740). Florente's advice is not to engage the Duke's superior fbrces, and he punctuates this recommendation by closing his brief speech with the reminder 'I rede 3e wyrke aftyre witte . . .' (2745). He thus invokes the concept of reason from which proceeds sound judgment, a virtue essential to any military leader. Gawain, however, casts caution to the wind and leads his little band to the fight, proclaiming 'We sall proue todaye who sall the prys wyn' (2751). Gawain's conduct here follows the established pattern. As he was heedless in impulsively decapitating Sir Gayous and eager to challenge Priamus on his solitary journey 'wondyrs to seke' (2514) in the midst of a raging military campaign, he now throws himself unthinkingly into the battIe in order to win fame and renown.14 The rashness of Gawain's mad charge is clearly perceived by his adversaries, calls his conduct folly.'5 And it is foolish. because Gawain is unable to win the victory by himself. He can do so only with the help of Sir Priamus, who comes to the rescue when he sees Gawain's forces fiercely beset by his enemies. Thus the tide turns and the victory is won. Still the episode clearly illustrates Gawain's shortcomings as a military leader who ought to be responsible not only for himself but also for the welfare of those entrusted to his charge. The rashness shown here bodes ill for future engagements under his leadership. In the third episode, the final fight against Mordred, Gawain's shortcomings exhibited in the course of the work are compounded, thus leading to his inevitable defeat and death and completing the three stage pattern of his fall from reason. The episode itself is divided into five parts: Part I. 11; 3724-69 the initial preparations, part 11, 11. 3770-3812 Gawain's speech, part 111, 11. 3813-39 Gawain's rush into battle, part IV, 11.384043 the fight between Mordred and Gawain ending with Gawain's death, and part V, 11. 3864-96 Mordred's remorse and lament for Gawain. Interestingly, the incremental pattern observable in the preceding episodes is repeated in the first three parts of the final event describing Gawain's progressive fall from reason which culminates in his death. In part I he is strongly determined to 'fell 3one false'(3739), i.e. Mordred, and he prays 'May I bat traytoure ouertake, torfere hym tvddes, / That this treson has tymbyrde to my trewe lorde' (3741-2). is motives befit the heroic ideal, as he is intent on avenging Mordred's
~ 7 h 0
The Figure of Sir Gawazn
111
treason. At the same time, Gawain's determination to pursue only this one goal, that is, taking revenge on Mordred, makes him a weak military leader. Had he concentrated his efforts 'to halde be grene hill' (3768) -a strategically important position - 'He had wirchipe. iwys, wonnen for euer' (3769). His obsession, however, to make his way through the hostile army in order to pursue the traitor Mordred gets the better of him. His rational faculties are further impaired by the sorrow he feels for his battle-weary and wounded men 'that he gyde schulde' (379 1 ) . And thus 'all his witte faylede' (3793). In a dramatically moving speech he exhorts his few remaining companions in arms to give their best, holding out to them the promise of eternal life. Gawain's final impassioned address to his people stressing the holiness of their lost cause is reminiscent of Archbishop Turpin's sermon to the French rear guard bracing itself against the imminent attack of Marsilius' forces.16 T h e speech has grandeur, and the idea1 expressed is a noble one; still. the cognisance on Gawain's part that 'we haf'e vnwittylv wastede oure selfen' (3802) takes away somewhat from its desired impact. It strikes a discordant note which becomes even more jarring in the third part of the final episode, since now the author, looking at Gawain's actions from a distance, reports: Bot alls vnwyse, wodevse, he wente at be gayneste . . . Thare myghte no renke hyrn areste. his reson was passedr. He fell in a fransye for fersenesse of herte; . . . Into be hale bataile hedIyngs he rynys.
...
Letande alls a Iyon . . .
.- . AlIs he bat wold wilfully wasten hym selfen; And for wondsom and will all his wit faiiede. That wode alls a wylde beste hc wente at be gayneste; . . . (381 7,3825-6. 3829, 383 1.3835-7).
T h e mental deterioration described here brings to mind Richard of St Victor's definition of ira turning intofuror: Ira est mentis perturbatio magna. sed a rationc non penitus aliena. Quasi ex furore agitamur, et actitamur, quando sine respectu rationis in id. quod fieri no oportet, non ipsos praecipites damus. Ira saepe commoti intelligimus quid faciendum sit, cum tamen refrenari non possit, si magna fuerit. in primo itaque perturbationis nostrae impetu saepe. net saltem ad rationem respicimus . . . Furor est perturbatio mentis. totius expers rationis." T h a t this kind of behaviour, which initially derives from wrathful excitement -'haec enim si cardi insidit [MS. insider] . . . nec maturitatum consilii habere pertuit, sed omnia per praecipitium quoddam facere videtur"' -is sinful, however, is stressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica: 'Quia passio quandoque quidem est tanta quod
totaliter aufert usum rationis: sicut patet in his qui propter amorem vel iram insaniunt. Et tunc si talis passio a principio fuit voluntaria, quia est voluntarius in sua causa . . ."9 There is no doubt about the voluntary nature of Gawain's actions; on the contrary, the poet has stressed this point while attempting to explain Gawain's motivation for leading the charge at hlordred. And honourable as Gawain's intentions may have been initially from a heroic point of view, the following account of his progressive fall from reason caused by a monomaniacal obsession for revenge has called into question the validity of Gawain's actions. Seen from the point of view of Christian ethics, Gawain has finally become the victim of the proud and wrathful disposition which he had already displayed during his embassy to the camp of the emperor Lucius. H e was a 'gude man of armes' (3858) as the poet comments on his death, that is, he showed fbrtitude in the sense of martial prowess, courage. perseverance, and firmness of action and purpose but he lacked the CIhristian wisdom which would shield an individual from falling into s i n f i t l r ~ e s s'Thus . ~ ~ even the poet's limited praise for Gawain's actions is undercut by the discrepancy between the ideal set forth in his encomium and the realit! of Gawain's conduct -a fact which serves to create the ironic distance frequently apparent in the poet's laudatory comments cvhen contrasted with the actual nature or result of the specific conduct OF action praised. Therefore, the euologies spoken by &,lordred and later on by Arthur. making Gawain an embodiment of the fortitudo et sapimtia ideal. are projections rather than statements of facts and should not be taken as the poet's sentiments. Arthur's grief, on the other hand, also clearly shows that he recognises in Gawain a kindred spirit -a fact which brings us to the second topic of our investigation: the relationship of Gawain's character to that of Arthur. I t has generally been recognised by critics of the AMA that Arthur's conduct within the process of the poem changes and that the nature of his wars becomes unjust." This change does not come suddenly or unexpectedly but is prepared for by the poet, who is careful to draw an ambiguous portrait of his protagonist, tempering praise and approval with hints of negative qualities inherent in the character of his hero. T o be sure. until Arthur's decision to invade Lorraine and besiege the city of bfetz on what appears to be fabricated reasons - the duke's failure to recognise Arthur's authority and his supposed complicity with the Romansz2-Arthur always manages to control his passions; from that time on. though, he is more prone to act on sudden impulse. U p to that point Arthur had been presented as a headstrong ruler moved occasio~lallyto violent anger-an emotion, however, he had always successfully suppressed in favour of rational judgment. Although angered by Lucius' haughty demands, he disdains to revenge himself on the unfortunate messengers (1. 151); rather, he answers with a lordly speech stressing his royal pleasure and prerogative (11. 419ff.).I n the
The Figure of Sir Gazoain course of the Roman campaign Arthur is portrayed for the most part as an impressive military leader who wisely directs his armies in their tight aqainst Lucius' forces. Only once he is so much angered and grieved by ~ a y ' sdeath that he, followed by Gawain, sets out to revenge the seneschal, killing not only Lucius. but also ordering Cador not to take any prisoners 'Or Sir Kayous dede be cruelly vengede' (2264). Thus sorrow fbr his beloved companion causes the king to change his qenerous attitude to prisoners shown, fbr instance, to the Senator Peter, who is not to be held for ransom but exiled. Thereafter. sorrow turns to spite when Arthur charges the two surviving senators to take his 'tribute'- the boxes containing the bodies of the dead emperor and of sixty slain senators -to Rome. T o sum up then, the Arthur of the first part of the poem is an imposing imperial figure commanding both the reader's and the poet's respect. He acts nobly, courageously, and for the most part generously. Still, we get some glimpses of the darker aspects of his character which occasionally determine his first reactions and subsequent conduct. In the middle section (11. 239S3217). recounting the conquest of Lorraine and Arthur's March on Rome, the negative character traits take on a position of greater prominence. He behaves rashly when he rides up unarmed close to the city walls of hIetz. Being justly rebuked by Sir Ferrer, he answers haughtily and disdainfully, asserting that kingship will protect him. Thereafter, he rejoices in hearing the report of Gawain's exploits. Although Gawain's feat is analogous to that of Sir Cador, who was upbraided by the king far his bravado. now Arthur has nothing but praise for this ill-considered military vcnrure. Once the city of Metz is taken, rampage and destruction of sacred buildings follow: 'Mynsteris and masondewes they malle to erthe, / Chirches and chapells chalk-whitte blawnchede. / . . . The pyne of be popte was pet6 for to here' (3038-9; 3043). Moved only by the pleas of the C:ountess of Crasyn, Arthur prohibits further bloodshed and outrage. After the conquest of Lorraine, Arthur moves across Mount Gotthard into Italy until hegets to the leaving behind him a trail ofdestruction (11. 315-1) Vertennon Vale near Viterbo, where he receives the promise from the Pope to crown him emperor within a week's time, whereupon Arthur glories in his might. Significantly Arthur's rise to power, achieved often through cruelty and recklessness, is accompanied by the ascendancy of Gawain. The position of Gawain in the middle section of the poem is as dominant as that of Arthur. And it appears that the kind of behaviour Gawain exemplifies also characterises Arthur. He is overbearing, reckless, and proud. The idea of counsel cherished in the first part of the poem, when Arthur still looks to his lords for guidance and gives good advice, has become a mockery in this section. In the council held on St Christopher's Day, i.e. on July 25th, Arthur bluntly proclaims his decision to conquer
114
J&g 0. Fichte
Lorraine without reassuring himself of the support of his knights, as he had done before challenging Lucius. Once he is given advice by Sir Ferrer, he rejects it. And when he himself finally should correct a misguided action, he does not do so but praises obviously rash conduct. In short, the Arthur of the middle section acts as impetuously and ilI-consideredly as Gawain, who is now called 'wardayne' - regent, general, military leader -five times23by Arthur and the other knights. Later on Arthur believes that Gawain would have been a worthy successor. Gawain is thus elevated to the position of deputy or proxy and as such he mirrors Arthur's faults which necessarily lead to the destruction of both men. In the final section of the poem, the status of the two leaders of the British forces is almost coequal. and both are motivated by the same passion, to take vengeance on Mordred for his treachery. As is to be expected, Gawain takes the lead, rushing madly into battle in his pursuit of the traitor. Once he is killed, his death precipitates Arthur's own downfall, since the king, bent on revenge, is now deaf to any sensible advice. Not heeding Sir Wychere's well-considered counsel to withdraw to Winchester and wait for reinforcements Arthur vows: 'Hadde I no segge bot my selfe one vndir sone, / And I may hym see with sighte or one hym sette hondis, / I sall even amange his men malle hvm [Mordred] to dede!' (4035-7). The episode is clearly designed to stress Arthur's temerity which causes him to commit the same strategicaI blunder as Gawain, i.e. to take on a vastly superior force in order to effect his ~engeance.'~Blinded by grief for Gawain, who in Arthur's mind has now become an image, the king no longer cares for the harsh military realities but ventures out on the path to selfdestruction. In asserting for himself the validity of the image, Arthur feels obligated to vindicate this phantom by destroying himself and Mordred, since by vowing to take vengeance on Gawain's slayer, Mordred, he also takes vengeance on himself for his supposed %guiltin Gawain's death.*' He is ready to expiate his guilt and thus he knowingly sacrifices his men. If we can talk at all about tragedy extending beyond the conventional medieval de casibus concept in reference to the AMA, it is possible only at this crucial moment, when Arthur recognises that he alone is responsible for the death of his people and implores God to let him die in their stead.26 It is the turning point of the poem because unlike Gawain who sinks to the level of an irrational beast, Arthur rises in moral stature. Although he is doomed to die, he feels that after vanquishing Mordred he has atoned for his guilt. Thus he dies reconciled with God, even though his premature death has prevented him from establishing monasteries as part of the penance imposed on him by the interpreters of the Fortune dream, and he has given the order to exterminate Mordred's offspring. This last command may appear cruel, but it is justified in view of re-establishing the order of the realm.
The Figure of Sir Gawain
115
Neither Arthur nor the poet seems to find any moral fault with it; and thus the hero is allowed to die peacefully in the belief of having achieved reconciliation with the Almighty, while Gawain has perished without preparing himself for death. The preceding analysis of Gawain's character and its relationship to that ofArthur has been strongly guided by moral considerations as they would have been applied by a medieval audience familiar with the behavioural norms demanded by Christian ethics. This approach to the reading of the characters is not arbitrary; it is suggested by the poet in the prologue, where the intensity of his opening prayer appears to make this traditional introduction more than just a conventional topos. Invoking God's assistance he prays: 'And wysse me to werpe owte som worde at this tym/ That nothyre voyde be ne vayne, bot wyrchip till Hym selvyn,/ Plesande and profitabill to the popule pat them heres' (Sll). Throughout the poem references to Christ, God, and Mary abound, who are credited by Arthur for his military success as long as he is in a state of grace. At the very moment Arthur through overweening pride aspires to world rule, his change in attitude is underscored by the omission of these references. Deferring to no one, Arthur emphasises solely his royal pleasure and prerogative. Consequently, the placement of the Fortune dream at this decisive juncture is very appropriate, since it moves Arthur's moral failure into focus. The two philosophers called to expound the strange dream have no difficulty in specifying the reasons for Arthur's imminent fall: 'Thow has schedde myche blode and schalkes distroyede.1 Sakeles, in cirquytrie, in sere kynges landis' (3398-9). The trail of destruction left by the king's proud conquest will come full circle and catch up with him. While Arthur's temporal fall is thus inevitable, his spiritual fa11 is not. He can save his soul by doing penance.27 The two philosophers, therefore, appeal to Arthur as a rational and moral being who, by an exercise of his free will, as defined by Thomas Aquinas, can choose between salvation and damnation: 'Sed homo agit iudicio; quia per vim cogniscitivam iudicat aliquid esse fugiendum vel prosequendum. Sed quia iudicium istud non est ex naturali instinctu in particulari operabili, sed ex collatione quadam rationis; ideo agit libero iudicio, potens in diversa ferri.'" According to the traditional Christian belief in free will Arthur is not fated at all, because free decision is self-determination: 'liberum arbitrium est causa sui motus: quia homo per liberum arbitrium seipsum movet ad agendum."' Since reason. however, should help in this decision-making process, Arthur in the future should be guided more by his rational faculties than by his appetite for power. This brief review of the poem's centraI moral argument should once again alert us to the ethical dimensions of the AMA. The patterns of personal conduct, therefore, cannot be isolated; they have an integral
116
Jorg 0. Fkhte
function in the design of the whole, since characterisation and plot combine to produce the narrative texture of the poem. Moreover, they function as a vehicle for authorial comment expressing the poet's message to his audience. If Gawain, therefore, exemplifies irrational fortitudo, whose ill-timed and ill-considered bravado precipitates his and Arthur's fall, such portrayal goes beyond the immediate scope of the poem. It implies criticism of the much cherished literary and historical ideal of the imperious personality as it populates the world of the English romances and chronicles. The meaninglessness of their heroes' endeavours is especially illustrated by Gawain's taking time off from the war and wandering about in search of adventure. The punctilious observance of the knightly ritual in his joust with Priamus appears ludicrous considering the circumstances. There is, however, a more serious dimension to the poet's criticism, which is not only restricted to the literary ideal but also extends to actual historical conditions. War unleashed by reckless conquerors causes bloodshed and destruction of innocents. This idea is repeatedly stressed in the AMA, and Arthur, of course, is accused of this crime. In the pursuit of world conquest for the sake of self-aggrandisement he has heedlessly victimised the innocent populace and sacrificed his own men. The situation would be a familiar one to a fourteenth century audience as Froissart's Chronicles describing the English wars in France testify,30Thus the poet's censure of Arthur's conduct could be regarded as a caveat to contemporary rulers. Finally, the author's critical evaluation of the martial ideal accounts, perhaps, for the sombre ending of the AMA. Arthur, by accepting the full responsibility for his actions, dies reconciled with God after putting his realm in order. There is neither promise ofhis return nor apotheosis, suggesting that the heroic age when the soul of 'prouz' Roland is carried straight into Paradise is irrevocably past3' and that the troubled times when the reverence for Arthur as unfailing nationaI leader causes Lydgate to enthrone him as the most exalted among the Nine Worthies in heaven have not vet come."
The Lamentsfor the Dead
REN;\1'F. H.\.iS
LJnlike any other secular Middle English work before it, the AMA bears the stamp of laments for the dead. M'ithin its 4346 lines it includes ten such laments, and of its last five hundred verses well over one third is devoted to dramatic lamentations which convey the poem's complex message, notably its condemnation of war. with impressive finality. For such a function, Iaments for the dead are particularly suited, in spite of being a traditional form, because by virtue of their close association with the existential experience of death they are able to illuminate fundamental human questions such as fate and guilt, the relationships to men and God, and the values and norms which govern the behaviour within these relationships. It must be due to the way in which the laments of' the AMA, above all Arthur's for Gawain, fulfil this function that the! are appreciated by modern readers and critics. Again and again one meets with praise for Arthur's lament for Gawain; it has even been called 'one of the most moving passages in Middle English literature'.' I n general, today's readers have difficulty with laments for the dead. probably because of the widespread denial of death. Thus. an examination of how this ancient form is realised and used in the AMA may be of more than simply literary interest. T h e particular achievement of the anonymous author can best be shown by a comparison with his putative principal sources and with the Middle English tradition of laments for the dead. This may also help to determine the position of the AMA in Middle English literature, which has constantly concerned scholars because of the unique synthesis of the poem. Here the death lament is ofparticular interest, firstly because it is qualitatively as well as quantitatively an outstanding form of medieval literature, occurring in both sacred and secular writings and all the major literary genres. Further, it carries on an ancient tradition which has united elements of heathen Antiquity, Christianity and Germanic culture -some of the motifs, stylistic traits and functions can still be traced back to these older traditions. But above all, the lament for the dead stands in a problematic yet dynamic tension between natural love of life and Christian orientation towards the beyond, and thus reflects particularly well the development of medieval thought and feelinga2 T h e laments for the dead appear very early on in the AMA: after approximately only one fifth of the whole, when the exposition has been
given and Arthur's further rise is about to begin. Nor do they come singly but four appear close together, arranged around the fight with the giant of Mont St Michel. The first lament (852-67) is uttered by a Templar. It is the first thing Arthur is confronted with after landing in France and informs him of the foul deeds perpetrated by the giant. Gestures of mourning are missing; the intention to inform is so intimately fused with the expression of grief that one hesitates to call it a lament. Although laments of messengers even in Middle English are not usually of the most emphatic kind, one is here particularly reminded of similar situations in Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry, for example, when old Hrothgar, despite his deep grief, informs Beowulf with great composure about Aeschere's death in order to obtain his help (1322f,). Compared with his putative sources, the author has made several significant changes: Geoffrey of Monmouth in the HRB and Wace in his Brut merely narrate the atrocities of the giant. With Layamon, a 'hende cnight' reports at length but in rather an impersonal manner.3 In the AMA. on the other hand, the poet intensifies this by shifting the Duchess's death to the very day of Arthur's arrival and by making the Templar a powerless eye-witness. The Templar swears that he will never be able to forget the pitiful cries of the victim. Along with his praise of the Duchess (also slightly emotionalised by interjections) these words serve to emphasise his plea for hefp. Arthur is called upon as 'ryghtwise Kyng' to 'rewe on [his] pople'. The fact that the plea comes from a Templar has usually been interpreted as a religious legitimation of Arthur's role as king. Boren, alone, has pointed out possible ironic undertone^.^ At the beginning of the fourteenth century, this formerly renowned order had fallen into disgrace and become infamous for heinous religious and sexual offences. In his lament, which immediately follows (868-75), and in his later behaviour, Arthur comes up to the expectations placed in him. There is no mention at a11 of a lament by Arthur in the presumed sources. As behoves a Middle English protagonist (particularly a romance protagonist) whose heroism the author wishes to stress, Arthur's main complaint is that he did not learn of the abduction in time to be able to save the lady. We immediately determines to act and inquires about the exact whereabouts of the giant. This gives the Templar the chance once again to mention the giant's countless victims. Instead of falling into passionate gestures of mourning, as was common in literary laments though probably not in English reality, Arthur only gives a bellow of pain 'for rewthe of @ pople' and withdraws, as did Anglo-Saxon mourners, for example, in Beowulf 2460.' Arthur does not inform his followers but tries to overcome his intensive grief alone. His inner battle becomes apparent in the wringing of his hands, weltering and writhing. T h e last two gestures occur only very rarely in secular Middle English laments. In Old French laments for the dead (at least as far as they have
The Laments for the Dead
119
been researched) there seems to be no evidence of them, whereas in the Bible and Latin religious literature they can be found.6 Having intensified the Templar's and Arthur's laments in contrast to his sources, the poet reduces the emotionality of Helen's foster-mother (950f.). Though presented as a conventional figure of mourning, she is not given such violent gestures as in Wace, whose description is the most emphatic. In his Brut (as already in the Historia) Beduer hears the wailing from a great distance, while he is climbing.' Then he finds the old woman lying beside the grave with rent garments and dishevelled hair, still sighing, crying and lamenting shrilly. The author of the A M A plays this down, much as Layamon does: of the traditional signs of grief he uses only the more moderate wringing of hands and weeping and is not explicit about the position of the foster-mother, though the 'Couerd vp' in Iine 956 (together with 1. 951) seems to suggest cowering or even lying on the grave. Layamon partly made up for his toning down of the description by giving the lonely wailing, which Beduer on approaching overhears, in direct speech.' This monologue is missing in the A M A , with the result that of all the laments for Helen, the one which is not uttered with a special purpose, the pure expression of deeply-felt grief. is reserved for Arthur. In the words which the foster-mother addresses to Beduer in the Historia and the French Brut, the lament for Helen is fused with an anticipatory lament for him, because the old woman sees his end approaching. In the A M A , the speech of the foster-mother at first conveys a similar impression. Here, too, she warns against the giant, then passes on to the pitiful fate of her foster-child. She concludes by swearing that she will never be happy again and will spend the rest of her life at the grave-side. As with Geoffrey, M'ace, Layamon, and in similar Middle English contexts, this scene serves to build up the enemy as particularly evil and unconquerable, which makes the hero's later victory appear the more glorious. It seems to be to this effect as well that the poet is more concrete about the giant's sexual brutality than are his predecessors. Yet other overtones are to be heard by the attentive ear: for a 'wafull wedowe' the words of the foster-mother have quite a defiant ring about them.9 In her long warning to Arthur, she only once expresses personal concern for him. Instead, she responds to his greetings and polite question by cautioning him brusquely -particuiarly so if one reads her first words as 'Careful! Careman. . . .' She then goes on to curse the man that has reft him of his senses and made him come into the wilderness. Obviously the foster-mother mistakes Arthur for a mere messenger. In her eyes, the king does not equal Wade or Gawain, not to mention Arthur himself. Lines 968-9 sound even more insulting. This means an ironic shift from the sources, especially if one remembers how much people in those days tended to take the physical as a mirror of the spiritual. Whereas in the older works Arthur's messenger is received
Renate Ham with great respect and his imminent destruction is deplored (in Layamon the foster-mother first thinks that Beduer dressed in shining armour, is even an angel), in the AMA the King comes in person and is accorded an ordinary messenger's welcome. After the foster-mother's lament, Beduer consoles her in all three earlier versions; in CVace she consequently calls him a 'Gentil home et cortois'." In the AMA, on the other hand, Arthur. adopting the messenger's role, obviously does not feel that the woman needs comfort and has to stress his lord's and his own 'curtaisie and gentillesse' himself. ,Just before Arthur's victory over the giant, the poet of the AMA inserts another short lament ( 1 153-5). It is a typical anticipatory lament of a retainer: witnessing the desperate struggle. Sir Kay fears the destruction of his lord and deplores its dreadful consequences for them all. He voices these thoughts while rushing up to the king. Gestures of mourning are therefore missing; Kay at once examines Arthur. The effect -usual with such laments -is a final heightening of suspense, which works towards the glorification of the hero, who ends up victorious after all. Apart from its special appropriateness to the final stage of the fight observed by Kay. the choice of 'ouerfallen' may again imply some irony through its subtle stress on the unchivalrous aspect of the match. All four death laments which are arranged around the fight with the giant serve to bring the protagonist into relief- a function they have in common with many laments for the dead at the beginning of Middle English works. \\.hat is special about the AMA is the fact that they are presented in such close succession and concentrated on one fight, the First single combat to be presented to the audience in full. Thus, they efkct a differentiated contrast between Arthur and the fiend, and therefore a many-faceted characterisation of the hero: Arthur is established as a legitimate Christian king, who feels 'rewthe' for his people and restores law and order; as a sensitive chivalrous knight: who does not hesitate to come to the aid ofdamsels in distress and other wretched persons; as a hero who struggles to control his grief; as a bold and victorious warrior; and as the beloved leader of brave knights. That the poet even at this early stage does not view his protagonist in quite such an ideal light as did his predecessors, is obliquely h i n t ~ dat. The ample descriptions of the battles which follow and lead Arthur up to the zenith of his power repeatedly contain references to mourning, but the); usually fill only half-lines. Short verbal expressions of grief mostly serve as starting points for threats of vengeance. In only two cases can one speak of Iaments. The first is an anticipatory lament of Sir Wicher and Sir Walter when they see Gawain return seriously wounded from the encounter with Priamus (2678-85); in the second Gawain deplores the death of young Childric (2962-8). Since suggestions of grief are positioned differently in Geoffrey, Wace and Layamon, the above-
The Lamentsfor the Dead
12 1
mentioned instances could reflect the poet's artistic intention, particularly since both involve Gawain. The first emphasises his vafour and echoes Sir Kay's lament for Arthur, which also concluded a romance scene of single combat. T h e second foreshadows the final laments which are also uttered by the persons really responsible for the fight. Towards the end the longest and most moving death laments are concentrated very closely. T h e older works of the chronicle tradition cannot have given much inspiration: only Lavamon has a brief lament for the victims where he also mentions Gawain." From this sing-le, short lament the poet of the AMA - if indeed he has used the Brut - has developed an impressive escalation of laments for Gawain plus Arthur's final monologue. In the narration of Gawain's death, the poet himself betrays his emotion, writing a kind oSauthoria1 lament ( 3 8 5 8 4 3 ) .After this comes King Frederike's long inquiry about the brave opponent, which also works towards Gawain's glorification. Then Mordred replies by praising Gawain as a bold and powerful fighter, not to be matched. and a chivalrous knight, finall? assuring the king that, had he known Gawain, he would grieve for the rest of his life. I n Mordred's words the direct expression of grief is missing. This is, on the one hand. appropriate to the situation: the victor Mordred answers immediately after the combat which was for him a question of life and death. O n the other hand, it recalls the controlled, impersonal expression of grief characteristic of Anglo-Saxon heroes. The authorial presentation of Mordred's behaviour, too. seems to hark back to olden days (3886f.): as rears come to his eves, Mordred turns away quickly. speaks no more and departs. Like Arthur before (889 and 3561), he withdraws as soon as grief threatens to overcome him.12 When he subsequently curses himself, the conventional motif is formulated in a way which again calls up Germanic associations. Mordred does not curse his birth, as would be common, but 'weries the stowndvs, pat euer his werdes ware wroghte sich wandrethe to wyrke'. Thus the poet has Mordred view his misdeeds as predestined, suggesting by the Middle English form of the ancient wyrd a certain connection with Germanic f a t a l i ~ m .Violent '~ gestures of mourning are also absent in what follows. Instead, Mordred's sorrow is couched in an image, 'it thirllede his herte'. With its native verb, evocative of fighting. and its internalisation of emotion, the metaphor once more reminds us of Anglo-Saxon poetry, but it also conjures up the religious association of the sword of pain which pierced Mary's heart. Through his lament Mordred is raised above the leveI of sheer wickedness, since nowhere else is he given a lament, and in general it happens very rarely that a victor is made to bewail his opponent.I4 The other effect is that Gawain, in particular, is brought into relief. T o him also Arthur's threnody is devoted, which follows after onIy twenty
122
Renate Haas
lines and is the longest and most elaborate lament of the whole AMA. T h e scene begins (3927f.) with Arthur's search for the victims -a motif which indeed occurs now and then in Middle English laments, especially with Charles the Great, but is hardly ever given a concrete visual form.'$ Charles' lament for his nephew in the Chanson de Roland (2870f.) certainly provides the most famous parallel in this as well as in several other respects. But in stressing the latter's heroic character, one should not forget the strong religious influence which the presentation of Roland's death and the lament exhibit.16 With skilful telescoping the AMA poet first describes how Arthur finds many of his enemies killed or fatally wounded before he reaches Gawain's small band. The king raises the first of his knights and realises that they all lie together, encircled by a multitude of opponents. Then he discovers Gawain, and his eyes fasten on him. He sees him lying sprawling and clutching the grass, his banner cast down, his sword and shield all bloody. Now the poet passes on to the impression which the sight makes on Arthur, and full of compassion tells of his sorrow and consternation, To this description of emotions he adds the realistic detail of a vacant stare, before embarking on the first conventional reactions to bereavement. Initially he uses only groaning and weeping, which, thanks to the slow introduction, appear as genuine signs of grief. In what follows, too, the poet does not simpfy accumulate the common gestures, as do so many minor medieval authors, but intersperses individual reactions. Arthur does not immediately fa11 in a swoon over the body and kiss it, but first kneels down, takes up Gawain and opens his visor. After the kiss the reader is once more allowed to follow Arthur's eyes. He now views his nephew as if he had just drawn back a little after the kiss, confining his view to the face. With a few features - closed eye-lids, leaden lips and pale complexion -the dead man's face is sketched. It would be hard to produce a parallel to this from laments in secular Middle English literature, where the appearance of the corpse is hardly ever depicted. Again counterparts can be found in Charles' lament in the Chanson de Roland (28954) and above all in Latin and vernacular religious literature, where the writers, in connection with the Lord's Passion, fi-equently meditate on his sufferings and the traces they leave on his body." O n the other hand, native heroic tradition, though hardly providing parallels, could certainly furnish contrasts. The description here, as well as Arthur's first impression of the dead Gawain, may also be seen as inversions of the typical presentation of heroic 'contenaunce' and posture, used repeatedly in the poem. In lines 116-19, for example, the very same features serve to evoke Arthur's angry face, which causes the Roman ambassadors to fall at his feet. T h e detailed introductory description is followed by the first direct speech. Like many Middle English mourners, and as comes naturally, Arthur begins by addressing the deceased person. Complaint about his
The Laments.for
the Dead
123
own situation and glorification of Gawain merge, the series of metonymies distantly recalls litanies. The vacillation of the personal pronouns between second and third person with regard to Gawain may reflect the bewildered searching which modern psycho1ogists have shown to be characteristic of initial reactions of grief." Arthur's woe grows, as the irony of being destroyed in his own lands seems to dawn upon him. His speech culminates in apostrophes to death -common embellishments of rhetorical laments, even in religious literature, but here the personification is intensified by envisaging death as a strong enemy still hovering at a distance. Impressive parallels to such a presentation ofdeath can already be found in the Old English G~thlucB.'~ Arthur stops, overwhelmed by his grief, which is expressed in an image vague but rich in connotations. With a smooth transition the author narrates how Arthur collapses and faints away. As frequently occurs, especially in works under Latin and French influence, the fainting is linked with the kissing of the corpse. Yet again, the poet does not merely string these gestures together but iends the actions a concrete form by inserting realistic details: between fainting and kissing he makes his hero stagger back. Then Arthur kisses Gawain so ardently that he stains his beard with his nephew's blood. I t is in laments of the Passion literature that one finds a similar emphasis on blood. Here, though, the poet, in an individual observation, associates Arthur's bloodstained appearance with the way he looks after hunting and viscerating game. I n doing so, he accentuates the physical, visible aspect of death and links the lament with the gory realism and other hunting metaphors of the battle descriptions. But at the same time, the image has a symbolic meaning, as it manifests Arthur's blood-guilt, which he shortly afterwards confesses. With the introduction of the barons, the lament widens into a formal scene. The knights urge their lord to regain self-control. Although words of comfort in the Middle Ages are often lacking in empathy and substance (which in the religious sphere arises from the belief that true comfort can only be expected in the beyond, anyway), the brusque tone and the great weight attached to heroic virtues are particularly striking." The barons condemn Arthur's excessive grief as womanish and unworthy of a king. By this the poet indicates to what extent Arthur has lost his 'countenauncehnd is beside himself. Arthur's following words (3981f-) are both an answer and a lament. He defends his passionate mourning by emphasising the greatness of his grief and by adducing very personal reasons.2i Through the reference to Gawain's blood and the incomparable sadness of the sight, as well as the drastic physical image of 3982, his words are closely linked to the preceding passages of authorial narration. Arthur's stubborn perseverance is more credible and moving than the immediate compliance of many another mourner (for example, even Charles in the Chanson de
124
Renate Haas Roland). Next (3987f.), Arthur's lament is elevated to a religious level, although in a completely unexpected way. For the lament is not overlaid by an act of penance, as the repetition of Arthur's kneeling might suggest, and as the dream-reader had long ago recommended. Nor does Arthur yet make any vows or pray for the dead sinner, which would be more in accordance with the common practice of secular Middle English laments; rather he stylises Gawain into a martyr. As Joseph of Arirnathea is said to have collected Christ's blood in a chaiice or bowl, so Arthur gathers Gawain's blood in his hands, pours it into a helmet and covers it carefully. Here the religious influence- be it direct or indirect (via Grail romances) -becomes most conspicuous, bringing the scene to its climax.22 A vow to forgo all pleasures of hunting and royal power until Gawain's death is revenged concludes the l a m e n t a t i ~ n . ~ ~ It seems to be mainly the realistic tendencies of this scene which appeal so strongly to the modern reader: the avoidance of violent literary gestures, the concrete visualisation, the close connection between feelings and manifestations, the scenic mode with its emphasis on Arthur's perspective, and the plausible presentation as a process which ends in the mastering of grief. The same technique, again heightened by rich associations with earlier passages inside and outside the poem and by symbolism, also characterises Arthur's last lament, which follows after approximately 250 Iines and is the second longest of the AMA. In its sequence of collection of the dead and mourning, monologue, appearance of the retainers, and prayer, this lament is roughly parallel to the one for Gawain. But some parts, such as inner and outer signs of mourning and monologue, are not recycled here and the Grail parallel is missing. The single phases thereby acquire different length, and the elaborative details also vary considerably. A search by Arthur is scarcely more than hinted at (4262); the scene begins with his collecting of the nobles killed. Whereas the Gawain scene was introduced by a catalogue of slaughtered enemies, here instead we are given a list of Arthurian knights. In his presentation of the mourning behaviour the author uses the same or similar elements as before; that is, he rejects the more violent gestures of literary tradition. Again he adds individual aspects, albeit in a smaller number, still detailing an impressive process. In this introductory section he seems to gather into one all the descriptions of mourning in the Gawain lament; it is a t this earIy point that Arthur reaches the stage of utter despondency and faintness. Religious elements are already recognisable: Arthur looks heavenwards while sinking to the ground, afterwards he rises to his knees and starts his speech in the form of a prayer. However, he quickly changes to a purely secular lament, which fuses wailing about his own situation and praise for the deceased, as did the one forGawain. Arthur knows that he has lost the guardians of his power. What increases his
Th Laments for the Dead
125
sorrow is the circumstance that his faithful knights have perished because of a traitor. The lament reaches its ciimax when Arthur equates himself with a lonely widow. His renunciation of power and glory brings the lament proper to a conclusion before the last retainers assemble. In contrast to the lament for Gawain, the barons remain silent. As before, Arthur's next prayer differs widely from those normally found in Middle English laments. He does not pray for the dead, vow vengeance or everlasting mourning nor utter remorse, but thanks God for all his earlier victories, the present one and the grace to be allowed to die in his own land. This lends the prayer an air of finality. T h e last great laments mark two successive stages of the fall of Arthur and his world. This effect is heightened through their combination of parallels of structure and contrasts in detail. The first of them is devoted to a single person, though the most eminent Arthurian knight, who has often functioned as a proxy for Arthur; in the second, the King bewails a large number of knights. In the Gawain scene, Arthur's grief gradually rises to a final peak, but he does not finish in apathy, because he recovers his heroic pose at the end. In the last lament his woe increases rapidly, apparently leading to resignation to God's will. vet then Arthur again lapses back into a purely secular view; in the concluding prayer his resignation to God's will is final. Both scenes show with unique perspicuity how low Arthur and his knights have been brought. The proud and imposing warriors lie dead on the ground, 'one grouffe fallen', as is repeatedly stressed with G a ~ a i n Arthur, . ~ ~ too, is brought into a very low position, when he bends down to raise Gawain or the last victims from the ground, when he collapses and faints, or when he kneels, as he repeatedly does. He and his slaughtered knights are seen to be reduced to their creature state. Through the image of lines 3971-2 a certain parallel is drawn between Gawain's corpse and dead game. Arthur for a while forgets his social role and becomes simply a sorrowing being, with the result that his barons resolutely remind him of his duties. In the last lament, Arthur seems to feel that the world has receded from him, when he compares himself to a woeful widow, 'helples on hethe hous[ing] be [ her] one'. Especially with this image of the wailing widow which has been used throughout the poem in connection with death and lamentation it can be seen that the effect of the final laments is greatly enhanced by parallels and contrasts to the earlier laments and other passages. O n Mont St MicheI, when confronted with Helen's lonely, helplessly weeping foster-mother, Arthur could show himself to be a hero, her grief heightening the glory of his victory over the giant (despite certain suggestions of irony on the part of the author). As a defender of the wretched and wronged, Arthur vanquished the figure of evil. Later in Tuscany, it was he who in his hubris ('full wlonke') tormented the people and made widows weep, wail and wring their hands (3153-5).
During his sorrowing for Gawain, his nobles reproach him for weeping like a woman (the irony of this perhaps being acerbated by the fact that the first woeful widow presented in the poem, Helen's foster-mother, turned out to be not so much in need of consolation after all). While at this stage Arthur still ignores the implications of the reproof, ultimately, in his last lament, he sees himself reduced to the widow's role. The difference between the beginning and the end could hardly be greater. The most important function of the early complex ofdeath laments is, indeed, to mark the beginning and thus form a clear contrast to the collection at the end. They are still set in a world into which women are integrated. The victim more lamented over than the innumerable others is a young lady. Moreover, the first complex is preceded by Guinevere's complaint which hovers between a mere lover's complaint and an anticipatory death lament (699-704). This world also harbours landscapes of incomparable beauty- the perfect contrast to the barren heath in which Arthur finally sees himself. Compared with the last ones, these laments are quite short, mirroring the fact (or rather the iIlusion) that grief and evil can be overcome. Arthur's first reaction to the Templar's news is absolutely heroic: he deplores that he was not informed in time and is immediately resolved to act. Though feeling genuine sorrow, he gives in to it for only a short while. In the numerous battles following, too, Arthur's reactions to deaths on his side are worthy of a warrior and hero, as is his behaviour on hearing Cradok's news, which marks the first stage of his fall. It is only in his final laments that for a while he loses hirnseIf in his utter grief and more and more resigns himself to God's will. As Arthur's final laments show how Iow he has been brought and how much he has been thrown back upon himself, they stand in poignant contrast to the many scenes which presented him in his power and his glory, surrounded by a proud number of nobles. In particular, this holds true for the opening. Striking verbal parallels links his praise of the Round Table at the end of the council scene with his last Iaments (e.g. the identical lines 401 and 3963). There he finished with the confident belief that he could defy any enemy as long as he saw his knights safe and sound. No less sharp is the contrast to the many beds of the battles leading Arthur up to the peak of his power. The irony is perhaps greatest with his macabre mocking of the slain Roman emperor. There are also impressive contrasts in the Dream of Fortune, when Arthur enjoys her favours, and after the interpretation of the dream, when he proudly puts on his richest garments. The connection of the last laments with the Dream of Fortune is still more sophisticated: the fails of the Worthies from the wheel of Fortune foreshadow Arthur's own catastrophe, and therefore his final laments are the counterparts in the 'real' world to the dream's laments of the worthies. Like them, Arthur in his last laments also complains of his
The Laments for the Dead own wretchedness. Images and verbal parallels again link the passages. For instance, the emphasis on blood in Arthur's lament for Gawain, and the fact that Mordred enters the decisive battles with lions in his coat of arms, recall the powerful image at the beginning of the wheel of Fortune dream, where Arthur is horrified by lions licking from their fangs the blood of his loyal knights (3234--5). It is not by chance either that the word sakles occurs within the whole poem only in the admonition of the dream-reader (3399) and in Arthur's lament for Gawain (3987, 3992): in the first case the philosophre reproaches the King with having spilled much innocent blood, in the second, Arthur- stained with Gawain's blood -confesses that his nephew has perished because of his sin and that the innocent blood is worthy of being venerated like a relic. The laments evidently form the final variation on the central themes of the poem -war, heroism, guilt, and self-deception. Whereas the group of laments around the fight with the giant and the short anticipatory lament for Gawain are set into contexts which have a strong romance colouring and feed the illusion that grief can be overcome, evil destroyed, and that death is there to be defied by the hero, the reality of death gradually comes closer to Arthur and his knights in the long battles with their gory reaIism, other brief laments, references to mourning and burials, until death proves the ultimate reality. This is the deeper reason for the realistic presentation of the last ~ ~ final effect is also heightened by the scenes of l a m e n t a t l ~ n .Their following deviation: unlike most Middle English secular writers, particularly those of romance, the poet does not put in the lament after the death of the protagonist; rather he makes Arthur himself twice, in a kind of swansong, mourn his knights and the destruction of his world. While in romance the final lament for the dead protagonist usually has the effect of glorifying him and of asserting the ideals he stood for at the very moment when death seems to have shattered them, in the AMA the final laments are given to Arthur, who is fatally wounded and for whom there will be no romance Avalon either. His recapitulation of the ideals on which his world was based in the eulogies for Gawain and the last knights thus acquires a pathetic quality reminiscent of the Elegy of the Last Survivor in Beowulf (2247f.). I t is not only in aspects of their elaboration but also in their deeper functions that the laments of the AMA seem to hark back to earlier days. The AMA uses effects of the death lament which are basically similar to the old Christian ones, or to early combinations of these with worldly heroic ideals such as those found in the Chanson de Roland but also in Beoroulf. Even the early laments of the AMA have the side effect of pointing at the frailty of this world, providing an undercurrent of vanitas nundi as it were, because of the emphasis which nearly all the mourners lay on the endlessness of their grief or because of their broad generalisations of the consequences of the deaths.16 If the last laments show Arthur
128
Renate Haas
and his knights reduced to the state of mere creatures, this means, of course, God's creatures, and the attribution of a lament even to Mordred may also be interpreted as an indication of the fact that sub specie aetemitatis there is no absolute difference between a repentant traitor and a king. The lament for Gawain among other things serves to stylise him into a saint (at least in Arthur's eyes) ---a function for which the lament is frequently employed in legends or pious secular works such as the Chanron de Roland. Most of all it is in connection with Arthur's carus that the AMA's kinship with religious literature becomes evident: though a universal literary pattern, the cams had since the days of Lactantius evolved into one of the most important means of religious teaching by exemplary typese2' Death laments were often used to accentuate the lowest point of the protagonist's fall, a usage of which Chaucer avails himself in the Nun's Priest's Tale to camouflage the fake character of the lament for Chauntecleer. While Chaucer, who uses the casus or some elements of it in several works, goes beyond it playfully or endows it with a modern, secular message, the burden of the AMA is definitely Christian, though very modern as well. Like Beowulf and Roland, Arthur is closely connected with his community, and the presentation of the deaths of his proxy and himself seems to combine moods of both the older works: an elegiac mourning for a world gone and a Christian orientation towards the beyond. Romance and courtly poetry, on the other hand, at the time of the AMA had aIready (at least with their best representatives) brought the individual into the foreground: the romance by making the hero embark on a lonely queste, prove his worth in auentures and search for his true self, and by using the lament for the glorification of the heroic indi~idual.~'Thus, the AMA poet might appear to combat these forward-looking aspirations by exploding the ideals on which they are based and to lead back to Christian humility. Yet close scrutiny shows that his principal target is not the lofty elevation of the individual, but the empty husks of traditional clichCs, suppasitions, and ideals, particularly the glorification of war. This even holds true for the casus pattern, which the poet transcends by making Arthur an individual, not least through his laments. Arthur does not finish in utter despair. as would be very conducive to conventional moral teaching. Neither is his career (like Guy's of Warwick and Valentine's) channelled towards sainthood, with an effect of improbability and inconsistency. The last laments not only expose the discrepancy between the knightly ideal and reality, but also show that the worldly and Christian components of the ideal are irreconciled and indeed irreconcilable; and these tensions are tolerated. After all that preceded. the stylisation of Cawain into a martyr may well have struck pious medieval readers as blasphemous, and they may have had a keen awareness of the incompleteness of Arthur's repentance and perhaps also self-deception, since they were famiIiar with legends whose
The Lamentsfor the Dead saints did penance even without having reaIly sinned.29At the decisive moments of the final scenes of lamentation, the poet does not lift the last veil from Arthur's thoughts and feelings -which may indeed be taken as a forward-looking assertion of the vaIue of the individual.
The Dream of the Dragon and Bear
KARL HEIKZ GOLLER
H e (Arthur) dreamed that a dragon dreadful to behold, Came driving over the deep to destroy his people, At once sailing out of the western lands, Wandering unworthily over the waves of the sea. Both his head and his neck wholly, all over, Adorned in azure, enamelled full fair: His shoulders were scaled all in clear silver, Spread over the worm with shrinking points; His womb and his wings of wonderfuI hues. In marvellous mail he mounted full high; Whomever he touched was destroyed forever! His feet flourished all in fine sable, And such a venomous flare flew from his lips That the flood, for the flames, seemed all on fire! Then came from the East, against him direct A bIack boisterous bear above in the clouds, With each paw like a post, and palms full huge, With talons of terror, all twisted they seemed Loathsome and loathly, with locks and the rest With shanks all misshapen, shaggy and haired Ugly and furred, with foaming lips The foulest of figure that ever was formed! He reared and he roared, and rallied thereafter T o battle he bounds, with brutal claws: He so roamed and roared, that all earth resounded. So rudely he hits out, to riot himself. Then the dragon drew near and dived in attack And with dire blows drove him far off in the clouds H e fares like a falcon, freely he strikes Both with feet and with fire he fights all at once! T h e bear in the battle the mightier seemed And bites him boldly with baleful fangs; Such buffets he gives him with his broad claws, That his breast and his belly were bloody all over!
The Dream of the Dragon and Bear
131
H e rampaged so rudely that rent is the earth, Running with red blood like rain from the skies H e would have wearied the worm through the weight of his strength, If the worm had not wielded wild fire in defence. Then wanders the worm away to the heights Comes gliding from the clouds and claws him at once Touches him with his talons and tears open his back Between the tail and the top, ten feet in length! Thus he breaks up the bear; it is brought to its death. Let him fa11 in the flood, to float where he likes: They so burdened the boId king, on board the ship, That for bale he near bursts, in bed where he lies. (760-805) T h e meaning of the prophetic dreams for the understanding of the message of the AMA has not yet been fully recognised, although there are many critical assessments of the Dream of Fortune, particularly in connection with attempts to determine the genre of the poem. In the only book-length publication on the poem, William Matthews concentrates on the Dream of Fortune alone, while summarily dismissing the Dream of the Dragon and Bear in a single sentence.' It is, however, evident that both dreams play an essential role in structuring the poem as an architectonic whole. The Dream of the Dragon and Bear stands at the beginning of the Roman campaign, which will bring Arthur to the height of his power, but at the same time reduce him to moral degeneration. T h e Dream of the Wheel of Fartune on the other hand, symbolises his turn of fortune and the downward descent of his life and fate. Thus both dreams give shape to the pyramidal form of the casts. This is a feature peculiar to the AMA. K.-J. Steinmeyer has the foIIowing to say about the allegorical meaning ofdreams in cIassical and medieval literature in general: . . . We can . . . investigate the dreams in Greek. Latin, Old Norse, Old English and Old High German literature; the result is always the same: the events follow immediately after the dream report.'
This results in the fact that the fulfilment of every event prophesied in a dream must be sought in the passage following it. The relationship between prophecy and realisation in the AMA. however, is entirely different. Just as in the Parthenon on the Acropolis each stone is designed for a particular position, thus reflecting in form and function the whole edifice, so, too, Arthur's dreams represent in an encoded form his entire life, rise and fall, victory and defeat, political power and moral decay. Even a superficial reading of the two prophetic dreams -especially
Karl Heinz Caller that of the Dragon and Bear- reveals that their symbols carry the weight of traditional significance- harking back to archetypal concepts, but well-known at the time. The greatest problem for the modern reader is evaluating the degree to which the poet was bound by contemporary lore and learning.3 In the case of individual symbols it is difficult to decide whether the author deviates consciously from established traditions, or whether he is merely ignorant of them. But before we can even begin to speak in terms of the poet's individual use of such symbols, we have to examine their associations and connotations in the fourteenth century. This is all the more necessary in the case of the dragon and bear. Both animals are deeply rooted in mythological traditions which may have conditioned the author, and it is only against this background that we can determine how and why the author deviated from the traditional symbolical pattern in order to provide new meaning. It is neither possible nor necessary to pass muster on the entire complex of the medieval symbolism of dragon, bear [and boar]. The Dream of the Dragon and Bear as we find it in the AMA provides us with a guideline and a goal as to the scope of the symbols to be taken into consideration. In the Christian tradition the dragon is a symbol of evil, heresy, and the Anti-Christ. Particularly relevant for iconographic representations of the dragon was Ps. 90.13, where Christ is pictured as vanquishing the dragon. The representation of St Michael as dragon siayer derives from Rev. 12. Numerous apostles of the faith followed in his wake, St George of England being the most memorable one. In processions, a banner of the dragon preceded the Crucifix during the Rogation Days and followed it on Ascension Day. The popular concept of the dragon can be traced to the Physiologus. Following Aristotle and other authorities, people were firmly convinced of the existence of dragons until the seventeenth century. In medieval astronomy the consteliation of the dragon was regarded as rnonstrurn mirabik; Chaucer speaks of the 'tail of the dragoun' as a 'wykkid planete' (Astrol. 11, fj 4 ) . The dragon and bear are often mentioned together by astrologists. Edmund says of himself in King l i a r : 'My father compounded with my mother under the dragon's tail, and my nativity was under Ursa Major: so that it follows I am rough and leacherou~.'~ Especially remarkable is the broad range of symbolical meanings of the dragon, which reaches from the satanic fiend to the merciful guardian: '. . . they range in character from the destructive and terrible to the benign and helpful.'' Even in pre-Christian times, the dragon was regarded as the incarnation of the destructive powers in the world and in the universe. In nearly aH mythologies he is a manifestation of anarchic wilfulness and of unbridled animal power: '. . . with expanded wings, . . . head and tail erect, violently and ruthlessly outraging decency and
The Dream of the Dragon and Bear
I33
propriety, spouting fire and fury both from mouth and tail, and wasting and devastating the whole land.'6 St George's slaying of the dragon is an archetypal legend, one not connected with the saint until the High Middle Ages. A very similar feat had already been attributed to Perseus, who saved Andromeda from being made a sacrificial offering to a seadragon in obedience to an oracle. Even the old Babylonians had their tales of Bel, Enlil and Marduk, who fought against dragons in order to protect the world and the universe from destruction.' Almost always, such tales centre on the victory of Good over Evil, of Light over Darkness, and Order over Chaos. The word sea-dragon as a name for the Vikings has, by way of contrast, a more positive meaning. The Norsemen were thus called because the prow of their ships ended in a blue and red painted dragon's head. The Golden Dragon was the symbol of the House of Wessex; it was also the ensign of Alfred the Great. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Uther saw a fiery ball in the form of a dragon in the sky, a premonition of his victory over his enemies: 'Merlin had prophesied he should be King by means of the dragon"; hence his surname Pendragon, chief dragon. In this literary tradition, which is particularly relevant for England, the dragon has mostly positive associations: it stands for kingship and supremacy. This interpretation can be traced back to Artemidoros' Oneirokn'tika (second century AD) where we read: 'The Dragon signifies the E r n p e r ~ r . 'It~ is likely that Geoffrey was acquainted with this work. Artemidoros has seven dragonbirth dreams, foretelling the birth of seven sons. In Geoffrey's version, the ray emitted by the dragon divides into 'seven lesser rays . . . [signifying seven] sons and grandsons [that] shall hold the kingdom of Britain . . ."O The battle ensign of the dragon used by the Roman cohorts belongs to this tradition. As late as the Hundred Years War, the English armies fought in France under the sign of the dragon, which signified the claim to supreme power. This symbolical meaning was not restricted to the English alone, as is evident from the dream of Herzeloyde where the dragon symbolises Parzival." Like the dragon. the bear is a highly ambivalent symbolic animal, Negative associations are evident: the breath of the bear was regarded as poisonous and his appearance in dreams was considered a bad omen, foretelling illness or a long journey." According to a very popular and widespread tradition, the bear is an emblem of the sins of sloth and gluttony: the Middle: English word bere signifies a man subject to those particular sins.'3 The devil himself was envisaged in the guise of a bear: ' be deouel is beore cunnes' (Ancr. 5461, or: 'be fende is bere kynde bihynde @ asse bifore' (Ancr. Recl. 139/29).14 The ancient Teutons are said to have avoided the use of the old word for bear which they regarded as tabu. The word can be reconstructed from Avest. arm, Greek , Gall. artos. The constelIation of Ursa Major, the Greater Bear, is one of the best-known star groups. Homer
I34
Karl Heinz GCiller
has a passage on arctus, the only star which never dips into the waves of the ocean." In nearly all languages the constellation is called The Bear, usually in the feminine gender. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the constellation in the northern sky is often called Charles' Wagon. The original name, however, was Arthur's Wagon, presumably because of the star called arctus. The explanation for the transfer of the name to Charles lies in his close association with Arthur. Even the earIy Chaldeans established a close connection between Draco and the Bear(s): 'With that people, it (Draco) was a much longer constellation than with us, winding downwards and in front of Ursa Major, and, even into later times, clasped both of the Bears in its folds; this is shown in manuscripts and books, as late as the seventeenth century, with the combined title, Arctoe eE D r a ~ o . ' ' ~ In mythology the bear plays a far more positive role than might be expected from the premises of folklore." In classical antiquity the reign of the she-bear was connected with peaceful communication of the nations. Augustus was associated with Ursa Major: T o r it is Augustus who brings peace to the world, who calls her to new and joyful hopes and to the happiness of re-established unity' (Ovid, F. 697-704).18 As the light-bearing Arctos-Mother, the bear is associated with the light of day and the colour white. Nearly always the image of the she-bear is connected with the benevolent aspects of motherhood; darker connotations are lacking. The association of the bear with motherhood is deeply rooted in almost all classica1 authors;" the word ursa is used genus pro genere." In nearly all Celtic areas, the cultic image derived from the Romance countries was preserved intact." Even the orphic meaning of the bear was retained, as can be ascertained from bear-names on Christian tombstone^.^' In general we can say that the cult of the bear survived longest in Celtic regions, as can be seen from the numerous Celtic coins bearing the ursine image.23A gem in the Museum Florentinun is unique in that it shows, on the one side, the she-bear as an emblem of peace, happiness, and prosperity, and on the reverse side, the Goddess of Fortune (Tyche?) with the attributes of abundance.*' T h e dream of the Dragon and Bear appears for the first time in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae ( 1 135). In this work there is a particularly close connection between Arthur and the symbol of the bear; Arthur is the son of Utherpendragon (the chief dragon), and he wears a helmet 'graven with the semblance of a dragon . . . and a golden dragon he had for standard'." Thus we can presuppose a close association between Arthur and the dragon on the part of Geoffrey. It is no less certain that Geoffrey Arthur, knew the as the author of the HRB was known to his contemporarie~,~~ Celtic word Arthur = 'bear'; after all, he claimed to have translated a book originally written in British into Latin. More problematical is the
The Dream of the Dragon and Bear 135 connection which E. Southward established between Mordred and CeIt. mordraig = 'sea dragony.*'According to this hypothesis, Arthur is to be identified with the bear, and the dragon with MordrednZ8This theory seems rather far-fetched, but it is supported by an episode in the French Mort Artu which must be regarded as one of the major sources of the A M A . In the French work there is a reference to a dream of Arthur's in which a serpent emerged from his body, with the brutal intent of burning and destroying his country. Later Arthur identifies the serpent explicitly with Mordred, so that there are strong parallels to the dragon of the AMA.29 In the HRB Arthur dreams of a bear flying through the air, whose roaring makes the coasts tremble. From the west he sees a flying dragon approach, whose glittering eyes light up the entire country (patriam). A terrible battle ensues from which the dragon emerges the victor, having scorched the bear with his fiery breath and cast him to earth. The author uses not more than two sentences for the description of the battle, mentioning only the roaring of the bear and the glittering eyes of the dragon. The superiority of the dragon over the bear is evident from the very beginning. There is no mention of Arthur's emotional reaction. He reports the dream to them that stood by ('Expergefactus ergo Arturus astantibus quod somniaverat indicavit'; X.Z.U.24-5), and these interpret the dragon as Arthur himself and the bear as a giant whom Arthur wilt defeat. But Arthur is not willing to accept the proffered interpretation, 'existimans ob se et imperatorem talem visionem contigisse' (X.Z.U.29-30). Seen superficially, the dragon stands for Arthur as the embodiment of organic order and of the idea of an Empire. The bear, on the other hand, stands for the giant. and at the same time for Lucius as an opponent of the concept of ordo. But the name Arthur = 'bear', which was evidently common knowledge at the time, acts as a signal that the dream refers to Arthur's victories over both the giant and Lucius only on a surface level. Its true meaning lies in its function as a portent of Arthur's downfall. Whether Geoffrey's Arthur sees either the dragon or the bear as a herald of his fate cannot be determined from the text. It would appear that Geoffrey intentionally left the question open. In the Brut Tysylio, as translated by San Martq3' there is also a report on Arthur's dream in nearly the same wording as in Geoffrey. This is also true of the battle of Mont St Miche13' -the first and simplest fulfilment of the prophetic dream -which follows immediately afterwards in almost the same manner as in the HRB. San Marte, however, did not translate the Cymric original, but used the English translation by Peter Roberts. This version can hardly be called a translation, but should rather be regarded as a compilation of several different chronicles. Roberts himself admits to having used the Brut Gruffid ab Arthur, that is Geoffrey of Monmouth's HRB, as well as other 'private
136
Karl Heinr GEiEler
sources' in addition to the Brut Tysyli~.~' Therefore it cannot come as a surprise that R o b e r t s b n d San Marte's versions contain materials which do not derive from the Bmt Tysylio, for instance Arthur's battle with the giant of Mont St Michel, which is not to be found in the Tysylio version.33 There the campaign against the Romans follows immediately after the dream. The Welsh report of the dream is clearer and more precise in so far as the bear flying up from the South is called monstrum and thus identified as the villain from the beginning. He descends on the coast of France ('From the south . . . alighting on the shore of ffraink'); this can only be applied to the Roman emperor. When the author mentions the beast for the second time he terms him Arthyr = 'bear', thereby establishing a connection with King Arthur, whose close association with the dragon was of course popular knowledge of the time. From this it follows that the Welsh author saw in King Arthur the terrible bear. and at the same time the invincible dragon. The reading of the dream suggested by the by-standers proves to be wrong; only Arthur's interpretation of the dream is borne out by later events. e ~ ~major changes in the character of The Anglo-Norman W a ~ made the Dream of the Dragon and Bear. The characteristics attributed to the animals do not create pressing associations either with Arthur as the leader and protector of the British, or with Lucius as an aggressor and tyrant. The bear is nearly as powerful as the dragon himself, whose main weapon is his brute strength rather than his wild fire. Both animals are geographically determined: the bear comes 'de vers oriant'; the dragon flies 'de vers occidant' (2699, 2703). Arthur reports his dream to the clerks and barons. Some of them read it as a premonition of Arthur's victory over a giant, while others propose divergent explanations. But they aH agree in regarding the dream as a favourable omen. Arthur himself believes that the dream refers to his battle against the Emperor, but he is somewhat dubious about the matter. He concfudes: 'Mes del tot soit el C r i a t ~ r ' . ~ ~ In Layamon's Brut36the author himself terms Arthur's nightmare as fearful (feo~lic,12753). The King is so terrified at the dream that he groans loudly when he awakes. 30ne of those about him dares to ask Arthur what the matter is, until he reports the dream of his own accord. According to Layamon the hideous bear comes in a thunderstorm from the East, while the burning dragon approaches from the West. The sea seems aflame with the reflection of the dragon's fire. The poet emphasises explicitly that the dragon b u n s the cities of the country -a notable parallel to the AMA [(bur) [3es he] suelfde], Cal. 12773, bonves he swelde, Otho MS.].37 This is the first hint of the fact that the dragon will destroy his own country. Layamon emphasises the fierceness of the battle, which at first appears as a match of equaI strength, as well as the uncertainty of the outcome. Finally the
The Dream of the Dragon and Bear
137
dragon slays the bear, casts him to earth, and tears him to pieces. T h e author of the AMA in his representation of the dragon and the bear takes up quite a number of motifs which can be found in his predecessors, but he also adds a number of essential traits. The dragon is clearly different from those found in the sources. The author describes him as a magnificent animal shining in silver and brilliant colours. Nearly all his features are positive ones. The bear, however, is a wild monster; all the epithets applied to him are negative. In summation, the poet calls him the ugliest beast ever created. In the battle, the bear is at first not only an even match, but seems the superior of the two; he would have defeated his opponent if the dragon had not defended himself with his wild fire. In contrast to all earlier versions the description of the dragon precedes that of the bear. The dragon comes over the ocean from the West in order to destroy Arthur's people: 'to drenschen hys pople' (761). This statement is repeated by the philosophers when they explain Arthur's dream. They stress specifically that the dragon symbolises Arthur: 'The dragon approaching over the sea, in order to destroy thy people (to drynchen thy pople, 8 16), means yourself.' This interpretation has a great deal more significance, since Arthur when he speaks of the dream only shows fear of the dragon, not of the bear. Immediately upon awakening the king tells the philosophers, who are well-versed in the seven liberal arts, that he has been tormented in his dream by a dragon: 'and syche a derfe beste, Has mad me full wery' (811-12). The dream readers accept Arthur's premises, and tell him in no uncertain terms that he is going to destroy his own people. They see the bear as the tyrants who torment his people: 'bat tourmentez thy pople' (824). The philosophers admit that the dream is a terrifying one, and therefore add a consolation and an encouragement: 'Ne kare noghte: Sir Conquerour, bot cornforth thy seluen; And thise bat saillez ouer be see, with thy sekyre knyghtes.' (83&1) The interpretation of the philosophers, which is in itself contradictory, will in the end come true. Towards the end of the poem, the author blames Arthur for tormenting his own people: '(he) turmentez be pople' (3 153).Just as he had said of the bear, he says of King Arthur, '(he) riotes hym selfen' (3172). Arthur is, at one and the same time, the dragon and bear. Arthur's battle against the giant on Mont St Michel immediately following the Dream of the Dragon and Bear is the first level of realisation of the dream. Arthur takes up the battle with the monster 'for rewthe of pople' (888).The description of the giant contains similar terms to that of the bear, and conveys a barbaric and hideous impression. The disgusting features of an entire menagerie of animals are catalogued, including the greyhound, frog, hawk, do<$sh, flounder, bear (!), dolphin. wolf, bull, badger, boar and swine.
138
Karl Heinz Giiller
T h e giant is the grotesquely distorted caricature of a tyrant (~yraunt, 991) living outside of any kind of law and order ('he will lenge owt of lawe', 996, 'Withowten licence of lede, as lorde in his awen', 997). Very much like the bear he is an incarnation of the vice of gluttony and thus a bere in the Middle English sense of the word. His macabre feast described in minute detail is a malicious analo,gy to Arthur's overladen banquet in which twenty-three different dishes and eight types of wine were served. Every Easter the giant receives the homage of fifteen realms and thus owns greater treasures than Arthur himself, whose name is twice mentioned by the nurse of the murdered duchess (1009, 1016). The monster thus represents in addition the absolute perversion of the medieval feuda1 system; single-handedly and with brute force he subjugated kings and princes and decimated the population of their countries. Parallels are also evident at the level of the half-Iine: the giant receives the tribute 'of fyftene rewmez' (1005), and Arthur's liege-men are also 'of fyftene rewmez' (837). Similarities and parallels to the action of the dream are clearly recognisable. In the same manner in which the dragon attacks the bear, Arthur wades into battle. And just as the bear appears initially to be more powerful, so also the giant seems at first more than a match for Arthur and very nearly kilIs him. But in the end Arthur, like the dragon, strikes the decisive blow and emerges the victor. O n a second level the Dream of the Dragon and Bear also refers to Arthur's confrontation with the Roman Emperor Lucius. T h e imperial ensign is the golden dragon (1 252, 2026), which had traditionally led the Roman cohorts into battle since ancient times. The Roman Viscount also has a dragon in his coat of arms (2053). This is further evidence of the ambivalence of this symbolic animal, which, in the AMA, embodies the claim to absolute power, and therewith war, death, and destruction: 'For thare is noghte bot dede thare the dragone es raissede' (2057). But such commentaries can be referred to both sides of the battle -Arthur's ensign is also the Golden Dragon which he inherited from his father Uther. T h e symbol corresponds to the deed. Of Lucius it also said that he 'turmenttez pi pople' (1954). He massacres 'Comouns of be count&, clergye and ope^-/ / bat are noghte coupable perin, ne knawes noght in armez' ( 1316-1 7). Arthur does exactly the same thing after the capture of Metz, as well as during the campaign in Italy. Again we find that formulaic half-lines intimate associations which are quite evidently the result of author intention. Lucius' and his men's anticipation is expressed in the same words as used for the giant and the bear: to 'ryotte oure selfen' ( 1969). But the focus of the work is, of course, the death of King Arthur -in two places in the manuscript of the poem, at the beginning and the end,
The Dream of the Dragon and Bear
139
it is entitled Morte Arthur. It is only from the morte perspective that the third level of realisation of the Dream of the Dragon and Bear can be understood. King Arthur is so tortured by the dream that he fails ill and believes he must die. It is therefore evident that more important things are involved than a battle against a giant or even against the Roman Emperor. Arthur's fate and that of his realm are at stake here. In proportion to his ever growing success, Arthur becomes by degrees more cruel, greedy, and unbridled. This is particularly evident in his campaign in Tuscany, where so many innocent people are brought to death. At the apex of his power Arthur calls out: We shall be lords over everything that lives on earth! This act of htsbk~leads inevitably to metaphysical guilt and therewith to downfall. In this way the dream interpretation of the sages is fulfilied: Arthur, the dragon, destroys his own people. The dragon was already an ambivalent symbol during the Middle Ages. In the AMA, however, the dark side of Arthur is represented in the image of the bear (Arth). The law-abiding and just king becomes a tyrannical and barbaric conqueror, who cares nothing for the laws of God and chivalry. Like a11 other conquerors, Arthur falls by the sword. He fails to pray for the souls of his fallen men, as is traditionally expected of noble kings and heroes (Byrhtnoth, Oswald, and even Gawain in the poem). Unlike Gawain, who explicitly states that he prays for the souls of his men and not for himself, Arthur's only thought is for himself, his honour and his great loss. It is true that, on a purely formal level, he dies reconciled with God; and yet he remains recaIcitrant, entrapped in worldliness to the end. The last prayer he utters is one of thanks to God who granted him sovereignty over all other kings and preserved him from shame. The last command he utters is to have Mordred's children killed and flung into the water. King Arthur has not learned his lesson.
The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
ANKE JANSSEN
Like the Dream of the Dragon and Bear, the Dream of Fortune follows a philosophical-literary tradition of long standing with which the author was well acquainted. The goddess of Fortune with her wheel, as portrayed in the AMA, goes back to Boece; in the Middle Ages this portrayal was current in literature as we11 as in visual art: 'Throughout the Middle Ages the general idea is that Fortune turns the wheel, on which mankind clings; in the line of this development occurs the "formula of four." " Holtgen calls the depiction of the rota Fortunae with the four kings - the one rising, the next enthroned, the third falling, and the fourth king lying under the wheel -the 'standard model' for the innumerable variations following thereafter.2 T h e author of the AMA alters the well-known symbol of the inconstancy of human life in three important respects: he unites the wheel of Fortune with the equally well-known and common topos of the Nine Worthies; he fuses the Boethian conception of Fortune with the contemporary humanistic background, combining the Boethian conception of Fortune with that of Petrarch; and, most important of all, he portrays a goddess of Fortune whose influence is restricted to a specific sphere. viz. Fortuna belli- fortune-in-war. Thus, in the AMA Fortuna is not employed as the personification of the imponderables of life in general, but instead symbolises a clearly definable type of fortune. T h e transformation of two universaIly known topoi and the fact that they were tied up with the spiritual and philosophical ideas of Humanism meant that the familiar was presented in an unusual guise. This effectively aroused the attention of the reader or listener who, in his turn, was also enabled by this poetic device to reconsider his previous conceptions both of King Arthur, and at the same time of the nature of sovereignty. Boece had realised that Fortuna appears only when divine Providentia permits it.3 Providence keeps Fortuna within bounds, since she is a subordinate authority and by no means autonomous. It is true that man is free to climb on to the wheel of Dame Fortune- in this respect he enjoys absolute freedom of choice. But once he has entrusted himself to the wheel, he is subject to the law ofthe goddess of Fortune, he cannot escape his destiny. Boece therefore strongly advises against committing oneself to the rota Fortunae.
The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
141
I n accordance with the medieval tradition of Boece, the author of the
AMA portrays the goddess of Fortune, who appears in Arthur's dream, as ann'lla Fortuna says of herself that Christ has created her. When she takes on a threatening stance towards her former favourite: Arthur turns to her beseechingly, whereupon she says coolly: ' "Kyng, thow karpes for noghte, be Criste bat me made!" ' (3385).Several lines earlier Arthur has admitted to the fact that the goddess has turned her wheel as she was destined to do: 'Abowte cho whirllide a whele with hir whitte hondez, Ouerwheime a11 qwayntelv be whele as cho schoide;' (3260-1 ) Arthur is thus aware that Fortuna acts at God's command. When the messenger tells him that they have gained a victory by a narrow margin and only 'thurghe chance of oure Lorde' (1 539) the king gives thanks to Christ and the Virgin Mary: 'Crist be thankyde.' quod the Kyng. 'and hys clere klodvre, That 30we comforthed and helpede be crafte of Hym selfen;' ( 1559-Cfl)
God distributes victory. as it pleases Him; nobody is so 'skathlye', Arthur says, as to be able to slip out of His hand and escape: 'Desteny and doughtynes of dedys of ames, All es demyd and delte at Dryghtynez will.' ( 1561-4) This provides a satisfactory answer to the much discussed question of King Arthur's responsibility for his own fate. His fatal end cannot be imputed to Dame Fortune's fickleness but is God's just punishment for his evil deeds. Most critics agree that Arthur did, in fact, commit sinful deeds, but there is no consensus as to whether this is the one and only reason given for Arthur's cams. Helaine Newstead, for instance, cannot accept Matthews' thesis; instead she maintains that in the end the characteristic qualities of a heroic knightly king prevail.' This interpretation puts nearly a11 the blame on the fickle goddess of Fortune. who is thus made responsible for Arthur's final fall and death. T h e question of Fortuna's retributive function is, of course, closely connected with the general problem of man's responsibility for all the good and evil that befall him in life. This problem has always intrigued poets and philosophers and it was of particular importance to the Italian humanists. Petrarch, one of the major figures of Italian humanism, concerned himself primarily with the two forces which, in his opinion, determined the course of man's life: Fortuna utraque (the personification of fortune ~ lists the 'wounds' which the a n d misfortune) and V i r t ~ r .Petrarch
142
Anke Janssen
Janus-faced Fortuna inflicts upon mankind: gaudiurn and spes, dolor and metus. These wounds afffict the animal, i.e. the emotional part of the human being. Virirtus, on the other hand, comprises all those qualities which control the passion^.^ Petrarch deals most thoroughly with Fortuna in his De Remediis Utn'usgue Fortunae, a treatise which he wrote between 1354 and 1366. It was Petrarch's intention to write the Rernedia for a broad public, 'ad vulgares sepius quam ad philosophos', and the work was, in fact, widely read even during his lifetime.' Attesting to its extraordinary popularity is the preservation of 133 manuscripts of the book scattered all over Europe, including copies in the libraries of London, Oxford, and Cam bridge? The Roman poets and philosophers had already examined the problem as to how successful man might be in opposing, with the help of firrtus, unpredictable, calamitous Fortuna. Both varieties of Fortune, adversa andpros$JeraFortuna, bring ruin upon human kind. Paradoxically, however, good fortune has more disastrous consequences for man than misfortune. The classical poets and writers were thoroughly convinced that being favoured by Fortuna meant corruption of the human character. They saw that the favourites of Fortuna seemed only seldom capable of exercising self-control. They fell victim to superbia, the vice of pride and ins01ence.'~ Petrarch, too, is aware of the fact that pride, i.e. presumption and self-satisfaction, has its genesis in good fortune alone. Fortunaprospera induces man to commit this deadliest of the seven deadly sins." 'May the gods protect you from becoming one of Fortune's favourites', Cicero wishes for his friend L u ~ i I i u s . ' ~ Petrarch offers a wealth of examples where Fortune has robbed a man of his common sense; the great are particularly vulnerable here. The higher they are placed on Fortune's wheel, the lower will be their fail. Among others the poet mentions Alexander the Great, Hannibal the victor of Cannae, the Macedonian monarch Pyrrhus, Mago the Carthaginian general, Pompey the Roman military leader; rulers and war heroes who were, in the last analysis, victims of their pride, of superbia. Only reason can check this irrational emotion -and suprbia is fundamentally irrational - reason alone can save the bellicose conquerors from certain downfall. John Lydgate claims in the Prologue to Book I1 of his Fail of Princes that man can defy Dame Fortune and that her arbitrary rule is broken whenever virtue and reason hold sway over man's mind: Vertu on Fortune maketh a diffiaunce. That Fortune hath no domynacioun Wher noble pryncis be governed be resoun. (11. 54-6)13
In a similar manner, the anonymous author of the poem 'Dame
The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
143
Fortune and Her Wheel' (probably written shortly after the death of Richard 11) warns his readers against placing too much confidence in ~ course is 'ever movynge and mutable', and the goddess F ~ r t u n a . 'Her for that reason we should always d o what is right, 'we wyile done ryzt weele'. We should be virtuous, 'Leste bt Fortune turne hur whele'. Here the author says that a good and righteous man may actually prevent the wheel from turning round; thus, he can put himself out of Fortune's reach and free himself from her power. I n The Goddess Fortuna in Mediaeual Literature, Patch has delineated the various functions of the goddess. In connection with 'the Fortune of combat' he quotes a passage from Jean de Meun's translation of Flavius Vegetius Renatus' De Re Militari -L'Art de Cheualerie (1286-90).ts The poet of the Roman de la Rose observes rather sarcastically: Miex vient il vaincre son anemi par fain que par bataille, en coj fortune seult plus avoir de pooir que v e r t ~ s . ' ~ (It seems wiser to overcome the enemy by means of famine than of battle where fortune seems to rule rather than valour.) T h e author of Tha Complaynt of Scotlande (written in 1549) is even more explicit about the unpredictability of war. Here Hannibal, truly an expert in all matters of war, says to King Antiochus: i sueir to the . . . be the gode mars, that
144
Anke Jamsen
O n no account should a military leader let himself be deceived by a victory; when he thinks that he has achieved something he will more often than not find that he has to start all over again. In a unique and unprecedented way the author of the AMA links the tradition of the goddess Fortuna with the topos of the Nine Worthies. T h e result has been called 'the most splendid portrait of Fortune in English Iiterat~re'.~'Instead of the usual four anonymous kings the author places the Worthies of history on the wheel. Prior to the AMA, the Nine CVorthies were presented as exempla bonomm. Previous authors had followed the tradition of-Jacques de Longuyon's Voeux du Paon where the topos appeared for the first time, with the Worthies divided into triadic Sroups: heathens, Jews, and Christians." In Froissart's Chroniques. for instance, and in Eustache Deschamp's poems, the LVorthies are held up as models and as examples of virtue to a corrupted n~bility.~' It is true that the topos is also drawn upon -in much the same way as in the ubi-sunt-laments -as an example of the inconstancy of worldly power and glory.23 But generaIly. admiration for the greatness and heroism of the Nine Worthies predominates. Thus in the Parlement ofthe Thre Ages (written about 1360) the allegorical figure of Age delineates the Nine Worthies as examples of the vanity of worldly splendour. Unintentionally though, the warning has the opposite effect: the portrayal of the M'orthies in all their magnificence diminishes the cogency of the author's intended warning.24 In the fourteenth century the poet of the AMA is the only writer who draws upon the topos of the Nine Worthies to warn against the inevitable consequences of martial conquests and clashes on the battlefield. It is generally acknowledged that the Dream of Fortune is the pivotal passage for the interpretation of the AMA. Most critics, though, maintain that the dream only illuminates the turning point of Arthur's fate. Thus Hiiltgen, and subsequently Matthews consider the Dream of Fortune as proof that the AMA tells the story of the rise and fall of King Arthur. The work must therefore be assigned to the genre 'medieval tragedy': The dream of fortune in Morte Arthure was almost certainly the poet's own invention, and it is the key to the structure he imposed upon the source material and to the genre to which the poem belongs. The genre is the tragedy of fortune, and the structure is archetypal for that genre."
The fact that the Dream of Fortune has been examined almost exclusively in terms of genre has definitely influenced, if not prejudiced, the interpretation of the AMA as a whole. In a recent study of the AMA, George R. Keiser, for instance, stresses the central position of the Dream of Fortune in its dramatic context. He writes: 'This dream is of the utmost importance as a dramatic preparation for the revelation of the treachery and as a means to understanding the meaning of the entire
The Dream ofthe Wheel of Fortune
145
poem.'26 In the ensuing passage. Keiser explains that when the author portrays the fate of the Nine Worthies he is really presenting a version of Boccaccio's De Cmibus Viromrn Ittustrium in miniature. T h e Worthies, who appear in the Dream of Fortune, are (like the leaders described by Petrarch and Lydgate) conqueror-kings and warlords. They are portrayed as prototypes of power and glory by the author because of their extraordinarily successful wars of conquest and feats of arms. Alexander had conquered the world, Hector possessed many realms, Caesar was feared and dreaded in every country on earth, ,Judas Maccabaeus had once been a valiant warrior and Joshua a mighty king of Syria. David was famous, as he himself explicitly says, for his feats of arms and he was renowned as one of the most doughty and courageous men on earth. T h e Worthies had thus a11 been powerful monarchs, feared by their subjects and famed for their skill in battle as well as for their bravery and daring. In this respect, theJewish Worthies d o not differ in the Ieast from the heathen kings, and -as the philosophers tell Arthur - the Christian M'orthies, who are about to climb on to the wheel, and who will also conquer many realms.27 At the beginning of Arthur's dream, six of the kings have already been flung from the rota Fortunae- the three heathen rulers and the three Jewish monarchs. Clharlemagne and Geoffrey of Bouillon are in the process of ascending." Those who have been flung from the wheel join in a common lamentation: Sex was of bat setill full sodaynliche fallen, Ilke a segge by hym selfe, and saide theis wordez: 'That euer I rengnede on Pir roo me rewes it euer! FYas neuer mye so riche that regnede in erthe; CZ'hene I rode in my rowte. roughte I noghte ells, Bot reuaye and reuell and rawnson the pople: And thus I drife fbrthe my dayes. whills I dreghe myghte, And therefbre derflyche I am dampnede for euer.' (327017)
During their lifetime, these Worthies indulged in hunting and feasting. they pillaged the countryside and robbed the people. As they spent their days on earth engaging in these activities they must now suffer eternal punishment and damnation. T h e reader or listener will no doubt see Arthur's feats of arms, his battles and wars in a totally different light when the British king is shown to be among the Worthies who have so ignobly been thrown off the rota Fortunae and been damned for their evil deeds. Without exception, these rulers possess preciselv those attributes with which Arthur is endowed. Following in Alexander's footsteps, Arthur had conquered a realm comparable to that of the Macedonian emperor. He holds sway over a territory which stretches from Argyle and Orkney,
1-16
Anke Janssen
to ?;orway and Sweden as far as Austria and Provence (30-47). Gawain sa? s of him to his assailant Priamus: 'There es no kyng 1,ndire Criste may kemp with hym on; He will be Alexander ayre. that all be erthe Iowttedc. =\hillere ban euer was Sir Ertor of "Froye.' (2633-5) Arthur indulges in the very pursuits that the Worthies have come to regret bitterly. H e goes out hunting with his courtiers in the woods of 11.ales (57-9). he takes great delight in feasting and relishes lavish banquets. T h e philosophers who read the dream to the king emphasise the fact that the \Irorthies. who had become mighty and great through fortunein-war, a r e now irrewcably doomed to downfall and ruin. The Dream of' Fortune discloses that there are no righteous and worthy conquerorkings and warlords. tYars brinq death and destruction upon the peoples. T h u s the history of Rome. as it is told by King Arthur, is exclusively a history of conquests and reconquests, and the peoples are the ones who sufFer for it. T h e British king lays claim to Rome solely because his ancestors, 'Belyn and Brene and Bawdewyne the Thyrde' (277), had once conquercd it. They had occupied the Roman empire for 160 years, one succeeding; the other on the throne. They had overrun the Capitol, pulled down the walls and hanged hundreds of the Roman leaders. tlrthur had invaded Ga!lia, which was then Roman territory. In the light of these cruel wars Lucius' question posed by his ambassadors no longer appears tactless and impertinent: . . . ansuere anel? wh) (how ocupyes the iaundez That awe homaqe of'afde till h!m and his eld>r-s: \\'hy thow has red>n and ra?mede and raunsound be popie. ;lnd k! ll!de doun his cosyns. kyn,vs ennoyntt!dc:
(98-101)
Arthur did not have any qualms about maltreating the civilian population. He killed Lucius' cousins, who were anointed kings. and had his own cousins crowned in their stead, not by God's grace but by his own: Qwrenn he thes dedes had don. he doubbyd hys knyghtez. dyu)syde dowchens and delte in dyuerse remmes. Xlad ot'his cosyns k y n ~ ennoyntede. s In kyth there the! couaitte crounes to bere. (48-5 1 ) Arthur is in no sense a worthier man than the Roman Emperor, because in his reply he is as provocative as Lucius in his challenge. H e turns the tables on Lucius by aggressively announcing that he. Arthur, will now
The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
147
conquer Rome, which he considers his rightful heritage. The Roman ruler, who pillages and burns down the cities, carries ofT the goods and chattles of the inhabitants, fells the forests, violates the right of sanctuary and kills dukes, peers, and the common people is no worse than Arthur in his unrestrained and immoderate wars of conquest. The author makes it quite clear. too, that Arthur's long absence from his country allowed evil men and marauding hordes to bring death and destruction upon his own subjects. who also suffered under the tyrannous rule of Mordred. Even before the war against Lucius has begun Arthur knows that he will conquer Lorraine and other countries (349-56). Neither in Lorraine nor in Lombardy will he leave a single man alive who obeys Lucius' law. Having no better reason than sheer greed, Arthur proposes to incorporate these nations within his own realm. He wants to distribute the 'louely lordchipe' (12399) of the Duke of Lorraine among his knights. After that, he adds threateningly, he will deal with the duke himself. As for Lombardy, Arthur is eager to impose his own law on it for the simple reason that it is a beautiful country which he desires. Again this demonstrates that Arthur is not essentially different from Lucius. Like his adversary he invades realms and nations out of greed. without giving a single thought to the calamitous consequences these wars will have on the people. The reader has an uneasy feeling that the conqueror-king was just waiting for something like the challenge of the Roman emperor in order to have a good excuse for continuing his briefly interrupted wars of conquest. And like master like man: the attitude of the knights of the Round Table towards battles and wars is congenial to their lord. Thus their response to the challenge of the Roman mission is unanimous. Sir Cador of Cornwall is looking forward to war with a11 his heart. For him. peace had already lasted far too long. 'Now war is aroused! Christ be praised!' (257) Aungers, Lot's brother and king of Scotland, eagerly wishes to take revenge on the Romans, who had- when ruling over his country -demanded ransom for the Scottish aldermen whom they held captive. They had also turned on the people. laid waste the countryside a n d raped the women. T h e ruler of Brittany promises Arthur to raise an army of 30,000 well-equipped knights within one month. He is prepared to assist the king against any country or nation whatsoever. The King of Wales will march at the head of the army. He wants to avenge himself on the Viscount of Rome who had once captured several of his knightly attendants in Tuscan);. near Pontremoli. The Viscount had set them free for a ransom which he had no right to demand. The King of Wales will not be reconciled with the Viscount until they face each other in battle and deal each other deadly blows. Sir Yvain can hardly wait for the time when he will fight against the Romans and ravage and lay waste their land.
148
Anke Jamen
IYith what amounts to sheer blasphemy, Christ. the Prince of Peace, is praised for the fact that war has been revived. The bellicose knights all swear their bloody oaths of vengeance in the name ofChrist, which is an undoubted abuse of His name. The kings of Scotland, Wales, and Brittany. Sir Lot and, last but not least, Arthur himself, all take an additional oath upon the holy vernicle that they will avenge themselves on the 'venemus' Romans (299) for the misdeeds the latter have inflicted on them. Sir Lot swears that he will carve a bloody path through his enemies. leaving innumerable dead in his wake. Arthur finally outtines an exact campaign plan, mentioning all the cities and countries he intends to conquer - all this in the name of Christ and swearing on 'l'eronica's kerchief. The oath on the vernicle was normally used by pilgrims to Rome. Thus it would appear that when the author lets Arthur and his knights reiterate the oath in connection with wars of aggression against Rome, he wants to point out the incongruity of their language and actions. Also. the reader and listener is reminded of Christ's death on the cross and thus the author invites a comparison of the bellicose conqueror King Arthur with the passively suffering son of God, whose kingdom is not of this ~ o r l d . ~ ' The PVorthies are damned fbr all eternity because during their lives on earth they had relied on a very specific kind of Fortune, viz. fortunein-war. The goddess favours King Arthur with the highest seat on the wheel. and she hands over to him the insignia of his sovereignty, the diadem and globe. She also proffers him the sword, requesting him explicitly to use it in battle. Fortuna makes it clear to Arthur that the sword is hers, and she exhorts him to brandish it threateningly. The goddess reminds the king that the very same sword has stood him in good stead in his previous battles and that it has never failed him. The change of tense makes it clear that the goddess Fortuna is referring to King Arthur's former battles. A few lines earlier she says that Arthur would be well advised to observe her wilI - 'Fore all thy wirchipe in werre by me has thaw wonnen' (3342). She has been kind to him and for his sake subdued his enemies. As have many ofhis comrades in arms, he has had ample opportunity to recognise this. Owing to her influence and goodwill he has felled 'Sir Frolle with frowarde knyghtes' (3345), so that France now belongs to him alone.30 Fortuna belli has decided that of all the leaders on this earth he shall occupy the most prominent seat on her wheel. Thus Arthur has become Fortune's darling, the favourite of Forfuna prospera belli. The utter fickleness and capriciousness of fortune-in-war is mentioned several times in the A M A , and everyone involved is fully aware of this. Arthur himself understands that Fortuna belli alone is responsible for his victories -in mass mtlie as well as in single ~ o r n b a t . ~ ' The phrase 'happy in armsYndicates that the positive result of a
The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
149
battle is dependent on mere chance, that is on Fortune. Thus a very young knight named Chastelayne quite by chance runs his spear through the noble Sir Cheldrike: This chekke hvm eschewede be chauncez of armes. (2956)
Immediately after his unexpected victory, Gawain's young and inexperienced ward himself falls a victim to his fbrtune-in-arms, receiving a deadly wound in the neck from an enemy knight called Swyan. The heathen knight Hardolfe does not profit very much from having been 'happye in armes'. Gawain pierces his throat with his sword (2974-6).32 Arthur says in one of his last threnodies that his 'happynge of armes' (3958) was entirely dependent on Gawain. who was, as hlordred states. 'happyeste in armes' (3878).33But death on the battlefield comes to Gawain ironically through the very person who affirms his fbrtune in combat. Arthur relies quite deliberately on the Fortune of war and therewith on chance. T h e king informs the nobles, who have gathered in council, of his plans and at the same time lays down a kind of guideline under which the whole project is to be carried out:
'I am in purpos to passe perilous wa)es. To kaire with my kene men to conquere Qone landes. To owttmye myn cnm!. git'auenture it schewe. That orupyes m! n heritage. be Ernpyre of'Rome.' (640-3) It is therefore evident that Arthur's guilt consists. not least. in his entrusting himself; and thus his allies and his people, to Fortune's wheel although he is well aware of' the fickleness and unreliability of Fortunn belli. T h e king therefore succumbs to a fault typical of the proud and haughty by failing to apply this insight to hirnselfl i t is only the enemy who is struck by Fortuna a d m a . T h e mercenary Priamus. who is kin to King Arthur through Hector (2603. 4343), demonstrates that pride and trust in the Fortune of war a r e very likely to result in downfall. Priamus rules over Alexandria, Africa and other distant countries. He is the legal heir to the throne of his mighty father, who has allowed him to participate in Arthur's war and take with him 140 knights. Priamus himself confesses to being hauqhtv and presumptuous. Pride is the reason not only for his shakeful downfall, but also for that of his 'worthy' ancestors Alexander. Hector, Judas and Joshua. Priamus relied on the Fortune of war and was therefore vanquished for ever: 'And I am for cirqwitrye schamely supprisede. And be aw[n]tire orarmes owtrayede Sore euere.' (261&171
150
Anke Janssen
It has already been seen that the hortus conclusus of the goddess Fortuna resembles the garden of Paradise. From the goddess Arthur receives a 'pome' (3354). which is clearly associated with the apple by which Eve leads Adam into temptation.34 Arthur had enjoyed the fruits of victory presented to him by Fortuna belli. completely forgetting that they had their price. Xeither in his dream. nor when he was wide awake could Arthur resist temptation. In spite of all the exempla monentia he decided to put his trust in the Fortune of war. T h e philosopher who interprets Arthur's dream is very explicit as to the fact that Fortune now frowns upon Arthur. Fortuna prospera has become Fortuna nduersa. Arthur will never triumph again. 'Within five winters your fall will be complete'. the philosopher says. Arthur will fall like at1 the other Worthies 'that were conquerours kydde and crownnede in erthe' (3407). T h e king has shed much biood and he has killed many arrogance, pride and innocent people, 'in cirquytrie'(3399) -in presumption. Arthur's pride was already evident before his dream of Fortune's wheel. He had tried his luck in a very frivolous and outrageous manner before the walls of Metz by exposing himself without protection to the arrows of the besieged citizens. With the pride typical of the mighty, called temeritas, i.e. the inctination towards fboihardy and reckless action^.'^ he disregards the caution of his attendant Sir Ferrer and calls him a frightened child who is terrified of a fly. Sir Ferrer is, of course. the wiser and more responsible man. Arthur is convinced that the Fortune of war wiI1 never fBvour the townspeople. who, in his opinion. are rascals a n d scoundrels. T o the point of sheer blasphemy. he flaunts his confidence that God will assist him simply because he is an anointed king. Of course Arthur should have known better; even anointed kings cannot escape death on the battlefield. He himself' has seen a great number of kings die on the field and has even killed some by his own hand. Arthur's victories have made him immoderate and haughty. When the two Roman senators ask him in the name of Christ to spare their lives, reminding him that: it is Christ who has given him his realm ('For His luffe that the Iente this lordchipe in erthe'. 2319) the king replies in a very high-handed manner:
'I graunte'. quod [the] gude kyng. 'thurghe grace of my selfen: I giffe 3owe lyffe and lyme . . .' (2320- 1 )
Instead of being satisfied with his victor); the king becomes more and more arrogant. In addition to their macabre burden he bestows scornful words on the defeated Romans and plans further wars of aggression. This passage shows an important aspect ofArthur7s supe~bia.namely praesumptio, a n irrational belief in his own invincibility.
The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune
15 1
I n contrast to Priamus, who confesses to his own pride and who knows that the Fortune of arms has caused his downfall, King Arthur remains stubborn in spite of the philosopher's earnest admonitions. As with nearly all the mighty, e.g. the Worthies, Arthur does not heed advice, Being under the sway of uana gloria, the desire for fame and honour, he hears only selectively, accepting the idea that romances and chronicles will tell of his deeds, but closing his ears to the admonition that he will be condemned for his feats of arms on Doomsday (3445-5). I t is true that Fortune frowns upon him and yet it is still possible, the hilosopher says, to repent so that his soul at least may be saved: 'Mane no longer "Sir Kynge7'!], amende thy mode, or thow myshappen, /And mekely aske mercy for mede of thy saule.' (3454-5). King Arthur's answer to the philosopher's advice is clear enough. The warning remains unheeded. The mighty king rises, dons the magnificent robes of the s~verei~gn, the armour of the warrior and seizes the sword of the conqueror, thereby becoming guilty ofpertinucia, which is a particularly reprehensible element of superbia. At a crossing Arthur encounters Sir Cradoke, who is exactly the sort of humble pilgrim the philosopher would have liked Arthur to become. Cradoke tells the king that he is on a pilgrimage to Rome in order to obtain forgiveness for his sins from the Pope. The humble Cradoke is clearly a foil for the haughty Arthur, who is also just about to go to Rome, not as a repentant pilgrim but as a conqueror, full of pride and with rage in his heart, arrogantly claiming things to which he is not entitled. Cradoke thus embodies a clear alternative the king could have adopted. But Arthur has now, fully awake, confirmed the decision made in his dream. It has become evident that the Dream of Fortune contains the message of the poem in nuce. The interpretation of these 237 lines shows that the author was thinking of the war with France and wanted to admonish the princes of his time. In much the same way as Petrarch he warns against fortuna prospers, whose favour is responsible for the pride and haughtiness of the great. The author wants to point out that once a ruler entrusts his fate to Fortuna belli he has consented to his own downfall. By waging aggressive wars the sovereign brings misery and destruction upon many nations not least his own, and he brings death upon the innocent. By succumbing to the sin of superbia, with all its ugly aspects, he forgoes salvation. The famous British king is no longer depicted as a tragic hero who is not responsible for his own fall. The author treats him as a historical ruler who has rationally and deliberateIy decided to wage wars of aggression and therewith has brought about his own destruction. At the beginning of the poem King Arthur is already ruler over many a country. Thus only the final phase of his delusive ascent is represented. This is stressed in the symbolism of the Dream of Fortune when Fortuna raises the sovereign with her own hands to the highest seat of the wheel.
P
152
Anke Jamsen
And even this rise to the apex of power is sub specie aetemitatis the cause and medium of his moral decay and thereby part of the casus. The title of the poem thus serves the purpose of prediction; the AMA is about the fali, the protracted death of a king -Morte Arthure. John Gower obviously read and analysed the Dream of Fortune in the AMA very thoroughly and with understanding. In his earnest warning to Henry IV, 'In Praise of Peace' there are obvious references to the AMA. The Nine Worthies are presented to the king, who has just come to the throne of England, as exmpla malorum. Gower enumerates the three Christian rulers in exactly the same anachronistic order as in the AMA. In a manner similar to that of the AMA author, he points out that they were famous warlords and that their fame will abide in chronicles and romances, but that under the auspices of eternity this is all idle and vain. In view of the fact that our poem was clearly a major source of Gower's inspiration I would suggest as a motto for the AMA some lines from his poem 'In Praise of Peace': See Charlemeine, Godefroi, Arthus, Fulfild of werre and of mortaiite, Here fame abit, bot a1 is vanite.
Notes A Summary of Research Karl Heinz Goller
lo
" ''
" '' Is
l6
l7
"
Throughout this book the edition of Valerie Krishna, The Alliterative 'Morte Arthure'. A Critical Edition, with an Introduction, Notes, and Glossary (New York, 1976) has been used; in future it will be referred to simply as Krishna, A M A . The comprehensive and annotated bibliography by Michael Foley, 'The Alliterative Morte Arthure: An Annotated Bibliography, 195&75', Chaueer Review, 14 ( 1979), 166-87, has been very useful. llEe Thornton Manuscript (Lincoln Cathedral MS. 91), Introductions by D. S. Brewer and A. E. B. Owen (London, 1975, '1977). G. G. Perry, ed., Morte Arthure (London, 1865); Edmund Brock, ed., Morte Arthure (London, 1871; rpt. 1961). Mary M. Banks, ed., Morte Arthure (London, 1900); Erik Bjorkman, ed., Morte Arthure (Heidelberg, 1915). R. S. Loomis, Arthurian Literature in the Miaiile Ages (Oxfard, 1959), p. 541. J. L. N. O'Loughlin, 'The Middle English Alliterative Morte Arthure', Medium Aeuum, 4 ( 1935), 153-68, esp. p. 153. Loomis, Arthuian Literature, p. 521 John Finlayson, ed., Morte Arthure, York Medieval Texts (London, 1967). Stephen Douglas Spangehl, A Crittcal Editzon ofthe Alliterative Morte Adhure, with Introduction, Notes and Glossag-Concordance (Diss. University sf Pennsylvania, 1972). Larry D. Benson, ed., King Arthur's Death: The Middle English Stanzaic Morte Arthur and Alliterative Morte Arthure (Indianapolis and New York, 1974), XI. In J. Burke Severs, ed., A Manual of the Writings in Middle English (New Haven, Conn., 1967), p. 46. John Gardner, transl., The Alliteratiue Morte A r t h e , The Owl and the Nightingale, and Fiue Other Middle English Poems. In a Modemised Version with Comments on the Poems and Notes (Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1971), p. 239. John Stevens, Medieval Romances: Thmes and Approaches (London, 1973), p. 239. Sir Paul Harvey, ed., The Oxford Companion to EngEish Literature (Oxford, 1969), p. 561. W. R. J. Barron, 'Arthurian Romance: Traces of an English Tradition', E S , * ~ I(1980), 2-23, esp. pp. 1 6 1 1; D. Everett, Essays on Middle English Literature, ed. Patricia Kean (Oxford, 1955; rpt. I964), p. 62; Finlayson, Morte Arthure, pp. 31-2. P. Branscheid, 'Dic Quellen des Morte Arthure'. Anglia, Anzeiger, 8 (1885), 179-236. William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur: A Study of the Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (Berkeley and Los Anaeles, 1961) . John Finlayson, The Sources, Use of Sources, and Poetic TeGhndgues of the 14th [Century] Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (Diss. Cambridge, 1962).
154 I9
'* 2' 22
" 23
2s
26
''
29 30
"
"
' 34
35
36
37
38 39 40 4'
Notes to pages 8-9
E.g. Finlayson, Morte Arthure. p. 13. FinIayson, Morte Arthure, p. 13. Barron, 'Arthurian Romance'. Helaine Newstead. 'Arthurian Legends', in A Manual ofthe Wrilings in M E , pp. 44-6; Matthews, pp. 105-108. Matthews, p. 123. Roger Sherman Loomis, i 3 e Developmmt of Arthurian Romance (London, 1963), p. 152. Helaine Newstead, Rev. of The Tragedy of Arthur by William Matthews, Romance Phitologv, 16 (1962), 1 18-22. Matthews, pp. 126-7. D. S. Brewer. Introduction to his edition of Thomas Malory, The Morte Darthur: Parts Seven and Eight, York Medieval Texts (London, 1968), p. 8. Finlay son, Sources, pp. 190-2 10;John Finlayson, Rev. of The Tragedy of Arthur b y Mi. Matthews, M e d i m Aevum, 32 (1963), 74-7; John Finlayson, 'The Concept of the Hero in Morte Arthure', in Chaucer und seine Z i t . Symposionfur Walter F. Schinner, ed. Arno Esch (Tiibingen, 1968), pp. 249-74; Finlayson, Morte Arthure, p. 14. Matthews, pp. 23-4. Karl Josef Hbl tgen, 'Konig Arthur und Fortuna', Anglia, 75 (1957), 35-54; Karl Josef Holtgen, 'The Nine Worthies', Anglia, 77 (1959). 279-309. Horst Schroeder, Der To@ dm 'Nine Worthies' in Literatur und bildender Kunst (Gottingen, 197l ) , for the A M A , cf. pp. 309-1 7. J. F. Kitely, 'The Knight Who Cared for His Life', Anglia, 79 ( 1962), 131-7; D. S. Brewer, 'Courtesy and the Gawain-Poet', Patterns o f h v e and Courtesy: Essays in M e n z o ~of C. S. h i s . ed. John Lawlor (London, 1966), pp. 77 and 8 2 4 ; Raymond Henry Thompson, Sir Gawain andHerozc Tradition: A Study the Influme of Changing Heroic Ideals upon the Reputation of Gawain in the Medieval Literature of France and Britain (Diss. Alberta, 1969); Robert H. Figgins, The Character of Sir Gawain in Middle English Romance (Diss. Washington, 1973). Ira Bloomgarden, Northern Middle English Arthurian Romance and its Historical Background (Diss. City Univ. of New York, 197t ). J. L. N. O'Loughlin, 'The English Alliterative Romance', in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative Histoty, ed. R. S. Loomis (Oxford, 19591, pp. 520-7, esp. 524. Charles Lionel Regan, 'The Paternity of Mordred in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', Bulletin Bibliographique de la Sokite' Internationale Arthurienne, 25 ( 1973), 153-4, esp. p. 154. Heinz Reinhold, Humoristische Tendmen in der englischen Dichtungdes Mittelalters (Tiibingen, 1953). Larry D. Benson. 'The Alliterative Mode Arthure and Medieval Tragedy', Tennessee Studies in Literature, 1 1 ( 1966), 75-88. Brewer, Introduction to Malory, Morte Darthur, pp. 6-9. John Barnie, War in Medieual English Society: Social Values in the Hundred Years War 1337-99 (Ithaca, New York, 1974), p. 150. Finlayson, 'The Concept of the Hero', p. 265. Moritz Trautmann, 'Der Dichter Huchown und seine Werke,' Anglia, 1 (1878). 109-49; Franz Josef Mennicken, 'Versbau und Sprache in Huchowns Morte Arthur', in Bonner Beztrage cur Anglzstik, 5 (1900). 33-144.
Notes to pages 4-1 1 42 43
44
45
46
47
49
" '' 52
s3
s4
s5
" 5'
'* 59
61
62
63
155
Henry Noble MacCracken, 'C:oncerning Huchown,' PLMA, 25 ( 19lo), 523. Moritz Trautmann, 'Zur Kenntniss und Geschichte der Mittelenglischen Stabzeile', Anglia, 18 ( I896), 83-100. Cf. Karl Luick, Rev. of Mennicken's 'Versbau und Sprache', Beiblatt cur Anglia, 12 (1901), 235-7. Karl Luick, 'Die Englische Stabreimzeile im XIV, XV und XVI Jahrhundert', Anglia, 1 1 (1889), 392443 and 553418. OILoughlin, 'The Middle English Alliterative Morte Arthure', pp. 15348. Hoyt N. Duggan, 'Strophic Patterns in Middle English Alliterative Poetry', MP, 74 (19761771, 223-247; M. F. Vaughan, 'Consecutive Alliteration Strophic Patterns, and the Composition of the Alliterative Morte Arthure', MP, 77 (1979180). 1-9. Cf. R. A. Waldron, Qral-formu1aic Technique in Middle English Alliterative Poetry', Speculum, 32 (1957), 792-804; John Finlavson, 'Formulaic Technique in hf0rte Arthure'. Anglia. 81 (1963). 372-93, and Finlayson, The sources. R. F. Lawrence, 'The Formulaic Theory and its Application to English Alliterative Poetry', Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Cn'tical Approaches to Litera9 Style. ed. Roger Fowler (London, 1966), pp. 166-83. See, for example, Larry D. Benson, Art and Tradition in 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight', (New Brunswick. N.J.. 1965). Hugh Ward Tonsfeldt, Medieval Narrative and the Alliteratiue 'Morte Arthure' (Diss. Univ. of California at San Diego, 1975), pp. 15-16. Thoriac Turville-Petre, The Alliteratiue Rmiual (Cambridge, 1977), p. 92. Cf. Turville-Petre, Reviual, pp. 86-7; J. P. Oakden, Alliterative Poetty in Middle English, 2 vols. (Manchester, 1930/35; rpt. Hamden, Conn., 1968). 11, 312-43, and J. S. P. Tatlock, 'Epic Formulas, especially in Layamon', PMLA, 38 (1923), 494-529: cf. also W. E. Holland, 'Formulaic Diction and the Descent of a Middle English Romance" Speculum, 48 (1973), 89-109. Finlayson has noted that such collocations are connected with particular motifs essential and traditional to heroic poetry. Cf. Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique', pp. 386-9. James D. Johnson, Formulaic Diction and Thematic Composition in the Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (Diss. Univ. of Illinois, 1969). Benson, King Arthur's Death; Jerome E. Coffey, The EuoEutkon of an OralFormulaic Tradition in Old and Middle En
156 64
65
66
67
69 70
71
72
7 " .
74
75 76
77
"
79
82
83
86
87
Notes to pages 11-13
Technique', p. 390. Laila Gross, 'The Meaning and Oral-Formdaic Use of Riot in the Alliterative MOT&Arthure', Annuale Mediaevale, 9 ( 1968), 98-1 02. Turville-Petre, Reuiual, p. 85. Rachel Anne Grenier, The Alliteratiue 'Morte Arthure' (Diss. Univ. of Rhode Island, 19751, p. xviii. Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique7;Tonsfeldt, Medieval Narrative. J . D. Johnson, ' "The Hero on the Beach" in the Alliterative Morte Arthum', NM, 76 (1975), 271-81. n e Thomton Manuscript, pp. vii-xi. George Neilson, 'Huchown of the Awle Ryale' the Alliterathe Poet. A Historical Criticism of Fourteenth Centu~Poems Ascribed to Sir Hew ofEgltntaun (Glasgow, 1902), pp. 59-66. Neilson, Huchom, pp. 54-62; Neilson, 'Huchown's "Morte Arthure" and the Annals of 134&13M7,Antiquary, 38 ( 1902), 74-5; Neilson, 'Viscount ofRome in "Morte Arthure" ', Athenaeum, No. 3916 (15 Nov. I902), 652-3. A. H. Inman, 'Morte Arthure and Huchown', Athenaeum, (Sept. and Dec. 1916), quoted by John Finlayson, 'Morte Arthure: The Date and a Source for the Contemporary References', Speculum, 42 (1967), 624-5. Eagleson, 'Costume in the Middle English Metrical Romances', PMLA, 47 (1932), 334115. O'Lx)ughlin, 'The Middle English Alliterative Morte Arthure', p. 167. Edward Schrder, 'Zur Datierung der Morte Arthure', Anglia, 60 (1936), 396. George B. Parks, 'King Arthur and the Roads to Rome', JEGP, 45 (1946), 164-70. Cf. OED, S.V. 'vernicle', and 'Veronica', Eneiclopedia Cattolica (Cittii del Vaticano, 1954), col. 1302. Dorothy Everett, 'The Alliterative Revival. I . The Alliterative Morte Arthure and other poems', in Everett, Essays on Middle English Litmature, ed. Patricia Kean (Oxford, 1955; rpt. 1964), pp. 46-67. Matthews, p. 192. Larry D. Benson, Rev. of Tragedy of Arthur, by William Matthews, Speculum, 36 f 1961), 673-5. Loomis, Thc Development of Arthurian Romance, pp. 148-52. Larry D. Benson, 'The Altiterative Morte Arthure and Medieval Tragedy'. John Finlayson, 'Morte Arthure: The Date and a Source for the Contemporary References'. Gardner, The Alliteratiue Morte Arthure, p. 256. Gardner, The Alliterative Morte Arthure, p. 256. George R. Keiser, 'Edward III and the Alliterative Mark Arthure', Speculum, 48 (1973), 39. Barnie, War, pp. 147-50. Larry D. Benson, 'The Date of the Atliteratiue Morte Arthure', in Medieval Studies in Honor of Lillian Herlands Hornstein, ed. Jess B. Bessinger, Jr. and Robert R. Raymo (New York, 1976),pp. 19-40; Robert M. Lumiansky, 'The Alliterative Mortc Arthure and the Concept of Medieval Tragedy, and the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude', Medieual and Renuissance Studies, ed.John M. Headfey (University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 95-1 17. Juliet Vale, 'Law and Diplomacy in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', Nottingham
Notes to pages IS19 90
157
Medieual Studies, 23 ( 1979), 3 1-46. Beate Schmolke-Hasselmann, Der arehurische Versroman uon Chrestien his Froissart. Zur Geschichte einer Gattung. Beiheft zur Zeitschriftfur Romanisclre Philologie, 176 (Tiibingen, in preparation).
Reality versus Romance K a r l Heinz Goller, R+GleiBner and M. Mennicken
'
lo
" l2
l3
I4
l5
Cf. John Barnie, War in Medieval English Socieb. Social Values and the Hundred Years War 1337-99 (London, 1974), p. 148. Cf. Karl Heinz Golfer, Romance und novel. Die Anfange des englischen Romanr (Regensburg, 1972), p. 13. Shorter Oxford Dictzonaly, 'romance', definition No. 2. Cf. George Neilson, 'Huchown of the Awle Ryale' the Alliterative Poet. A Historical Criticism of Fourteenth Centup Poems Ascribed to Sir Hew of Eglintoun (Glasgow, 1902), pp. 59-66; William Matthews, The T~agedyof Arthur. A Study of the Alliterative 'Morte Arthtdre' (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1960). pp- 178-92, 21 1-15; John Finlayson, 'Morte Arthure: The Date and a Source for the Contemporary References', Spemlum, 42 ( I967), 624-38; George R. Keiser, 'Edward I11 and the Alliterative Morte Arthum', Speculum, 48 (I973), 37-51. Cf. Walter F. Schirmer, Die fTiihen Darstellungen des Art~sstoffes(Koln, 1958), pp. 25-6. Cf. Alexander Ostmann, Die Bedeutung der Arthurtradition f i r die englischz Gesellschft des 12. und 13.Jahrhunderts (Diss. Berlin, 19751, pp. 260-1. Cf. Roger Sherman Loamis, 'Edward I, Arthurian Enthusiast', Speculum, 28 (19531, 114-27. The Chronicle of Froissart. Translated out of French by Sir John Bourchier, Lord Beners Annis 1523-5. With an Introduction by William Paton Ker, 6 vols., The Tudor Translations, First Series, 27-32 (London. 1901-1903; rpt. New York, 1967), 1, 232-3. John Lydgate, 'The Kings of England', lines 92 and 96, Historical Poems ofthe XIVth and XV Centuries, ed. Rossell Hope Robbins (New Yark. 1959), p. 6. Cf. Karl Heinz Goller and Anke Janssen, 'Konig Arthur in der popularen Unterhaltungliteratur des 1 7. Jahrhunderts', Festgabefur Ham Pinsker a m 70. Geburtstag, ed. Richild Acobian (Wien, 1979), p. 80. Cf. Chronique Nomande du XIVe Siicte, ed. A. and E. Molinier (Paris, 1882), pp. 54, 59-60. Cf. Barnie, War, p. 174 (note 44), and Antonia Gransden, 'The Alleged Rape by Edward III of the Countess of Salisbury', EHR, 87 (1972), 33344. Cf. May McKisack, The Fourteenth Centuy 1307-1399, The Oxcford Histop $ England, V (Oxford, 19591, p. 126. Cf. G. L. Harriss, King, Parliament, and Public Finance in Medieual England to 1369 (Oxford, 19751, pp. 513-1 7. For Isabella, Edward 111's mother, see McKisack, Fourteenth Centuy, pp. 79-80; forJoan of Kent see Finlayson, 'Date', p. 629; for Richard 11's Queen see McKisack, Fourteenth Centuly, p. 492. George Neilson, ' "Morte Arthure" and the War ofBrittany5,Notes €3Queries,
158 I6
l7
'' l9
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32 33 34
Notes to pages 29-24
9th Series, 10 (1902), 163. Cf. Dom Pierre-Hyacinthe Morice. Histoire Ecclesiastipe et Ciuile de Bretagne, 2 vols. (Paris. 1750-5, rpt. Famborough, 1968), I, xix; see also the genealogical tables given in The Chronicle of Jean de Vmette, translated by Jean Birdsall. ed., with an Introduction and Notes by Richard A. NewhalI (New York, 1953), pp. 160-1. Cf. Matthews, p. 184. Cf. hl. H. Keen, The Laws of War in the Middte Ages (London, 1965), pp. 197-206. Cf. Mary Hamel, 'The Alliterative Morte Arthure, Line 3061: The Crux Idene', E L N , 17 (March 1980), 170-2. Cf. Barbara M'. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror. The Calamitous Fourteenth Century (Harmondsworth. 1979), pp. 303-4. Cf. Morte Arthure, ed. Erik Bjorkman (Heidelberg. New York, 19t 5), p. 174; Matthews, p. 184. Statutes ofthe Realm, I0 Edward 111, 3, quoted from William Lungman, The History of the Llfe and Times of Edward the Third, 2 vols. (London, 1869), I, 84. Richard Barber has pointed out to me that Walter de Bibbesworth's Traitksur la langue Fraqaise (ed. A. Owen, Paris 1929, pp. 141-44) may be regarded as a possible source of the banquet scene. Some nine of the dishes listed there are indeed similar. but there are other parallels, as for instance in the menu ofthe coronation feast of 1399 in Fifteenth Cmtuy Cookely Book, EETS OS 91 (London, 1964) where, e.g., some eleven dishes are identical. Statule~of the Realm, 37 Edward 111, c. 8, 14, quoted from the Chronicle of Jean de Venette, p. 2 14. Cf. EuZogium (historiarum sive temporis): Chronicon ab orbe condito usque ad annum Domini M.CCC.LXVI, a monacho quodam Malmesburiensi exaratum, ed. Frank Scott Haydon, 3 vols., Rolls Series, 9 (London, 1858-63). 111, 230. Cf. OED, 'vernicle'; 'Veronica', Enciclopedia Cattolica (CittP del Vaticano, I954), XII, col. 1302; Geoffrey Chaucer, 7'he Canterbuty Tales, General Prologue', 685, The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. F. N. Robinson (Boston, '1957), p. 23. Cf. Chronicon Henrin' Knighton vel Cnitthon monachi hycestrenszs, ed. Joseph Rawson Lumby, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 92 (London, 1889-95, rpt. 1965), 11,65. Cf, Larry D. Benson, Malory's Morte Darthur (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 19761, pp. 186-201. Cf. John Finlayson, Introduction to Morte Arthure, ed. John Finlayson (London, 1967), pp. 5-13, esp. pp. 1 1-13. J. P. Oakden, Alliterative Poetty in Middle English, 2 vols.; I: The Dialectical and MetricQl Sumey, I I: A S u n g of the Traditions (Manchester, 1930-5, rpt. in one vol., Hamden, Conn., 1968), 11, 36. Cf. D. H . Green, Irony in the Medieval Romance (Cambridge, 1979),pp: 326-58. John Finlayson, 'Rhetorical "Descriptio" of Place in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', MP, 61 (1963), 6. Cf. Galfridi ie Baker de Swinbroke Chronicon Angliae temporibus Edwardi 11 et Edwardi III, ed.J. A. Giles (1847; rpt. New York, 1967),pp. 166-7. K. Beckson and A. Ganz, Literaty T e r n . A Dictionary (NewYork, 1975),p. 25. Bruce Jay Friedman, ed., Black H u m (New York, 19651, quoted from Robert Scholes, The Fabulators (New York, 1967), p. 37.
Notes to pages 25-30
I59
Mathew Winston. 'Humour noir and Black Humor', Vezns af Humor, ed. Harry Levin (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), p. 282. Joseph Heller's Catck-22. A Critical Edition. ed. Robert M. Scotto (New York, 1973), p. 331. Cf. Bjorkman, Morte Artkure, p. 156. Chronicle of Froissart, I, 373. Cf. Finlayson, Introduction, pp. 18-20. The Tree of Battles af' Hono~iBonet. An English Version with Introduction by G. W.Coopland (Liverpool, 1949). p. 153. Cf. Barnie, War, pp. 1 17-38. John Gower, Vox Clamantis, Bk. VII, ch. I, quoted from The Major Latin Works of John Gower. The Voice of One Crying and Tht Tripartite Chronicle. An Annotated Translation into English. With an Introductory Essay on the Author's Non-English Works. by Eric M'. Stockton (Seattle, 1962), p. 255. Cf. Sokey at War. The Experience of England and France during the Hundred Yean War, ed. C. T. Allmand (Edinburgh, 1973). esp. pp. 1643. Cf. 'Senno IV' in Iokannis Wyclzf Sennones. Now first edited from the manuscripts with critical and historical notes bv Iohann Loserth, English side-notes by F. D. Matthew, 4 vols. (London, 1887-90, rpt. Kew Yark, London, Frankfurt/M., 1966), IV, 34-42; see also Herbert B. Workman, John Wycllif. A Study of the Engiisk Medieval Church, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1926, rpt. in one vol., Hamden, Conn., 1966). If, 303. H. S. Cronin, 'TheTwelve Conclusions ofthe LolIards', EHR, 22 (1907),302. Prowbia Sentmtiaeque Latinitatis Medzi Aevi. Lateinzsche Sprichw0"rterund Sentmen des Mittelalters in alphabetiscker Anordnung, ed. Hans M'alther, 5 vols. (Gottingen, 1963-71, 111. no. 2 1 238, p. 787: ef. also nos. 21 244. and 21 239, p. 787. -For contrapasso see Silvio Pasquazi, 'Contrapasso', Enciclopedia Dantesca (Roma, 19701, 11, 181-3. Cf. St Augustine, 'Enarratio in Psalmum XXXI', 11, 4, Sancti Aurelii Augwtini Enarratzones in Psalmos I-L, ed. Eligius Dekkers O.S.B. and Iohannes Fraipont, Corps Christianorum Series Latina, 38 (Turnholt. 1957), p. 227. Cf. Karl Heinz Goller, 'Giraldus Cambrensis und der Tod Arthurs', Anglia, 91 (1973), 17043. Chrktien de Troyes, Yvain, quoted from Roger Sherman Loomis, 'Epilogue', Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. A Collaborative Histop, ed. Roger Sherman Loomis (Oxford, 1959, rpt. I967), p. 563.
The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature Maureen Fries For correspondences berween the Arthurian and other heroic stories, see Otto Rank, The Myth of the B i d of the Hero. A Psychological Interpretation of Mythology (1914; rpt. New York, 1970);Joseph Campbell, The H e o with a Thowand Faces (Princeton, 1949; '1 97 1 ); Claude-LCvi-Strauss, 'The Structural Study of Myth', Journal ofAmerican Folklore, 68 (1955), 428-44; G. D. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Anciat and Other Cuttures (Cambridge, Mass., 1970).
160
lo
"
'3
l4
l6
l7
l8
Notes to pages 30-35
See Richard Barber, The Figure of Arthur (London, 21976) for discussion; as well as James Douglas Bruce, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance from the Beginning Down to the Year 1300, 2 vols. (Gloucester, Mass., '1928, rpt. 1958). Barber, Figu~eof Arthur, p. 22. Barber, Figure of Arthur, p. 22. This passage contains a 'lt'elsh word difficult to translate, anoeth, 'meaning perhaps that no one knew anything of his burial'; Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson, 'Arthur in Early Welsh Verse', in Arthurian Literature iz the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History, ed. Roger Sherman Loomis (Oxford, 1959, rpt. 1967), pp. 12-19, esp. p. 13 (henceforth A L M A ) . Barber, Figure of Arthur, p. 62. Roger Sherman Loomis, 'The Oral Diffusion of the Arthurian Legend', in A L M A , pp. 52-63, see pp. 60-1. See Robert Huntington Fletcher, The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles, Especially Those of Great Britain and France (Cambridge, Mass., 1908, rpt. New York, 1966), pp. 1-30. There is no agreement about the date of the final battle: Gildas' date of (about) 503 contradicts Bede's of 493. as well as that of 537 in the Annales Cambriae. But the name is obviousIy cognate with Medrawd, and related at least by initial letter to Melvas and Mardoc. Geoffrey himself confirms at least some folk sources in his mention of his conversations with Walter the Archdeacon, and his written sources are obvious from the structure ofhis Historia. See Fletcher's exhaustive treatment on Geoffrey's sources, Arthurian Material, pp. 49-1 14. Even in Geoffrey this does not seem to be a five-year interlude; it is expanded in Wace and Layamon, but abridged in the alliterative poem to its original brevity, perhaps for symbolic reasons. Geoffrey's vagueness about Arthur's death became the kernel of the later literary and numerous oral accounts of his survival. A complete account is available in Fletcher, Arthurian Material, pp. 116-27 1 . The previously accepted concept of courtly love, stated in its classic form in C. S. Lewis, The Allegoy of Love. A Stua) in Medieval Tradition (London, 1959), has recently been challenged by F. X. Newman, ed., The Meaning of Covrtly Love (Albany, 1968); E. Talbot Donaldson, 'The Myth of Courtly Love', Speaking of Chaucer (London, 1970), pp. 154-1633; Francis L. Utley, 'Must We Abandon the Concept of Courtly Love?', Medievalia el Humanistica, NS 3 (1972), 299-324: H. A. Kelly, Love and Marriage in the Age of Chaucer (Itham, 197.5). Cf. PhyHis J. Leonardi, An Analysis of the Feast Scene in the Middle English Rmance (Diss. Ottawa, 1980);and Hanspeter Schelp, 'Gestalt und Funktion des Auftakts in der mittelenglischen alliterierenden Morte Arthure', Archiv, 207 (1971), 420-38. O n the first poem, see George Neilson, 'Huchozm of the Awle R$e' the Alliterative Poet. A Historical Criticism of Fourteenth Century Poems Ascribed to Sir HewofEglintoun (Glasgow, 1902), gp. 44-8, and Matthews,pasim; on the second, B. J. Whiting. 'The Vows of the Heron'. Specalum, 20 (1945), 261-78, and Matthews, pp. 161-2. Matthews, p. 42.
Notes to pages 3 5 4 4
161
Bruce, Evolution of Arthurian Romance, vol. 11, pp. 342-3; henceforth the term Prose Vulgate wit1 be used when referring to the entire Cycle, unless otherwise specified. It is treated twice but neither in depth or with any real significance: Bruce, Evolution ofArthurian Romance, vol. 11; H . B. Wheatley, W. E. Mead, ed., Merlin, or: The Early History of King Arthur: a Prose Romance, EETS OS 10, 2 1, 36, 112 (London, 1865-99); Jean Frappler, ed., La Mort Le Roi Artu, Roman du XIIIe sGc1e (Genhe, Paris, 1964). Matthews' suggestion that the use of a Templar as a messenger here is a religious addition is belied by the suppression of the Order of Knights Templar in 1312, under charges ranging from sodomy to sacrilege (David Lewer, The Temple Church [London, n.d.1). Krishna, A M A , note on lines 1346-7. Matthews, pp. 104-5, describes these dreams and capriciously rejects them as sources, seeming not to realise that the transforming imagination of the poet could have transmuted them into his own dream. This pervasive wood imagery may be echoed in the AMA, 'That this treson has tymbyrde to my trewe fordeYollowed directly by a line taken to refer to Mordred's bastard/incestuous birth, 'Of siche a engendure full littyl1 joye happyns' (3742-3). Barrenness is, in medieval literature, the sign of an unhappy marriage. See Margaret Lanham, Chastity. A Study of Sexual Morality in the Middle English Romance (Diss. VanderbiIt, 1947). Matthews' contention, passim, that the A M A and its hero are modelled predominantly on Alexandrian romance is exaggerated and ignores the influence of earlier Arthurian works as well as the Alliterative tradition. Similar patterning is observable, in that tradition, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Awntyrs off Arthure, for instance, with the action framed by feasts or festive occasions; the structure falling into two distinct parts; and adventures occurring in clusters of twos and threes. A M A , 1720; Lancelot's bravery, of course, is illustrated in his attack on Lucius. As Matthews points out (pp. 108-12), the alliterative poem has a tragic structure and balance not to be found elsewhere, except later in Malory. The best discussion of medieval tragedy is Willard Farnham, The Medieval Heritage of Elizabethan Trage4 (1936, rpt. Oxford, 1963).
The Audience Jutta Wurster
'
See Dieter Mehl, The Middle English Romances ofthe Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (London, 1968), pp. 7-10, 264 (note 18). R. L. Greene, A Selection ofEnglish Carols (Oxford, 19621, pp. 18-20. Albert C. Baugh, 'The Authorship of the Middle English Romances', Annual Bulletin of the Modern Humanities Research Association, 22 (1950), 13-28, and 'The Middle English Romance: Some Questions of Creation, Presentation, and
162
'
lo
l2
l3
l4
IS '6
"
Notes to pages 4 4 4 7
Preservation', S ' l u m , 42 (I967), 1-3 I. Gisela Guddat-Figge. Catalogue of Manuscrzpts Containing Middle English Romances (Miinchen, 1976). pp. 3 3 4 , 4 8 4 1. Susan Wittig, 'Formulaic Style in the Middle English Romance', N M , 78 (1977). 250-5, see pp. 251-2. Derek Pearsall, 'The Development of Middle English Romance', Mediaeval Studies, 27 (1965). 91-1 16, see pp. 91-2. In recent German and English studies the use of catchwords such as 'biirgerlich', 'bourgeois', and 'middle class' in connection with medieval literature has come under attack. See Literatur- Publikum -histokcher Kontext, ed. Joachim Bumke, Thomas Cramer, Gert Kaiser, Horst Wenzel (Bern etc., 1977); Richard F. Green, Poets and Princepleasers. Literature and the English Court in the Lute Middle Ages (Toronto etc., 1980). pp. 8-10. Baugh, 'Questions', p. 13. Cf. Dieter Mehl, 'Der Erzahter und sein Publikum', in his Geoffrg Chaucer. Eine Ekfuhmng in seine erziihlenden Dichtungen (Berlin, 1973), pp. 16-32. See also Manfred Markus, Moderne Erz.iihlperspektive in den Werken des GawainAutors (Regensburg, 1971 ) . Thorlac Turville-Petre, The Alliterative Revival (Cambridge, Totowa, N.J., 19771, pp. 37-8. This is especially evident in the case of the Canterbury Tales; see Dieter Mehl, 'Chaucer's Audience'. LeedsSE, NS 10 (1978). 58-73, esp. p. 60. Dieter Mehl, 'M'eltliche Epik in England: Von Sir Beues of ffmtoun bis Malorys Morte Arthur" in Neues ffandbuch der Literatunuirsenschaft, VoI. VIII: Eumpaisches Spiitmittelalter, ed. h'illi Emgraber (Wiesbaden, 1978), pp. 205-20; see p. 212. Mehl. Middle English Romances, pp. 6-13; 'Weltliche Epik', p. 21 1. TurvillePetre, Revival, pp. W 7 . Cf. Wolfqang Iser, 'Leserkonzepte und das Konzept des impliziten Lesers' in his Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie cisthetischer Wirkung (Munchen, 1976), pp. 5 M 7 . Mehl formulates a concept similar to that of the implied reader when he states: 'In this way the poem creates its own audience, an audience that is by its very nature fictional and timeless . . .' ('Chaucer's Audience', p. 62). J. R. Hulbert, 'A Hypothesis concerning the Alliterative Revival', MP, 28 (1931), 405-22. J. P. Oakden, Alliterative Poetry in Middle English, 2 vols. (Manchester, 1930-5; rpt. as one vol. Hamden, Conn., 1968), 11, 105. May McKisack, The Fourteenth C m t u ~1307-1399 (Oxford, 1959; rpt. 1966), p. 126. McKisack, Fourteenth Century, p. 254. Elizabeth Salter, 'The Alliterative Revival', Part I, MP, 64 (1966), 146-50; Part 11, 233-7; see pp. 147-8. Oakden, Alliterative Poetry, I, 257-6 1 . Salter, 'Alliterative Revival', p. 235. John Barnie, War in Medieval Society. Social Values and the Hundred Years War 1337-1399 (London, 1974), pp. 8, 82-8; for a definition of the term 'nationalism' see p. 97. J. R. Maddicott, 'The County Community and the Making of Public Opinion in Fourteenth-Century England', Transactions $ the Royal Historical Society, Ser. 5, 28 ( 1978), 27-43.
Notes to pa'yes 47-52
163
Guddat-Figge, Catalogue. pp. 176-8. Angus McIntosh, 'A New Approach to Middle English Dialectology'. ES. 44 (1963), 1-11, see p. 5. Guddat-Figge, Catalogw, pp. 135-42. Guddat-Figge, Catalogue, pp. 154-63. Margaret Sinclair Ogden, 'The Manuscript and the Scribe', in her edition of The 'Liber de Diversis Medicinis' in the Thomton Mmuscpx~t,EETS US 207 (London, 1938), pp. VII-XV. The Thomton Manuscript (Lincoln Cathedral MS. 91), Introductions by Derek S. Brewer and A. E. B. Owen (London, 1975; rev. ed. 1977), pp. VII-VIII. Guddat-Figgel C a t a l ~ ~pp. p , 135, 141. Angus McIntosh, 'The Textual Transmission of the Alliterative Mode Arthure'. in English and Medieual Studies Presented toJ . R, R. Tolkien,ed. N. Davies and C. L. Wrenn (London, 1962), pp. 231-40. Turvilie-Petre, Revival, p. 35. William of P a l m , ed. W.W.Skeat, EETS ES 1 (London, 1867). Turviile-Petre, Revival, am 40-1. Derek earsa all, Old Eniiiish and Middle En.glish Poetyy (London etc., 1977), p. 157. C. A. Luttrell. 'Three North-LVest Midland Manuscripts', Neophilolo,gus, 42 f 1958), 38-50. Guddat-Figge, Catalogue, pp. 133-4. Turville-Petre, Revival, pp. 58, 137 (note 18); 34. 133 (note 14). T. B. Pugh, 'The Magnates, Knights and Gentry', in Fifteenth-Centu7y England (1399-1509). Studies in Politics and Son*. ed. S. B. Chrimes. C. D. Ross, R. A. Griffiths (Manchester and New York. 1972), pp. 86-128. Helmut Gneuss, 'Englands Bibliotheken im Mittelalter und ihr Untergang', in Festschnttfur WalterHGbner, ed. Dieter Riesner and Helmut Gneuss (Berlin, 1964), pp. 91-121. See Michael Richter, S'rache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur niind1ich Kommunzkation in England von der Mitte des 11. bis turn Bcginn des 14. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 19791, p. 203. Margaret Deanesly, 'Vernacular Books in England in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries', MLR, 15 (1920). 349-58. Cf. also M. G. A. Vale, Piety, Chan'ty and Litera9 among the Yorkshire Gentyy, 1370-1480 (York. 1976), pp. 29-3 1. Turville-Petre, Reuzval, p. 43. V .J. Scattergood, 'Two ,Medieval Book Lists', Librayy, 5th Ser., 23 (1968), 23f3-9. Gneuss, 'Englands Bibliotheken', p. 108. Wieland Schmidt, 'Richard de Bury-ein antihtifischer Hofling" Philobiblon, 19 (1975), 156-88. The bibliophile Richard de Bury (1281-1345) bitterly resented the trend towards lavishly decorated books. The statesman and Bishop of Durham held that the sole purpose of books was to improve their readers' wisdom and knowledge. In his Philobiblon he uttered a veiled criticism of Edward 111's extravagant court. Turville-Petre, Revival, p. 43. Turville-pet re, Revival, pp. 44-5; Guddat-Figge, Catalogue, pp. 84-5. See Edward Wilson, 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Stanley Family of Stanley, Storeton, and Hooton'. RES, 30 (1979), 308-16. Turville-Petre, Reuiual, p. 45. Cf. Luttrell, 'Midland Manuscripts', p. 49 and David A. Lawton, 'Scottish
164
43
" 45
46
47 48
49
5'
52
s3
54
55
96
59 60
61
Notes to pages 51-57
Field. Alliterative Verse and Stanley Encomium in the Percy Folio'. LeedsSE, NS 10 f 1978), 42-57. Ogden, 'Manuscript', pp. XI-XII. Brewer, Intraductions, pp. IX-X. For a different view see Guddat-Figge, Catalogue, p. 161. Brewer, Introductions, p. VIII. For a comparison of both manuscripts see Guddat-Figge, Catalogue, p. 24. Turville-Petre, Revival, p. M ; Brewer, l[ntroductions.pp. VIII-IX; GuddatFigge, Catalogue, pp. 140, 161. Mehl, Middle English Romances, p. 259. See Hanspeter Schelp, Exemplarische Romawen im Mzttelenglischen, Palaestra, 246 (Gottingen, 1967). Cf. Karl Heinz Goller, 'Arthur in den rnoralisierenden Romanzen' in his Kinig Arthur in der englischen Literatur des spiten Mittelalters, Palaestra, 238 (Gatingen, 19631, pp. 103-28. Turville-Petre, Revival, pp. 46-7. Barnie, War in Medieval Society, p. 102. Juliet Vale, 'Law and Diplomacy in the Alliterative MorteArthure', Nottingham Medieual Studies, 23 f 1979), 3 1 4 . Far an analysis of the banquet scene see Hanspeter Schelp, 'GestaItung und Funktion des Auftakts in der mittelenglischen alliterierenden Morte Arthure', Archiv, 207 ( 1971), 420-38. See in this context Gratia H. Murphy, Arthur as King: A Reading of the Alliterative Morte Arthure in the Fiirstenspiegel Tradition (Diss. Kent State University, 1976). Emare, ed. Edith Rickert, EETS ES, 99 (London, 1906). Cf. Susan Wittig, Stgrlistic and Narrative Structures in the Middle English Romances (Austin and London, 1978), pp. 54-8. John Gardner, The Atliterative Morte Arthure, The Owl and the Nightingale, and Five Other Middle Englzsh Poems in a Modenzzzed Version with Comments on the Poems and Notes (Carbondale and Edwardsvilte, 1971), p. 282. TurvillePetre, Revival, p. 27. Cf. P. F. Hissiger. Le Morte Arthur. A Critical Edition (The Hague, 1975), p. 138 (note to line 1). Schelp, Exemplarische Romanzen, pp. 1 7 1-2. See Krishna, AMA, p. 163 (note to line 13). William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur (Berkeley, 1960), pp. 1 12-13. This theme is dealt with even more explicitly in The Awntyrs ofJArthure.
The Language and Style: The Paradox of Heroic Poetry Manfred Markus Mainly the relevance of money, work and trade, new weapons, and a corresponding strategy of war. Above all the School of Paris (Bernard d'Arezzo, Nicolas d'Autrecourt, Pierre dYAiIly).On Ockham and the 'negative' quality of late scholasticism in
Notes to pages 5741
165
general, cf. Karl Anton Sprengard, Systematisch-historischeUntersuchungen Zur Philosophie des XZV. Jahrhuderts. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik an der hewschenden spatschoiastischen Mediaeuistzk. 2 vols. Bonn, 1967/8), I. 27-8. 191-4 and passim. Cf. Dagobert Frey. Gotik und Renaissance als Gmndiagen der modemen Weltunschauung (Augsburg. I929), pp. 9-1 6. Larry D. Benson, Art and Tradition in 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' (New Brunswick, N.J., 1965): pp. 139-40 and 286. Benson, Art and Tradition, p. 140. Benson, Art and Tradition, p. 129. August Brink, Stab und Wort im Gawain. Eine stilisrische Lintersuchung (HalleIS., 1920); Marie Borroff, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. A SplllFtic and Metrical Study (New Haven, London, 19621, pp. 56-7. Borroff, Sir Gawain, p. 55. Sir Gawain, 1292; cf. Purity, ed. R. J . Menner (New Haven, I920), pp. XVI-XIX. For a more general discussion of the device cf. tarry D. Benson, 'The Authorship of St. Erkenwald', JEGP, 64 (1965). 393-405, see pp. 399-405. Brink, Stab und Wort, pp. 5. 55. Borroff. Sir Gawain, p. 60; Thorlac Turville-Petre, The Alliteratiue Revival (Cambridge/Totowa, N.J., 1977), p. 80. Borroff, Sir Gawain, p. 60. Benson, 'Authorship', p. 401. This interpretation is enhanced by Arthur's irony in catling the giant 'this seynte' (937) and by his reference to Christ (940). Turville-Petre, Reuiual, pp. 69-79. CE also Dorothy Everett's general description of the Alliterative Revival in her book Essays on Middle English Literature (Oxford, 1955; new ed. P. Kean, 1964), p. 47. On the general fondness for archaisms in alliterative poems, cf. J . R. Hulbert, 'A Hypothesis concerning the Alliterative Revival', MP, 28 ( 1931 ), 405-22, see p. 406. The AMA's popular style as opposed to its obvious sophistication has been argued for by R. A. Waldron, 'Oral-Formulaic Technique and Middle English Alliterative Poetry', Speculum, 32 (1957)" 792-804, see p. 800. Everett. Essays, p. 47. John Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique in Morte Arthure', Anglia, 81 ( 1963), 372-93, see p. 38 1. brroff. Sir Gawain, pp. 77-90. J . P. Oakden, Alliteratke Poetry in Middle English. A Suroey of the Traditions (1934; repr. Hamden, Conn., 1968), pp. 394-9. K. Schmittbetz, 'Das Adjektiv in Syr Gawayn and the G r m Kry3t7, Anglia, 32 f1909), 1-59, 163-89, 359-93, esp. pp. 359ff.; EEiichi Suzuki, 'The Substantival Adjective in Morte Arthure', Essays and Studies in English Literature and Language, Sendai, Japan, 48 ( I965), 1-1 7. Cf, Eduard Gerber, Die Substantivierung des AdjeGtivs i n XV. und XVI. Jahrhundert mit besonderer Beficksichtigung des zu Adjectiven hiaptretenden one (Diss. Gottingen, 1895), pp. 9, 1 I, 26. Cf. J . J. Baebier, Beitriige zu e i m Geschichte der lateinischen G r m a t i k im Mittelalter (Halie/S.. 1885), pp. 74-90; Jan Pinbotg, Die Entwicklung der
166
" "
26
27
28
29
30
" j2
33 34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
'* 43
Notes to pages 61-64
Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter (Miinster, 1967), pp. 167-2 12. Baebler, Beitrage, pp. 80, 84, 90. Cf. Johannes Hirschberger. Geschichte der Philosophie. Altertum und Mittelalter (Basel, Freiburg, Wien, * 1965), pp, 5634; Pinborg, Entzvicklung, p. 34. Benson, Art and Tradition, p. 143. Cf. Waldron, 'Oral-Formulaic Technique', pp. 800-1; also George R. Keiser, 'n'arrative Structure in the Alliterative Morte Arthum', The Chaucer Reuiew, 9 (1974/5), 13Ck14.4, see p. 131. Cf. 32.55.63,69. For bombast of enumeration and apposition in the Gawain works and The Destruction ofTray, particularly in connection with topics such as banquets, armouring, combat, hunting or other demonstrative acts of human strength or power, see Benson, Art and Tradition. pp. 151-3; Krishna, AMA, pp. 30-1; Turville-Petre, Revival, p. 70; cf. also The Awnt-yrs ofl Arthure, 147-1 50, 35 1-7, 365-73, 388-98. 501-44. 567618; Golagms and Gawane, 457-79, 557-7 12, 912-52. 973-98, 1 1 16-23; The Wars of Alexander, 5 6 5 M 3 . Shepherd's hypothesis that many descriptive passages in alliterative poetry functioned simply as memorable instruction to a fairly uninformed audience, seems too general to be convincing; cf. Geoffrey Shepherd, 'The Nature of Alliterative Poetry in Late Medieval England', Proceedings ofthe British Academy, 56 (19701, 57-76, esp. p. 59. Cf. Krishna, AMA, pp. 23ff.; Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique'; K. H. Giiller, 'Stab und Formel im alliterierenden Morte Arthure', Neophilotogus, 49 (I965), 57-67. U'aldron, 'Oral-Formulaic Technique7,p. 794. Cf. Krishna, AMA, pp. 2 3 4 . Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique', p. 393. Krishna, AMA. p. 29. Goller, 'Stab und Formel', p. 61. Cf. The Sphere History of Literature in the English Language. vol. I: The Middle Ages, ed. W. F. Bolton (London, 1970), pp. XXVI-XXIX. R. W. V. Elliott, 'Landscape and Rhetoric in Middle English Alliterative Poetry', Melbourne Critical Review, 5 (1962), 63-76, see 67; John Finlayson, 'Rhetorical "Descriptio" of Place in the Alliterative Morte Arthum', MP, 61 (1963), 1-1 1. Elliott, 'Landscape', p. 67, and Finlayson, 'Rhetorical "Descriptio" ', p. 4, respectively. E. R. Curtius, Europiiische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (Bern, Munchen, 61967), pp. 2026. Cf., apart from Finlayson's article mentioned above (4), his 'Arthur and the Giant of St. Michael's Mount', Medium Aevum, 33 ( 1964). 1 12-20. Finlayson, 'Arthur', pp. 11S16; the other animals mentioned are hawk, shark, wolf, and bull. Cf. the many occurrences of the dragon in the Old and New Testament, e.g. Is. 27,l; 51,9; Rev. 12,3; 20,2. Cf. Le Roman de Bmt de Wace, ed. I. Arnold (Paris, 1938-40), 11279ff.; Layamom Bmt, ed. G. L. Brook, R. F. Leslie, EETS 279 (London, New York, Toronto, 1978), 12840ff. Elliott, 'Landscape', p. 67. In the chronicles, the giant did not come from Genoa (cf. AMA, 843), but
Notes to pages 65-70
167
from Spain. There is an implicit reference to Caesar in 2607/08; cf. Horst Schroeder, Der Topos der Nine Worthies in Literatur und bildendm Kunsl (Gottingen, 1971 ) , p. 316. The five Worthies mentioned are the heathen ones. Finlayson, 'Rhetorical "Descriptio" ', p. 9. Manfred Markus, Modem ~r~iih!perspekttue in den Werken des Gawain-Autors (h'iirnberg. Regensburg, 197I ) , pp. 1949. 52-3. Markus, Erzah&erspektiue. pp. 24, 183. Authorial intrusions predicting or hinting at the fatal ending or imminent dangers and arousing tension should also be mentioned here, whether they use the present tense (720, 1816) or the preterite (1282). Krishna, AMA, p. 33. Dieter Mehl, 'Erscheinungsformen des Erzahlers in Chaucers Canterbuy Tales', in Chaucer und seine Zd. $ymposionfurWalterF. Schinner, ed. Arno Esch (Tiibingen, 1968), pp. 189-206, esp. pp. 204-5; M;olfgang Clemen, Chaucers f7ti'he Dxhtung (GBttingen, 1963), p. 12. Cf. Keiser, 'Narrative Structure', pp. 1 3 W . CE 3767,378 1,3785.4 126.41 72.4 178.4224; all in all, I have counted more than thirty instances. Krishna, AMA, p. 32. Manfred Markus, 'Some Examples of Ambiguity in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight', NM, 75 (1974). 625-9. Cf. GBIler, 'Stab und Formel', p. 60. Cf. C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Z q e . An Introduction to Medzeual and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge, 1967), p. 5. Dieter Mehl, 'Point of View in mittelenglischen Romanzen', GRM, NF 14 ( 1964), 35-46. Cf. Markus, Modeme Er~iihlperspektive,pp. 54-74. Cf. other descriptive passages implying point of view and psvchoIogical connotation, e.g, 1283ff., 28 1 1, 2825ff.. 3469, D. W. Robertson, A Preface to Chaucer. Studies in Medieval Perspectives (Princeton, NJ., 1967), p. 51.
Formulaic h4icrostructure: The CIuster Jean Ritzke-Rutherford C. S. Lewis thought the poem 'treats the dullest and most incredible part of the whole Arthurian legend', and that 'a narrative of unbroken military successes, dull even when true. is insufferable when feigned'. Cf. his remarks in Essays on Malov, ed. J. A. Mi. Bennett (Oxford. 1963), p. 26. Cf., for instance, Larry Benson, 'The AlIiterative Mode Arthure and Medieval Tragedy', Tennessee Studies in Literature, 1 1 ( 1966), 76; Ronald A. Waldron, 'Oral Formulaic Technique and Middle English Alliterative Poetry', Spenrlurn, 33 ( 1957), 80 1; and James D. Johnson, ' "The Hero on the Beach" in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', NM, 76 ( 1975), 27 1-8 1 . At present nearly twenty separate publications have dealt with formulaic
168
" '
'"
l2
l3
l4
IS
'" l7
Notes to pages 70-74
repetition in the A M A alone, to say nothing of recent work done on other poems of the Alliterative Revival. O n the possible transmission of alliterative style through Early Middle Engfish prose, see N. F. Blake. 'Rhythmical Alliteration'. NP, 67 (1969/70), 1 18-21' and the late Elizabeth Salter's 'Alliterative Modes and Affiliations in the Fourteenth Century-', N M , 79 (1978), 25-35. See also the interesting counter arguments in Carolynn van Dyke Frit-dlznder, 'Early Middle English Accentual Verse', MP, 76 (I979), 219-30. Cf., for instance, Herbert Pilch, Layamon's Brut. Eine litera7ischeStudie (Heidelberg, 1960), p. 246, on the fact that few of the formulas of Layamon are to be found in poems of the Alliterative Revival. For a first presentation of the theory and its application to Old English, see the author's Light and Darkness in Anglo-Stixon Thaught and Writing (Frankfurt, 1979), pp. 143-73. Francis P. Magoun, Jr., 'Oral Formulaic Character of Anglo-Saxon Narrative Poetry', Speculum, 28 (1953), 446-7, and the classic 'The Theme of the Beasts of Battle in Anglo-Saxon Poetry', N M , 56 (1955), 81-90. For a complete account of the original hypothesis and research up to the late sixties, see A. C. Watts, The Lyre and the Harp (New Haven, 1969); for Iater work also Edward R. Haymes, Dm mundliche Epos. Eine Einzhmng in die 'Oral Poetry' Forschung (Stuttgart, 1977), and Albert B. Lord, 'Perspectives on Recent Work on Oral Literature'. Oral Literature. Seven Essays, ed .J.J. Duggan (Edinburgh, 1975). pp. 1-24. W. N. Francis, 'Revolution in Grammar'. Readings in Applied English Linguistics, ed. H . B. Allen (New York, 1964)' p. 71. Esp. Donald K. FN, 'Old English Formulas and Systems', ES, 48 (1967), 193-204; 'Old English Formulaic Themes and Type-Scenes', Neophilologus, 52 (1968), 48-54. See, for instance, Thorlac Turville-Petre, The Alliteratiue Revival (Cambridge, 1977), p. 92, where he concludes that 'fourteenth-century alliterative poetry cannot, therefore, be described as formulaic in any meaningful sense . . .' Cf. Larry Benson, Art and Tradition in 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' (New Brunswick, N J., 1965), p. 12I. who alternatively defines 'the formula' as 'a fixed phrase occurring with the same words (or nearly the same) in similar contexts and in the same metrical position in a number of other poems'; he defines 'the formulaic system' as a 'fixed verbal pattern that appears under the same metrical and semantic conditions with one principal word invariable and the other words varied to suit the context'. See the discussion, for instance, in Karl Heinz Giiller, 'Stab und Formel im Aliiterierenden "Morte Arthure" ', Neophilologus, 49 ( 19651, 57-67; cf. N. 3 above. This is the original definition as offered by the founder of the theory, Milman Parry, 'Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making 1: Homer and the Homeric Style', Haward Studies in Classical Philology, 41 (1930), 80; the following remarks apply to both Old and Middle English. Waldron, 'Oral Formulaic Technique', p. 786; Watts, Lyre, p. 284. Donald K. Fry, Jr., Aesthetic Applications of Oral-Fornulaic TEeoty: Judith, 199-226~ (Diss. Univ. of Calif. at Berkelev), p. 36. Albert C. Baugh, 'Improvisation in the Middle English Romance',
Notes to pages 74-84
l8
l9
20
*I
22
23 24
169
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 162 ( 1959),4 19; Albert B. Lord, The Singer of Tales (Cambr., Mass., 1960), p. 58; R. D. Stevick, 'The Oral Formulaic Analysis of Old English Verse', Spemlum. 38 ( 1962), 386; John Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique in bforte Arthure', Anglia, 81 f 1963). 3 72-3. Randolph Quirk. 'Poetic Language and Old English Metre', Ear& English and Norse Studies Presented to Hugh Smith (London, 1963), esp. pp. 156-7; James L. Rosier, 'The Uses of Association: Hands and Feasts in Beowuff, PMLA, 78 (1963), 8-14; and 'Heofod and Helm: Contextual Composition in "Beowutf' ', Medium Aeuum, 37 ( 1968), 137-41. Turville-Petre, Revival, p. 86; Hakan Ringbom, Studiar in th Narrative Technique of B e o w l f and Lawman's Brut, Acta Academiae Aboensis. Ser. A, vol. 36 (Abo, 1968),esp. pp. 91-3; A. C. Spearing, The Gawazn Poet: A Critical St+ (Cambridge, 19701, esp. p. 21, where the Middle English alliterative formula is loosely defined as 'a lexical and semantic nexus: an associative tendency among certain words used to express a certain idea'. The following definitions are taken from 'Formulaic themes', 52-3; cf. also the remarks in Lord, 'Perspectives on Recent IVork'. pp. 19-24. All examples are quoted from the text editions of The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Recwds, ed. George P. Krapp and Elliott V. K. Dobbie (New York, 1931-53; 21966-70), 6 vols.; and Lapmon: Bmt, ed. G . L. Brook and R. F. Leslie, EETS OS, 250 and 277 (London, 1963 and 1978), 2 vols.; the abbreviations are the usual ones for the Old English poems Exodus, Beowulf, Dream ofthe Rood, Battle of Maldon, Battle of Brunanburk,Judith, and Genesis. For a discussion of the subject, see the extensive treatment in Karl Heinz Goller, Ktinig Arthur in der englischen Literatur des spaten Mittelalters (GZittingen, 19631, pp. 105, and the secondary literature fisted there; also the same author's 'Stab und Formel', pp. 59-60. Magoun, 'Oral Formulaic Character', p. 456-7. Thus Krishna's emendation of the MS to Zonathal is entirely superffuous; cf. Krishna, A M A , 'Notes', p. 185.
Formulaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle Jean Ritzke-Rutherford John Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique in Morte Arthure', Anglia, 81 ( 1963),
389. Stanley B. Greenfield, 'The Formulaic Expression of the Theme of "Exile" in Anglo-Saxon Poetry', S ' l m , 30 ( 1955), 205, For a discussion of the concepts of oral formulaism and their use, see the author's Ltght and Darkness zn Anglo-Saxon Thought and Writing (Frankfurt, 1979), pp. 143-73. Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique', 389. Albert C. Baugh, 'Improvisation in the Middle English Romances', Proceedings of the Ammican Philosophic Society, 1 62 ( 1959), 426-7. Cf. Jean Rychner, La C h o n de Ceste (Geni.ve, 1955), and Renate Hitze,
'0
Notes to pages 84-90
Studien cur Sprache und Stil der Kampfschilderungen in den Chansons de Geste (Gentve, 1965); for a more recent treatment: Joseph J. Duggan, The Song of Roland: Fornulaic Style and Poetic Craft (Berkeley, 1973). Cf. Rose B. Schafer-Maulbetsch, Studien zur Entwicklung des mittelhochdeutschen Epos: Die Kampfschhildemng (Gappingen, 1972), 2 vols., for a more recent treatment; for Old English, see Lee C. Ramsey, The Theme of Battie in Old English Poetry (Diss. Indiana Univ., 1965). Although several dissertations have dealt with the topic, their results tend to confirm the conventionality of the poem; cf. John Finlayson, The Sources, Use of Sources, and Poetic Techniques of the 14th [Century] Alliterative Morte Arthre (Diss. Cambridge Univ., 1962); Hugh Ward TonsfeIdt, Medieval Narrative and the Alliterative Morte Arthure (Diss. Univ. ofcalif. at San Diego, 1975), and James D. Johnson, Formulaic Diction and Thematic Composition in the Alliterative Morte Arthure (Diss. t'niv. of Illinois. 1969). The similarities to Old English are particularly apparent in the account of Judith and other poems given in Donald K. Fry, J r . , Aesthetic Applications of Oral-Fornulaic Theory: 'Judith' 199-216a (Diss. Univ. of Calif. at Berkeley, 1966). See the discussion in James L. Boren, 'Narrative Design in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', PQ, 56 (1977), 313. Although in I ~ v a m o nthe , old woman is forced to cohabit with the giant, she is more moderate in her description of both the death of the girl and the giant's habits: cf. G. L. Brook and R. F. Leslie, ed., h y m n : 'Brut', EETS OS 250 and 277 (London, 1969 and 1977), 12931-5. For the usual function of the t o p s in medieval English romances see Rolf Breuer, Die Funktion der Naturschilderungen in den mittelenglisch Ve~srman<en (Diss. Gottingen, 1966), pp. 102-3; cf. John Finlayson, 'Rhetorical "Descriptio" of Place in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', MP, 6 1 ( 1 963), 1-1 1; as well as the earlier article by Ralph M'.V. Elliott, 'Landscape and Rhetoric in Middle English Alliterative Poetry', Melbourne Critical Review, 4 ( 1961), 65-76. For another view, see John Finlayson, 'Arthur and the Giant ofSt Michael's Mount', Medium Aeuum. 33 (1964), 1 12-20; For an account of the comic and grotesque treatment of giants in Middle English literature, see T. McAIindon, 'The Emergence ofa Comic Type in Middle English Narrative: the Devil and Giant as Buffoon', Anglia, 81 ( 1963), 355-7 1, esp. pp. 368 and 370. For use of the concept 'mock-heroic' in Old English, cf. Frederik J. Heinemann, yudith 236-29 1a: a Mock Heroic Approach-to-Battle Type Scene', NM, 7 1 ( 1970), 83-96; it has since become common to view Grendel in Beowulf as a mock-heroic warrior. 920-32 and 250f3-12. Baugh, 'Improvisation', 426-7, for the structure ofsingle combat in romance. Krishna's emendation of the MS reading of slaughte is unnecessary here; cf. Krishna, AMA, 'Notes', p. 191. There are both good ar,guments for, and against, viewing the poem in this fashion; on the c a m structure. see Hanspeter Schelp, Exemplarische Romanzen im Mittehglischen (Gottingen. 1967). pp. 172-80 and Karl Heinz Goller, 'Romance' und 'Novel'. Die Anfange des englischen Romans (Regensburg, 1972),
Notes to pages 90-IOI
17 1
pp. 151-81. For the problem of mercenary warfare in the fburteenth century, see the provocatory study by TerryJones, Chaucer's Knight: The Portrait of a Mediez)a/ Mercena?y (London. 1980), and John Barnie, War in Medieval Socieg: Sonal Values and the Hundred Years War. 1337-99 (London. 1974). Cf. the discussion in William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur (London, 1%0), p. 93. Cf. Thorlac Turville-Petre. The Alliterativ~Reziaal (C:ambridqe. 1977). p. 8.5. T h e epithet gud is used in a similar manner, if not with the same structural consistency . Cf. the discussion of these elrments in blatthews. p. 110. and Boren. 'Narrative Design'. Boren, 'Narrative Design', p. 313. The pecularities of formulaic description -rapid succession of scenes. structural principle of a series of single actions, and above all. swift change or alternation of the scenes and the point of view connected with them are associated with the trchniques ofthr modern film camera by P, LCGentil, La Chanson de Roland (Paris, 1955), pp. 1667. For the medieval and classical forms of tragedy, and in particular of the tragedy of Fortune, see Willard Farnham, The Medieual Herita7geof Eh~abethan Tragedy (Oxford, 1963), pp. 129-72. Farnham, Medieual Heritage, p. 17 1.
Armorial Bearings and their Meaning Karl Lippe A. R. Wagner, 'Heraldry' in Medieval England, ed. A. L. Poole. 2 vols. (Oxford, 1958), I, 362. G.J. Brault, 'The Chief in Early Blazon'. Notes & Queries (Sfarch 1966).83. G. Neilson. 'The Viscount of Rome in "Morte Arthure" '. Athenaetrrn. (1902). 2, 652-3. L. D. Benson, 'The Date of the "Alliterative klorte Arthure" ', in Mediecal Studies in Honor of Lillian Hedands Hamstein. ed. .Jess B. Ressinqer and R. R.
'
Raymo (New York, 1976), pp. 19-40. The coats ofarms ofseveral EngIish families of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries show three greyhounds, e.g. that of the Kennet family (gules, three kennets passant argent; Matthew of Paris. Hisl. Anglomm, MS. Cotton Nero D I, No. 50). or that of the Mauleverers (gules. three grey-hounds courant in pale argent; St. George's Rolf, KO.676) or the arms of Hopkin Mauleverer (sable, three levriers courant argent colIared; MS. Harley 2169, ed. J. Foster; fol. 21). Sir Fevwnbras served as the source for this episode; cf, Krishna. AMA, pp. 18-19; J. Finlayson, 'The Alliterative Morte Arthure and Sir Ferumbras', Anglia, 92 (1974), 380-6. 'The Knyght bare in his shelde of golde glystrand three gryffons in sabyll and charbuckkle, the cheff of sylver', E. Vinaver, ed., The Works of Thomar
172
'
'O
l1
l2
l3
l4
l5
l6
I'
Notes to pages 101-102
Maloy, 3 vols. (Oxford, *1967), 1, 229. E. V. Gordon and E. Vinaver. 'New Light on the Text of the "Alliterative Morte Arthure" ', Medium Aemm, 6 (1937), 81-98. In poems using alliteration either continually or only now and then, one sometimes finds in parallel MSS one word substituted for another having the same initial sound. This phenomenon can also be seen in descriptions of arms, e.g. in Sir Degrevant, Thornton MS., line I052 'of gowlys and grene', whereas MS. Cambridge Ff 1.6 reads 'off gold and of grene'. From such passages, one gets the impression that at times the names for colours could be used by the authors at pleasure, so long as the alliterating sound was kept. This perhaps explains the substitution of 'gryphon' for 'greyhound'. Those were 'an eagle with wings displayed'; cf. MS. Harley 6163, fol 57a, J. Foster, ed., Two Tudor Books of Anns (London, 1904) or E. Sandoz, 'Tourneys in the Arthurian Tradition'. Speculum, 19 (1944). 389420, No. 32. Not within this tradition is Malory's Morte Darthu~hrgent, three bends sable', E. Vinaver, ed,, The Works . . ., 11, 587. A. G. Hooper, 'The Awntyrs off Arthure: Dialect and Authorship', Lee& Studies in English and Kindred Languages, 4 ( 1935), 62-74; see p. 69; W. Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur. A Study o f the Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1960). p. 159. Cf. L. F. Casson, ed., The Romance o f Sir Degrevanr, EETS OS, 22 1 (London, 1949; repr. 1970),p. 134. Sir Degrevant bears, among other charges, a saltire engrailed on his shield (1045ff.). He, like Mordred in the Scottish Chronicles, is one of the sons of King Loth of Lothian and Orkney. E.g. Sir William de Bruce: gules, a saltire eqgrailed argent, a chief of the second. dancettke throughout gules, J. Foster, Some Feudal Coats ofAnnsfmm Heraldic Rolls, 1298-1118 (London, 1902), pp. 36, 39. Cf. the following passages in S. Kelly, 'The Arthurian Material in the ''Scotichronicon" of Walter Bower', Anglia, 97 (1979); 43 1-8. K. H. Goller, Kiinig Arthur in der endischen Literatur des spaten Mittelalters (Gottingen, 1963), pp. 181-2. Cf., for the change of tinctures to designate cadency, Boutell's Herald?, revised by J . P. Brooke-Little (London, 1973), p. 108. J. Jonsjo. Studies on Middle English Nicknames, I. Compounds, Lund Studies in English, 55 (Lund, 1979) gives under the heading 'Malbranche' (p. 127) ten occurrences of this cognomen. It is remarkable that in the official documents of the six northern counties and of Lincolnshire evaluated by Jonsjo this name can only be found in Yorkshire (nine instances) and Lancashire (one instance). Yorkshire, where most of these occurrences come from, particularly the SE-region, is thought to be the home of the original of the AMA. Jonsjo's interpretation of' 'Malbranche' (he says, 'the name may refer to an evil child') does not make sense in the context of official documents. A more appropriate meaning certainly is 'child of illegitimate birth'. With these rather unambiguous passages in mind, Ch. L. Regan's view that there is no proof for Mordred's illegitimate birth in the AMA has to be rejected, 6. Ch. L. Regan, 'The paternity of Mordred in the Alliterative "Morte Arthure" '. Bulbtin Bibliograph. Sociiti Intenat. Arthurienne, 25 (1973), 15-34.
Notes to pages 102-104
173
G. Neilson, ' "Morte Arthure" and the Annals of 1327-64'. The Antiquary, 38 (1902), 229-32; taken up again by Matthews. pp. 213-14, note 16. See the reproduction in the Scottish Ctan Map, Scotland of Old. By Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk and Don Pottinger (Edinburqh. n.d.). J. Burke, J. B. Burke. Encyclopaedia ofHerald9, or General Anno? of England, Scotland and Ireland, 3rd ed. (London. 1844). n.p.: 'Royal Tribes of Wales'. S. M. Collins, 'Some English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish Arms in hledieval Continental Rolls', The Antiquaries Journal, 2 1 ( 1941), 203-10. Probably the most common Gawain-shield was a purple doubleheaded eaqle: apart from that, one also finds argent. a canton gules. As for the term 'shorter romance' see D. klehl, The Middle English Romances of t h Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (London. I968), pp. 3&8; Lybeaus Desconus. ed. 34. Mills, EETS OS. 261 (London. 1969): lines 79-81 of 31s. Cotton Caligula A. I t . MS. Lambeth Palace 306 attributes to Gawain a chevron. J. Foster, ed., Two Tudor Books o f A m s (London, 1904). R. S. Loomis and L. Hibbard Loomis. Arthurian kgends in Medieval Art (New York, 1966), pp. 37-9. So the Original Camden Roll, circa 1280. ed. J. Greenstreet, 77ieJountal of the Archaeological Association, 38 (1882), 309-28: Ka. 1 Jerusalem; No. 2 the Roman Emperor; No. 5 the King of France; No. 7 the King of' England. For a discussion of this problem see G. Bellew. 'The Arms of the Kingdom of ,Jerusalem1, Coat oJAnns, 1 (1950). 2\54; C. G. P. J.. Coat of Ams. 1 (1950). 47-8; A. W. B. Messenger, 'Further Sotes on the Arms of the Kingdom of .Jerusalemy. Coat of A m . 1 (1951). 195. The first evidence is WaIford Roll No. 14. T. D. Tremrett. U.S. London. ed.. The Matthew of Pards Shields and Glover'sRoll and Wavord's Roll. Kith Additions to A Catalogue of English Mediaeval Rolls of.4rms by Sir A. R. \2'agner. The Socieb of Antiquaries, Aspilogza II & The Harleian Society. vols. 1 13. 1 14 (London, 1967): Le Roy d'Acre-d'argent poudre a croysille d'or a une croys d'or bvllette. H. Gough and J. Parker, A GEossary of Tenns used in Heraldry (Oxford 8( London, 1894; rpt. 1966). p. 175. Cf. 'Epigramme on the Assumption of the Arms of France. 1339'. Political Poems and S q s , ed. Th. Wright, 2 vols. (London, 1859; rpt. 1965). I. 26. Three fleurs-de-lvs appear as early as 1228. 1285 the Regent of France had three fleurs-de-lvs on his seal. CT. Tremlett, The Matthm of Pans Shields. No. 8, p. 12. This can very well be illustrated by the pictures of reproductions of-the Nine Worthies in R. S . Loomis and L. Hibbard Loomis. Arthurian Legends, plates 13. 14. Also the iIlumination of the Nine Worthies in Chevalier errant. circa 1394 of BibI. nat. Paris still shows the old shield of France; cf. 0 . Neubecker, J. P. Brooke-Little, Heraldik. Wappen -lhr Urspmn,q, Sinn, Wert (Frankfurt, 1977), p. 172. In MS. Lansdowne 882 Arthur is represented with six shields of arms; cf. K. H. Goller, 'Die Wappen Konig Arthurs in der HS. Lansdowne 882', Anglia, 79 ( 19611, 253-66. T. Mommsen, ed., 'Historia Britonum', Chronica rninora sae~ulorurnIV-VII,
174 "
38 39
41
42
43
Notes to pages 104109
Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin, 1898), 111, ch. LVI. William of Malmesbury, 'fretus imagine Dominicae matris, quam armis suis insuerat'; Geoffrey of Monmouth, 'humeris quoque suis clypeum vocabulo Pridwen in quo imago sanctae Mariae Dei genitricis inpicta [erat]', cited from G. J. Brault, Early Blazon. Heraldic Teminology in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, with Special Reference to Arthurian Literature (Oxford, 1972), p. 24. Cf. AMA, 286S70, 3650-1. Brault, Earty Blazon, p. 44. Brault, Early Blazon, pp. 44-5. OfArthour and of Merlin, ed. 0. D. Macrae-Gibson, EETS OS, 268, vol. I: Text (London, I973), 5634-5 'Her gomfainoun was of cendel ynde/ Of gold @r were on pre coroune'. See R. S. Loomis and L. Hibbard Loomis, Arthurian Legends, plate 386. See R. S. Loomis and L. Hibbard Loomis. Arthurian Legadr, plate 17; circa 1490.
The Figure of Sir Gawain Jorg 0. Fichte
*
'
See Mo& Arthure, ed.John Finlayson, York Medieval Texts (London, 1967), pp. 18-19; Krishna, AMA, pp. 18-19. William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur. A St@ oftheAlliterative 'Morte Arthure' (Berkeley &: Los Angeles, 1960), pp. 22-30, passim; Karl Heinz Goller, Konig Arthur in der en,
Notes to pages 109-1 16
175
cap. IV, in PL (Paris, 1854), 176, cols. 999-1000. The Book of Vices and Virtues, ed. W. N. Francis, EETS OS, 21 7 (London. I942), pp. 1G18. Gregory's definition of the vices proceeding from ira also fits the situation at hand: 'De ira rixae, tumor mentis, contumeliae, clamor, indiptio, blasphemiae proferuntur'. (Italics mine). Moralium libn' sive exposito in B. Job, col. 621. Cf. Alcuin, De virtutibus et uztiis liber, cap. XXXI, in PL (Paris, 1851), EOl , coI. 634 and Pseudo-Hugo, Defmctibus carnis et spiritus, cap. VI, col. 1000. 117re Canterbury Tales, in The Works of Gegfrrey Chaucer, ed. F. N. Robinson (Boston, '1957), pp. 1-265; see p. 244, lines 534-5. Gawain proclaims: 'He was chosen and chargegide in chambire of be Kyng, / Chiftayne of Pis journee with cheualrye noble; / Whethire he ftghte or he flee, we sall folowe aftyre; . . .' (2731-3). See AMA, 2865-6. AMA, 283841. La Chanson de Roland, ed. Cesare Segre, Documenti di Filologia, 16 (Milano & Napoli, 1971), p. 209, LXXXIX, 1127-35. Richard of St Victor. De encditione hominis interioris libri tres, cap. VII, in PL (Paris, 18.55). 196, cols. 1241-2. Alcuin, De virtutibus et uitiis liber, cap. XXXI, col. 634. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1-2, q. 77, a. 7, ed. Bibliotheca de Autores Christianos (Madrid, 31961), 11, 512. Augustine, De libero arbitria, Lib. 111. cap. XXIV, 72-3, in PL (Paris, 1841), 32, cofs. 1306-7; Gregory the Great, Moralium libri sive expositio in libmm B. Job, Lib. XXII, cap. XX, cols. 2434. See Matthews, p. 128; Gdler, Ktinig Arthur, p. 104; Benson, 'Alliterative Morte Arthure', p. 80 attributes to Arthur 'a form of dkmesure' but does not question the righteousness of his wars; Finlayson, 'The Concept of the Hero', p. 261; Robert M. Lumiansky, 'The Alliterative Morte Arthure, the Concept of Medieval Tragedy, and the Cardinal Virtue Fortitude', Medieual and Renaissance Studies, ed. John M. Headky (Chapel Hill. 1968), p. 1 10 and George R. Keiser, 'The Theme of Justice in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', Annuale Mediaevale, 16 ( 1975), 95. AMA, 2402-3. Arthur furnishes these reasons after thinking ofnew conquests and thereupon contemplating the desirability of Lorraine -'The lordchipe es louely (2399). AMA, 2494, 2513, 2678, 2740, and 3021. T h e description of the final battle differs from that found in all the other accounts. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace, and Layamon report that Arthur has a huge army at his disposal not just 1800 men against Mordred's 60 000. And Wace alone mentions that Arthur is motivated by vengeance for the death of his nephew Gawain (1314450). Gazing at Gawain's lifeless body Arthur confesses: 'He es sakles supprysede for syn of myn one' (3986). AMA, 4 155-60. AMA, 3452-5. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theollogia, I, q. 83, a. I, I, 582-3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1, q. 83, a. I , I, 583. The First Volume of Sir Johan Froysart of the ch~mycfesof Engtande / Fraunce /
176
31 32
Notes to pages 116-123
Spayne. trans. Johan Bourchier Lord Berniers (1523; rpt. Amsterdam & Xew York, 1970). fol. XXI, ch. XXXVIII; fols. XXIIII-XXV, ch. XLIIII; fot. CIII, ch. CCX; fol. CLIX, ch. CCLXIIII: and fol. CLXIII, ch. CCLXIX. La Chanson de Roland, p. 449. CLXXV, 2393-6. John Lydgate, Fall of Princes. ed. Henry Bergen, EETS ES, 123 (London, 1924). p. 910, 3102-8.
The Laments for the Dead Renate H a a s
.J. L. N, O'Loughlin. 'The English Alliterative Romances', in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages, ed. Roger S. Loomis (Oxford, 1959). p. 524. Renate Haas, Die mittelenglische Totenklage. Realitatsbezug, abendliindische Tradition und indiuzdiielEe Gestaltung (Frankfurt, 1980). Geoffrey of Sfonmouth, Historia regum Brztanniae. ed. Jacob Hammer (Cambridge. bfa.. 19.51 ). p. 170 (henceforth cited HRB);La Partie Arthurienne du Roman de Bmt. ed. Ivor Arnold and Margaret Pelan (Paris, 1962). Ii. 2740f.; Layamon. Bmt. ed. G. L. Brook and R. F. Leslie (London. 1978). 11. 12802f. .James L. Boren. 'Narrative Design in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', PQ, 56 (1977), 312-13. In France and Italy, the vehement lamentations found in literature had more correspondences in real life. The extravagant gestures such as tearing of one's hair and garments, swoons. beating or lacerating oneself stemmed from the Orient and spread west via ancient Greece and Rome, partly through literature. Haas, Totenkluge, pp. 56-60. Haas, Totenkluge, pp. 86 and 2.55. HRB, p. 170; Arnold/Pelan, Partie Arthurienne, 11. 2806f. Brook/Leslie. Layamon, 11. 12904f. 'vnuynly' (955) also calls up the connotations 'unpleasantly' and 'unfairly'. Amold/Pelan, Partie Arthurienne, p. 1 13. Brook/LesIie, Layamon, 11. 14142f. Cf. iVerner Habicht, Die Gebiirde in englischen Dichtungm des Mittelalters (hlunchen, 1959), pp. 23f. William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur (Berkeley, 1960). pp. 143 and 206 draws attention to certain associations with the medieval Judas, who in his remorse slinks away to hang himself. Karl Heinz Goller, KGnig Arthur in der engliscfrenLiteratur des spiiten Mittelalters (Gijttingen. 1963). pp. 104-5. For parallels in works on Alexander, see Matthews, pp. 61-2. Haas, Totenklage, p. 227. Gcrard J . Brault, 'Le th6me de la Mort dans la Chamon de Roland', Sociiti Rencesvals. IVe Congris international (Heidelberg. 1969), pp. 220-37. George C. Taylor, 'The English "planctus Mariae"', MP. 4 (19&7), 614. Colin M. Parkes. Bereavement (London, 1972), p. 183.
Notes to pages 123-133
177
Theo Wolpers, Die englische Ha'l@nlegende des Mittelalters (Tubingen, 1964). pp. 117-18. Peter von Moos, Consolatio (Miinchen, 197I ) , I, 60-1. Note the rhetoric of the passage, e.g. the echoing of the beginning and end of the exhortation f i r , bhn), the repetitions of sorow- in 3983 and 3985, the etymological figure syghte s e p , the s-alliterations evocative of sighing, etc. See the flowing of the blood, Arthur's clean hands, his kneeling down twice in short succession (3987 and 3993), etc. Note again the realistic details of hunting and the emotional shift of perspective in line 4006. See lines 3850, 3869, and 3944. Religious stylisation will have struck medieval readers as close to reality because it was an important part of their life. See Iines 703, 859, 981, 1155, and 2685. Hanspeter Schelp, Exemplan'sche Romanzcn im Mittelalter (Gottingen, 1967), p. 179; Karl Heinz Gijller, Romance und Nouel (Regensburg, 1972), p. 153. John Stevens, Medieual Romance. ThemesandApproaches(London, 1973),p. 107: Haas, Totenkluge, pp. 295-8. St Gregory, for example, atoned for years for the double incest he had not intended, and a cguiitless Arrner Heinrich humbly accepts his leprosy as a just punishment.
The Dream of the Dragon and the Bear Karl Heinz Goller
' *
William Matthews, The Tragedy Of Arthur (Berkeley, 1960), p. 1 13. Karl-Josef Steinmeyer, Untersuchungenzur allegorisehen Bedeutung der Truume im al@ranzosischen Rolandslied munche en, 19633, p. 36. Cf. A. T. Hatto, 'Herzeloyde's Dragon-dream', Essays on Medieval G e m and Other Poetry (Cambridge, 1980), esp. p. 189. King h r , ed. Kenneth Muir, Arden Edition (London, 1978), 1.2, 125-8, p. 29. Here be Dragons; an exhibition in the British Museum from 3 March- 1 Sept. 1980, Catalogue p. 1. Malcolm Smith, The Dragon (London, 1977), p. 10. Smith, The Dragon, p. 53. Acton Griscom, ed., Geoffrey qf Monmouth, Historia Regum Bn'tannke (Kew York, 1929); cited from the English translation: Geoffrey of Monmouth, History of the Kings of Britain, transl. by Sebastian Evans, rev. Ch. Dunn, Introd. Gwyn Jones (London, 1963), p. 172 (VIII. 171, henceforth cited
HRB. Hatto, 'Herzeloyde's Dragon-dream', p. 188. lo
HRB, pp. 169 and 170.
"
Hatto, 'Herzeloyde's Dragon-dream', p. 187. Paulys Real-En~clopadieder classischm Alterthumnuzssenschaft, ed. G . Wissowa (Stuttgart, 1896), under the headword 'Bar', vol. 11, 2759-61.
178 Notes to pages 133-135 H. Kurath. S. M. Kuhn, ed., Middle English Dictionaty, I (Ann Arbor,
l3
l4
"
l6 " lS l9 20
23 24
2s 26
27
2B
29
Michigan, 31967). 'bere', s.v. 3, p. 740. Kurath/Kuhn, MED, p. 740. Richard Hinckley Allen, Star Names and their Meanings (Leipzig, London, Paris, 1899), p. 419. Allen, Star Name.s, p. 204. J. J. Bachofen, Der Bar in den Religzonen des Alterturns (Basel, 1863), passim. Bachofen, Der Bar, p. 17. Bachofen. Der Bur. p. 28. Rachofen, Der Bur, p. 28. Bachofen, Der Bar, p. 45. Rachofen, Der Bar, p. 45. Bachofen, Der Bir, p. 17. Some authors in the Arthurian tradition have misinterpreted the bear of the AMA as a boar. The misunderstanding is easily explainable since 'bere' appears in both eo- and o-forms, deriving from Mercian *beora. Thus the Winchester MS. of Malory's Morte Darthur calls the animal a 'beare', while Caxton calls it a 'bore' (E. Vinaver, ed., The Works of Sir Thomas Malory [Oxford. 19671, I , 196-7). The translation 'bore', however, does not suit the context. As Vinaver remarks, Caxton has overlooked the 'pawys . . . as byg as a porte' (Works. I1I, 1377). But the appearance of a boar is on the other hand not completely out of the way. Already in Geoffrey of Monmouth King Arthur is called the 'boar ofCornwal1' (VII.3, VIII.l), a by-name that was later to become a commonplace. In the Glo. Chron. we read: 'be comwelisse bor, of wan he spek, bat was king arpure.' From King Arthur the designation was transferred to Edward 111 who was called 'the bare' in the poems of Minot, among others; as a matter of fact, all three Edwards were known as 'the black boars'. T h e boar as a symbol stands for unbridled ferocity and brute force, but at the same time is associated with sex. virility and adultery (Boccaccio, Chaucer, Gottfried v. Strassburg). In contrast to the dragon and bear, the image of the boar is dominated by negative associations, even when positive characteristics are at stake. The boar's bravery in battle is always impetuous and unrestrained. Thus the comparison of a king or knight with a boar is quite often a criticism of his conduct in battle. HRB, pp. 188 and 222. Geoffrev originally called himself 'Geoffrey Arthur', but Henry of Huntington and Robert of Torignv also used this name for the author of the Historia Recqum Britanniae. Elaine Southward, 'Arthur's Dream', s;hemlum, 18 (1943), 249-51. All the forms of the name of Mordred in the Welsh Triads end in d or t: %fedrod,Medraut, Medravt (six times), Medrud. Geoffrey calls the traitor hfordredus (IX.9). Geoffrey derived the name from a Cornish or Breton source, since the final syllable in Cornish and Breton was weakened from od > ed; cf. Rachel Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein. The Welsh Triadr (Cardiff, 1964). pp. 454-5. E. M. O'Sharkey, 'King Arthur's Prophetic Dreams and the Rule of Mordred in Lay amon's Brut and the Alliterative Morte Arthu~e', Romania, 99 (1979), 355.
Notes to pages 135-141
179
San Marte, Gottfned's von Monmouth HRB und Brut 7 j y I i o (Halle, 1854). San Marte, HRB und Brut Tysylio, p. 557. There are some obvious mistakes in translation, in spite of the fact that San Marte translated from the English. In Peter Roberts' version the dream readers say that Arthur will fight against 'some monstrous giant' (p. 9). San Marte translates: '. . . er werde mit einigen ungeheuren Riesen kiimpfen' (p. 557). Cf. Griscom, HRB, pp. 468-9; some authors have pointed out that the battle with the giant does not fit into the context of the HRB: It is maintained that it portrays a King Arthur who is not quite in accordance with the rest ofthe p r n and seems heroic and archaic. E. Faral writes: 'L'episode lui-mtme de la lutte soutenue par Arthur contre le g6ant n'a pas le caractPre eIev6 des autres parties de lyhistoire: il se rattache moins au thPme de la majesti royale, dont Geoffroy semble avoir fait son veritable sujet en traitant d'Arthur qu'2 celui d u champion prodigieusement fort de ses bras, dont la tradition Ctait livree par IWistoria Bntonum anonyme.' La Llgende Arthurienne (Paris, 1929), 11, 286. Ivor Arnold, k1. M. PeIan, La Partle ArlhuPienne Du Roman De Brut (Paris. I962), 2691-2730. Arnold/Pelan, La Partie Arthurienne, 2730. Edited from British Museum, MS. Cotton Caligula A. IX and MS. Cotton Otho C.XII1, by G. L. Brook and R. F. Leslie, EETS OS, 277 (London. 1978). For the verb 'swelde' cf.: 'to swelter', NED 'swelter' 2, also 'swelting'. 'swelt', etc.
The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune Anke Janssen Howard R, Patch, m e Goddess Fortuna in Mediaeval Literature (Cambridge. Mass., 1927, rpt. New York, 1967), p. 176. See also A. Doren, 'Fortuna im Mittelalter und in der Renaissance', Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg, ed. Fritz Saxl, Vortrage 1921-2 (rpt. Nendeln/ Liechtenstein, 1967). 7 1-1 43. Karl Josef Holtgen, 'Konig Arthur und Fortuna', Anglia, 75 ( 1957). 35-54, cited on p. 37. Cf. F. P. Pickering, Augustinus oder Boethius? Ceschichtsschreibung und epirche Dichtung im Mittelalter- und in der Neureit, I- Eznzhrender Ted, Philoiogische Studien und Quellen, ed. W. Binder, H. Moser, K. Stackmann, Heft 39 (Berlin, 1967), pp. 12-13. T h e concept of destiny (or fate) is expressed in two me. words in the text. 'destanye' (704 etc.) and 'wer(e)de' (O.E. w y d , M.E. weird) (385 etc.). The nearness of ags. wyrd must not tempt us to look for Germanic or even pagan connotations inconsistent with the tenor of the poem. It would, of course, be ridiculous to deny that the word harks back to Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry, but at the same time it is unmistakably embedded in a Christian and Boethian context. Other occurrences of the word, for instance
180
' lo
"
l2
"
l4
IS
'"
l7
l9
Z0
2'
22
23 24
2J
26
27
"
Notes to pages 141-145
in the Old English Boethius and Chaucer's poetry, show that it was intimately connected with the Boethian tradition in England. Review of Matthews' monograph on the AMA in Romance Philology, 16 (1962), 1 18-22, esp. pp. 1 19-20. Cf. in this connection Klaus Heitmann, Fortuna und Virtus. Eke Stdie zu Petrarcas Lebmsweisheit (Koln, Graz. 1958), esp. ch. I: 'Fortuna und Virtus vor der Auseinandersetzung'. Heitmann, Fortuna, p. 149. Quoted from Heitmann, Fortuna, p. 1 1. Heitmann, Fortuna, pp. 1 1-13. Heitmann, Fortuna, p. 150. Heitmann, Fortuna, pp. 153-7. In connection with the seven deadly sins see Dan Jon Gaytyge's Sennon written in alliterative prose about 1350, printed in Religious Pieces in Prose and Virse, ed. from Robert Thornton's MS. (cir. 1440) in the Lincoln Cathedral Library by George G. Perry, EETS OS, 26 (London, 1867).pp. 1-14. Cf. Morton W. Bloomfield, The Seam Deadly Sins. An Introduction to the History of a Religious Concept, with Special Reference to Medieval English Literature ( 1952, rpt. Ann Arbor, 1967), esp. pp. 184-5. Heitmann, Fortuna, p. 151. Quoted from Derek Pearsall, John Lydgate (Charlottesville. 1970), p. 241. Printed in Chronique de la Traison el Mort de Richard Deux Roy Dengtetme, ed.Benjamin Williams (London, 1846),'Appendix G.', pp. 298-9 [Bodleian. Douce MS. 78, fol. 1 .I. Patch, Goddess Fortuna, ch. 111: 'Function and Cults', pp. 107-10. Ulysse Robert, L'Art de Chevalene. Traduction du 'De Re Militan" de V(q2cepar Jean de Meun (Paris, 18971, p. 131. Ed. James A. H. Murray, EETS ES, 17 (London, 1872), p. 15. Cf. Patch, Goddess Fortuna, p. 108, footnote 1. John Gower, 'To King Henry the Fourth. In Praise of Peace" in The English Works of John Gower, ed. G. C, MacauIay, 2 vols., EETS ES, 82 (London, New York, Toronto, 1901, %pt. 1969), 11, 481-94, quot. lines 113-19. Karl Hammerle, 'Das Fortunamotiv von Chaucer bis Bacon', Anglia, 65 (1941), 87-100, quot. p. 90. Cf. in this connection Horst Schroeder, Der Topos dm ATiaeWorthies in Literatur and bildender Kunst (Gottingen, 1971), esp. ch. 11: 'Die Quelle des T o p s Les Voeux du Paon'. This is the standard work on the t o p s of the Nine Worthies. Cf. Schroeder, Nine Worthies, esp. pp. 68-9, 70-1, and ch. VI: 'Die Nine Worthies in der englisch-schottischen Literatur'. Schroeder, Nine Worthies, pp. 58-9, 305-6. Schroeder, Nine Worthies, pp. 307-8. William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur. A Study of the Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (London, I960), p. 105. See also Holtgen, 'Konig Arthur und Fortuna', especially his treatment of the AMA, pp. 43-50. George R. Keiser, 'The Theme ofJustice in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', Annuale Mediaevale, 16 (1975), 94-1 09, quot, p, 98. Concerning the chronology of the Nine Worthies cf. Holtgen, 'Konig Arthur und Fortuna', pp. 46-7. The author of the AMA has the philosopher predict that Geoffrey ofBouillon
Notes to pages M6-152
29
30
' 32
'
34
35
181
will be anointed and crowned King ofJerusaJem. Yet in reality. Geoffrey refused the crown. He called himself simply 'protector of the Holy Sepulchre'. Apparently the author alters the historical facts in order to make his standpoint clear: Geoffrey has to be one of the great and mighty, otherwise his casus would not be justified. Force of arms was not only employed by emperors and kings for the conquering of countries and cities. The Emperor Constantine, whom Arthur calls his next of kin, not only conquered Rome, but also recovered the Holy Cross by military power; and Geoffrey of Bouillon, one of the Worthies, was not ashamed to wage a bloody war in order to capture the Cross. the Christian symbol of peace. This is paralleled by another Worthy. the Emperor Charlemagne, who captured the Holy Lance and the instruments with which Christ had been tortured, by brute force, Concerning Sir Frolle see Larry D. Benson, Ktng Arthur's Death. The Middle English Stanzaic Morte Arthur and Alliterative Morte Arthure (Indianapolis, New York, 1974), p. 210, note on line 3345. There are several passages in the A M A where victory is attributed to Fortune: 11 76-7; I 749-50; 2994-300. See Krishna, A M A . note on line 3345. Cf. line 1741: 'Howell and Hardelfe, happy in a m e z . . .'. Rolf Breuer, Die Funktion des Naturschildemngm in den mittelengtischen VersromanZen (Diss. Gottingen, 1966), pp. 9&3. Cf. Wilfried Schouwink, Fortuna im Alexanderroman Rudolfs w n Ems. Studien cum Verhiiltnisvon Fortuna und Virtus bei e z n a Autos der spiten Staufir~eit(Gappingen. 1977), esp. pp. 5 0 4 0 .
Subject Index Alexander-romances. 8. 1 76 (n. 14) alliteratton, 71, 78-9. 81 alliterative long line, 22 Alliterative Revival. 8. 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 57. 59, 60, 61, 165 (n. 15) Alhteracrve Survt\al. 70, 78, 81 Amzs and Amrloun. i 4 anti-romance, 15. 16, 24 archatsm, 165 (n. 16) Arthour and Merlin. 43. 105. 174 (n. 41) Arthur. 8, 9, 11-13. 58-9. 85. 86. 89. 90, 91. 92. 93. 94. 96. 98. 100. 102-5. 106-9. If2-K6. 131, 134-9. 140. 141, 173 (n. 35), 175 (nn. 21. 22. 24, 25). 177 (n 22). 178 (n. 24). 179 (nn. 32.33) as conqueror and warlord. 145. 146, 147, 148. 151 council. 26. 35 death of, 138-9. 152 Fall of. 59, 91. ll.%t6. 135. 139. 141, 144. 150. 151. 152 feast. 20. 34. 86. 91. 93. 94. 158 (n. 22) and polrtrcs. 17 return of. 28-9 role of in AMA. 41. 42. 52. 112-14, 120. 125. 179 superbur, 149. 150. 151 Arthurlan trad~tron.17. 18. 22. w 3 audtence. 4 4 4 . 6 7 . 85. 89.95. 116 Avalon. 26. I27 a w t u r c , 22 T k Awnprs off Arthure. 43. 47. 52. 66, 101, 103. 164 (n. 61). 166 (n 28) A~mbttcof Inzql. 1M baronral oppwioon. 45. 46. 47 Battle of Bm~~anburh. 84 Battle of Malda, 60. 70. 84 baudv. 22 Bedever, in AMA, 22. 86. 119. 120 Bcowutf. 60.62.84. 1 18. 127. 128 Bible. 28 Black Book of Camrrhm. 30 Boethian traditmn, 1 7 W 0 (n. 4) Borrhtur (Old Enqlish Transiatton). 179-80 (n. 4) Bonn. School of Metrrcs. 7 Brittanv. Duchess of. rn AMA. 19. 22 Brut Tyyho, 135. 136 Cador. in AMA. 91-3, 108. 113. I47 cam-rnotic 42. 90. 128. 141. 152. 180-1 (n. 28)
chanson de geste. 8. 15. 22, 24, 39, 42 La C h a m dc Roland. I I f , 116, 122. 123-4, 127. 128, 175 (n. 161, 176 (n. 31) chivalry and knighthood, 16, 18, 21. 23, 24, 36. 39. 58. 63 chronicle tradition, 24, 30-4, 39, 42 Clarmt. Arthur's ceremonial sword, 18 Commons. House of. 18.49 contemporary allusions in AMA, 12-14. i s m . 28 contrapasso, 28. 102 Cradoke. in AMA, 21. 26. 52. 53. 151 'Culhwch and Olwen'. 30 'Dame Fortune and Her Wheel', 142-3. 180 (n. 14) damsel in dtstress. 22 Danes [Mordred's mariners). 19 date of AMA, 11, 12. 100, 101, 104 destiny (fate). 179 (n. 4) 7% Dcshction of Ttop. 8. 49. 84, 166 (n 28) dolor. 142 Dream of the Dragon and B a r . 8. 36. 64. 90. 92. 93. 13-9. 140 Herzelovde's dragon drram. in Par
The Earl of Taulour, 54 ~&mour, 54 Emare, 54, I64 (n. 55) Enqlish Fanpage. 52-3 enumeratton. 166 (n. 28) rxopla tradition. 15, 150, 152 fa?, 76-7 Ferrer. tn AMA, 113, 114, 150 Elorente, in AMA, 108, 109, 1 10 formulaic character, of AMA. 9, 10. l I, 62,63, 70-95 formulate theom, 10, 70-5, 83-5 Fortuna, aducna, 142, 149, 150 analla dei. 141 bellz. 140, 148, 149, 150. 151 prospno. 142, 150. 151 utraquc, 141 Fortune. Goddess of. 134 Lady, in AMA. 12, 13. 134 Whrel of, 8, 21, 59, 65 French influence, 81 Frolle, in AMA. 32, 148. 181 (n. 30)
gusrdium, 142 Gawain, 9, 11, 16, 23, 24. 28, 36, 38. 39. 41, 42, 52, 65, 67, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 98, 99, 102. 103, 1 6 1 6 , 1224, 139. 146. 149, 175 (nn. 13, 25) Gayous. in AMA, 108, 109, 110 Giant of Mont St Mrchel. 22, 23. 32-3, 36.58, 60.63, 64, 65, 86-7, 92.93, 118. 137, 166 (nn. 39.44) Colagros md Gazuane, 43, 166 (n. 28) Golapas, in AMA, 25 Gratl romances. 124 grotesqueness, 22. 24 Guinevere. 12. 16. 18, 36, 39. 92. 126 children of. 16, 38. 139 Guthlac B, 123 Harlev Lvrtn. 58 heraldn. in AMA, 96-105 heraldtc charge? cross potent, 104; crown, 107, 104; dolphyn, 100, draqon, 17, 28. 100, 133, 138. eagle, 103, 172 (n 10). 173 (n. 231, fleursde-lis, 103. 173 (n. 33); grevhound, 101. I71 (n 5); qryphon, 101, 103, 171 (n 7); leopards, 16. Iron, 101, 102, salc~re. enqrarled, 101 coats of arms Arthur, 38, 98, 100: Englrsh roval arms. 102; Gawatn, 98,99, 103, 105, 173 (nn. 23, 25); Geoffrey of Bouillon, 97-8, 103, Golyan of Genoa, 97,99, Ktnq of Gotland, 98, 100, Krng Leodegan, 105, Krnq of Lrbva, 97, 99, Ktnydom of Jerusalem. 173 (nn 28, 29); Mordred, 98-9,100,101, 102, 103, 127; Paean from Persia 96 Prramus, 90, 97, J00, 101, Three M a p , 105; Vrscount of Valence, 97,9!?-100, shields, types of. in I~teraiure,96 heresv, 28 hemrc poetry, traditton OK 28 Holv Cross, 181 (n. 29) Hotv Lance, 181 (n 29) Holy Vernrcle, 21, 148. 158 (n. 25) ho7lns C O ~ C 150 L ~ , Humanism (Italian), humanists, 140. 141
humour, 9. 13, 22. 24. 42 black humour, 16. 24, 8.5-6 Hundred Years War, 17, 18. 19. 46. 133
Le MOT& Arlhur (stanzaic), 15. 16, 35, 38.40, 41. 42. 54, 55. I64 (n. 58) klvstery plays. 22
ienitall/Ionathal, 23, 24, 79. 169 (n. 24) inversion of traditional motiB. 16. 85-8 irony, 16, 20, 21. 22. 23. 25. 62. 63, 64,65,67, 68. 69. 92. 119, 120. 125, 126. 165 (n. 14) isumbras, 54
Nine Worthtes. 8, 17, 38, 9 7 4 . 100, 101, 105, 116. 126. 140. 144. 14%.146. 148, 150. 151. 152. 173 (n 34).181 (n. 29) Alexandrr the Great, 90. 14'2. 145. 146 Caesar. 145 Charlemaqne, 97. 103, 145, 152. 181 (n 29) Dabid. 145 Geolfrer of Bouillon, 97. 103. 145. 152, 180-1 (nn. 28, 29) Hector. 145, 149 Joshua. 145. 149 Judas Maccabaeus, 145, 149
Judith, 84 Kav. in AMA, 24. 113, 120. 121 laments for the dead, 86.94. 117-29 Lancelot, in AMA, 16, 39, 40. language (and style). 22, 57-69. 70-82 Libeatrs Descac~c,103. 173 (n. 24) locus nmmrw, 22, 63. 64, 65, 66, 86-90 Lollards, 27, 28 Lorraine, conquest of, in AMA. 93. 112, 113, 114. 147 Lorraine, Duchess of, in AMA. 20 Duke of. in AMA, 108, 1 10 Lucius, Roman Emperor. in AMA, 10. 18. 21, 25. 91. 93, 108. 109. 112, 113, 114, 135, 136, 138, 146. 147. 161 (n. 27) Manurmpts BL Add. 31042. 47, 51 BL Cotton Nero A.X. 47.50 Glasgow U.L. Hunterian V. 2.8. 49 King's College. Cambndqe 13. 50 Lincoln Cathedral 91 ('Thornton'). 7, 47, 48, 51, 52, 156 (n 69) Winchester. 7, I78 (n. 24) martial law, 19, 27 mass warfare, 84, 85, 87, 89,90, 92,93 mtm, 142 Metz, siege of, in AMA, 26, 27, 88, 90, 92, 93, 112, 113, 138, 150 minstrels, minstreisy. 44 Modena, Cathedral of, 31 Mont St Michel, 19, 21, 22. 135, 136 Montagus, in AMA, 20 Morrfred, 16, 19, 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38,40,41,91,92,94,96, 121, 147, 149, 160 (n. 10). 161 (n. 24), 172 (nn. 12, 181, 175 (n, 24), 178 (nn. 28, 29) Mort Artu, French Pmse Vulgate, 31, 35, 37,38,39, 40.41,42, 135
obscm~ty,22, 23 Old English formulas, 77, 78. 85 Old Engltsh poetry. 59, 60, 70. 75. 78. 81 Old None Talcs. 24 oral tradition, 44, 54 Order of the Garter. 17. 20 Paradise, garden of. 150 water of, 23 The Parlmrnt L$ the Thrc Ages. 47-8. 51. 144 Parzival, 133 Paftmcr, 67 patriotrsm, 16. 47. 52, 53 patrons. 48, 49. 50 Pearl. 57. 58, 66. 67 periphrasis, 59, 60 penpectlve, 57,66. 93 Peneus. 133 perhtaaa, 151 Phynolo,~w,132 pilqrrmage, 21, 26,87. 92 potnt of view, 68.69, 167 (n 60) pramtmptto, 150 Pnamus, in AMA, 23. 53, 65, 110, 146, 149. 151 Priamus episode, 16, 22, 34, 37. 86, 88-91, 92.93. 94. 108 pride, supcrbta, hubris, 90. 91, 125, 142, 149, 150, 151 Prologue, to the AMA, 54, 55 Pmsc Mnlin, 35, 105 Puny, 67
mlism, in AMA, 15-29,88,89, 93, 124, 127 mnrmrcitlef, 17 romance. 15-29.88.89.90.93 romance tradition, 36. 39, 40, 41, 42, I27 Rome, 12, 13, 20, 21. 25, 26, 113, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 181 (n. 29)
Round Tahle, 16, 17, 18, 33. 100, 107 Row[~R&and Othret~,48 St Michael, archanqei. 132 sapunfza cf forfrtudo, !deal of, 107, 109, 112, 116 School of Paris. 164-5 (n. 2) The Segc oj Melaw. 48 Srssoyne. battle of. In AMA. 12. 19. 93 Seven deadlv sins. I 8 0 (n. 1 1 ) sexual allusion, 85-43, 87 The Stqc ofJcnualm. 48 slnqle combat, 84, 87. 89. 90. 93 Szr Fimmbrar. 8. 171 (n. 6) Srr Gawatn and the Grem Knzqhl. 43, 45, 46. 50, 58, 59, 60. 61. 65. 66. 67.68 Str Dcgrcrrant. 54. 172 (nn. 9, 12) Srr PcrqzvIie of Gales, 5 1 Spaniards In AMA. 19 spes, 142 'Saotls of Anndn', 30 stiucture of AMA. 55, 7 M . 83-95 substantivation efadjectives. 60. 61 synonyms, 58,59,60 syntax. 61 t e m e r i s , I50
T m p l a r , in AMA, 85. 118, 126 tenses. use of. 66-7. 167 (n. 49) tension, 69, 167 (n. 49) tragedy, medieval, 42, 144 tragedy, Senecan, 94-5 ubi-sunt-laments, 144 Utherpendragon, 134 uana gtona, 151 vanitas-motif, 29. 54. 127. 152 variation. 58 Krfur. 141, 142 Viscount of Rome. in AMA. 12, 147 Lcs Vontx du Hbm, 8, 34 0 s Vomx du Paon. 34. 103 Vulgate Cycle (French Prose), 3 1, 35, 39, 40.41
Wallin,$ord Castle, 18 war in AMA, and Christian ethics, 21.27, 28 condemnation oC, 17,26, 27, 28, 116, 117 justification of, 26, 27 realities of, 16, 18, 19, 23 The Wars of Alemnkr, 66.84, 166 (n. 28) U'elsh Triads. 31, 178 (n. 28) Willtam of P a l m . 48-9, 163 (n. 26) Wynane and Watourc, 12. 2 1, 47, 51, 53 cvyrd in AMA, 121, 179-80 (n. 4)
Name Index AbPlard, Peter, 61 Alcuin, 175 (nn. 1 1, 18) Allen. Richard Hinckley, 178 (nn. 15. 16) Allmand, C. T., 159 En. 43) Aneirin (Welsh poet), 30 Annales Cambriae, 32. 160 (n. 9) Aristotle, 132 Arnold, Ivor. 166 (n 42). 174 (n. 5). 176 (nn. 3. 7, fO), 179 (nn. 34, 35) Arthur. son of Henry VlI. 17 Augustus, Roman emperor. 134 Bachofen. J. J., 178 (nn. 17-23) Baebler, J. J.. I65 (n. 23) Banks, Mary M., 7. 153 (n. 4) Barber, Rrchard, 30. 31. 158 (n. 22). 160 (nn. 2. 3, 4, 6) Barnie, John, 9. 13, 47, 154 (n. 39), 156 (n. 87). 157 (nn 1, II), 159 (n. 41). I62 (n 18), 164 (n. 511, 171 (n. 19) Barron, M'. R.J., 8, 153 (n. 15). 154 (n. 21) Baugh. Albert C.. 73, 84, 261 (n 2). 162 (n. 5). 168-9 (n. l7), 170 (n. 16) Beauchamps, 45,% Beckson. K., 158 (n. 33) Bede, the Venerable, 31, 160 (n. 9f Beilew. G., 173 (n. 291 Benson, Larry D 7, 12. t3. 21. 58, 59, 153 (n. 101, 154 (n. 371, 155 (nn. 50, 56. 58, 59), 156 (nn. 80. 82, 88). 158 (n. 27), 165 (nn. 4, 5, 6, 9. 13), 166 (nn. 26, 28). 167 (n. 2). 168 (n. 12). 171 (n. 4). 174 (n. I), 175 (n. 21). 181 In. 30) Bibbesworth. Walter de. 158 (n. 22) BjBrkrnan, Erik, 7, 153 (n. 4). I58 (n. 21), 159 (n. 37) Black Prince, Edward the, 13, 18. 24 Blake, N F.. 168 (n. 4) Blois, Charles de, 19 Bloomfield, Morton W., 180 (n. 11) Bloomgarden, Ira, 154 (n. 33) Boccaccio, Giovanni, 58, 145 Boece, Anicius Manlius Sevennus, 140, 141 Bohuns, 45. 46, 48 Bolton, W.F., 166 (n. 35) Bonet, Honor&,26, 159 (n. 40) Boren, James L., 1t8, 170 (n. lo), 171 (nn. 23, 24), 176 (n. 41 Borrotf; Marie,59, 60. I65 Inn. 7, 8, 11, 12, 19)
.
Bourchier, Sir John, Lord Berners, 157 (n. 8). 175-6 ( n 30) Bower, Walter, 101 Branscheid, P., 8, 153 (n. 16) Brault, Gerard J., 171 (n. 2), 174 (nn. 37, 39.40), 176 (n. 16) Breuer, Rolf, 150. 1 70 (n. 12). 181 (n. 34) Brewer, Derek S., 7, 8, 153 (n. 2), 154 (nn. 27, 32. 38), 163 (n. 231, 164 (nn. 44, 45, 46) Brink. August. 59. 165 (nn. 7, 10) Br~nton,Thomas, 27 Brock, Edmund, 7, 153 (n. 3) Bromwich, Rachel, 178 (n. 28) Brook, G. L., 174 (n. 5), 176 (nn. 3, 8. 1 1 ), 179 (n 36) Brooke-Little, J. P., 172 (n. 16) Bruce, familv, 101 Bruce, James Douqlas, 160 (n. 2). 161 (nn. 19. 20) Bumke, Joachim, 162 (n. 4) Burke, J. and J. B., 173 (n. 2f) Burley. Sir Simon de, 50 Campbell. Joseph, 159 (n. I) Castelford, Thomas of, 52 Caxton, William, 178 (n. 24) Cicero. 142 Charles V. King of France, 104 Chauce~,Geoffrey, 27, 52, 56, 58, 60, 62,67,86, 109, 128, 132, 158 (n. 25). 175 (n 12). 178 (n. 24), 178-80 (n. 4) Chrbtien de Troyes. 29, 31, 39, 40. 41, 159 (n. 49) Clemen, WoIfRang, 67, 167 (n. 51) CoffPy, Jerome E., 155 (n. 56) Collins, S. M., 173 (n. 22) Constantin, Emperor, 105, 181 (n. 29) Coopland, G. W., 159 (n. 40) Cricy, battle of, 12, 19, 24 Cron~n,H. S., 159 (n 45) Coucy, Enguerrand de, 20 Curtius, E. R., 64, 166 (n. 38) Deanesly, Margaret, I63 (n. 33) Deschamp, Eustache, 144 Donaldson, E. Talbot, 160 (n. 15) Doren, A., I79 (n. I) Ruggan, Hoyt N., 9, 155 (n. 47) Duggan, Jaseph J., 169-70 (n. 6) Duns Scotus, 61 Eagleson, Harvey, 12, 156 (n. 73) Edward I, King of England, 17, 49 Edward 11, King of England, 46
Edward 111, King of England, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 46, 49, 100, 102, 104, 157 (n. 14), 158 (nn. 22, 23), 178 (n. 24) Elliott, Ralph W. V., 63, 64, 166 (nn. 36, 37, 43). 170 (n. 12) Evans, Sebastian, 177 (n. 8) Everett, Dorothy, 12, 153 (n. 15), 156 (n. 78). 165 (nn. 15, 17) Faral. E , 179 (n 33) Farnham, WiHard. 161 (n. 29), 171 (n. 26) Fastolf, Sir John, 50 Figgins, Robert H., 154 (n. 32) Ftntavson. John, 7, 8, 10, 1I, 13. 23, 26. 60, 63,'64, 65, 74, 83, 153 (nn. 8. 15, 18). 154 (nn. 19, 20, 28, a), 155 (nn. 48, 54,57,63), 156 (nn. 67, 72, 83), 157 (nn. 4, 14), 158 (nn. 28, 31), 159 (n. 39), 165 (n. la), 166 (nn. 29, 32, 36, 37, 39, 40), 167 (n. 46), 168-9 (n. 17), 169 (nn. I, 4). 170 (nn. 8, 12, 13), 171 (n.6). 174 (nn. 1, 4), 175 (n. 21) Flavius Vegetius Renatus, 143 Fletcher, Robert Huntington, I60 (nn. 8, 11, 14) Foley, Michael, 153 (n. I ) Foster, J., 171 (n. 5), 172 (nn. 10, f3), 173 (n. 26) Francis, W. N., 168 (n. 9). 175 (a. 10) Frappier, Jean, 161 (n. 20) Frey, Ragobert, I65 (n. 3) Friedlander, Carolynn van Dyke, 168 (n. 4) Friedman, Bruce Jay, 24, 158 (n. 34) Froissart, Jean, 25, 144, 157 (n. 8) Fry, Donald K., 71, 74, 168 (nn. 10, I6), 170 (n. 9 ) Ganz, A,, 158 (n. 33) Gardner, John, 7, 13, 153 (n. 12). 156 (nn. 84, 85), 164 (n. 57) Gaytryge, Dan Jon, 180 (n. t i ) Geoffrey le Baker of Swinbroke, 24 Geoffrey of Monmouth, 17, 19, 22, 30, 31, 32, 35, 38,42, 104, 106, 108, 118, 119, 133, IN, 135, 160 (nn. If, 12, 13), 174 (nn. 37, 6, 8), 175 (n. 24), 176 (nn. 3, 7), 177 (nn. 8, lo), 178 (nn. 24, 25,26,28), 179 (n. 33) Gcrber, Eduard, 165 (n. 22) Giles, J. A., 158 (n. 32)
Gloucester, Thomas of Woodstock, Duke or, 50 Gneuss. Helmut, 163 (nn. 32. 36) Goller, Karl Heinz, 63, 102, 155 (n. 62). 157 (nn. 2, 10). 159 (n. 48). 164 (n. 49), 166 (nn. 29, 34). 167 (n. 56), 168 (n. 13), 169 (n. 22), 17%1 (n. IR), 172 (n. $5). 173 (n. 35), 174 (nn. 1, 3). 175 (n. 21). 176 (n. 13). 177 (n. 27) Gordon. E. V., 172 (n. 8) Gottfricd v Strassburg, 178 (n. 24) Gough, H., 173 (n. 31) Gower, John, 27. 58. 143. 152. 159 (n. 42), 180 (n. 19) Gransden, Antonia, 157 (n I I) Green, D. H 158 (n 30) Green, Richard F.. 162 (n. 4) Greene, R. L., 161 (n. 2) Greenfield. Stanley B., 83. 169 (n. 2) Greenstreet, J., 173 (n. 28) Grqorv the Great, 174 (n. 9), 175 (nn, 11, 20), 177 (n. 29) Grenier. Rachel Anne, 1 1, 156 ( n 66) Gross. La~la,I I, 156 (n. 64) Guddat-Figqe, G~sela,t62 (n. 3). 163 (nn. 19, 21, 22. 23. 29. 39). 164 (nn. 44. 45. 46)
.
Haas, Renate. 176 (nn. 2. 5. 6. 15). 177 (n. 28) Habicht, Werner, 176 (n 12) Ha~nault.Philippa of, wife of Edward 111, 19 Harnel, Mary, 158 (n. 19) Hammerle, Karl, 180 (n. 20) Harriss, C . I.., 157 (n 131: Hatto, A T., 177 fnn. 3, 9, 11) Naydon. Frank Scott, 158 (n. 24) Haymes, Edward R., 168 (n. 8) Heinemann, Frederik J., 170 (n. 14) Heitmann, Klaus, I80'(nn. 6-12) Helena of Colchester, 105 HelIer. Joseph, 25, 159 (n. 36) Henry I t , Klng of England, 29 Henry 111, King of England, 17 Henry IV. King of England, 13, 104, 143 Henry V, King or England. 17 Henry VII, King of England, 17 Hilton, Walter, 51 Hirschberger, Johannes. 166 (n. 25) Hitze, Renate, 84, 169-70 (n. 6) Hocclwe. Thomas, 27 Holtgen, Karl Josef, 140, 144, k54 (n. 30), 179 (n. 2). 180 (n. 27) Holland, W. E., 155 (n. 53) Homer, 135-4 Hooper, A. G., 172 (n. I I)
Huchown oC the Awle Rvalr. 9. l l . 12 Hulbert,.l. R..45. 162 (n. 11). I65 (n.- 16) Huntington. Henry of. 178 (n. 26) inrnan. A. H.. 12. 156 (n. 72) Isahella. daughter of Edward 111. 20 Isahella. mother of Edward 111. 12, 18. 157 (n. $4) Isabella of France. wife to Richard 11. 18. 157-8 (n. 14) Iser. Wolfgang, 162 (n. 10) Jackson. Kenneth Hurlstone. 160 (n. 5) Janssen. Anke, 157 (n. 101 ,Johnson, James David. 1I. 155 (nn. 55. 61). 156 (n. 68). 167 (n. 21, 170 (n. 8) Jones, Terry, 171 (n. 19) Jonsjii. J.. 172 (n. 17) Julian of Korwich. 57 Keen, M. H., 158 (n. 18) Keiser, George Robert, t3, 144-5. 156 (n. 86), 157 (n. 4). 166 (n. 27). 167 (n. 52), 175 (n. 21), 180 (n. 26) Kelly, H. A., 160 (n. 15) Kelly, S.. 172 (n. 14) Kent. Joan o t wife of the Black Prince, 18, 157 (n. 14) Kirk, G. D., I59 (n. 1) Kitelv. I. F.. 154 (n 32) ~rap;;/bbbie. G. P. and E. V. K.. 169 (n. 21) Krishna. Valerie, 7, 36. 63. 68. 153 (n. I), 155 (n. 58), 161 (n. 22). 166 (nn. 28, 29, 31, 33). 167 (nn. SO, 54). 174 (n. 1 ) Kurath/Kuhn, H. and S. M., 178 (nn. 13, 14) Lanqland. William. 27, 57. 58, 59 Lanham, Margaret, 161 (n 25) Lawrence, R. F., 10, 155 (n. 49) Lawton, David A., 163-4 (n. 42) Layarnon, 8, 22, 24, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 58, 64, 70, 86. 87, 106, 108. 118, 119, 120, 121. 136. 160 (n. 12). 166 (n. 42). 169 (n. 19), 170 (n. 1 I), 174 (nn. 5, 6, 7). 175 (n. 24). 176 (nn. 3. 8. I I ) , 178 (n. 29) Le Gentie, P., 171 (n. 25) Leonard~,Phyltis, J.. 160 (n. 16) Leslie, R. F.. I74 (n 5). 176 (nn. 3, 8. 11). 179 (n. 36) Levi-Strauss, Claude, 159 (n. 1) Lewer, David, 161 (n. 21) Lewis, C. S., 160 (n. 15), 167 (nn. 1. 57) London, H. S., 173 (n. 30) Longman, William, 158 (n. 22)
Longuvon, Jacques de, 103, I44 Loomis. Roqer Sherman, 8, 12, 30, 153 (nn. 5, 71, 154 (nn. 24, 34). 156 (n. $I), 157 tn. 7). 159 (n. 49). I60 (nn. 5, 7). 176 (n. I ) LoomCs/Hibbard. R. S. and L., 173 (nn. 27-34), 174 (nn. 42. 43) Lord, Albert B., 10. 71. 73, I68 In. 81. 168-9 (n. 17). 169 (n. 20) Loserth, Iohann. 159 (n. 44) tuick, ~'Hrf,9, 155 (n. 44) Lumby, Joseph Rawson. 158 (n. 26) Lumiansky, Robert M., 1.56 (n. 88). 17.5 (n. 21) Luttrell. C . A., 163 (nn. 29, 42) L~dgate.John. 17, 5 1, 95, 1 16, 142, 145. 157 (n. 9). 176 (n. 32) McAlindon. T., 170 (n. 13) Mac Crarken, Henrv Noble, 155 (n. 42) Mcintosh. A n p , 48. 163 (nn. 20. 24) MrKisack, May. 46. 157 (nn. 12, 14), 162 Inn. 13, 14) Macrae-Gibson. 0.D.. 174 (n. 41) Maddicott, J. R.. 162 (n. 18) Magoun, Francis P.. 7 1, 168 (n. 7), 169 (n. 23) Malmesbury, Monk of, 21 Malory. Sir Thomas, 7, 38, 39, 40. 41, 42.43. 101, 154 (n. 27). I61 (n 28), 178 (n. 24) Mannyng, Robert. of Brunne, 52, 57 Markus, Manfred, 162 (n. 6), 167 (nn. 47. 48, 55. 59) Matthew of Parrs. 171 (n. 5) Matthews. William, 8, 12, 13, 35. 37, 42, 68.90, 131, 141, 144. 153 (n 17), 154 (nn. 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29). 156 (nn. 79, 80), 157 (n. 4), 158 (nn. 17, 21). 160 (nn. 17, 18), 161 (nn 21.23, 26,28), 164 (n. 60). 171 (n. 20). 172 (n. I l ) , 173 (n. 19). 174 (nn. 1, 2), 175 (n 21), 176 (nn. 12, 14), 177 (n. l), 180 (n. 25) Mead, W. E., 161 (n. 20) Mehf, Dieter, 67, 68. 161 (n. I), 162 (nn. 6, 7,8, 9, lo), 164 (n. 47). $67 (nn. 51, 58), 173 (n. 24) Menner. R. J.. 59, 165 (n. 9) Mennicken. Franz Josef, 7, 9, 154 (n. 41), 155 (n. 44) Messenger, A. W. B, 173 (n. 29) Meun, Jean de, 88, 143, 180 (n. 16) Milanese Visconti. 12
Minot, Lawrence, 47 Molinier, A. and E., 157 ln. I I ) Mommsen, T., 173-4 (n. 36) Montfort, Jean de, 19 Moos, Peter von, 177 (n. 20) Morice, Dom Pierre-Hvacinthe. 158 (n. 16) Mortimer (and Isabella). 12 Mortimer. Roger Earl of March. 102 Mortimen, 4 5 , s Murphy, Gratia H., 164 (n. 54) Neilson, Gearge, 1 1, 12, 13. 15. 19, 100, 102. 156 (nn. 70. 71). 157 (n. 4). 158 (n. 15). 160 (n. 17). 171 (n. 3). I73 (n. 19) Nennius, 32, 32. 104 Neubecker, 0.. 173 (n. 34) Newman, F. X.. 160 (n. 15) Newstead, Helaine. 7. 8. 141. 154 (nn. 22, 25), I80 (n 5) Oakden, J. P.. 45, 46.61. 155 (n. 53). 15%(n. 29). 162 (nn. 12, 16), 165 (n. 20) Ockham. William of. 57. 164-5 (n. 2) Ockhamists. 61 Oqden. Marpret Sinclatr. 163 in. 23). 164 (n. 43) O'LoughEin,J. L. N.. 7. 9. 12. 153 (n. 6). 154 (n. 34). 155 In. 461, 156 (n. 74). 176 (n 1 ) O'Sharkev, E .M.. 178 (n. 29) Ostmann, Alexander. 157 (n 6) 0wen.A. E. B..7. 157 (n.2). 163 in. 23) Parker. J.. I73 (n. 31) Parkes. Colin M., t76 (n. 181 Parks. George B.. 12. 156 (n. 76) Parry. hlilman. 10. 71. 168 (h. 14) Pasquazi, Silvio, 159 (n. 46) Patch. Howard R., 143. 179 (n. 1). 180 (nn. 15. 18) Pearsall. Derek, 162 (n. 4). 163 (n. 28), 180 (n. 13) Pelan. Margaret M.. 176 (nn. 3. 7, lo), 179 (nn. 34. 35) Penthi5vre. Jeanne de, wife of Charles de Blois, 19 Percy, Thomas. 44 Perry. G. G., 7, 153 (n. 3) Petrarca. Francesco, 140. 141. 142. 143, 145. 151 Pickcring, F. P., 179 (n. 3) Pilch, Herbert, 168 (n. 5 ) Pinhorg. Jan. 165-6 (n. 23). 166 (n. 25) Poitiers. battlr of, 20 Puqh. T. B. 163 (n. 31) Quirk. Randolph, 74, 169 (n. 18) Rams-. Lee C.. 170 (n. 7) Rank, Otto. 159 (n. 1) Regan. Charles Lionel. 9. 154 (n. 35). 172 (n. 181
Reinhold, Heinz, 154 (n. 36) Richard I f , King of England. 13, 18, 46, 143. 157-8 (n. 14), 180 (n. 14) Richard of St Victor. 11 1. 175 (n. 17) Richter. Michael. 163 (n. 33) Rinqhom, Hakan. 74. 169 (n. 19) Ritzke-RutherFord, Jean, 155 (n. 60), 168 (n. 6). 169 (n. 3) Robbins, Rossell Hope. 157 (n. 9) Roberts. Peter, 135. 136, 179 (n. 32) Robertson. D. W., 69. 167 (n. 61) Robinson. F. N.. 158 (n. 25). 175 (n. 12) Rolle. Richard. 51. 57 Rosier, James L.. 74. I69 (n. 18) Rvchner, Jean, 84, 169 (n. 6) St Augustrne. 28. 159 (n. 47), 175 (n 20) St Columba. 31 St Edmund. I05 St George. of England, 132, 137 St Gridas, 31 Saltsbuw. Countess of. 18 Salter. Eltzabeth. 46, 162 (nn 15, 17). 168 (n 4) Sandoz, E . 172 (n. 10) San Marte 135, 136, 179 (nn. 30-2) Sratteryood. V J., 163 (n. 35) Schzfer-.Maulbetsch, Rose B 170 (n 7) Schelp. Hanspeter, I60 (n 16). 164 (nn 48, 53. 59). 170 (n 18), 177 (n 27) Schrrmer. Walter F , 157 (n 5) Schmtdt, M teland, 163 (n 37) Sfhmtttbetr. K . 165 (n. 21) Schmolke-Hasselmann, Beate, 13, 157 (n 90) %holes, Robert, 1% (n 34) Schouwtnk, Wrlfr~ed,181 (n. 35) Schreder, Edward. 12, 156 (n 75) Schroeder, Horst, 8, 154 (n. 31), 167 (n 451, 180 (nn 21-4) Scott. Str Malter, 44 Seneca, 94-5 Severs, J. Burke, 153 (A. t t ) Shakespeare, U illtam, 132, 177 (n 4) Shepherd. Geoffrev, 166 (n. 28) Smtch. Malcolm, 177 (nn 6, 7) Southward, Elarne, 135, 178 (n 27) Spanqehl. Stephen Dougtas, 7, 153 (n 9) Speartnq, A C I69 (n 19) Sprengard, Karl Anton, 164-5 (n. 2) Steinmever, Karl-Josef, 131, I77 (n 2) Stevens, John, 7. 153 (n 13), 177 (n 28)
.
.
Staick, R. D., 74, 168-9 (n. 17) Suzuki, Eiichi, 165 (n. 21) Tatlock, J. S. P., 155 (n. 53) Tavlor, George C , 176 (n. 17) Thomas Aquinas. I I I, I 15, 175 (nn. 19, 28. 29) Thompson. Raymond Henry, 154 (n. 32) Thornton, Robert, l I, 48, 51-2 Thorpe, Lewis. 30 Tonsfeldt. Hugh Ward, 10, 11, t55 (n. 51), I56 (n. 67), 170 (n. 8) Torignv. Robert of, 178 (n 26) Trautmann, Moritz, 7, 9, 154 (n. 41), 155 (n. 43) Tremlett, T. D.. I73 (nn. 30, 33) Tuchman, Barbara W.,158 (n. 20) Tuwille-Petre, Thorlac, 10, 11, 49. 50, 5 1. 59. 74, 155 (nn. 52, 53). 156 (n. 65), 162 (nn. 7, 9). 163 (nn+25, 27, 30, 34, 38, 39. 41). 164 (nn. 46.50). I65 (nn. 11, 15). 166 (n. 28), $68 (n. 11). 169 (n. I$), 171 (n. 21) Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, 39 Utley, Francis L.. 160 (n. 15) Vale, Juliet. 13, 156-7 (n. 89), 164 (n. 52) Vale. M. G. A.. 163 (n. 33) Vaughan, M. F.. 9, 155 (n. 47) Vinaver, Eug+ne, 101, 171-2 (nn. 7. 81, 178 (n. 24) Visconti family, 12, 100 Wace. 19. 22, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38. 40, 64, 87, 106, 108, I t8, 119, 120. 136, 160 (n. 12), 174 (nn. 5, 6, 8), 175 (n. 24) Wagner, Sir A. R., 171 (n. I), 173 (n. 30) Waldron, Ronald A,, 10, 62, 155 (nn. 48, 58), 165 (n. 16), I66 (nn. 27, 30), 167 (n. 2), 168 (n. 15) Walther, Hans, 159 (n. 46) Watts. A. C., 168 (nn. 8, 15) Wheatley, H. B., 161 (n. 20) Whiting, B. J., 160 (n. 17) William of Malmesbury, 104, 174 (n. 37) Wilson, FAward, 163 (n 40) Winchelsea. battle of, 12, 13, 19 Winston, Mathew, 24. 158 (n. 35) Wrssowa, G., 177 (n. 12) Wittig. Susan, I62 (n. 3), 164 (n 56) Wolpen, Thw, 177 (n. 19) Workman, Herbert B., 159 (n. 44) Wright, Th., 173 (n. 32) Wycliff, John. 27, 53
![Bumbershoot [Poem]](https://epdf.tips/img/300x300/bumbershoot-poem_5ba6d674b7d7bc046bc20832.jpg)
