Arthurian Literature XXIX [29] 1843843331, 9781843843337

Citation preview

Arthurian Literature XXIX_Arthurian Literature XXIX 18/06/2012 11:46 Page 1

Archibald and Johnson (eds)

Cover: King Arthur’s vision of Fortune’s wheel, from La Mort le Roi Artus, c.1316, BL MS Add. 10294, f. 89 (© British Library Board).

ARTHURIAN LITERATURE XXIX

THE INFLUENCE and significance of the legend of Arthur are fully demonstrated by the subject matter and time-span of articles here, ranging from a mid twelfth-century Latin vita of the Welsh saint Dyfrig to the early modern Arthur of the Dutch. Topics addressed include the reasons for Edward III’s abandonment of the Order of the Round Table; the 1368 relocation of Arthur’s tomb at Glastonbury Abbey; the evidence for our knowledge of the French manuscript sources for Malory’s first tale, in particular the Suite du Merlin; and the central role played by Cornwall in Malory's literary worldview. Meanwhile, a survey of the pan-European aspects of medieval Arthurian literature, considering key characters in both familiar and less familiar languages such as Old Norse and Hebrew, further outlines its popularity and impact.

ARTHURIAN LITERATURE XXIX

an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge IP12 3DF (GB) and 668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY14620-2731 (US) www.boydellandbrewer.com

Edited by Elizabeth Archibald and David F. Johnson

ARTHURIAN LITERATURE XXIX

ARTHURIAN LITERATURE Incorporating Arthurian Yearbook ISSN 0261–9946

Editors Elizabeth Archibald, University of Bristol David F. Johnson, Florida State University, Tallahassee Associate Editor Megan Leitch, University of Cardiff Editorial Board James Carley, York University Jane Taylor, University of Durham Julia Crick, King’s College, London Tony Hunt, University of Oxford Marianne Kalinke, Illinois University Norris Lacy, Pennsylvania State University Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, Cardiff University Andrew Lynch, University of Western Australia Ad Putter, University of Bristol Felicity Riddy, University of York Alison Stones, University of Pittsburgh Toshiyuki Takamiya, University of Keio Raymond H. Thompson, Acadia University Michael Twomey, Ithaca College Arthurian Literature is an interdisciplinary publication devoted to the scholarly and critical study of all aspects of Arthurian legend in Europe in the medieval and early modern periods. Articles on writings from later periods are included if they relate very directly to medieval and early modern sources, although the editors welcome bibliographical studies of all periods. Articles may be up to 20,000 words in length; short items, of under 5,000 words, are published as Notes. Updates on earlier articles are also welcomed. Material for consideration should be sent to Boydell & Brewer: contributors should follow the style sheet printed at the end of XII of the series. The contents of previous volumes are listed at the back of this book.

Arthurian Literature XXIX Edited by ELIZABETH ARCHIBALD and DAVID F. JOHNSON

D. S. BREWER

©  Contributors 2012 All rights reserved. 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 2012 D. S. Brewer, Cambridge ISBN 978–1–84384–333–7

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view these images please refer to the printed version of this book.

D. S. Brewer is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc, 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620–2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Papers used by Boydell & Brewer Ltd are natural, recyclable products made from wood grown in sustainable forests

Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

CONTENTS List of Illustrations General Editors’ Foreword List of Contributors I

Edward III’s Abandoned Order of the Round Table Christopher Berard

II

King Arthur’s Tomb at Glastonbury: The Relocation of 1368 in Context Julian Luxford

vi vii ix 1 41

III Benedict of Gloucester’s Vita Sancti Dubricii: An Edition and Translation Joshua Byron Smith

53

IV New Evidence for an Interest in Arthurian Literature in the Dutch Low Countries in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries Sjoerd Levelt

101

V Malory’s Source-Manuscript for the First Tale of Le Morte 111 Darthur P. J. C. Field VI Malory’s Sources – and Arthur’s Sisters – Revisited Linda Gowans

121

VII Peace, Justice and Retinue-Building in Malory’s ‘The Tale of Sir Gareth of Orkney’ Ryan Naughton

143

VIII Mapping Malory’s Morte: The (Physical) Place and (Narrative) Space of Cornwall Dorsey Armstrong

161

IX The Fringes of Arthurian Fiction Bart Besamusca and Jessica Quinlan

191

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. The construction of the Slavenburg, Divisiekroniek, fol. 17r; 108 Utrecht, University Library, S fol. 1593 (Rariora), used by kind permission of the University Library Utrecht 2. Matthew Paris, The Map of Britain, BL Ms., Cotton Claudius D.vi, fol. 12v; used by kind permission of the British Library.

177

3. Detail from the Hereford Mappa Mundi; used by kind permission of the Dean and Chapter of Hereford and the Hereford Mappa Mundi Trust.

178

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view these images please refer to the printed version of this book.

GENERAL EDITORS’ FOREWORD The contents of Volume 29 of Arthurian Literature range from a midtwelfth century Latin vita of the Welsh saint Dyfrig to the early modern Arthur of the Dutch, from Edward III’s waning interest in the Order of the Round Table to the central thematic importance of Cornwall to Malory’s Morte Darthur, and also across much of Europe. In the first essay Christopher Berard contends that Edward III’s experience of war during the Crécy campaign changed him from an enthusiastic supporter of the idealized, Arthurian code of knighthood to a proponent of ‘total’ warfare. By contrasting the ways in which the French and English kings employed Arthurianism for their respective causes, Berard sheds light on the literary ideal of chivalry as a social force in the age of Edward III. Julian Luxford looks at the circumstances surrounding the final translation, in 1368, of the tomb created for the remains of Arthur and Guenevere within Glastonbury Abbey. The relocation of this tomb to a place of extreme prominence and honour – before the high altar – reveals the strong interest in Arthur held by Glastonbury’s abbot, Walter of Monington, at the time. Luxford gives the text and translation of the document describing the relocation of 1368 (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 826), and argues that it is important testimony to a previously unsuspected deep interest in this major historical tradition. Joshua Byron Smith provides a full-function edition and translation of Benedict of Gloucester’s Latin life of Saint Dyfrig, a figure who Smith argues is portrayed as ‘an exceptional ecclesiastic and miracle-worker, but also as King Arthur’s main spiritual support’. Writing at a time when interest in things Arthurian was on the rise, Benedict re-writes Arthurian history to make Dyfrig’s piety and prayers an essential key to Arthur’s success. Like Luxford, Sjoerd Levelt also demonstrates the persistence of an interest in King Arthur where previous scholarship had assumed it was lacking. There has been a scholarly consensus for many years now that production of new Middle Dutch Arthurian literature came to a complete halt in the fifteenth century. Levelt argues convincingly that this apparent lack of interest is deceptive, and offers new evidence, however ‘sketchy and haphazard’, for the persistence of Arthuriana in the Low Countries in the early sixteenth century, especially in historiographical materials. Four essays focus on Malory. P. J. C. Field scrutinizes the evidence for our knowledge of the French manuscript sources for Malory’s first tale, in particular the Suite du Merlin. After first surveying the manuscript evidence and previous scholarship on the subject, Field argues against Jonathan Passaro’s conclusion, published in volume 26 of this journal vii

(2009), that Malory worked directly from the Cambridge manuscript of the Post-Vulgate Suite (Cambridge University Library Additional 7071). In the next essay Linda Gowans does the same for the earlier part of the Merlin story that Malory adapted, namely the Merlin proper. Both reach opposite conclusions to Passaro, but taken together these pieces demonstrate both the enduring interest in the subject and the fact that the final word has not been written on Malory’s sources. The two essays that follow deal with the political and social dimensions of Malory’s Morte Darthur. Ryan Naughton highlights the concept of ‘retinue-building’ in Malory’s ‘The Tale of Sir Gareth of Orkney’. Malory’s foregrounding of Gareth’s battles for peace and justice, Naughton argues, makes it possible for the reader to see reflected in this text ‘the underlying apprehensions about poor governance during the social and political instability of the first half of the Wars of the Roses’. In her article, Dorsey Armstrong establishes the central role played by Cornwall in Malory’s literary worldview, and demonstrates just how significant that region in the Arthurian landscape was in the Morte Darthur and other aspects of the Arthurian legend. Finally, in a study that expands upon Beate Schmolke-Hasselmann’s important study of French texts, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance (Cambridge, 1998), Bart Besamusca and Jessica Quinlan emphasize the pan-European aspects of medieval Arthurian literature. This wide-ranging survey looks at the ‘fringes of Arthurian literature’, considering key Arthurian characters in both familiar and less familiar languages, including Old Norse and Hebrew. Although there are some striking examples of innovation in the texts they discuss, ‘a clear tendency is discernible both to repeat and develop narrative structures – plots, characters, themes and motives – which play a constitutive role in the French tradition’. Elizabeth Archibald Bristol, UK David F. Johnson Tallahassee, Florida

List of Contributors Dorsey Armstrong is Associate Professor of English at Purdue University. She has published extensively on the Arthurian tradition and Sir Thomas Malory--in addition to her book Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte Darthur (2003) and her Modern English translation of Malory’s text (2009), she has authored numerous articles that have appeared in various journals and essay collections. She is currently editorin-chief of the academic journal Arthuriana. Her current book project--coauthored with Kenneth Hodges--explores the significance of geography in Le Morte Darthur. Christopher Berard is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto. He is writing his dissertation on historical instances of Arthurian imitation from 1270 to 1400 in their political and cultural contexts. His research interests include chivalry and violence, late medieval historiography and monarchical self-representation. Bart Besamusca is Senior Lecturer in Middle Dutch literature at Utrecht University. He is the author of The Book of Lancelot: The Middle Dutch Lancelot Compilation and the Medieval Tradition of Narrative Cycles (2003). He supervised the research project Arthurian Fiction: A Pan-European Approach, which resulted, among other things, in an online research tool, accessible at www.arthurianfiction.org, and the essay published in this issue of Arthurian Literature. He is currently supervising a crossEuropean research project which studies late-medieval Dutch, English, French and German multi-text manuscripts, focusing on the short verse narratives they contain (www.dynamicsofthemedievalmanuscript.eu). P. J. C. Field is Emeritus Professor of English at Bangor University, and past president of the International Arthurian Society. His research interests centre on Malory, but he has written on Arthurian topics from Nennius to David Jones. His most recent book is an edition of the seventh and eighth tales of Malory’s Morte Darthur, his last essay before this one a reassessment of the date of composition of the alliterative Morte Arthure, and he has just completed a new edition of Malory’s Morte Darthur. Linda Gowans is an independent scholar, author of Cei and the Arthurian Legend in D. S. Brewer’s Arthurian Studies series (1988), and subsequently of work on the manuscript tradition of the Robert de Boron cycle and Arthurian material in Gaelic oral tradition. She was British Branch bibliographer for the International Arthurian Society for the years 1998 to 2007. ix

Sjoerd Levelt studied Dutch and English Medieval Studies at the University of Amsterdam, the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Oxford. He completed his PhD at the Warburg Institute, with a study of the late medieval chronicle tradition of Holland and its continuations in the early modern period. His book, Jan van Naaldwijk’s Chronicles of Holland: Transformation and Continuation in the Historical Tradition of Holland during the Early Sixteenth Century (2011), was awarded the Society for Renaissance Studies Book Prize 2012. Julian Luxford is a senior lecturer in Art History at the University of St Andrews, with a particular interest in the religious orders. He has published a book on the patronage of art at Benedictine monasteries in south-west England (The Art and Architecture of English Benedictine Monasteries, 1300–1540: A Patronage History, 2005), and is joint series editor of Boydell Studies in Medieval Art and Architecture. He is also editor of the Journal of the British Archaeological Association. Ryan Naughton is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Medieval Literature in the English Department at Ohio University. His research focuses on knighthood and chivalry, with particular emphasis on knightly identity construction in Middle English romances. He is currently working on a book-length study of the complex concept of natural nobility in Middle English romances and in high and late medieval English society in general. Jessica Quinlan lectures in Medieval German Literature at the University of Mainz. She has published articles on French and German Arthurian romance and is the author of Vater, Tochter, Schwiegersohn: Die erzählerische Ausgestaltung einer familiären Dreierkonstellation im Artusroman französischer und deutscher Sprache um 1200 (2012). From 2006 to 2008, she worked on the Utrecht University research project ‘Arthurian Fiction: A Pan-European Approach’, supervised by Bart Besamusca. Joshua Byron Smith is an Assistant Professor of English at the University of Arkansas. His research focuses on Welsh and English interaction in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries. His current book project is a study of Walter Map and the rise of romance.

x

I

Edward III’s Abandoned Order of the Round Table* Christopher Berard On Thursday, 22 January 1344, rounding off in grand style a lavish tournament at Windsor Castle, King Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377) swore a ‘corporal oath’ (corporale juramentum) to restore the Order of the Round Table to the same ‘manner and standing’ as that of King Arthur, his legendary predecessor, provided he had the means. Receiving a consimile juramentum to ‘observe, sustain and promote’ the Round Table from the earls and accomplished knights in attendance, Edward III announced that the order’s first meeting would take place during Pentecost, and he commissioned the construction of a grand House of the Round Table at Windsor to serve as its centre.1 Not to be outdone, Philippe VI of France (r. 1328–1350), Edward’s arch-rival, reportedly began building a Round Table of his own, hoping to divert German and Italian knights from flocking to Edward’s court.2 Although most of the recorded outlay for the English house, £509 12s 11¾d, was spent in the days leading up to *

1

2

For their helpful comments and suggestions, I wish to thank my dissertation advisors: Drs James P. Carley, Dorothea Kullmann, Mark Meyerson and Markus Stock, my fellow doctoral candidate Mr Ryan Buchanan Allen and Dr Constance Rousseau, who shepherded me into the field of Medieval Studies. Adam Murimuth, Continuatio Chronicarum, ed. E. M. Thompson, RS 93 (London, 1889), pp. 155–6 and 231–2 (p. 232): ‘In quo loco [Windsor] idem dominus rex et omnes alii insimul steterunt, et, oblato libro, dominus rex, tactis sacrosanctis, corporale præstitit juramentum quod ipse ad certum tempus ad hoc limitatum, dummodo sibi facultas arrideat, mensam rotundam inciperet, eodem modo et statu quo eam dimisit dominus Arthurus quondam rex Angliae, scilicet ad numerum trecentorum militum, et eam foveret et manuteneret pro viribus, numerum semper inaugendo. Ad quod quidem observandum, sustinendum, et promovendum in omnibus suis appendiciis, comites Derby, Sarisburiæ, Warewykiæ, Arundelliæ, Penbrokiæ, et Suffolkiæ ac alii barones et milites quam plures, quos probitas et fama promovit laude fore dignos, consimile fecerunt juramentum.’ Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley, RS 28, 2 vols. (London, 1863–4), I, 263: ‘Eodem tempore, Philippus de Valeys, Rex Franciae, hoc facto Regis Angliae provocatus, coepit et ipse Rotundum aedificare Tabulam in terra sua; ut sic sibi attraheret militiam Alemanniae et Italiae, ne ad Regis Angliae Tabulam properarent.’

1



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

Pentecost (23 May) 1344,3 the order did not assemble as planned, possibly because its meeting place remained a work in progress.4 What may have been a temporary delay in May became an indefinite postponement by late November 1344, when papal arbitration at Avignon failed to resolve the latest conflict between the monarchs of England and France. Edward halted work on his costly project and prepared to launch a major continental campaign.5 On St George’s Day (23 April) 1349, Edward III commemorated the victories of the aforementioned campaign, including that at Crécy (26 August 1346) and the capture of Calais (4 August 1347), by holding another great feast at Windsor Castle. This event did not mark the longawaited re-establishment of the Round Table; rather, it inaugurated an entirely new chivalric order, the Order of the Garter, instituted under the patronage of St George and the Virgin Mary.6 Although near-contemporary writers regarded the Garter as the realization of his earlier endeavour, Edward neither resumed work on the House of the Round Table nor made any explicit reference to King Arthur in the statutes of his revamped order.7

3 4

5

6

7

See R. Barber, ‘The Order of the Round Table’, in Edward III’s Round Table at Windsor, ed. J. Munby, R. Barber and R. Brown (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 137–52 (p. 139). W. Mark Ormrod has suggested that Edward cancelled the Pentecost Round Table as a ‘mark of respect’ for the much-mourned William Montagu, earl of Salisbury, who, after having competed at the Windsor tournament, died on 30 January 1344. See W. M. Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven and London, 2011), p. 301. Relying heavily on the chronicles of Jean le Bel (c. 1360) and Jean Froissart (c. 1370–1400), Francis Ingledew has speculated that a scandal resurfaced around the time of Montagu’s death that King Edward coveted (and possibly raped) the earl’s wife, Katherine, countess of Salisbury. See F. Ingledew, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Order of the Garter (Notre Dame, 2006), p. 148: ‘…a known desire for the wife of one of the premier members of the very chivalric court he [Edward] intended to celebrate in his new order might break the momentum toward the order’s foundation and disrupt the courtly esprit de corps as measured in its tournaments.’ Nonetheless, work continued on the House of the Round Table until late November. Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, I, p. 263: ‘Expensæ per hebdomadam erant primo centum libræ; sed ex post, propter nova quæ Rex suscepit de Francia, resecabantur ad novem libras, eo quod censuit pro aliis negotiis thesaurum plurimum comportandum.’ See J. Vale, Edward III and Chivalry: Chivalric Society and its Context 1270–1350 (Woodbridge, 1982), pp. 82–4. Geoffrey le Baker, a secular clerk from Swinbrook, Oxfordshire, provides the earliest surviving account (c. 1360) of this event (dated 1350). See Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, ed. E. M. Thompson (Oxford, 1889), pp. 108–9. Central to my discussion of Edward III’s institution of the Garter is the distinction between explicit and implicit reference to Arthur. Ormrod affirms that ‘The visual imagery of the Order of the Garter included no direct allusions to Arthur’ (Edward III, p. 307), as does M. Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: the English Experience (New Haven and London, 1996), p. 228: ‘For Edward III, the plan to found an Order of the Round Table was clearly Arthurian … Yet the Round Table was an abortive project. The Order of the Garter which replaced it was not obviously Arthurian.’ Ingledew, however, speaks of the Order of the Garter as ‘saturated’ in what he terms the ‘Arthurian symbolic field’ (Sir Gawain, p. 109). He reads the historiographical conflation of the Round Table and Garter projects as proof that the ‘Order of the Garter … was in contemporary eyes the Edwardian Round Table by another name’ (p. 99). See Ingledew, Sir

2



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

In contrast, the newly crowned King Jean II of France (r. 1350–1364) claimed Arthur’s Round Table as inspiration for his competing chivalric confraternity, the Company of the Star (l’Ordre de l’Etoile), in 1352.8 Edward III’s decision not to complete the Round Table project, resulting in a breach of his public oath and a waste of resources, is puzzling. Although the king purportedly believed in 1344 that establishing ‘une pareille’ to Arthur’s Round Table was the best way ‘pour plus essauchier [increase] l’onnour de ses chevaliers’,9 I shall contend that his wartime experiences on the Crécy campaign altered his attitude towards Arthurianism. Firstly, as will be shown, the Arthurian texts at hand in Edward III’s court, especially Chrétien de Troyes’ Conte del Graal (c. 1180) and the Lancelot-Grail Cycle of prose romances (1215–1230),10 promoted an

8

9 10

Gawain, pp. 105–12. See below. The earliest extant statutes of the Order of the Garter date from 22 April 1415, but they appear to be based on an earlier list. See L. Jefferson, ‘MS Arundel 48 and the Earliest Statutes of the Order of the Garter,’ EHR 109 (1994), 356–85. Jean le Bel, Chronique, ed. J. Viard and E. Déprez, 2 vols. (Paris, 1904–5), II, 204–5: ‘L’an de grace M CCC LII, le roy Jehan de France ordonna un belle compaignie, grande et noble, sur la Table Ronde qui fut jadis ou temps du roy Artus.’ Jean le Bel, Chronique, II, 26–7. The roll of John Fleet (London, British Library, Additional 60584) states that Edward III owned fifty-nine libri de romanciis (from 1322 to 1341), including a ‘romaunz de Meraugys et Sade’ (possibly Raoul de Houdenc’s Meraugis de Portlesguez) and a ‘romant de perceval’. See Vale, Edward III and Chivalry, pp. 49–50, 128 n.121 and 169. An exchequer account (London, National Archives, PRO E 403/282 m. 10) dated 5 June 1336 records the king’s payment of £66 13s 4d to Isabella of Lancaster, a nun of Amesbury, for a book of romance ad opus domini regis to be kept in Edward’s chamber. See S. H. Cavanaugh, ‘Royal Books: King John to Richard II’, The Library, sixth series, 10 (1988), 304–16 (p. 312). Another documentary source (PRO E 101/393/4, fol. 8r) lists ten ‘Libri romanizati’ among Queen Isabelle’s possessions in 1358, including: ‘Unus liber qui vocatur Tresor & Bruyt in fine’, ‘Unus magnus liber coopertus cum coreo albo de gestis Arthuri’, ‘Unus liber cons’ de sanguine regali’, ‘Unus liber de Tristam et Isolda’ and ‘Unus liber cons’ de Perceval et Gauwayn’. See E. Rickert, ‘King Richard II’s Books’, The Library, fourth series, 13 (1933), 143–7 (p. 145); Vale, Edward III and Chivalry, pp. 49–50 and 169–70. An entry in Isabelle’s account book (London, British Library, Cotton, Galba E. XIV, fol. 50r) dated 10 December 1357 states: ‘John of Paris, coming from the King of France to the Queen at Hertford, and returning with two volumes, of Lancelot and the Sang Réal, sent to the same King by Isabella’. See E. A. Bond, ‘Notices of the Last Days of Isabella, Queen of Edward II, Drawn from an Account of the Expenses of her Household’, Archaeologia 35 (1854), 453–69 (p. 468). ‘Sang Réal’ is probably a misreading of ‘sangreal’; see R. Barber, ‘What Was a Round Table?’, in Edward III’s Round Table, ed. Munby et al., pp. 69–76 (pp. 75–6). A Memoranda Roll for 1384/5 names books that Edward III had at the time of his passing. Included are ‘vn Romance de Roy Arthure’, ‘vn Romance de Trebor’, ‘vn liure appelle Galaath’ and ‘vn autre liure comensant “Ap’s ce q’ Henriz”’. On the dorse are three additional items entered at the same date: ‘vn bible’, ‘vn Romance de la Rose’, and ‘vn Romance de Percivall et Gawyn’ (possibly Chrétien de Troyes’ Le Conte del Graal ou Perceval). See R. S. Loomis, ‘The Library of Richard II’, in Studies in Language, Literature, and Culture of the Middle Ages and Later, ed. E. B. Atwood and A. A. Hill (Austin, TX, 1969), pp. 173–8 (p. 174); R. Middleton, ‘The Manuscripts’, in The Arthur of the French: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval French and Occitan Literature, ed. G. S. Burgess and K. Pratt (Cardiff, 2006), pp. 8–92 (pp. 36–7); R. F. Green, ‘King Richard II’s Books Revisited’, The Library, fifth series, 31 (1976), 235–9 (p. 237).

3



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

idealized, ethical code of knighthood that was less than accommodating to Edward’s recent, relatively groundbreaking use of an overwhelmingly plebeian, mercenary army and total warfare tactics. Secondly, and perhaps even more significantly, Arthurian literature prized reckless daring, ‘knightly individualism’ and chivalric distinction through equestrian feats of arms as opposed to martial discipline, cohesion and a willingness to engage in dismounted, defensive fighting – the essentials of Edward’s tactical advantage.11 A delineation of the contrasting manners in which the kings of England and France attempted to wield Arthurianism for their rival causes, and the inadvertent cultural effects thereof, will increase our appreciation for the literary ideal of chivalry as a social force during the first stage of the Hundred Years War.12 Scholarship on the establishment of the Order of the Garter offers reasons why St George, the warrior-saint, and the Virgin Mary were desirable patrons for the confraternity, but fails to account adequately for Arthur’s exclusion. Juliet Vale has questioned why Edward III did not resume construction on the House of the Round Table and why he ‘chose to abandon formal links with Arthur’s Round Table’.13 Citing the extensive refurbishment of St Stephen’s, Westminster and Windsor (1350s) as evidence that fiscal concerns did not prevent Edward from fulfilling his oath, Vale proposes that the choice of St George and the Virgin Mary as patrons offered the Order of the Garter a religious gravitas that Arthur and a re-established Round Table could not achieve.14 Yet, as a secular figurehead, Arthur was not in competition for the position of religious patron, and St George would not have replaced or displaced him. In fact, exclusive knightly associations with links to both Arthur and St George known as Artushöfe arose in Prussian towns along the Baltic in this very period.15

11

12

13 14 15

D. Green, Edward the Black Prince: Power in Medieval Europe (Harlow, 2007), p. 42: ‘Chivalric romances lauded individual deeds of prowess and reckless bravery – preferably performed on horseback. Crécy, Poitiers and Nájera were victories constructed by collective, disciplined infantry and archers. In this sense, the Black Prince, the “flower of chivalry”, contributed to the demise of chivalry on the battlefield. In all of the prince’s battles, the enemy assault failed in part because it was too chivalrous, because it relied on knightly individualism and lacked co-ordination.’ For interpretations consistent with the tenor of this paper, see J. Good, The Cult of St George in Medieval England (Woodbridge, 2009), p. 67: ‘… chivalric Arthurianism might have been suitable for tournaments, but it did not necessarily work in war, a fact recently proved at the battle of Crécy in 1346, when the English defeated the French by the rather unchivalric practice of archery’; Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p. 228; S. K. Gertz, Visual Power and Fame in René D’Anjou, Geoffrey Chaucer, and the Black Prince (New York, 2010), p. 115. J. Vale, ‘Arthur in English Society’, in The Arthur of the English: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval English Life and Literature, ed. W. R. J. Barron (Cardiff, 1999), pp. 185–96 (p. 193). J. Vale, ‘Arthur in English Society’, p.193. See W. Störmer, ‘König Artus als aristokratisches Leitbild während des späteren Mittelalters, gezeigt an Beispielen der Ministerialität und des Patriziats’, Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte 35 (1972), 946–71 (p. 965).

4



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

Famed for Christian warrior virtues not unlike those of St George, Arthur could easily have been incorporated as the official model for the Garter Sovereign in the new order’s statutes. If featured as Edward III’s precursor, Arthur, the celebrated Christian dux bellorum, would have complemented the religious tone of the Order of the Garter, not detracted from it. Firstly, in the Voeux du Paon (c. 1312), Jean de Longuyon honours Arthur as one of the neuf preux of chivalry, the first of three Christian worthies followed by Charlemagne and Godfrey de Bouillon.16 Secondly, the longstanding tradition of Arthur’s Marian devotion, elaborated upon in the Quedam narracio de nobili rege Arthuro (c. 1325–1340),17 paralleled Edward III’s own ardent veneration of the Blessed Virgin.18 The Bridlington chronicler active during the English king’s reign observed this correspondence and likened Arthur’s shield bearing the image of the Virgin and Christ child to ‘the chamber of Edward III’s heart’, figuratively inscribed with the same image.19 Arthur’s noted devotion to the Blessed Virgin coincided with the spiritual focus of the Order of the Garter, which was established to ‘l’onneur de Dieu, Saincte Marie la glorieuse Vierge et Saint George’.20 Not only was Arthur’s character consistent with the religious tenor Edward sought for his order, but the prose tradition of Arthurian romance also endowed the Round Table with strong Christian symbolism. According to the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, Merlin prompted Uther to construct the Round Table as the third in a succession of round tables (following Joseph of Arimathea’s Grail Table and the table used at the Last Supper) in order 16 17

18

19

20

See The Parlement of the Thre Ages: An Alliterative Poem on the Nine Worthies and the Heroes of Romance, ed. I. Gollancz (London, 1915), Appendix 6. The Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1138) and its many redactions state that Arthur prayed to the Blessed Virgin for victory and that her image adorned the inside of his shield. See A History of the Kings of Britain. An Edition and Translation of the De Gestis Britonum [Historia Regum Britanniae], by Geoffrey of Monmouth, ed. M. D. Reeve, trans. N. Wright (Woodbridge, 2007), p. 199. The Quedam narracio de nobili rege Arthuro portrays the corporeal vision of the Holy Mother and Child that Arthur received at Glastonbury as the impetus behind their inclusion on his shield. See J. P. Carley, ‘A Glastonbury Translator at Work: Quedam Narracio de Nobili Rege Arthuro and De Origine Gigantum in Their Earliest Manuscript Contexts’, Nottingham French Studies 30 (1991), 5–12. A patron of Marian cults, Edward III also reportedly placed himself under St Mary’s protection. See W. M. Ormrod, ‘The Personal Religion of Edward III’, Speculum 64 (1989), 849–77 (pp. 857–8). ‘Gesta Regis Edwardi Tertii Auctore Canonico Bridlingtonensi’, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 76, 2 vols. (London, 1882–3), II, 95: ‘Legimus quod Arthurus rex Britonum anno ætatis suæ xvo ad regni regimen est admissus. Qui propter verum dilectionis indicium in scuto depictam gessit ymaginemVirginis gloriosæ. Rex iste junioris ætatis [Edward III], ut prædicitur, in regni solio sublimatus benedictæ Virginis speciem ob purum devotionis affectum secum defert sculptam in cordis triclinio reverenter, cujus etiam nomen mellifluum in ipsius ore frequenter residet nominandum.’ Jefferson, ‘MS Arundel 48’, 376, ll. 1–5.

5



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

to glorify the Holy Trinity. Founded upon the Christian virtues of humility and patience, the ‘third’ Round Table channeled the fraternal love of the Apostles, and of Joseph of Arimathea’s disciples, into the fellowship of Arthur’s knights.21 In the Queste del Saint Graal (c. 1225), late on the day of Pentecost when the Knights of the Round Table are gathered in the great hall of Camelot, the luminous grace of the Holy Spirit descends upon them and a mystical Grail enters that hall and serves each knight whatever food he desires. Later in the romance, Christ reveals to Sir Galahad that the Grail is ‘the platter from which Jesus Christ ate the lamb with his disciples on Easter’.22 Consistent with this tradition, Edward III selected the feast of Pentecost for the Round Table’s re-inauguration. Vale has argued that the series of oaths taken by Edward’s lords in support of his Arthurian venture ‘clearly echoes the swearing of the grail quest by the original knights of the Round Table’.23 It seems likely that King Edward recognized the table’s potency as a religious symbol that could unite the English nobility under his authority. Given its association with the table used at the Last Supper, the Round Table, like the figure of Arthur, had strong Christian overtones that could have been integrated effectively into the chivalric order dedicated to the Virgin Mary and St George. A second interpretation of Arthur’s alienation from the Order of the Garter holds that Edward III established this order to increase the loyalty of his subjects to him and to promote emerging English nationalism through the patronage of St George – a task that an Arthurian order, ‘by 21

22

23

See The Didot-Perceval, ed. W. Roach (Philadelphia, 1941), p. 303, ll. 271–5 (Modena); La Queste del Saint Graal, ed. A. Pauphilet (Paris, 1923), p. 156; R. S. Loomis, The Development of Arthurian Romance (London, 1963), p. 128. In 1331, Edward III made an extended visit to Glastonbury abbey, which reawakened interest in King Arthur at Glastonbury and at the royal court. A legend blossomed maintaining that Arthur was from a sacred line of kings descended from Joseph of Arimathea, whose remains were thought to have been buried near the abbey. On 10 June 1345, Edward III issued a writ granting a certain John Blome of London provisional permission to search for the remains of Joseph at Glastonbury. See The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey: An Edition, Translation and Study of John of Glastonbury’s Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesie, ed. J. P. Carley, trans. D. Townsend (Woodbridge, 1985), pp. xxv–xxxii; M. F. Braswell, ‘The Search for the Holy Grail: Arthurian Lacunae in the England of Edward III’, Studies in Philology 108 (2011), 469–87. Queste, ed. Pauphilet, p. 270: ‘Ce est, fet il, l’escuele ou Jhesucriz menja l’aignel le jor de Pasques o ses deciples’; The Quest for the Holy Grail, trans. E. J. Burns, in Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation, ed. N. J. Lacy, 5 vols. (New York, 1995–6), IV, 85. Vale, Edward III and Chivalry, p. 68. Nicola Acciaiuoli (1310–1365), Grand Seneschal of Naples, was quite familiar with the plans of the English and French monarchical orders and modelled the Neapolitan Company of the Knot (1352/3–1362) even more directly after the ‘Grail-Seekers’ of the Queste del Saint Graal. The order had the ‘Holy Spirit of Right Desire’ as its patron, Pentecost as its feast day and three hundred as its intended membership size; yet, instead of seeking the Grail, the Knights of the Knot were to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre. See D’A. J. D. Boulton, The Knights of the Crown: The Monarchical Orders of Knighthood in Later Medieval Europe, 1325–1520 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 211–40.

6



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

its very internationalism’, could not accomplish.24 This interpretation does not address a special provision made in the Statutes of the Garter facilitating the induction of foreign knights, namely installation by proxy for those unable to attend the investiture ceremony.25 Moreover, three of the founding members and four additional knights inducted during Edward III’s reign were of foreign extraction. Both of these facts illustrate that the Garter, not unlike the celebrated Round Table, was intended to be international. Arthur, a native hero, had closer ties to England than St George, the patron saint of knighthood. Although Edward I (r. 1272–1307) had added St George’s Cross to the banners of English royal saints and attached the saint’s arms to the surcoat of his soldiers,26 the early Christian martyr stood as an ‘international patron of chivalry’ until Edward III incorporated him into the Order of the Garter.27 In fact, as recently as 5 June 1344, Pope Clement VI had granted his blessing to Duke Jean of Normandy (later Jean II of France) for the establishment of a congregation of two hundred knights in France that would assemble ‘not for jousts or tournaments or for any other acts of arms, but for devotion to the same church, at least on the feasts of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Blessed George the Martyr in the month of April’.28 The Company of the Star, whose formal establishment was delayed until 1352, retained the Blessed Virgin Mary and St George as its intended patrons until Edward appropriated the warrior saint for his own knightly society.29 Thus, neither the need for religious solemnity nor the desire to promote nascent nationalism explains Arthur’s exclusion from the Garter. Another reading of Edward III’s decision to abandon the Round Table project in favour of the smaller and more exclusive Garter treats the English victory at Crécy as a turning point after which the English king no longer needed to recruit three hundred plus knights or to increase his personal prestige by portraying himself as Arthurus redivivus.30 This interpretation stresses that Edward III regarded the victory as validation 24

25 26 27

28 29 30

Vale, ‘Arthur in English Society’, p. 194; Y. Renouard, ‘L’Ordre de la Jarretière et l’Ordre de l’Etoile: Etude sur la genèse des Ordres laics de Chevalerie et sur le développement progressif de leur caractère national’, Le Moyen Age 55 (1949), 281–300 (p. 297). Jefferson, ‘MS Arundel 48’, 381, ll. 196–220. Boulton, Knights of the Crown, p. 124. Ormrod, ‘Personal Religion of Edward III’, p. 859; B. Guenée, States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe, trans. J. Vale (Oxford, 1985), p. 57; Good, Cult of St George, pp. 52–94; D. A. L. Morgan, ‘The Banner-Bearer of Christ and Our Lady: How God Became an Englishman Revisited’, in St George’s Chapel Windsor in the Fourteenth Century, ed. N. Saul (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 51–61. Letters de Clément VI, in Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, ed. E. Déprez, ser. 3, t.3 (fasc 1, 1901), col. 31, no. 83, translated in Boulton, Knights of the Crown, p. 175. See Renouard, ‘L’Ordre’, 296–7; Boulton, Knights of the Crown, pp. 124 and 189; Morgan, ‘Banner-Bearer’, p. 59. R. Barber, ‘The Order of the Round Table’, in Edward III’s Round Table, ed. Munby et al., pp. 151–2.

7



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

of his claim to the French throne. Indeed, the upset at Crécy did boost self-confidence in England and the realm’s standing as a military power.31 The garter, a chivalric device bearing France’s royal colors of blue and gold, has often been taken to symbolize the righteousness of Edward’s claim and the prowess of the Garter knights, most of whom were leading figures at Crécy.32 Nevertheless, since the Knights of the Round Table did not have established insignia, the use of the garter did not preclude Edward’s new order from being Arthurian.33 Moreover, the membership size of the original Order of the Round Table was not set in stone. Yet, Edward III did not then capitalize on his likeness to King Arthur who, according to the Brut tradition, conquered all of France after founding the Round Table.34 Why? The ongoing knightly fascination with courtly romance helps explain Edward III’s initial desire to emulate Arthur and reestablish the Round Table as well as his later reluctance to fulfill his oath. The use of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle as source material for Arthour and Merlin (c. 1330), the alliterative Joseph of Arimathea (c. 1345) and the stanzaic Morte Arthur (c. 1400) and the production of Yvain and Gawain (c. 1350) from Chrétien’s Chevalier au Lion ou Yvain (c. 1177) suggest a broadening appeal of the Arthurian romance genre both in and beyond the ranks of the English nobility.35 Although undeniably a source of solaas, such tales of adventure also offered sentence regarding how knights might go about achieving lasting fame. In fact, recognition as the ‘Tenth Worthy’ was deemed the highest knightly honour in the fourteenth century,36 and the ‘chivalrous histories’ of the period, with their frequent references to Arthur and Charlemagne, Gawain and Roland, no doubt fueled the ambitious late medieval knight’s ‘desire to be held in the same high regard, both by his contemporaries and by all future generations, as the heroes of history and romance’.37 Among the Nine Worthies, the figure of King Arthur stood out as a particularly appealing model for later medieval princes because he ‘was a ready-made emblem of the worthiest king – fantastically wealthy, 31 32 33 34

35

36 37

A. Ayton, ‘The Battle of Crécy: Context and Significance’, in A. Ayton and P. Preston, The Battle of Crécy (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 1–34 (p. 29). See R. Barber, ‘The Military Role of the Order of the Garter’, Journal of Medieval Military History 7 (2009), 1–11 (p. 3). Boulton, Knights of the Crown, p. 113. See Wace, Le Roman de Brut, ed. and trans. J. Weiss (Exeter, 2002), p. 244, l. 9751 and p. 254, ll. 10131–2; The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, EETS OS 131 and 136, 2 vols. (London, 1906–8), I, 78–80; Boulton, Knights of the Crown, p. 108; P. Johanek, ‘König Arthur und die Planagenets. Über den Zusammenhang von Historiographie und höfischer Epik in mittelalterlicher Propaganda’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 21 (1987), 346–89 (pp. 362–3). R. J. Moll, Before Malory: Reading Arthur in Later Medieval England (Toronto, 2003), p. 32; R. W. Kaeuper, War, Justice, and Public Order: England and France in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988), p. 192. See M. Keen, Chivalry (New Haven, 1984), pp. 121–4. Boulton, Knights of the Crown, pp. 11–12.

8



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

beloved by his people, surrounded by the best knights and ladies, and known to be just’.38 Equally significant was Arthur’s time-honoured image in historiography as a warrior-king and conqueror. If Edward III succeeded in portraying himself as a ‘second Arthur’ in 1344, he stood to gain much-needed popular support for his costly military campaigns. May McKisack has contended that, by assuming ‘the rôle of a second Arthur, Edward harnessed the idealism of chivalry to his cause and bound to himself under an obligation of honour nearly all the greatest names in the land’.39 Conversely, such self-fashioning might have been, in the words of Peter Coss, something of a ‘double-edged sword, for by tying the king so closely to chivalric valour it created a standard to which a monarch had himself to aspire’.40 As will be demonstrated below, whenever a magnate endeavoured to impersonate the legendary Briton, he exposed himself to critical scrutiny. References to past heroes in fourteenth-century chronicles were not merely ornamental; they provided exempla of knightly behaviour against which the merits of more recent figures were assessed.41 The aforementioned Pierre de Langtoft, an Augustinian canon of Bridlington in Yorkshire, used the Ensaumple du noble rei sire Arthur in his chronicle (c. 1307) as the premier paradigm of good kingship for Edward I. Lecturing on how a king ought to conduct a conquest, Pierre asserts that: Ensample puit home prendre de Arthur li senez, De touz jours fu primer en touz ses alez A matin e à vespre, de grant honestetez, Felons en companie, e gens des enemistez, Solunc lour desert, touz les ad jugez. Au fet e au consail estoit atemprés; Prince plus curteis de teres conquestez Entre Crestiens ne fut unqes neez. Par quei le vus di, la reson escotez, Si nostre rei eust fet les puralez Parmi Engletere, cum il avoit grantez Affermez par escrit, qe bien est testmoynez, E de la tere d’Escoce partiz e donez A ses barons Engleis, par droite quantitez, La tere depesca fust en ses poestez, E pardurablement les soens heritez. (We may take the example of Arthur the wise; he was always the first in all his expeditions in morning and in evening, with great 38 39 40 41

Gertz, Visual Power and Fame, p. 141. M. McKisack, ‘Edward III and the Historians’, History 45 (1960), 1–15 (p. 7). P. Coss, The Knight in Medieval England, 1000–1400 (Stroud, 1993), p. 123. See M. Keen, ‘Chivalry and English Kingship in the Later Middle Ages’, in War, Government and Aristocracy in the British Isles, c. 1100–1500, ed. C. Given-Wilson, A. Kettle and L. Scales (Woodbridge, 2008), pp. 250–66 (p. 257).

9



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

uprightness; felons in company, and hostile people, according to their desert, he judged them all. He was temperate in deed and in counsel; a prince more courteous in conquering lands was never born among Christians. Wherefore I tell you, listen to reason, if our king had performed the perambulations through England, as he had granted and strengthened by writing, as is well witnessed, and of the land of Scotland had distributed and given to his English barons, by just quantities, the land would, since long ago, be here in his power, and his possession forever.)42

Leading by example, Arthur features as a veritable dux bellorum demanding both competency and the proper conduct of war from his men – two dictates of just war theory.43 Pierre not only exalts Arthur as the princely paragon of wisdom, magnanimity and justice, he brandishes the king’s legendary largesse as an instrument to censure Edward I for his parsimony. Yet, not all comparisons to Arthur were derogatory. As part of his obituary for Edward I, Pierre writes: ‘De chevalerye après ly reis Arthure,/ Estait ly reis Edward des Cristiens la flure’.44 Even in a eulogy for Edward I, Arthur remains the courtly king par excellence. The authors of the Arthurian chronicle and romance traditions, laudatores temporis acti, employed the historicized ‘golden age of chivalry’ topos with such regularity that it, in turn, achieved recognition in the leading chivalric treatises of the Middle Ages as a genuine knightly ethos of a bygone age. Dominique Boutet, Joachim Bumke, Beate SchmolkeHasselmann and Jane Gilbert have characterized the Arthurian literary tradition itself as a long-established and distinct discourse containing an inherently ethical Arthurian ‘past’ informed by – and simultaneously informing – the present.45 According to Bumke, the ‘negative description of contemporary life’ is an ‘appeal to model oneself after King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table, and to put into practice the courtly virtues 42

43

44

45

The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. and trans. T. Wright, RS 47, 2 vols. (London, 1866–8) II, 326–30. I have modified Wright’s translation for greater precision and elected to follow the variant reading indicated above (depesca [= de pieç’a], which is attested in two of the manuscripts consulted by Wright, C and D. See N. A. R. Wright, ‘The Tree of Battles of Honoré Bouvet and the Laws of War’, in War, Literature, and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, ed. C. T. Allmand (New York, 1976), pp. 12–31 (p. 15). Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. Wright, II, 380–1. See T. Summerfield, ‘The Arthurian References in Pierre de Langtoft’s Chronicles’, in Text and Intertext in Medieval Arthurian Literature, ed. N. J. Lacy (London, 1996), pp. 187–208. D. Boutet, ‘Le prince au miroir de la littérature narrative (xiie-xiiie siècles)’, in Le Prince au miroir de la littérature politique de l’Antiquité aux Lumières, ed. F. Lachaud and L. Scordia (Rouen, 2007), pp. 143–59; J. Bumke, Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages, trans. T. Dunlap (Woodstock and London, 2000), pp. 15–16; Schmolke-Hasselmann, Evolution of Arthurian Romance, p. 90; J. Gilbert, ‘Arthurian Ethics’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Arthurian Legend, ed. E. Archibald and A. Putter (Cambridge,UK, 2009), pp. 154–70 (pp. 154–5).

10



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

which they had already possessed’.46 Gilbert maintains that the ‘Arthurian moral space’ became even more pronouncedly instructive in thirteenthcentury works, many of which addressed the immediate historical present directly.47 Nowhere is this trend more apparent than in the Lady of the Lake’s address to Lancelot, in the prose Lancelot (c.1215), on the origin of chivalry: Au commencement, qant li ordres de chevalerie commança, fu devise a celui qui voloit estre chevaliers et qui lo don en avoit par droiture d’eslection, qu’il fust cortois sanz vilenies, deboenneires sanz felenie, piteus vers les soffraiteus, et larges et appareilliez de secorre les besoigneus, prelz et appareilliez de confondre les robeors et les ocianz, droiz jugierres sanz amor et sanz haïne et sanz amor d’aidier au tort por lo droit grever, et sanz haïne de nuire au droit por traire lo tort avant. Chevaliers ne doit por paor de mort nule chose faire o l’an puise honte conoistre ne aparcevoir, ainz doit plus doter honteusse chose que mort sossfrir. Chevaliers fu establiz outreement por Sainte Eglise garantir …48 (Originally, when the order of knighthood began, a man who wished to be a knight, and who was accorded that privilege by right of election, was told he should be courteous without baseness, gracious without cruelty, compassionate towards the needy, generous and prepared to help those in need, and ready and prepared to confound robbers and killers, he should be a fair judge, without love or hate, without love to help the wrong against right, without hate to hinder right in order to further wrong. A knight should not, for fear of death, do anything which can be seen as shameful: rather he should be more afraid of shame than of suffering death. The knight was established wholly to protect the Holy Church…)49

This passage may have inspired the descriptions of the origin of chivalry in Ramon Lull’s Libre del ordre de cavayleria (c. 1276) and in Geoffroi de Charny’s Livre de chevalerie (1350–1351).50 The treatise on the laws

46 47 48

49

50

Bumke, Courtly Culture, p.16. Gilbert, ‘Arthurian Ethics’, p. 159. Lancelot do Lac: The Non-Cyclic Old French Prose Romance, ed. E. Kennedy, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1980), I, 142–3. For a comparable definition of ‘l’ordre de chevalerie’ as the ‘ plus haute ordre’ ordained by God, which must be maintained ‘sanz vilenie’, see Chrétien de Troyes, The Story of the Grail (Li Contes Del Graal), or Perceval, ed. R. T. Pickens, trans. W.W. Kibler (New York, 1990), pp. 80–1, ll. 1612–8. For another noteworthy example of laudatio temporis acti (c. 1190–1225), see Renaut de Bâgé, Le Bel Inconnu, ed. K. Fresco, trans. C. P. Donagher (New York and London, 1992), pp. 64–7, ll. 1067–82. E. Kennedy, ‘The Knight as Reader of Arthurian Romance’, in Culture and the King: The Social Implications of Arthurian Legend, ed. M. B. Shichtman and J. P. Carley (New York, 1994), pp. 70–90 (pp. 81–2). See E. Kennedy, ‘Social and Political Ideas in the French Prose Lancelot’, Medium Aevum 26 (1957), 90–106 (p.103). Geoffroi de Charny (1304–1356) authored the prose Livre de Chevalerie, the metrical Livre Chevalerie and Demandes pour la jouste, les tournois et la guerre, a list of discussion questions about knightly conduct written for the Company of the Star. See also

11



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

of war L’Arbre des batailles (1387), by the Benedictine monk Honoré Bouvet, is also reminiscent of the prose Lancelot: A Dieu plaise de mettre es cuers des rois de ordonner comment en toutes guerres les povres laboureurs soient seurement et tenus paisibles, car aujourd’huy toutes les guerres sont contre les povres gens laboureurs, contre les biens et meubles qu’ ils ont. Pourquoy je ne l’appelle pas guerre mais tres bien me semble estre pillerie et roberie. Aussi ce n’est pas la maniere de guerroier selon l’ordonnance de deue chevalerie ne de l’ancienne coustume des nobles batailleurs lesquels soustenoient justice, dames vesves, enfans orphelins et povres gens. Et aujourd’huy partout ils font le contraire. Et qui ne scet partout bouter les feus, rober les eglises, occuper leur droit et emprisonner les prestres, il n’est past souffisant pour mener guerre. Et pour ce les chevaliers de maintenant n’ont pas la glorie et le los des anciens bacelers jadis regnans ne ja leurs faits ne devroient venir à grant perfections de vertu.51 (May it please God to put into the hearts of kings to command that in all wars poor labourers should be left secure and in peace, for in these days all wars are directed against the poor labouring people and against their goods and chattels. I do not call that war, but it seems to me to be pillage and robbery. That way of warfare does not follow ordinances of worthy chivalry or of the ancient custom of noble warriors who upheld justice, the widow, the orphan and the poor. And nowadays it is the opposite that they do everywhere, and the man who does not know to set places on fire, to rob churches and to usurp their rights and to imprison priests, is not fit to carry on war. And for these reasons, the knights of today have not the glory and praise of the old champions of former times.)52

Such complaints about a perceived decline from the putative golden age of knighthood in the leading chivalric treatises of the Middle Ages added weight to the literary ideal of chivalry.53 When speaking of the ‘old champions of former times’, Bouvet probably had in mind the heroes of the Roman Republic whose military discipline so impressed fourteenthcentury commentators that they furthered the myth that chivalry had its origins in Rome. Nonetheless, as Johan Huizinga long ago pointed out, ‘In the minds of the fourteenth century, a vision of antiquity had hardly disengaged itself from the fairy-land sphere of the Round Table. Classical heroes were still tinged with the general colours of romance.’54

51 52 53

54

Geoffroi de Charny, A Knight’s Own Book of Chivalry, intro. R. W. Kaeuper, trans. E. Kennedy (Philadephia, 2005). Honoré Bouvet, L’Arbre des Batailles, ed. E. Nys (Brussels and Leipzig, 1883), p. 211. The Tree of Battles of Honoré Bonet: An English Version, trans. G. W. Coopland (Liverpool, 1949), p. 189. See J. Leyerle, ‘Conclusion: The Major Themes of Chivalric Literature’, in Chivalric Literature: Essays on the Relations between Literature & Life in the Later Middle Ages, ed. L. D. Benson and J. Leyerle (Toronto, 1980), pp. 131–46; Kaeuper, War, Justice, and Public Order, p. 196. J. Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages, trans. F. Hopman (New York, 1954), p. 71.

12



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

Queen Philippa’s New Year’s gift (1333) to Edward III of a silver ewer enameled with the likenesses of Julius Caesar, Judas Maccabeus, Charlemagne, Arthur, Roland, Oliver and Lancelot du Lac validates Huizinga’s claim and suggests a fondness for ‘the old champions of former times’ in Edward’s household.55 Along with advancing a high-minded, chivalric ideology in broad terms, authors of Arthurian literature impressed on their knightly audience in-depth examples of and pronouncements about correct martial practices that were still influential in the fourteenth century.56 Chrétien championed mounted combat as the noblest mode of knightly engagement in his Chevalier au Lion. Of the battle between Yvain and Esclados the Red, he writes: ‘mes toz jorz a cheval se tienent /que nule foiz a pié ne vienent: /s’an fu la bataille plus bele’ (They remained on horseback throughout and never fought on foot, and the battle was more splendid for it).57 The author of Ywain and Gawain replicated this sentiment for a fourteenth-century audience, writing: ‘Thai faght on hors stifly always; /The batel was wele more to prays’.58 So iconic was the image of the knight on horseback that Walter of Milemete, in his treatise On the Nobility, Wisdom and Prudence of Kings (1327), felt it necessary to instruct the newly crowned Edward III: Sicut enim murus castrum et ciuitatem protegit sic pedestris exercitus uiribus equitum subuenit ac eos ab hostibus defendit et ideo validus pedestris exercitus apud uos sit carus et dilectus licet equestris magis sit dignus et nobilis. (For just as a wall protects the castle and the city, so does the army infantry support the strength of the cavalry and defend them from the enemy. And therefore a strong infantry force should be dear and beloved to you, although the cavalry may be of greater dignity and nobility.)59

In the prose Lancelot, Pharien teaches his nephew that a knight attains ‘la gloire et l’honneur des armes’ by being the first to charge against the

55 56

57 58 59

Vale, Edward III and Chivalry, p. 45. Richard Kaeuper raises the intriguing possibility that chivalric literature, especially the LancelotGrail Cycle, fostered lively discussion among its knightly audience about precisely how to fight with courtoisie and ‘often suggest[ed], with greater or lesser degrees of subtlety, paths of reform’. See R. W. Kaeuper, ‘Chivalry and the “Civilizing Process”’, in Violence in Medieval Society, ed. R. W. Kaeuper (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 21–35 (esp. pp. 23 and 29). Chrétien de Troyes, The Knight with the Lion or Yvain (Le Chevalier au Lion), ed. and trans. W. W. Kibler (New York, 1985), pp. 36–7, ll. 859–61. Ywain and Gawain, ed. M. F. Braswell (Kalamazoo, 1995), p. 101, ll. 655–6. Walter de Milemete, De nobilitatibus, sapientiis, et prudentiis regum, ed. M. R. James (Oxford, 1913), pp. 131–2; Walter of Milimete, On the Nobility, Wisdom, and Prudence of Kings, ed. and trans. C. J. Nederman, in Political Thought in Early Fourteenth-Century England: Treatises by Walter of Milemete, William of Pagula, and William of Ockham (Tempe, 2002), pp. 24–61 (p. 59).

13



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

enemy in battle (I, 85–6).60 As will be shown below, some of Philippe VI’s knights heeded this advice – much to their detriment – at Crécy. Also fundamental to the Arthurian code of conduct, as Gornemant de Gohort teaches Perceval in Chrétien’s Conte del Graal (ll. 1619–27), is the knight’s duty to spare a knightly opponent at his mercy whenever possible.61 The prose Lancelot affirms that its eponymous hero ‘avoit tele costume que il n’oceist ja chevalier qui criast merci, s’il ne l’eust avant juré ou se fere ne li convenist’ (had the custom of never killing a knight who begged for mercy, unless he had sworn beforehand to do so, or unless he could not avoid it).62 Such a regard for life may seem entirely impractical, but relatively few defeated knightly combatants were put to death in twelfth- and thirteenth-century battles owing to their value as captives for ransom63 and ‘pro timore Dei notitiaque contubernii’ (out of fear of God and fellowship in arms) – at least, according to Orderic Vitalis (d. 1142).64 In the fourteenth century, the droit d’armes, a customary code of professional courtesy regulating interactions between men-at-arms, approximated the notitia contubernii and Arthurian chivalric magnanimity. At the siege of Limoges (1370), for example, three French knights surrendering to the duke of Lancaster reportedly expected merciful treatment according to the droit d’armes.65 Arthurian writers did more than encourage knights to be merciful, loyal and valorous: they criticized specific combat tactics that they deemed ignoble. Chrétien de Troyes asserts in his Chevalier au Lion that honour forbids a knight from intentionally injuring his opponent’s horse (ll. 855–8). Renaut de Bâgé’s popular Bel Inconnu (c. 1190–1225) and its fourteenth-century English cognate, Lybeaus Desconus, regard knights who make a joint assault on a single man as committing ‘grete errour’.66 Anxiety about dubious battle tactics is also apparent in the Gesta regum Britanniae (c. 1236), attributed to William of Rennes, when Arthur struggles to justify his planned ambush of Lucius’ retreating Roman forces: Pugna tamen nostris erit instans dissona gestis: Nam nichil obscure, nichil egimus insidiose; Cuncta palam claroque die, nil nocte gerendum

60 61 62 63 64 65 66

I wish to thank Dr Corinne Denoyelle for this reference. See Kaeuper, ‘Chivalry and the “Civilizing Process”’, p. 31. Lancelot: Roman en prose du XIIIe siècle, ed. A. Micha, 9 vols (Geneva, 1978–83) II, 56; Lancelot Part IV, trans. R. L. Krueger, in Lancelot-Grail, II, 19. See C. J. Rogers, ‘The Age of the Hundred Years War’, in Medieval Warfare: A History, ed. M. Keen (Oxford, 1999), pp. 136–60 (p. 144). Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall. 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–80), VI, 240–1. Jean Froissart, Chroniques, ed. S. Luce. 15 vols. (Paris, 1869–1975), VII, 252. Renaut de Bâgé, Le Bel Inconnu, ll. 1067–82; Lybeaus Desconus, ed. M. Mills, EETS OS 261 (London, 1969), p. 143, l. 1107; Kaeuper, ‘Chivalry and the “Civilizing Process”’, p. 30.

14



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

Duximus. Ytalici semper fraudesque dolosque Moliri norunt. Non est me iudice culpa Fallere fallaces, fraudemque repellere fraude. (The imminent battle will not be like our previous deeds. We have effected nothing covertly or by stealth. We have seen fit to do everything openly in broad daylight, and nothing by night; it is the Italians who have always been experienced in engineering strategems and traps. In my view there is nothing reprehensible in deceiving the deceitful and countering trickery with trickery.)67

Honoré Bouvet also treats this topic in his Arbre des batailles, remarking: ‘Mais faire par engien, par cautele et par descevance victoire contre son ennemi est victoire en obscurité et par deception. Dont il est advis que telles victoires sont condampnées et contre raison.’ (But a victory gained over one’s enemy by craft, subtlety or deception, is a victory won in obscurity and deceit. Hence such victories appear to be condemned and against reason.).68 The theorist did, however, allow for ambushes to be set in places where the enemy is accustomed to take his ease provided they are conducted in order to take him prisoner and not done in violation of a truce or prearranged martial encounter. The examples provided indicate that the figure of King Arthur symbolized the very highest order of martial virtue consistent with – if not surpassing – the expectations of the leading chivalric treatises of the Middle Ages. Furthermore, the Knights of the Round Table, according to the prose romance tradition, were themselves held to two defining rules of personal conduct. Firstly, in the Post-Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal, Perceval reminds Gawain that Knights of the Round Table are not to attack knights unwilling to fight.69 Secondly, in the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, Arthur requires each Round Table knight, about to depart on his year-long quest, to kneel before holy relics and swear to tell ‘au revenir de toutes les choses qui li seront avenues … ou soit s’ounour ou soit sa honte. Et par chou porra on connnoistre la proveche de chascun.’ (on his return all that had happened to him … be it to his honour or his shame. And by this means was made judgement of the prowess of each).70 Consequently, the Arthurian knight, whether at court or in combat, had to be mindful that he was subject to scrutiny, that demonstrations of exemplary virtue were the key to his 67

68 69

70

William of Rennes, Gesta Regum Britanniae, in The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth V: Gesta Regum Britanniae, ed. and trans. N. Wright (Cambridge, UK, 1991), pp. 224–5, ll. 429–34. Honoré Bouvet, L’Arbre des Batailles, pp. 142–3; Coopland, Tree of Battles, p. 154. La Version Post-Vulgate de la Queste del Saint Graal et de la Mort Artu: Troisième Partie du Roman du Graal, ed. F. Bogdanow, 3 vols. (Paris, 1991) II, 335–6; The Post-Vulgate Quest for the Holy Grail, trans. M. Asher, in Lancelot-Grail, V, 184. Merlin, ed. G. Paris and J. Ulrich, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886), II, 98. For the translation provided, see Keen, Chivalry, pp. 192–3. Also see Lancelot do Lac, ed. Kennedy, I, 406.

15



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

everlasting literary fame – and those of vice, his never-ending shame.71 It is quite likely that Edward III and his company of knights, as part of their oath to ‘observe, sustain and promote’ the Round Table, swore to provide faithful accounts of their deeds at the annual Pentecost gatherings. The chivalric values of written texts were translated into a physical context during Round Tables – spectacles wherein knights assumed Arthurian names and coats of arms during hastiludes and occasionally engaged in dramatic reenactments of episodes from Arthurian romance.72 Along with providing lively entertainment and martial training for the elite, Round Tables were designed to serve the political agenda of the host. Lee Patterson has commented that the figure of Arthur retained a firm ‘grip upon the medieval political imagination’ in the fourteenth century as a source of ‘legitimization’; he interprets the propagandist evocation of Arthur as a manifestation of the political ideology of verum quia vetus wherein insecure monarchs, in periods of political upheaval, assert their present political legitimacy ‘in terms of descent from an omnipotent past’ and justify their policies ‘by invoking honorific if legendary precedents’.73 For Edward I, Round Tables offered a way to commemorate military triumphs, including his conquest of Wales and victory over the Scots, and granted his leading knights an opportunity to exhibit their martial prowess. Juliet Barker and Maurice Keen hold that Edward I’s victories and his ‘patronage of chivalry and tourney enabled his encomiasts … to present him as a new Arthur’.74 Round Tables were not always politically beneficial to the host. In 1319, a group of young noblemen persuaded King Jan of Bohemia (1296– 1346) that, if he were to host a ‘tabulam rotundam, regis scilicet Arthusii curiam’ involving tournaments, hastiludes and other military exercises, his praises would be sung far and wide. Unfortunately for the king, the Round Table, which was held in the forest just outside of Prague, did not attract any foreign noblemen.75 Roger Mortimer, the ambitious first earl of the March, received negative press for the Round Table that he held at Wigmore Castle in 1328. Robert Avesbury (d. 1359) comments in De gestis mirabilibus Edwardi tertii that Mortimer, in front of Edward III and many noblemen, exalted himself as if king above all others – not

71 72

73 74 75

See Gertz, Visual Power and Fame, p. 43. See R. S. Loomis, “Chivalric and Dramatic Imitations of Arthurian Romance”, in Medieval Studies in Memory of A. Kingsley Porter, ed. W. R. W. Koehler (Cambridge, MA, 1939), pp. 79–97 (p. 81). L. Patterson, Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature (Madison, WI, 1987), pp. 199 and 205. M. Keen and J. Barker, ‘The Medieval English Kings and the Tournament’, in M. Keen, Nobles, Knights and Men-At-Arms in the Middle Ages (London and Rio Grande, 1996), pp. 83–99 (p. 90). Peter of Zittau, Chronica Aulae Regiae, ed. J. Emler, Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum 4 (Prague, 1884), p. 252.

16



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

realizing that his days were numbered.76 In the anonymous continuation of the prose Brut (to 1333) the narrator rebukes Sir Geoffrey Mortimer (Roger Mortimer’s son) because he, who was ‘so ful of pride and of wrecchednesse’, ‘countrefetede þe maner & doyng of Kynge Arthureʒ table’ at the Round Table in Wales. The Brut-chronicler adds that Sir Geoffrey utterly failed in his endeavour because ‘þe noble Knyʒt Arthure was þe most worþi lord of renoun þat was in al þe worlde in his tyme’.77 Thus, a Round Table might enhance or degrade its host’s reputation, a public relations lesson that might not have been lost on Edward III, who is known to have collected and consulted such chronicles of English history as the prose Brut.78 Regardless of any potential danger to his public image, Edward III endeavoured to replicate the grandeur of Arthur’s Caerleon coronation feast when hosting the Windsor Feast of 1344. Yet, in spite of Edward’s apparent enthusiasm for Round Tables, his emulation of Arthur and his solemn oath to transform these passing events into a permanent chivalric order,79 the 1344 event was the last Round Table known to have occurred in England until 1358 – a detail all the more noteworthy given that the royal wardrobe and Black Prince’s Register indicate that no less than six hastiludes took place within a year of the king’s return from Calais (12 October 1347).80 Might the implementation of effective but less-thanchivalrous military tactics during the invasion of French territory in 1346 account for this lengthy hiatus? Upon his arrival in Normandy (12 July 1346), Edward, the now selfprofessed ‘King of England and France’, issued an edict consistent with the spirit of the Lady of the Lake’s sermon and Pierre de Langtoft’s aforementioned Ensaumple du noble rei sire Arthur. The Crécy campaign diary entry for 13 July 1346 states that Edward III … angustiis miserabilis ipsius patrie populi multipliciter compaciens, ubique per suum exercitum edictum faciebat, ut nullus villas aut maniera incendere, ecclesias vel loca sacra depredari, senibus, parvulis aut mulie76 77 78

79 80

Robert Avesbury, De Gestis Mirabilibus Edwardi Tertii, ed. E. M. Thompson, RS 93 (London, 1889), p. 284. Brut, ed. Brie, I, 262. Edward III had multiple copies of the Brut and studied the successes of his predecessors Henry II and Edward I. See W. M. Ormrod, The Reign of Edward III (Stroud, 2000), pp. 47–8; Ormrod, Edward III, p. 99: ‘Yet despite his general enthusiasm for the heroes of chivalry, it is noticeable that the young Edward III was cautious about making too presumptious an association with the specific figure of Arthur. Roger Mortimer’s flirtations with Arthuriana, which had been the cause of much critical comment and scorn, taught Edward the real hazards, as well as the possible benefits, of adherence to the cult.’ J. Barker, The Tournament in England: 1100–1400 (Woodbridge, 1986), p. 92. Edward III’s Great Wardrobe contains provisions for hastiludes at Reading, Bury St Edmunds, Lichfield, Eltham, Windsor, and Canterbury. See N. H. Nicolas, ‘Observations on the Institution of the Most Noble Order of the Garter’, Archaelogia 31 (1846), 1–163 (pp. 37–42 and 115–24).

17



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

ribus quibuscumque regni sui Francie malum seu molestiam inferre presumeret, seu quibuscumque personis aliis, nisi viribus instarent, malefacerent quovismodo, sub pena vite et membrorum. De cetero jubebat quod, si aliquis in premissis seu premissorum aliquo criminosum et actu deprehensum regi adduceret, quadraginta solidos pro merito reportaret.81 (…feeling for the suffering of the poor people of the country, issued an edict throughout the army, that no town or manor was to be burnt, no church or holy place sacked, and no old people, children or women in his kingdom of France were to be harmed or molested; nor were they to threaten people, or do any kind of wrong, on pain of life and limb. He also ordered that if anyone caught someone in the act of doing these or other criminal acts and brought him to the king, he should have a reward of forty shillings.)82

This edict calls to mind the account of Arthur’s disciplined and courteous invasion of France as described in Wace’s Roman de Brut (ll. 9897–9904) and preserved in Robert Mannyng’s translation thereof (c. 1338): so wisly his folk gan lede, stroied he no lond als he ʒede. He toke no þing fer ne hend bot mete or drynke or hors prouend; ʒit tok þei non with no maistrie, bot bouht hit þer it was to bie.83

Although undoubtedly an example of English royal propaganda geared towards inspiring continued domestic support for the war and inducing the peaceful capitulation of the local population, Edward III’s edict indicates that the English king wished to be perceived as adhering to the righteous, ‘Arthurian’ model of courteous conquest and even, at least nominally, put the principle to use when pursuing a practical end.84 Jonathan Sumption contends that the civility displayed in the edict strongly suggests that Edward initially aimed to retain Normandy as a permanent possession. Sumption adds that the king quickly dispensed with this approach after realizing that his courteous overtures garnered only a mixed reception and that he could not actually guarantee the safety of his new subjects from

81 82

83 84

‘Acta Bellicosa Edwardi Tertii’, in J. Moisant, Le Prince Noir en Aquitaine, 1355–6, 1362–70 (Paris, 1894), pp. 157–74 (p. 160). ‘The Acts of War of Edward III (1346) from Corpus Christi College MS 170’, in The Life and Campaigns of the Blace Prince: From Contemporary Letters, Diaries and Chronicles, including Chandos Herald’s Life of the Black Prince, ed. and trans. R. Barber (London, 1979), pp. 26–40 (pp. 28–9). Robert Mannyng of Brunne, The Chronicle, ed. I. Sullens (Binghamton, NY, 1996), p. 344, ll. 10530–5. D. Green, The Black Prince (Stroud, 2001), p.76; W. R. Jones, ‘The English Church and Royal Propaganda during the Hundred Years War’, Journal of British Studies 19 (1979), 18–30.

18



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

French reprisal or even from unruly contingents within his own invasionary force. The English king abruptly departed from the Ensaumple du noble rei sire Arthur by launching destructive chevauchées (war-rides) across Normandy and by refusing to receive the yielding town of Bayeux into the king’s peace.85 I believe that this shift in martial policy coincided with a distancing from Arthur in Edward’s chivalric self-representation. Although the chevauchée was not an unprecedented act of war in 1346, and although the laws of war did not demand mercy for the occupants of a stronghold taken by force, compliance with the laws of war, ‘a formal minimum of humane and rational behavior’, fell short of the preservation of the literary ideal.86 After resistance mounted against the English at Saint-Lô collapsed (22 July 1346), Edward III allowed his men to sack the prosperous cloth-making town. In his Vrayes Chroniques (c. 1360) Jean le Bel (d. 1370) comments that the unthinkable rape, pillage and murder inflicted on townsfolk unaccustomed to war ‘fut grand pitié’ (II, 77–8). An equally dreadful fate befell the women, children and religious of Caen on 26 July 1346 after the townsfolk had killed or wounded several hundred invading English soldiers. In contrast to the display of ‘gentillece’ of Sir Thomas Holland and other select English knights, who prevented ‘mainte cruaulté et pluiseurs horribles fais’, including the rape of townswomen and nuns,87 Edward III endorsed the torching of the town and the killing of its inhabitants as a punishment for the armed resistance his men encountered and as a deterrent against future opposition. According to Froissart, it was Godfrey of Harcourt who, by appealing to his lord’s strategic objectives, eventually persuaded the king to restrain his ‘corage’ and to be satisfied with the havoc that he had already wreaked on Caen.88 Relenting, the king took over a hundred knights and four hundred bourgeois captive and had them and Caen’s spoils loaded onto English ships. Informed of the English march of destruction, Philippe VI challenged Edward III’s knightly virtue. In a letter dated 14 August 1346, the king of France, expressing confidence that God favoured his cause, dares Edward to halt his army’s depredations and to meet him ‘in a common place where the armies of France and English will be able to have a contest in a fitting and proper fashion’.89 The proposed battle sites betray Philippe’s aim to restrict Edward’s movements and to prevent a potential 85

86 87 88 89

See J. Sumption, The Hundred Years War, 3 vols. (London, 1990–2009), I, 532–3; C. J. Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360 (Woodbridge, 2000), p. 243. M. Keen, The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (London, 1965), pp. 3 and 19. Froissart, Chroniques, III, 144–5. Froissart, Chroniques, III, 145–6; C. J. Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp, pp. 247–8. Philippe VI of France, St Denis, to Edward III of England, 14 August 1346 in Chronicon Domini Walteri de Hemingburgh, ed. H. C. Hamilton, 2 vols. (London, 1848–9), II, 423–5 (p. 424): ‘sed in confidentia Dei et justitiæ quas habemus et quod guerra ista finem sortiatur breviorem… Et quod omnibus palam fiat, quod per nos mora prolixior fieri non contingat, locum communem ubi

19



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

attack on Paris. Yet, the king of France’s proposition could hardly go unanswered; it mirrored a knightly challenge issued by none other than Edward III himself on 26 July 1340. Therein Edward, claiming the moral high ground, invites ‘Philip de Valoys’ to meet him in single combat at Tournai: Et pur ce, que si graunt poer des gentz assemblez, que viegnent de nostre part, & que bien quidoms que vous avierrez de vostre part, ne se purrount mie longement tenir ensemble, sans faire gref destruction au poeple & au pays, la quele chose chascuns bons Cristiens doit eschuer, & especialment prince, & autre qui se tignent governeurs des gentz, si desiroms mout, que brefs points se prist, & pur eschuer mortalite des Cristiens, ensi come la querele est apparaunte a nous & a vous, que la descuscion de nostre chalaunge se fesist entre noz deux corps. (And because such a great force of men as we have assembled (as we think you have as well) cannot long hold together, without causing harm and destruction to the people and to the land, something which every good Christian should eschew, and especially princes and others who hold themselves for governors of men; therefore we greatly desire that the matter be concluded soon, and that, to avoid the death of Christians, as the quarrel is between you and us, that the debate of our challenge be conducted by our two bodies.)90

Edward forwarded two other means of resolution: a mêlée of two opposing teams of one hundred knights each headed by a king, or a pitched battle between their respective armies. Whereas Philippe VI had avoided this earlier challenge by refusing to answer to ‘Philip de Valoys’, Edward III baulked at Philippe’s 1346 offer, saying that he welcomed battle but would not accede to Philippe’s terms because the French king had consistently avoided every opportunity for confrontation in the prescribed fashion. Flouting Philippe’s challenge and his own previously stated qualms about killing innocent Christians, Edward III immediately allowed his troops to burn the vacated castle of Montjoie, Philippe of Valois’ Chastel le Roy, and the town of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, only calling for a halt to the ‘raiding and burning’ during the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin the following day (15 August 1346). Jean le Bel’s chronicle states that Edward’s army then went on to burn Fontaine-sur-Somme and Longen-Ponthieu – and that, after the Battle of Crécy, they razed Beaurain, Montreuil-sur-Mer, Saint-Josse and Longpré-les-Saint, with its large collegiate church.91

90 91

tales exercitus Franciæ et Angliæ forma congrua et decente congressum habere poterunt, vobis capere offerimus et liberare’ (my translation). Edward III of England, Tournai, to Philip VI of France, 26 July 1340 (PRO, SC1/37/135), excerpted and translated in Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp, p. 205. Jean le Bel, Chroniques, II, 109–10.

20



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

When recounting the Battle of Crécy, Geoffrey le Baker, Jean le Bel and Jean Froissart suggest that Edward III’s forces ‘resorted to improvised ruses’92 as France’s knights charged forth pursuing chivalric glory in the manner that Pharien recommends in the prose Lancelot. Describing the French offensive, Geoffrey le Baker writes: Intellecto quod balistarii nihil Anglicis nocuerunt, Gallici armati, iuvenibus dextrariis et agilibus cursariis insidentes … impetuose festinantes in Anglicos suas ostentare virtutes … Nitebatur proinde quilibet Gallicus suos prosequi precedentes; set ad illam inconsultam temeritatem maxime fuerunt voluntarii novicii milites, quibus valde habundavit exercitus, et omnes cupidi magni honoris, quem regem Anglie debellando, quilibet putabat se adquisiturum. (p. 83) (Realising that the crossbowmen were not harming the English, the French men at arms, mounted on young warhorses and agile chargers … charging headlong into the English ranks in order to display their prowess … Every Frenchman strove to follow those who had already charged; foremost in such rashness and boldness were newly made knights, of whom there were a good number in the army, all eager to gain the glory which they thought they would earn by fighting the English king.)93

C. Stephen Jaeger has characterized this ‘French obsession with sending their mounted knights first into battle’ as a victory of ‘Arthurian ideology over strategic good sense’ – ‘the end result of the supposedly literary education of the feudal nobility to courtly behavior’.94 Along the same lines, Froissart offers a vignette of how the companions in arms of the ‘vaillans et gentilz’ King John of Bohemia tied the bridles of their horses together to enable the blind king to fulfil his valiant wish of striking a blow against the English on the front lines.95 Geoffrey le Baker juxtaposes the French knights’ effort to prove their prowess with an account of how the disciplined, waiting English soldiers … effodierunt in parvo tempore multa foramina in terra coram acie prima, profunditatem unius pedis et eandem latitudinem habente quolibet illorum, ut, si, quod abfuit, equites Gallicorum ipsos nimis fuissent insecuti, equi ad foramina titubassent. (p. 83) (… quickly dug a large number of pits in the ground near their front line, each a foot deep and foot wide, so that if the French cavalry approached, their horses would stumble in the pits.)96 92 93 94

95 96

E. Perroy, The Hundred Years War, trans. D. Douglas (Bloomington, IN, 1965), p. 119. Life and Campaigns of the Blace Prince, trans. Barber, pp. 43–4. C. S. Jaeger, ‘Book-Burning at Don Quixote’s: Thoughts on the Educating Force of Courtly Romance’, in Courtly Arts and the Art of Courtliness, ed. K. Busby and C. Kleinhenz (Cambridge, UK, 2006), pp. 3–29 (p. 24). Froissart, Chroniques, III, 177–8. Life and Campaigns of the Black Prince, trans. Barber, p. 44.

21



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

Moreover, Jean le Bel writes that the English archers at Crécy targeted French warhorses specifically: Et d’aultre part les archiers tiroient si merveilleusement que ceulx à cheval, sentans ces flesches barbelées [qui] faisoient merveilles, l’ung ne vouloit avant aler, l’aultre sailloit contremont si comme arragié, l’aultre regimboit hydeusement, l’aultre retournoit le cul par devers les anemis, malgré son maistre, pour les settes qu’il sentoit, et les aultres se laissoient cheoir, car il ne le poyoient amender; et ces seigneurs anglès estans à pyé s’avanchoient et feroient parmi ces gens, qui ne se poyoient aydier d’eulx ne de leurs chevaulx. (II, 103) (On the other side the archers fired so marvelously that when the horses felt these barbed arrows (which did wonders), some would not go forwards, others leapt into the air as if maddened, others baulked and bucked horribly, others turned their rumps towards the enemy, regardless of their masters, because of the arrows they felt. Some, unable to avoid it, let themselves fall. The English lords, who were on foot, advanced and broke through these men, who could not help themselves, by their own efforts or by their horses.)97

Edward III, in his letter to Sir Thomas Lucy (3 September 1346), confirms that he had his men await the enemy on foot.98 Accountable for the death of more than 1500 knights and esquires at Crécy, including King Jan of Bohemia and the counts of Alençon, Auxerre, Blois, Chalon, Flanders, Harcourt, Salm, and Sancerre, Edward’s army violated not only the Arthurian chivalric ideal that a worthy knight should show an opponent mercy rather than killing him outright, but also the aforementioned principle of the droit d’armes that knightly adversaries should be captured and ransomed whenever possible rather than indiscriminately slaughtered. According to thirteenth- and fourteenth-century theoreticians, when one sovereign Christian prince declares war against another he is obligated to comply with the dictates of bellum hostile, public or open war, in which ‘spoil could be taken, but prisoners had the right to expect to be ransomed’.99 Geoffrey le Baker defended Edward III’s conduct at Crécy by maintaining that it was Philippe VI, who, by unfurling the oriflamme, declared that the French would take no prisoners and that 97 98

99

The Wars of Edward III: Sources and Interpretations, ed. C. J. Rogers (Woodbridge, 1999), p. 132. Edward III’s letter to his northern baron, Sir Thomas Lucy, summarizes the English army’s activity from the time of its arrival at La Hogue, near Barfleur (12 July), until the date of composition and contains a brief description of the Battle of Crécy. See Le Prince Noir, ed. Francisque-Michel (London, 1883), pp. 308–11 (p. 310). Kaeuper, ‘War, Justice, and Public Order’, p. 227. See also E. Porter, ‘Chaucer’s Knight, the Alliterative Morte Arthure, and Medieval Laws of War: a Reconsideration’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 27 (1983), 56–78 (p. 67).

22



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

the confrontation was to be a guerre mortelle.100 Nonetheless, Jean le Bel and Froissart were appalled that the English continued to disregard the droit d’armes after the main battle. Jean le Bel writes that, on the misty Sunday morning following the Battle of Crécy, an English force pounced upon an unsuspecting French regiment like ‘leus entre brebis’ (wolves among sheep) and although the French were under the misconception that the approaching English troops were their compatriots, Edward’s men took advantage of the situation and killed them ‘à leur voulenté’ (II, 107). Froissart states that this same English reconnoitring force of five hundred men-at-arms and two thousand archers took by surprise another detachment of French soldiers, which was under the misapprehension that battle had not yet commenced. Among those ‘put to the sword’ in this group were the archbishop of Rouen and the Grand Prior of France. Froissart emphatically states that no one was taken for ransom and that he heard that more than four times as many foot soldiers had died on that Sunday morning than at the main battle on the previous day.101 The military historian Andrew Ayton holds that ‘At Crécy, all regard for the bonds of an international chivalric brotherhood were [sic] set aside in the single-minded pursuit of a crushing victory’.102 The French, in contrast with the English noncompliance with the Arthurian code of chivalry, upheld its teaching that knights should fear shame more than death. Although the French offensive crumbled, Jean le Bel writes that for Philippe’s knights ‘fut le honte plus grande de retourner quant ilz veoient leurs anemis sy prez’ (the shame of turning back was greater when they saw their enemies so close at hand) (II, 102) and Froissart adds: ‘Toutes fois, li vaillant homme et li bon chevalier, pour leur honneur, chevauçoient toutdis avant, et avoient plus chier à morir, que fuite villainne leur fust reprocie’ (Nevertheless, the valiant men and the good knights, for their honour, always charged forward and held it better to die, for ignoble flight was reproach to them) (III, 178–9). Edward III even states in letter to Sir Thomas Lucy that ‘lez ennemiz se porterount moult noblement’ (The enemy bore themselves very nobly).103 Although a cliché of this sort is not uncommon in reports of victory, few would deny its validity in the case of Crécy. Interestingly, the king did not praise his own troops in like fashion. At Crécy, Edward III’s archers, ‘gent de nulle value’, stamped out

100 101

102 103

See Geoffrey le Baker, Chronicon, pp. 82–3; Green, Edward the Black Prince, p. 38. Froissart, Chroniques, III, 189: ‘Et y furent mort li doy chief qui les menoient; ne oncques il n’i eut homme pris à raençon … Et me fu dit que, de communautés et de gens de piet des cités et des bonnes villes, il en y eut mors, ce dimence au matin, plus quatre tans que le samedi, que li grosse bataille fu’. A. Ayton, ‘The Battle of Crécy: Context and Significance’, in A. Ayton and P. Preston, The Battle of Crécy, 1346 (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 1–34 (p. 6). Edward III to Sir Thomas Lucy, ed. Francisque-Michel, p. 310.

23



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

France’s fleur de la chevalerie.104 According to the English king’s own reckoning, the French host had more than than 12,000 mounted menat-arms, 8000 of whom were ‘gentil gentz, chevaliers et esquiers’.105 A substantial, yet under-equipped, force of hired Genoese crossbowmen and an indeterminate number of foot soldiers supplemented this array, but the mounted French knights, who saw themselves as the cornerstone of the French army, disdained their pedestrian, social inferiors and did not integrate them into their ranks. In contrast, Edward III had just 2800 menat-arms, mainly of the knightly class, out of a total fighting force of only 14,000 troops.106 According to Froissart, li arcier d’Engleterre deserved much credit for defeating Philippe’s vanguard.107 Unlike France’s mounted chevalier equipped with lance and sword, the English archer, whose status ranged from landless wage-labourer to elite yeoman, was not noble, nor was his weapon.108 Edward’s longbowmen, who could shoot upwards of eight arrows per minute, left little room for fine feats of arms. Although continental accounts of the battle of Crécy emphasized the decisive role of archery in the English victory, Edward’s letters home from the front did not draw attention to it.109 In contrast to Philippe VI’s army, which included the kings of Bohemia and Majorca, Edward III’s army had an infamous ruffian fringe: Et là entre ces Englès avoit pillars et ribaus, Gallois et Cornillois, qui poursievoient gens d’armes et arciers, qui portoient grandes coutilles, et venoient entre leurs gens d’armes et leurs arciers qui leur faisoient voie, et trouvoient ces gens d’armes en ce dangier, contes, barons, chevaliers et escuiers; si les occioient sans merci, com grans sires qu’il fust. Par cel estat en y eut ce soir pluiseurs perdus et murdris, dont ce fu pités et damages, et dont li rois d’Engleterre fu depuis courouciés que on ne les avoit pris à raençon. (III, 187) (Among the English there were pillagers and irregulars, Welsh and Cornishmen armed with long knives, who went out after the French (their own men-at-arms and archers making way for them) and, when they found any in difficulty, whether they were counts, barons, knights, or squires, they killed them without mercy. Because of this, many were slaughtered that evening, regardless of rank. It was a great misfortune and the King of 104 105 106 107 108 109

Les Grandes Chroniques de France: selon que elles sont conservées en L’église de Saint-Denis en France, ed. M. P. Paris, 6 vols. (Paris, 1836–8),V, 461–2. Edward III to Sir Thomas Lucy, ed. Francisque-Michel, p. 310. A. Ayton, ‘The English Army at Crécy’, in Ayton and Preston, The Battle of Crécy, 1346, pp. 159–251 (p. 189). Froissart, Chroniques, III, 186–7. Ayton, ‘The English Army at Crécy’, p. 189 and pp. 220–1. Ayton, ‘Crécy and the Chroniclers’, p. 293: ‘Apart from noting that the English fought on foot, the letter [to Sir Thomas Lucy] reveals nothing about tactical formations, and archery is not even mentioned. This reticence concerning tactical detail is very much the norm with Edward III’s newletters.’

24



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

England was afterwards very angry that none had been taken for ransom, for the number of dead lords was very great.)110

Based on this account, Edward does not seem to have regarded guerre mortelle as an absolute imperative after the main battle at Crécy, but had little sway over the horde that was fighting in his name. Moreover, he might have sensed that this massacre would not only entail a loss of potential revenue, but also some depreciation of his moral capital. The Eulogium historiarum (c. 1367), a universal history compiled by an anonymous monk of Malmesbury abbey, states that the same Welsh infantrymen killed countless Normans and stole twenty horses from two cardinals, papal peace envoys dispatched to Edward’s camp at Lisieux.111 A petition from the House of Commons to the king and council (1347) reveals that the Crown issued charters of pardon to murderers, robbers and rapists in return for their military service in the French campaign. Possibly as many as a thousand criminals sought this benefit after returning home to England.112 Froissart affirms that ‘gens de petite conscience’ filled the ranks of the English host and that these ‘maufaiteurs’, disregarding the prohibitions of the king and his marshal, engaged in many savage acts of murder and pillage, arson and larceny (III, 146–7). Thus, both the conduct and the composition of Edward III’s invading army markedly deviated from core Arthurian values. On both sides of the English Channel, the Battle of Crécy seems to have prompted reassessment of the practice of warfare and the role of knights therein. It is precisely in this milieu that the Order of the Garter and the Company of the Star were established. Although French men-atarms began experimenting with dismounted warfare at the Battle of Lunalonge (1349), the skirmish near Taillebourg (8 April 1351) and the Battle of Mauron (14 August 1352),113 the French noblesse were slow to disassociate tournaments from war. In his Livre de Chevalerie (1350–1351), Geoffroi de Charny states: Et toutesfoiz me semble il que en ce fait d’armes de guerre peut l’en faire en un jour tous les trois mestiers d’armes come de jouster, de tournoier et de guerroier; car en guerre convient il jouster de fer de glaive et ferir d’espee come a tournoiement et encontrer d’estoc et d’autres glaives come pour la guerre. Et pour ce doit l’en prisier plus et honorer gens d’armes pour la guerre que nulles autres gens d’armes qui soient … Et pour ce est ce grant chose et honorable que tous ces mestiers d’armes dont li aucun se

110 111 112 113

Jean Froissart, Chronicles, ed. and trans. G. Brereton (London, 1978), p. 93. Eulogium (historiarum sive temporis) a monacho quodam Malmesburiensi, ed. F. S. Haydon, RS 9, 3 vols. (London, 1858–63), III, 207–8. Ayton, ‘The English Army at Crécy’, p. 195. T. F. Tout, ‘Some Neglected Fights between Crecy and Poitiers’, EHR 20 (1905), 726–30; Green, Edward the Black Prince, pp. 43–4.

25



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

tiennent a paiez d’un chascun por soy, que les gens d’armes pour la guerre les font tous ensemble tous les jours qu’ilz ont a faire sur les champs. (But it seems to me that in the practice of arms in war it is possible to perform in one day all three different kinds of military art, that is jousting, tourneying, and waging war, for war requires jousting with the point of the lance and striking with the edge of the sword as in a tournament, and attacking with the swordthrust and other weapons, as war demands. Therefore one should value and honor men-at-arms engaged in war more highly than any other men-at-arms … And it is therefore a great and honorable thing that these uses of arms of which some feel they have achieved enough by performing just one, should all be carried out together by men-at-arms engaged in war each day they have to fight on the battlefield.)114

Whereas Geoffroi and his French companions seem to have treated war as a tournament taken to the next level, Ayton contends that the English military embraced their tactical revolution and disassociated ‘deeds of chivalry’ – of the sort, which, as we have seen, were commonly credited to Arthur – from the ‘practical business of battlefield fighting’.115 The fourteenth-century English knight and chronicler Sir Thomas Gray (d.  1369), for instance, affirms that ‘it is more fitting that chivalry be accomplished on horseback than on foot’, but inserts the all-important stipulation: ‘where that is practicable’.116 In France, it was only under Jean’s successor, Charles V, aptly called ‘le Sage’ (r. 1364–1380), that exercises in collective discipline and archery practice supplanted knightly single combat and jousting.117 Illustrative of this belated development is Philippe de Mézières’ Songe du Vieil Pelerin (c. 1389), wherein the author cautions the young Charles VI of France (r. 1380–1422) that a battle ‘n’est pas un jeu de parsonnage ne la bataille de la langue des advocaz’ (is neither a play nor the debate of lawyers) and that the decision to go to war should not be made lightly or on impulse.118

114

115

116

117 118

Geoffroi de Charny, Le Livre de chevalerie, ed. and trans. Elspeth Kennedy, in R. W. Kaeuper and E. Kennedy, The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi de Charny: Text, Context, and Translation (Philadelphia, 1996), pp. 88–91, ll. 4–17. A. Ayton, ‘English Armies in the Fourteenth Century’, in Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred Years War, ed. A. Curry and M. Hughes (Woodbridge, 1994), repr. in Rogers, Wars of Edward III, pp. 303–319 (p. 318). Sir Thomas Gray, Scalacronica, ed. J. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1836), p. 146: ‘… et si est meutz seaunt chos qe chevalery en soit fait a cheval qe a pee, ou couenablement ceo purra faire …’; J. Barnie, War in Medieval English Society: Social Values and the Hundred Years War 1337–99 (Ithaca, NY, 1974), p. 94. P. Contamine, ‘Les tournois en France à la fin du moyen âge’, in Das ritterliche Turnier im Mittelalter, ed. J. Fleckenstein (Göttigen, 1985), pp. 425–49 (p. 427). Philippe de Mézières, Le Songe du Vieil Pelerin, ed. G. W. Coopland, 2 vols. (Cambridge, UK, 1969) II, 382. See S. Vander Elst, ‘Literature and Chivalric Education in Philippe de Mézières Le songe du vieil pelerin, in Philippe de Mézières and His Age: Piety and Politics in the Fourteenth Century, ed. R. Blumenfeld-Kosinski and K. Petkov (Leiden, 2012), pp. 189–206 (pp. 200–2).

26



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

Pressing his point, Philippe draws attention to the catastrophe suffered by the king’s great-grandfather, Philippe VI, ‘qui a la bataille de Crecy pa(r) sa vaillance mains pesee legierement se combaty; dont le royaume de France lors commainca a perdre en effect sa renommee franche’ (II, 382) (who at the battle of Crécy, owing to his thoughtless daring, rushed into combat, wherefore the realm of France then began, in fact, to lose its noble reputation). Although the knights of England seem to have adapted more readily to the changing realities of war than the French noblesse, one should not assume that English knights were immune to the temptation of distinguishing themselves through brash ‘Arthurian’ displays of reckless daring. Comparison of the chivalric obligations of the Order of the Garter with those of the Company of the Star suggests why Edward III forsook his oath to restore the Order of the Round Table. The Statutes of the Garter hardly mention military matters and do not put forth a chivalric martial protocol. The second statute states that only those fitting the criteria of ‘gentil homme de sang et chevalier sans reprouche’ qualify for membership.119 Boulton conjectures that the specification sans reprouche implies that the Garter knights must conform to an ‘unwritten code of chivalry’; Clifford Rogers suggests that it means that they must abide by the ‘laws of chivalry’, that is, the aforementioned class-defined and rather permissive droit d’armes; and, Juliet Vale suggests that it signifies ‘unswerving and untarnished loyalty’ to the king – ‘the cornerstone and sine qua non of the order’.120 Indeed, the ambiguity of this phrase was certainly convenient for Edward III. Upon the death of a companion, at least six of the surviving members were required to gather together to nominate nine of ‘les plus souffisans [worthy] chevaliers sans reprouche qu’il congnoist’ to fill the vacancy.121 Once again, there is no clearly defined guideline of chivalric behaviour. Regarding war, each knight companion was expected to ask the sovereign for permission to leave the realm.122 Also, the companions were ‘not to arm themselves against each other, but in the Wars of their Sovereign Lord or in his own right and just quarrel’.123 As shown above, this injunction also applied to the Knights of the Round Table, but it is a characteristic common to all fraternal orders of knighthood and a principal objective in establishing such a society. The 119 120

121 122 123

Jefferson, ‘MS Arundel 48’, 377, ll. 20–1. Boulton, Knights of the Crown, p. 129; C. J. Rogers, ‘By Fire and Sword: Bellum Hostile and “Civilians” in the Hundred Years’ War’, in Civilians in the Path of War, ed. M. Grimsley and C. J. Rogers (Lincoln, NE, 2002), pp. 33–78 (p. 55); Vale, Edward III and Chivalry, p. 91. Jefferson, ‘MS Arundel 48’, 380, ll. 151–77. Jefferson, ‘MS Arundel 48’, 382–3, ll. 270–5. Jefferson, ‘MS Arundel 48’, 383, ll. 276–91: ‘Item, que nul dudit ordre soit armé l’un contre l’autre, s’il ne soit en la guerre de son souverain seigneur ou en son droit et juste querelle’; E. Ashmole, History of the Most Noble Order of the Garter and the Several Orders of Knighthood in Europe (London, 1715), p. 140.

27



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

­ tatutes of the Garter did not impose any constraints upon the companS ions’ conduct while campaigning on behalf of their sovereign. Furthermore, by selecting an esoteric emblem – the garter – as the hallmark of his knightly society, Edward permitted outsiders to guess at the order’s actual inspiration without being bound by their suppositions. Indeed, as noted above, chroniclers writing after 1350 commonly assumed that the Order of the Garter was the fulfilment of the king’s earlier, Arthurian oath; yet, Edward and his knights were no longer officially obligated to conform to the Round Table’s lofty and widely known ethical code. The Statutes of the Garter imply that the sovereign alone reserves the privilege to decide what is right and honourable. Drawing on the example of the Order of the Garter, Julian Pitt-Rivers has dubbed the pretension of the reigning political authority to absolute moral authority ‘the principle of Honi soit qui mal y pense’.124 Unlike Edward, Jean II sought to make his Company of the Star live up to the highest standards of chivalry. Although there is no known formal constitution for the society, a letter from the French king to an inductee (16 November 1351) survives, explaining Jean’s intention for founding the new compaignie de chevaliers. His desire to elevate contemporary knighthood to what he perceived to be its former dignity is apparent in a preamble to letters establishing a ‘college of canons, chaplains, and clerks to celebrate … the divine offices’ at the ‘Noble House of Saint-Ouen’ in October 1352: Jean, par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France … nous ressouvenant des temps anciens, des honorables et constantes prouesses des susdits fidèles, qui ont enfanté tant de triomphes, tant de traits de fécondes vertus, – nous avons pris à cœur de rappeler ces mèmes fidèles présents et à venir à une parfaite union, afin que dans cette union intime ils ne respirent qu’honneur et gloire, renoncent aux frivolités de l’inaction, et, par respect pour le prestige de la noblesse et de la chevalerie, ils rajeunissent à notre époque l’éclat de leur antique renom et de leur illustre compagnie, et qu’après avoir fait refleurir l’honneur de la chevalerie par la protection de la divine bonté, une tranquille paix renaisse pour notre règne et nos féaux, et que partout l’on publie les louanges de leur vertu … nous avons résolu d’établir la Compagnie ou Société des Chevaliers de Notre-Dame de la Noble-Maison de Saint-Ouen près Saint-Denys en France et un collège de chanoines, chapelains et clercs pour y célébrer les divins offices: et nous avons la ferme confiance avec l’intercession de la dite très glorieuse Vierge Marie envers nous et nos féaux auprès du Seigneur Jésus-Christ, son fils, et grâce aux prières des chanoines, chapelains et clercs eux-mêmes, le même Notre Seigneur-Jésus-Christ versera misécordieusement sa grâce sur les Chevaliers de la susdite Compagnie ou Association; en sorte que ces mêmes

124

J. Pitt-Rivers, ‘Honor and Social Status’, in Honor and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, ed. J. G. Peristiany (Chicago, 1966), pp. 21–77 (p. 37).

28



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

Chevaliers, dans l’exercice des armes, affamés d’honneur et de gloire, se comporteront désormais avec une telle concorde, une telle vaillance, que la fleur de la chevalerie, qui, pour un temps et par les causes susénoncées, se fletrit pour ainsi dire dans l’ombre, s’épanouira sous notre sceptr, et resplendira dans une parfaite harmonie à l’honneur et gloire dudit royaume et de nos féaux.125 (Jean by the Grace of God King of France … we, mindful of former times, of the honourable and constant prowess of the aforesaid liegemen, who brought forth so many victorious, virtuous, and fortunate works, have taken it to heart to recall these same liegemen, present and future, to a perfect union, to the end that in this intimate unity they will breathe nothing but honour and glory, renouncing the frivolities of inaction, and will, through respect for the prestige of the nobility and knighthood, restore to our epoch the lustre of their ancient renown and of their illustrious company, and that after they have brought about the reflowering of the honour of knighthood through the protection of divine goodness, a tranquil peace will be reborn for our reign and our subjects, and the praises of their virtue will be published everywhere. Therefore, in expectation of these benefits and of many others, … we have founded the Company or Society of the Knights of the Blessed Mary of the Noble House of Saint-Ouen near Saint-Denis in France and a college of canons, chaplains, and clerks to celebrate the divine services. And we have firm confidence that with the intercession of the said most glorious Virgin Mary for us and our faithful subjects, the Lord Jesus Christ will mercifully pour out his grace upon the knights of the aforesaid company or association, with the result that the same knights, eager for honour and glory in the exercise of arms, shall bear themselves with such concord and valiance, that the flower of chivalry, which for a time and for reasons mentioned had faded into the shadows, shall blossom in our realm, and shine resplendent in a perfect harmony to the honour and glory of the kingdom and of our faithful subjects.)126

This call for the renunciation of present frivolities and a return to the ancient virtue of knighthood contains the ‘golden age of chivalry’ topos and was, according to Yves Renouard, Jean II’s response to defeat at Guyenne, Crécy and Calais.127 Rather than jettisoning the Arthurian chivalric ideal in favour of the latest warfare tactics, the king attempted to harness it into an ethical undergirding for his reform campaign. Ironically, on the very same day that Jean II and his knights inaugurated the Company of the Star at Saint-Ouen (6 January 1352), an enterprising English squire named John Dancaster captured the castle of Guines (six miles south of Calais). Although this seizure occurred while a truce was 125

126 127

Paris, Archives Nationales, Register JJ 81, no. 570, f. 288f, in Am. Vattier, ‘Fondation de L’Order de L’Étoile’, Comité archéologique de Senlis: Comptes-Rendus et Memoires, second series, 10 (Senlis, 1885), pp. 42–5. Boulton, Knights of the Crown, pp. 184–5. Renouard, ‘L’Ordre’, 296.

29



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

in effect between the kings of England and France, Edward III officially received Guines into his possession on 29 January 1352 and rewarded Dancaster for his initiative, prompting a French uproar that the English were devoid of ‘vérité’, ‘loyauté’ and ‘foy’.128 Jean II’s letter of invitation to a prospective member (16 November 1351)129 and Jean le Bel’s description of the Company of the Star contain subtle hints that the French king, when formulating this chivalric order, endeavoured to capitalize on Edward’s failure to reestablish the Round Table. Describing Jean II’s plans, Jean le Bel writes: L’an de grace M CCC LII, le roy Jehan de France ordonna un belle compaignie, grande et noble, sur la Table Ronde qui fut jadis ou temps du roy Artus. De la compaignie debvoient estre IIIc chevaliers des plus souffisans du royaume de France, et debvoit estre appellée celle compaignie la compaignie de le Estoille.… Et promit le roy de faire une belle maison et grand emprez Saint Denis, là où tous les compaignons et confreres debvoient estre à toutes les festes solempnelles de l’an, ceulx qui seroient ou pays, s’ilz n’avoient empeschement raisonnable, et debvoit estre appellée la noble maison de Estoille; et y debvoit le roy, chascun an, tenir court plainiere de tous les compaignons au mains, et y debvoit chascun raconter toutes ses aventures, aussy bien les honteuses que les glorieuses qui avenues luy sueroient dès le temps qu’il n’avroit esté à la noble court; et le roy debvoit ordonner II ou III clercs qui escouteroient toutes ces aventures, et en ung livre mettroient, affin qu’elles fussent chascun an raportées en place par devant les compaignons, par quoy on pœut sçavoir les plus prœux, et honnourer ceulx qui mielx le deserviroient. Et ne pouoit nul entrer en celle compaignie, s’il n’avoit le consentement du roy et de la plus grande partie des compaignons presens, et s’il n’estoit souffisant, sans deffaulte de reprœuche. Et leur convenoit jurer que jamais ilz ne fuiroient en bataille plus hault de IIII arpens, à leur advis, ainchoys morroient et se rendroient pris, et que chascun aideroit et secourroit l’aultre à toutes ses besongnes; et pluseurs aultres status et ordonnances y avoit que chascun avoit juré.  (II, 204–5) (In the year of grace M CCC LII King Jean of France ordained a fair company, large and noble, after the Round Table which formerly existed in the time of King Arthur. Of the company there were to be three hundred knights, of the most worthy in the Kingdom of France. And the company was to be called the Company of the Star … And King Jean promised to have made a large and beautiful house near Saint-Denis, at which the companions and brothers – those who were in the country – were to be on all the solemn feasts of the year, if they had no reasonable excuse. And it

128

129

Les grandes chroniques de France: chronique des règnes de Jean II et de Charles V, ed. R. Delachenal, 4 vols. (Paris, 1910–20), I, 35; Philippe de Mézières, Songe du Vieil Pelerin, II, 318; Sumption, Hundred Years War, II, 87–90. Paris, Archives Nationales, Mémoires de la Chambre des Comptes, Reg. C, f. 120, in Vattier, ‘Fondation’, pp. 37–40.

30



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

was to be called the Noble House of the Star. And there each year, at least, the king was to hold full court with the companions. And there each of the companions was to recount all the adventures, the shameful as well as the glorious, which had come to him in the time since he had been in the noble court. And the king was to establish two or three clerks who were to listen to all these adventures and put them in a book, so that they might be reported there every year before the companions, by which one could know the most valorous and honour those who best deserved it. And no one could enter into this Company if he did not have the consent of the king and of the greater part of the companions present, and if he was not worthy, without a failure of reproach. And they were to swear that they would never flee in battle farther than four arpents (in their opinion), but would die or surrender; and that each would aid and help the other in all his encounters. And there were several other statutes and ordinances that each had sworn.)130

After Edward III had usurped St George, Jean II gave the Star Arthurian colouring, presumably both to outshine and to discredit the Order of the Garter for failing to match the chivalric standard set by the legendary Round Table. The Company of the Star, according to Jean le Bel, had three hundred as its membership goal – the very number that Edward III had proposed for his Round Table.131 Renouard quite rightly concludes that there was not only ‘emulation and imitation’ between the Garter and the Star, but also ‘competition’.132 As with the Order of the Garter, only ‘des plus souffisans du royaume de France’ were to be admitted into Jean’s company. The French king also expected his knights to equal their Arthurian forbears in deeds of arms. With this purpose in mind, he included in his invitational letter his plan to establish the ‘Table d’Onneur’ at the first feast for the ‘trois plus souffisans Princes, trois plus souffisans bannerets, et trois plus souffisans bachelers’ in attendance. These neuf preux were chosen based upon their conduct in war, armes de guerre, not in peacetime tournaments involving blunted weapons, armes de pais,133 thus underscoring the importance of honourable martial conduct. In this

130 131

132 133

Boulton, Knights of the Crown, pp. 180–1. Jean le Bel’s report of the Company of the Star’s projected size, 300, does not correspond with Jean II’s invitational letter, which sets 500 knights as its intended goal. See Vattier, ‘Fondation’, p. 39. Renouard, ‘L’Ordre’, 296. Vattier, ‘Fondation’, p. 39: ‘Et est encore ordené quen la Noble Meson aura une table appelée la table d’onneur, en laquele seront assiz la veille et le jour de la première feste les trois plus souffisans Princes, trois plus souffisans bannerez, et trois plus souffisans bachelers, qui seront à ladite feste deceuls qui seront recuz en ladite Compoignie: et en chascune veille et feste de la my Aoust, chascun an apres ensuivant seront assiz à ladite table d’onneur les trois Princes, trois Bannerets et trois Bachelers, qui l’année auront plus faict en armes de guerre car nul fait darmes de pais ny sera mis en compte’; Boulton, Knights of the Crown, p. 200.

31



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

way, as Keen has suggested, Jean II instituted the Company of Star as a ‘kind of riposte to Edward’s Garter foundation’.134 By having his company’s adventures recorded, aussy bien les honteuses que les glorieuses, Jean II sought to establish continuity with the corpus of Arthurian literature – a charge not undertaken by the Order of the Garter until John Wrythe began recording the adventures of the Garter knights in the fifteenth century.135 There are multiple instances in the Lancelot-Grail Cycle in which Arthur orders that his knights’ sworn accounts of their adventures be preserved in writing, and it was widely believed during the Middle Ages that Walter Map produced the Lancelot-Grail Cycle from these ancient records.136 By reviving, or rather, actualizing, the literary tradition of Arthur’s knights, Jean II channelled the vanity of his knights into valiant and faithful military service, but he also inadvertently jeopardized his chances of victory. For, as Gertz has noted, ‘the Arthurian imperative to return from quests with tales of adventures to be measured against a chivalric code’ fostered a perception of the world – or more precisely, the battlefield – as a ‘stage’ for performing deeds of prowess that might, in turn, immortalize the given knight through their retelling.137 The recklessness and selfish, ‘metaliterary’ preoccupations implicit in the ‘Arthurian drive for glory’ was, from all appearances, antithetical to professional, group-oriented, military discipline.138 The Battle of Mauron (14 August 1352) showcased Edward III’s deviation from Arthurian chivalry in contrast to the Company of the Star’s stalwart defence thereof. Not long after the institution of the Company of the Star, many of its members marched to Brittany to fend off an English incursion. Jean le Bel writes that more than eighty-nine Companions of the Star died in an English ambush

134 135

136 137 138

Keen, Chivalry, p. 191. M. Keen, ‘Chivalry, Heralds and History’, in Keen, Nobles, Knights and Men-at-Arms, pp. 62–81 (p. 73). In a letter to Francesco Nelli, Boccaccio states that Nicolo Acciaiuoli began compiling a gesta for his brainchild, the Company of the Knot, comparable to the one intended for the Company of the Star. See Le lettere edite e inedite di Messer Giovanni Boccaccio, ed. F. Corazzini (Florence, 1877), p. 161: ‘Scripse in francesco de’ fatti de’ cavalieri del santo spedito, in quello stile che gia per addietro scripsono alcuni della Tavola ritonda, nel quale che cosa da ridere et al tutto false abbia poste egli el sa.’ (He [Acciaiuoli] wrote in French of the deeds of the knights of the Holy Spirit, in the style in which certain others in the past wrote of the Round Table. What laughable and entirely false matters were set down, he himself knows.’) For this translation, see Boulton, Knights of the Crown, pp. 235–6. See Queste, ed. Paupilet, pp. 279–80; Lancelot do Lac, ed. Kennedy, I, 571; La Mort le Roi Artu, ed. J. Frappier (Paris, 1936), pp. 1–2. Gertz, Visual Power and Fame, pp. 42–4. Gertz, Visual Power and Fame, p. 43: ‘The Arthurian demand to report, then, can encourage metaliterary reflection on the nature of creating epic stories to enhance one’s reputation, of perceiving the world as a stage set, “de faire briller… vertu”’; Green, Black Prince, p. 77: ‘It is arguable that Crécy and Poitiers were victories of professional discipline over traditional chivalric recklessness.’

32



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

… pour ce qu’ilz avoient juré que jamais ne fuiroient, car se le serment ne fut, ilz se fussent bien retrais arriere. Si y en morut pluseurs aultres pour l’amour d’eulx, qu’ilz eussent par aventure sauvez, se ne fust ce qu’ilz avoient juré et ce qu’ilz doubtoient que il ne leur fust reprouvé à la ­compaignie. (II, 206–7) (… because they had sworn that they would never flee; for if it had not been for the oath, they could well have withdrawn. Several others died for the love of them, who might have been if they had not sworn the oath, and feared they would be reproved for it by the Company.)139

Geoffroi Charny’s counsel for the Knights of the Star in his Livre de chevalerie supports Jean le Bel’s conclusion regarding the tragedy at Mauron: Et la ou li chaitis ont grant envie de vivre et grant paour de mourir, c’est tout au contraire des bons; car aus bons ne chaut il de leur vie ne de mourir, mais que leur vie soit bonne a mourir honorablement. Et bien y pert es estranges et perileuses aventures que il querent … car li bon dessus dit vous enseignent que li vault miex mourir que laidement vivre. (pp. 126–9, ll. 41–9) (And while the cowards have great desire to live and a great fear of dying, it is quite the contrary for the men of worth who do not mind whether they live or die, provided that their life be good enough for them to die with honor. And this is evident in the strange and perilous adventures which they seek … for the said men of worth teach you that it is better to die than to live basely.)

The French knights’ strict adherence to their knightly code and regard for fame at Mauron contributed to the demise of the entire Company of the Star. Thereafter, according to Jean le Bel, ‘this noble Company was not spoken of’ and, as far as he knew, ‘it came to nothing, and the house remained vacant’.140 The company’s actual deathblow came at the Battle of Poitiers (19 September 1356) when Sir Geoffroi de Charny, outnumbered five-to-one by English and Gascon men-at-arms, died courageously clasping the oriflamme141 and Jean II, having thus lost his protector, surrendered. Yet, on St George’s Day 1358, a year after the Black Prince’s triumphant homecoming to London with King Jean as his captive (11 April 1357), the figure of King Arthur made a dramatic return to English royal pageantry. The Florentine chronicler Matteo Villani (d. 1363) writes that the grand St George’s Day tournament of 1358, proclaimed in France, Germany, Brabant, Flanders and Scotland, was ‘una solenne festa di 139 140 141

Boulton, Knights of the Crown, p. 182. Jean le Bel, Chronique, II, 207; Boulton, Knights of the Crown, p. 182. Jean Froissart, Ouvres complètes de Froissart, ed. K. Lettenhove, 25 vols. (Brussels, 1867–77), V, 433.

33



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

cavalieri della Tavola Ritonda’.142 On 14 April 1358, when the kings of England and France were coming to terms on the agreement that became the first treaty of London (signed 8 May 1358), Edward invited Jean to his annual St George’s Day feast.143 Jean le Bel writes that Edward hosted jousts and had the most beautiful and best dressed ladies and maidens of England come to his ‘trés noble feste’ at Windsor Castle in order to ‘mielx festier et honnourer le roy Jehan’(II, 240). The English king, according to Villani, received his splendidly attired, foreign guests in London with all due honour according to their rank. The reception included a ‘solenne e vana festa de’ cavalieri erranti’ (solemn and vain feast of knights-errant) wherein the ‘antiche favole della Tavola Ritonda’ (the ancient fables of the Round Table) were revived. Twenty-four men were made knightserrant and obliged to ‘giostra e battaglia per amore di donna’ according to the examples provided in the ‘fallaci romanzi che della vecchia parlano’ (false romances that speak of the old [table]) (II, 196). Twenty-four is, of course, the membership size of the Garter, excluding its sovereign and the prince of Wales. It is indeed quite possible that the Garter knights themselves performed this Arthurian spectacle before King Edward, Queen Philippa, Isabelle the Queen Mother of Edward III, Prince Edward, King Jean, King David of Scotland and a host of other noble personages. This chivalric display was certainly in keeping with the taste of Jean II, who had borrowed such French romances as the ‘Holy Grail’ and ‘Lancelot’ from Isabelle while in captivity. Nonetheless, one wonders whether watching Edward’s knights – perhaps even his celebrated Garter knights – parade around as the Knights of the Round Table prompted Jean II’s snide remark about the extravagance of the event,144 especially since these very knights were a party to the destruction of his own Arthurian order. Although Edward did indeed rekindle the ‘cult of Arthur’ at the English royal court during the St George’s Day feast of 1358, Villani’s account of the Arthurian evocation indicates that it was qualitatively different from the French Arthurian enterprise and the English king’s own earlier undertaking. Although this event involved ‘hastiludia invisa a tempore regis

142

143 144

Matteo Villani, Cronica con la continuazione di Filippo Villani, ed. G. Porta, 3 vols. (Parma, 2007), II, 182. This source confirms Vale’s suspicion that the ‘secular and informal aspects of the Garter celebrations may have had an Arthurian theme’. See Vale, ‘Arthur in English Society’, p. 194. For the further reference to the St George’s Day event a ‘solemprie convivium as etiam rotundam tabulam’ (a solemn banquet and round table), see Chronica Anonymi Cantuariensis: The Chronicle of Anonymous of Canterbury 1346–65, ed. and trans. C. Scott Stokes and C. Given-Wilson (Oxford, 2008), pp. 42–5. Villani, Cronica, II, 192–3. See A Chronicle of London from 1089–1483; written in the fifteenth century (London, 1827), pp. 63–4: ‘This same yere the kyng helde royally seynt George feste at Wyndesore, there beynge kyng John of Fraunce; the whiche kyng John seyde in scorn, that he sawe never so ryall a feste and so costelewe mad with tailles of tre, withoughte payeng of gold and sylvere.’ For discussion of archival material related to the Windsor feast, see Ormrod, Edward III, pp. 388–9.

34



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

Arthuri’145 and the recitation of the Arthurian tales of old, there is no indication that the English knights’ own recent exploits were retold in true Arthurian fashion. If Edward III was loath to renew this particular ritum Arthuri, then he had a keener awareness of the limits King Arthur’s usefulness as a propaganda tool than Jean II. Gertz has speculated that the English monarch, whose mastery of public relations has been the focus of much scholarly attention,146 recognized ‘that Arthurian ideas of chivalry were at times ill-suited to both wartime and political situations’.147 She holds that: ‘For the Edwards, dysordynaunce arose when the royal family attempted, in a sense, to reestablish Camelot on the battlefield as well as in the court. It seems, that is, that both war and peace settings could provide opportunities to demonstrate excellence and virtue only as long as the spheres were kept more or less separate’.148 By 1358, Edward III had arrived at a more nuanced understanding of how best to employ the figure of King Arthur in royal propaganda and court pageantry. ‘Juramental Arthurianism’, by which I am referring to the knights who retained their own identity but pledged to uphold the Arthurian code of conduct at all times, necessarily entailed a crossing of the two spheres mentioned by Gertz. Edward, unlike the less savvy king of France, avoided this pitfall when aborting his Round Table project. But instances of ‘ludic Arthurianism’, by which I mean the ephemeral courtly events wherein knights, incognito, acted or jousted as the heroes of romance, offered the best of both worlds. Such occasions could be scheduled to coincide with moments of political significance and thereby suggest the revival of Camelot without further obligation. Through the Arthurian interlude leading up to the 1358 St George’s Day festivities, Edward symbolically conveyed to Jean II and the rest of international assemblage of dignitaries that he alone was King Arthur’s true successor and that the English royal court was the new Camelot. By again likening himself to Arthur, the righteous and just conqueror, the bonus rex, not only did King Edward project his superiority over his French counterpart, he also asserted his rightful sovereignty over the many new French territories that he expected to receive.149 Most significantly, Edward succeeded in expressing his likeness to Arthur through a passing event rather than 145 146

147 148 149

Eulogium historiarum, ed. Haydon, III, 227: ‘Hoc anno [1358] facta sunt hastiludia invisa a tempore regis Arthuri, in festo Sancti Georgii, ubi equitarunt Angli, Scotti, et captivi Franci…’. See H. J. Hewitt, The Organization of War under Edward III (Manchester, 1966), pp. 160–5; Barnie, War in Medieval English Society, pp. 112–16; W. R. Jones, ‘The English Church and Royal Propaganda during the Hundred Years’ War’, Journal of British Studies 19 (1979), 18–30; A. K. McHardy, ‘Some Reflections on Edward III’s Use of Propaganda’, in The Age of Edward III, ed. J. S. Bothwell (York, 2001), pp. 171–92. Gertz, Visual Power and Fame, pp. 115–16. Gertz, Visual Power and Fame, pp. 115–16. See C. J. Rogers, ‘The Anglo-French Peace Negotiations of 1354–1360’, in The Age of Edward III, pp. 193–213 (p. 199).

35



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

a permanent Arthurian order of chivalry that would demand steadfast adherence to the legendary Round Table model – an undertaking that I believe this ambitious and ‘image-conscious’ king recognized as incompatible with his winning strategy.150 Nevertheless, the Arthurian revival in 1358 seems to have contributed to the aforementioned conflation of the Order of the Garter and Edward III’s earlier planned Order of the Round Table. Jean le Bel, who ended his Vrayes Chroniques only three years thereafter, surmised that Edward’s ultimate company of knights – whose name he did not mention – ‘fut faitte selonc la maniere de la Table Ronde; mais je ne la sçay pas bien deviser, si m’en tairay à tant’ (was made after the manner of the Round Table; but I [Jean le Bel] do not know how to describe it well, so I shall not say any more about it) (II, 35). Jean Froissart, who followed Jean le Bel’s work, took the additional step of presenting the ‘chevaliers dou Bleu Gartier’ as Edward III’s original brainchild that arose seamlessly from the Windsor Feast of 1344 (III, 37). Consequently, Edward would again be subject to criticism through comparison with King Arthur, albeit in novel fashion. Expressions of disapproval of Edward III’s war policy were veiled during the king’s lifetime, but his Arthurian affectations came back to haunt him. A much-darkened figure of King Arthur became a symbol of the cruel and avaricious qualities of Edward III and his knights. In ‘Conflictatio’, the twelfth eclogue of Petrarch’s allegorical Bucolicum carmen, completed shortly after the capture of King Jean at Poitiers, Multivolus (Voluble, the inconstant people – vox populi) introduces Arthicus (widely understood to represent Edward III) as a haughty and combative shepherd contemptuous of the leisure of his rival Pan (the King of France – an amalgamation of Philippe VI and Jean II) and determined to acquire the latter’s riches by battle. Setting the stage for war, Petrarch writes: … Jam brachia uterque Pastor ad ambigui certaminis orsa parabat; Jam studijs adverse acies, iamque arma fremebant. Queque suos vocat ore deos: Hec menia Troie, Arturumque canit; pugilum canit illa labores, Monstrificumque refert Carolum. Tum iurgia late Jactantur, toto volitant convitia celo. Pan fraudes pensique nichil fandique pijque, Obicit … (Already with arms uplifted both of the shepherds make ready for dubious conflict; already, opposite battle-lines drawn, both hosts

150

Ormrod concludes that Edward III was ‘one of the most image-conscious kings of the later Middle Ages’. See Ormrod, Reign of Edward III, p. 49.

36



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

are clashing their armor. Each side invokes its gods; one calls on the ancient Trojan walls and on Arthur of old; the other vaunting the wound’rous Gesta of Charles and his champions, makes ready answer. Then insults are freely hurled and screaming invectives rise to the heavens. Pan cites his foe’s many tricks, unspeakably false and dishonest …)151

Through Multivolus, Petrarch challenges the justness of the English king’s cause; through Pan, he raises doubts about Edward’s knightly virtue; and, through Arthicus, he illustrates the trans-European scope of the EdwardArthur association. Even more cryptic is an English political prophecy (c. 1349) attributed to John of Bridlington (d. 1379) that scorns Edward III for killing harmless French civilians. Explaining why the English king faltered in his bid for sovereignty over France, the poet writes: ‘Clamor bidentis boat auribus omnipotentis,/ Innocuæ gentis sanguis quæritur morientis’ (The outcry of the sacrificial lamb falls upon the ears of the Almighty; the blood of the dying innocent nation protests),152 and a later commentary (c. 1362–1364) on this passage explains that the blood was ‘communitatis Franciæ, quae nihil ei nocebat quæritur apud Deum’ (of the French community, which was doing him [Edward III] no harm).153 The linkage between Edward and Arthur contained in Petrarch’s ‘Conflictatio’ and the horrors of fourteenth-century total warfare are brought to the fore in Morte Arthure (c. 1375–1400) and two other alliterative poems, The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelayne (c. 1400–1430) and The Knightly Tale of Gologros and Gawane (late fifteenth century). In contrast to Pierre de Langtoft’s assertion that Arthur was the ‘Prince plus curteis de teres conquestez’, the anonymous poet of the Morte Arthure writes that the ‘dyuerse remmes’ in Arthur’s dominion ‘By conqueste full cruell … knewe hym fore lorde’.154 Likewise, when marching into Tuscany, Arthur, the widowmaker of Morte Arthure, ‘turmentez þe pople’ and ‘all he wastys with werre’ (ll. 3150–7). Additionally, the ‘philosopher’ charged with interpreting Arthur’s dream involving Lady Fortune’s wheel reminds the king: ‘Thow has shedde myche blode,

151

152 153 154

Petrarch, Bucolicum Carmen, ed. and trans. T. G. Bergin (New Haven and London, 1974), eclogue 12: ‘Conflictio’, ll. 54–62; P. Boitani, ‘Petrarch and the “barbari Britanni”’, Proceedings of the British Academy 146 (2007), 9–25 (p. 23–5). These lines likely numbered among the first 149 that Petrarch penned in Provence after the Battle of Crécy in 1346; he completed the poem in Milan in late 1357. See N. Mann, ‘The Making of Petrarch’s “Bucolicum Carmen”’, Italia Mediovale e Umanistica 20 (1977): 127–82 (pp. 131–3). John of Bridlington, ‘Prophecy 8’, in Political Poems and Songs relating to English History, ed. T. Wright, RS 14, 2 vols. (London, 1859–61), I, 171. John of Bridlington, ‘Prophecy 8’, 172; A. G. Rigg, ‘John of Bridlington’s Prophecy: A New Look’, Speculum 63 (1988), 596–613. Morte Arthure: A Critical Edition, ed. M. Hamel (New York and London, 1984), pp. 103–4, ll. 26–51.

37



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

and schalkes distroyede, / Sakeles, in cirquytrie, in sere kynges landis’ (ll. 3398–9). Characteristic of one school of thought regarding the poem, John Barnie holds: By setting the legendary king’s conquests in the context of contemporary English military practice, the poet had no need to make exact parallels between Arthur and Edward. The relevance of his criticism of Arthur’s pride, covetousness, and cruelty to Edward III’s militarism would not have been lost on a contemporary audience which was in any case used to hearing Edward compared with the British hero by admiring poets and chroniclers.155

Indeed, the allegorical critique of the Plantagenet propensity to wage brutal wars is also evident in The Awntyrs off Arthure when Gawain asks the ghost of Guinevere’s mother: How shal we fare… þat fonden to fight, And þus defoulen þe folke on fele kinges londes, And riches ouer reymes withouten eny right, Wynnen worshipp and wele þorgh wightnesse of hondes?156

155

156

Barnie, War in Medieval English Society, p. 149. For a more recent ‘Edwardian’ reading of the AMA, see C. Chism, ‘King Takes Knight: Signifying War in the Alliterative Morte Arthure’, in Christine Chism, Alliterative Revivals (Philadelphia, 2002), pp. 189–236. G. R. Keiser, ‘Edward III and the Alliterative Morte Arthure’, Speculum 48 (1973), 37–51, objects that the English author of the AMA was unlikely to have been scornful of Edward III, ‘a great national hero’ (p. 5); but he, in my opinion, has not fully engaged the anti-war sentiments (including those cited above) increasingly prevalent in the latter years of the fourteenth century. J. A. Burrow, ‘The Fourteenth-Century Arthur’, in The Cambridge Companion to Arthurian Legend, pp. 69–83 (p. 71), finds fault with the argument that the poem is critical of ‘imperialistic war’ on the grounds that a fourteenth-century English audience might have been sympathetic to Arthur’s – the Plantagenets’ – historical justification for far-reaching lordship, but L. Manion, ‘Sovereign Recognition: Contesting Political Claims in the Alliterative Morte Arthure and The Awntyrs of Arthur’, in Law and Sovereignty in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. R. S. Sturges (Turnhout, 2011), pp. 69–91, has convincingly countered that the AMA questions the ‘use of chronicle proof of past homage and conquests to determine current political relationships’ (p. 81). Other scholars read the poem more broadly as an Augustinian meditation on worldly vanity. See, for example, Patterson, Negotiating the Past, pp. 212–17. For a reading of the poem as a pro-baronial critique of Richard II’s centralizing and self-aggrandizing royal policy, see P. DeMarco, ‘An Arthur for the Ricardian Age: Crown, Nobility, and the Alliterative Morte Arthure’, Speculum 80 (2005), 464–93. Yet neither the Augustinian nor Ricardian interpretations need exclude a critique of Edward III’s bellicosity. Most judicious are the remarks of L. Johnson, ‘The Alliterative Morte Arthure’, in The Arthur of the English, pp. 90–100 (p. 91): ‘The result is a prismatic kind of text which allows its readers to perceive refractions of events from the more recent history of England in an account of events in the distant British past … The nature of kingship, the business of governance, the justification for war, its proper conduct … the achievements of military might and its terrible consequences are all matters which the audience of this poem are invited to consider.’ The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyn, ed. R. Hanna (Manchester, 1974), p. 76, ll. 261–4.

38



EDWARD III’s ABANDONED ORDER OF THE ROUND TABLE

The ghost answers that King Arthur is too ‘couetous’ (l. 265), and then forecasts the Round Table fellowship’s abrupt fall from fortune’s favour. The Middle Scots Arthurian tale, Gologros and Gawain, also portrays Arthur as rapacious. Therein, Sir Spinagros, the voice of moderation, attempts to advise Arthur that warmongering only leads to trouble and instability. In response, a callous Arthur vows that he will remain in his armour until he has forced his adversary Gologros into submission ‘Or ellis mony wedou/ Ful wraithly sal weip’.157 After the fashion of Edward III’s chevauchées in France, Arthur will create unrest ‘with routis full ride’ (l. 502). Thus, Edward III’s Arthurian self-fashioning seems to have had a more overtly detrimental effect on Arthur’s legacy than on his own. The reciprocal influence of life and art in the case of Edward III’s relationship to Arthur and the Round Table came full circle by the close of the fourteenth century. As an unproven king at war with Europe’s leading superpower, Edward endeavoured to increase his fame by associating himself as closely as possible with the exemplary Arthur. The king promised to do the same for all knights who took up his ‘just quarrel’ with France by pledging to reestablish the Order of the Round Table. After achieving a crushing victory at Crécy through less than Arthurian means, Edward III sought to circumvent ignominy by aborting the Round Table project and instituting the Order of the Garter instead. Once the Company of the Star had fallen, (in no small part because of its Arthurian code), and once Jean II was in English hands, the prospect of Plantagenet rule over much – if not all – of France loomed large, and Edward brought the ‘once and future king’ back to his court pageantry. Having neutralized the rival claimant to the Arthurian mantle and achieved a victory comparable in magnitude (if not in manner) to that of the legendary Briton, Edward again seemed to have hoped to gain legitimation from the good King Arthur. On the contrary, in tandem with this Arthurian restoration came a series of unfavourable characterizations of Arthur as a covetous and cruel overlord, which not only constituted an attack against Edward III, but also impacted subsequent literary representations of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Thus, Edward’s selective Arthurian self-fashioning and his own increasing significance as a literary figure tainted the figure of Arthur. The ultimate inversion of this mimetic relationship is manifest in the Songe du Vieil Pelerin, wherein Philippe de Mézières tries to dissuade his audience from reading Arthurian romances, asserting that it was the malum exemplum of the ‘doctrine des belles bourdes [pretty follies]’, contained and manifest in the ‘vaillance mondaine de Gauvain et de Lancelot’ that goaded the ‘Noirs Sangliers de la Grant Bretaigne’,

157

The Knightly Tale of Gologras and Gawane, ed. R. Hanna, Scottish Text Society, fifth series, 7 (Woodbridge, 2008), p. 11, ll. 297–8.

39



CHRISTOPHER BERARD

Edward III and his kin, to credit their own ‘vaillance et chevalerie’ for victories involving unprecedented ‘grant cruaulte’ against noblewomen, the religious, widows, the poor, the sick and the orphans of Scotland and France (I, 396–7).158

158

See Vander Elst, ‘Literature and Chivalric Education’, pp. 198–9.

40

II

KING ARTHUR’S TOMB AT GLASTONBURY: THE RELOCATION OF 1368 IN CONTEXT* Julian Luxford For 350 years, the monument said to contain the bones of King Arthur and Queen Guenevere was an exceptional feature of Glastonbury abbey’s rich topography. Arthur may have been only the 106th ruler in a line of succession from Brutus, but he was the earliest to have a recognized tomb in a realm and a culture obsessed with monarchy and monarchs’ restingplaces.1 The monument’s presence at the heart of a thriving, often militant institution suggests its enduring value for monastic esprit de corps, over and above the occasional forensic use made of it by kings, historians and polemicists. This value was essentially temporal in nature: Arthur may have consorted with saints – the monks could show their guests a crystal cross given him by the Virgin Mary – but it seems exceedingly unlikely that anybody ever prayed to him or his consort for intercession.2 Remains of both were set aside after the tomb was opened in 1278 ‘propter populi deuocionem’, but this is no imputation of holiness, and must anyway be reckoned against the absence of relics of either figure from the abbey’s highly detailed relic-lists, and also the intrinsic improbability that such a beacon of religion as Glastonbury would confuse the categories of secular hero and saint.3 All of the kings buried at Glastonbury are named * I thank James Carley and Christopher Berard for their help in the preparation of this article. 1 2

3

Arthur’s regnal number is taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, ed. M. D. Reeve, trans. N. Wright, Arthurian Studies 69 (Woodbridge, 2007), 284. For the crystal cross see The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. J. P. Carley, trans. D. Townsend (Woodbridge, 1985), pp. 24 and 78. On Arthur and other British saints see (e.g.) V. Lagorio, ‘The Evolving Legend of St Joseph at Glastonbury’, in Glastonbury Abbey and the Arthurian Tradition, ed. J. P. Carley (Woodbridge, 2001), pp. 55–81 (esp. p. 58). The convent at Glastonbury did not simply create saints for expediency’s sake. That it sought association on various levels with already-recognized saints is altogether a different matter. For the quotation, see Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, p. 244. The contents of the reliclists are usefully summarized in an ‘Index Reliquiarum’ at the end of J. P. Carley and M. Howley, ‘Relics at Glastonbury in the Fourteenth Century: An Annotated Edition of British Library, Cotton Titus D.vii, fols 2r–13v’, in Arthurian Tradition, ed. Carley, pp. 569–616.

41



JULIAN M. LUXFORD

in the extensive fourteenth-century list of saints’ resting places in England contained in London, Lambeth Palace Library MS 99 (at fol. 194v). But their inclusion in this list, which was not made at Glastonbury, reflects only the fact that they were considered a remarkable ensemble: none is called ‘sanctus’, as the other male saints in the list are. (Guenevere is omitted.) Arthur’s main value for the monks was that of a championgiant perpetually in their midst, who, if not actually the first founder of their monastery, was nevertheless understood as a founder in the extended sense of the term used in the later Middle Ages. His presence, and that of Guenevere, lent non-specific but conspicuous weight to claims to property, privilege and a matchless antiquity.4 The tomb made for the remains of Arthur and Guenevere after their exhumation in 1191, from which they must have been expected to rise at the Last Judgement, was relocated within the abbey church two or three times. The chief subject of this short article is the last of these translations, which occurred under Abbot Walter of Monington (1342–1375). In the first place, however, it is important to emphasize that the monument was always intended to stand before the abbey church’s high altar. Monington can then be seen to have perpetuated a monastic decision of the late twelfth century rather than a royal edict of the later thirteenth.5 It has previously been assumed that a position for the tomb before the high altar was first suggested by Edward I and Eleanor of Castile in 1278. However, the great value of Arthur and Guenevere to the monks, reflected in the circumstances of the exhumation and the exceptional formal and material qualities of their tomb (no tomb of comparable magnificence is known from twelfth-century England), make an ostentatious location likely from the outset. Moreover, burial in view of the high altar was relatively common for high-status individuals before 1200, at least in a monastic context. Other examples likely to have been known to Glastonbury’s monks existed by 1191 at the abbeys of Bristol (also a double tomb, containing the founder Robert Fitzharding and his wife Eva), Gloucester

4

5

The case for Arthur as founder-figure, and the importance of his tomb as evidence of his patronage, is urged particularly by S. Albrecht, Die Inszenierung der Vergangenheit im Mittlealter: Die Klöster von Glastonbury und Saint-Denis (Munich and Berlin, 2003), pp. 184–5 and 191. See also Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, 8 vols., RS 21 (London, 1861–91), VIII, 126; J. P. Carley, ‘John Leland and the Contents of English Pre-Dissolution Libraries: Glastonbury Abbey’, Scriptorium 50 (1986), 107–20 (p. 112). Glastonbury did not, however, claim any charters issued by Arthur; the Magna Tabula omits him from its account ‘De fundationibus ecclesiarum in insula Auallonie’; and Leland does not make the claim. The ‘champion-giant’ founder, housed in a prodigious tomb, was a type: see for example William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, ed. and trans. M. Winterbottom with R. M. Thomson, 2 vols. (Oxford, 2007), I, 316–18 (on Ordgar, founder of Tavistock abbey in Devon, and his son Eadwulf). It seems very unlikely that Henry II had any influence on the design or location of Arthur and Guenevere’s tomb (cf. Giraldi Cambrensis, ed. Brewer, IV, 51). It was the name of the newly mitred abbot Henry of Sully that appeared on the monument.

42



KING ARTHUR’S TOMB AT GLASTONBURY, 1368

(tomb of Robert Curthose) and Reading (tomb of King Henry I), and the priory of St James at Bristol, where the commemorated was Robert the Consul, a son of Henry I and the dedicatee of the Historia regum Britanniae.6 Further, several members of the Saxon royal house, including Alfred the Great, were originally buried around the high altar of Hyde abbey in Winchester, and seem to have been similarly honoured after the monastery’s relocation in the early twelfth century. Leland records the remains of both Alfred and Edward the Elder ‘layid in a tomb before the high altare at Hyde’.7 Taken together, the documentary evidence also supports this conclusion, although it may seem ambiguous at first glance. Adam of Damerham and John of Glastonbury state without qualification that, after exhumation, the bodies of Arthur and Guenevere were entombed ‘in the choir, before the high altar, where they rest magnificently to this day’ (‘in choro ante magnum altare, ubi usque in hodiernum diem magnifice requiescunt’).8 An earlier chronicle now at Eton College, written in the mid-thirteenth century either at Glastonbury or under the influence of the abbey’s traditions, states less specifically that after his exhumation Arthur’s body was ‘transferred to the abbey church and placed in a certain tomb, splendidly carved in stone, before a certain altar’ (‘ad maiorem ecclesiam transtulit et in quodam mausoleo in petra nobiliter exciso ante quoddam altare collocauit’).9 In the 1530s, John Leland learned that Arthur was first buried ‘ante aram Sancti Stephani’: it is probable that the Eton manuscript’s writer was referring to this rather than the high altar, which he is unlikely to have called ‘quoddam altare’.10 The location of St Stephen’s altar at Glastonbury is unknown, but can be identified with the chapel in the ‘porticus’ next to the treasury on the south side of the church in which Leland was also told that Arthur and Guenevere’s remains (presumably in their tomb) first lay.11 There is no obvious confusion or contradiction in 6

7 8 9 10 11

For these examples see I. H. Jeayes, ‘Abbot Newland’s Roll of the Abbots of St. Augustine’s Abbey by Bristol’, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Association 14 (1889–90), 117–30 (p. 124); The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Volume 3: The Annals from 1067–1140 with the Gloucester Interpolations and the Continuation to 1141, ed. and trans. P. McGurk (Oxford, 1998), p. 212; J. M. Luxford, ‘The Tomb of King Henry I at Reading Abbey: New Evidence concerning its Appearance and the Date of its Effigy’, Reading Medieval Studies 30 (2004), 15–31; John Leland, Leland’s Itinerary in England and Wales, ed. L. T. Smith, 5 vols. (London, 1964), V, 88. The Victoria History of the County of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Volume 2, ed. H. A. Doubleday (London, 1903), p. 116; Leland, Itinerary, I, 272. Adami de Domerham Historia de rebus gestis Glastoniensibus, ed. T. Hearne, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1727), II, 341; Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, 182. Eton College, MS 96, fol. 15r. See also Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, ed. N. R. Ker et al., 5 vols. (Oxford, 1969–2002), II, 707. Carley, ‘John Leland and the Contents’, p. 114. The Famous Historie of Chinon of England, ed. W. E. Mead, EETS OS 165 (London, 1925), pp. 76 and 137: ‘There is a porch [porticus] towards the South parte, and a Chapell from whence

43



JULIAN M. LUXFORD

these statements. It can reasonably be assumed that the tomb was placed in a chapel with an altar dedicated to St Stephen while the presbytery of the great church, destroyed in the fire of 1184 and not fit for use again until 1213, was rebuilt. Thereafter, the monument is likely to have been installed in the liturgical choir, and thus, as the domestic chronicles testify, ‘ante magnum altare’. The account in these chronicles of the 1278 exhumation states that, after inspecting the bones, Edward I and Eleanor of Castile ‘directed the tomb be placed speedily before the high altar’ (‘preceperunt idem sepulchrum ante maius altare celeriter collocari’).12 As noted, this has been taken to show that the monument was moved from another location, and even that a new tomb was made.13 Phillip Lindley, who has convincingly demonstrated that the tomb built in 1191 was retained until the Dissolution, has effectively put the latter suggestion to rest.14 It can be added that retention of a tomb of recognizably old form and style would better have imparted the impression of antiquity to which Arthur and Guenevere’s presence in the church contributed. Whether the medieval account implies that the tomb was moved in 1278 is less clear.15 A number of possibilities suggest themselves, none capable of proof. The chroniclers may have meant to indicate only the reinstallation of the monument’s upper slab, which must have been removed to give Edward and Eleanor access to the internal compartments housing the bones. If a move is specified, then this may have been from a lateral to a central position within the choir, or from a position further west towards the altar-steps. In any case, the monument cannot have been repositioned directly at the base of these

12 13

14

15

they go into the Treasury. In this place men affirmed that Arthures bones remained for a certaine season: after that againe, that they were translated to the middle Iles of the Queare.’ Unless this account refers simply the site of the ‘porticus’, the ‘is’ here must mean ‘was’: the original structure cannot have existed in Leland’s day, and no monastic claim for its survival is known. (Cf. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R. 5. 16, p. 220, where ‘nouam cameram iuxta scaccarium’ is documented during the fourteenth century.) ‘Porticus’ is surely intended to mean an arch, aisle, or subsidiary space other than a porch or doorway, where an altar is less likely to have been located, a tomb would have been inconvenient and an illustrious king and queen only indecorously accommodated. See R. U. Potts, ‘The Tombs of the Kings and Archbishops in St. Austin’s Abbey’, Archaeologia Cantiana 38 (1926), 97–112 (p. 98): ‘Porticus may mean an entrance porch or any adjunct to the main building, such as an aisle or side chapel’. Adami de Domerham, ed. Hearne, II, 589; Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, p. 244. A new tomb is posited, without argument, by J. C. Parsons, ‘The Second Exhumation of King Arthur’s Remains at Glastonbury, 19 April 1278’, in Arthurian Tradition, ed. Carley, pp. 179–83 (p. 179). Albrecht, Inszenierung der Vergangenheit, p. 102, states, similarly without argument, that the tomb was ‘Erneuerung’; i.e. ‘renewed’ or ‘renovated’. P. G. Lindley, Tomb Destruction and Scholarship: Medieval Monuments in Early Modern England (Donington, 2007), pp. 138–66. Lindley suggests a convincing reconstruction of the tomb on the basis of Leland’s description (for which see Leland, Itinerary, I, p. 288). Lindley, Tomb Destruction, p. 154, rightly dismisses the ashlar-lined grave excavated in 1931 as evidence of the position of Arthur and Guenevere’s tomb. The bones were located in cells within a raised monument, not beneath the pavement.

44



KING ARTHUR’S TOMB AT GLASTONBURY, 1368

steps, because, as John of Glastonbury explains, ‘the virgin St Ælswitha […] whole and untouched in flesh and bone, [lies] between the high altar and the tomb of King Arthur’.16 It is well known that the tomb was moved again ninety years later, but the event has never been set in context, or the main document relating to it discussed.17 The long process of rebuilding and remodelling the abbey church, which began at the west end under Abbot John of Taunton (1274–1301), reached its climax during the reign of Walter of Monington (1342–1375). Among other exemplary qualities, this abbot was a prodigious patron of art and architecture: according to his eulogist, he built and embellished heroically, ‘neglecting no ornament in the house of God’ (‘nichil ornatus in domo domini pretermittens’).18 In a spiritual sense at least, this is not simple hyperbole. As well as his commission of and payment for the remodelling of the church’s eastern arm, donation of a large quantity of vestments and ornaments, and supervision of very many building projects in and around the monastery, Monington had every altar in his church reconsecrated ‘at great expense’, thus refreshing and revalidating the basis of its authority and utility.19 He lavished attention on the liturgical heart of his institution, and in terms of material achievement this is what he was best remembered for. As well as lengthening the central vessel of the church by forty feet, building a new eastern ambulatory, and paving the whole with what the eulogist calls ‘precioso marmore’, he had a sculpted reredos incorporating twenty-two painted images in tabernacles installed behind the high altar.20 As Christopher Wilson has shown, the remodelled building was a major early essay in the Perpendicular Gothic style, broadly similar in appearance to the east end of St Peter’s abbey at Gloucester (now Gloucester cathedral), which was itself remodelled in the second and third quarters of the fourteenth century.21 16 17

18

19

20 21

Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, p. 18. The Latin has been printed, with the error ‘Moncton’ for ‘Moni[ng]ton’, in a footnote in The Early English Metrical Romances of Perceval, Isumbras, Eglamour and Degrevant, ed. J. O. Halliwell, Camden Society 30 (London, 1844), p. 258; see also Morte Arthure: The Alliterative Romance of the Death of Arthur, ed. J. O. Halliwell (London, 1847), p. 368. I am grateful to Christopher Berard for these references. Trinity R. 5. 16, p. 220. The best assessment of Monington’s character and achievements is J. P. Carley, Glastonbury Abbey: The Holy House at the Head of the Moors Adventurous (Glastonbury, 1996), pp. 47–52. See also A. Watkin, ‘The Correspondence of Walter de Monyton, Abbot of Glastonbury’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 85 (1963), 135–40; I. Keil, ‘The Abbots of Glastonbury in the Early Fourteenth Century’, Downside Review 82 (1964), 327–48 (pp. 342–7). The document listing his benefactions, sometimes called the Ostensa after its opening (‘Hic sunt ostensa’ etc), is Trinity College, MS R. 5. 16, pp. 215–28. For reconsecration of the altars see p. 220. Trinity College, MS R. 5. 16, pp. 219–20. C. Wilson, ‘The Origins of the Perpendicular Style and its Development to circa 1360’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London, 1980), pp. 319–23.

45



JULIAN M. LUXFORD

Monington’s work incorporated greatly enlarged clearstorey windows, a network of blind tracery on the residual wall-surfaces, and, perhaps, a monumental fan vault. The windows must have been filled with stained glass, the sculpture painted and gilded and the timber choir-stalls either remade or relocated eastwards. It was into this spectacular, light-filled, image-saturated space that Monington had the tomb of Arthur and Guenevere translated in May 1368. The event was apparently a priority, because, as recently published evidence from the abbot’s surviving register shows, the timber-work of the roof over the presbytery vault was contracted for only in the autumn of 1364.22 This large structure, some 36.6 m in length, must have taken some time to build and erect, after which plumbers must have been employed to cover the whole with lead and install a drainage system. While other points of chronology are indistinct, the known facts suggest that the tomb was moved as a matter of priority once the work was finished. Monington must have envisaged moving the tomb from the outset, and allocated a space to it at the head of the monastic choir. This was almost certainly the position in which Leland saw it. Whether Monington was also responsible for repositioning the monuments of kings Edmund Senior (d. 946) and Edmund Ironside (d. 1016) to the north and south of Arthur and Guenevere’s monument (also recorded by Leland) is unknown but perfectly possible. His methods for sustaining his institution’s authority and image in the wake of the Black Death certainly extended to advertisement of its antiquity. Outstandingly, it was during his reign that the body of Joseph of Arimathea was first sought at Glastonbury, something which he must at least have sanctioned, if not actually initiated.23 Monington’s personal interest in Arthur is indicated not only by the tomb’s relocation, and the provision evidently made for it, but also through the installation of Arthurian iconography in locations set aside for abbatial use. Examples of this are recorded in the detailed account of his gifts to Glastonbury contained in Cambridge, Trinity College MS R. 5. 16. For the abbot’s personal chapel within the monastery, which was newly built, he ordered three red carpets (or tapestries) with green borders, in the corners of which were the arms of King Arthur.24 These were part of a lavish collection of plate, vestments and altar paraphernalia intended to dignify what must have been one of the architectural jewels of Glastonbury. He also embellished one of his manor-houses (its name is not specified) with a hanging embroidered at the top with a description in French of Arthur’s ‘arms’. It seems most likely that this was the story of 22 23 24

C. Wilson, ‘A Mid-Fourteenth Century Contract for the Choir Roof of Glastonbury Abbey’, Antiquaries Journal 88 (2008), 216–21. Lagorio, ‘Evolving Legend’, p. 65. Trinity College, MS R. 5. 16, p. 219: ‘tria tapecia rubea cum borduris viridibus continentibus in angulis eorundem armi regis arthuri’.

46



KING ARTHUR’S TOMB AT GLASTONBURY, 1368

the king’s adoption of a green shield emblazoned with a cross and image of the Virgin and Child, which is given in Latin by John of Glastonbury.25 And he bought a textile hanging which seems to have represented the Nine Worthies, of whom Arthur was of course one, for the abbot’s hall at the monastery: this he hung together with a painted cloth representing ‘the wars of Edward III’, perhaps meaning to suggest his sovereign’s status as the ‘tenth worthy’.26 Monington, who had numerous dealings with Edward III and Philippa of Hainault (she gave him pure gold prayerbeads which he left to his convent), saw clearly how the past could serve current ends.27 He also appears to have understood how the aura of King Arthur could help him in the future. When planning his own tomb in the monastic choir, he must have realized that some of the attention directed towards the royal monument would be deflected towards his own, and that intercession for his soul might thereby be increased.28 This brief outline provides an appropriate backdrop to the account of the 1368 relocation. Only one copy of the text is known to survive, now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 826, fol. 107r. It is written in a neat cursive hand at the head of a folio-sized sheet of paper, very probably in the mid-sixteenth century. This dating is suggested by the style 25

26

27 28

Alternatively, the whole ‘Chapel Ride’ story, which circulated separately under the title ‘Quedam narracio de nobili rege Arthuro’, may be indicated: there is no indication of the size of Monington’s hanging. For the texts see Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, pp. 77–9; J. P. Carley, ‘A Glastonbury Translator at Work: Quedam Narracio de Nobili Rege Arthuro and De Origine Gigantum in their Earliest Manuscript Contexts’, in Arthurian Tradition, ed. Carley, pp. 337–45. The arms vert, a cross argent and in dexter chief the Virgin and Child, were, from the later fourteenth century at least, also displayed as the abbey’s own: T. Woodcock and S. Flower, Dictionary of British Arms: Medieval Ordinary Volume 3 (London, 2009), pp. 167 and 195. Trinity College, MS R. 5. 16, p. 226: ‘Pro aula abbatis dorsalia duo prouidit, quorum primum operis textruii continet nouem trine fidei milites meliores, sine costeriis. Secundus tinctum cum costeriis bella continens Regis Edwardi tercij a conquestu. Dedit et alia duo [dorsalia] pro manerijs quorum primum album cum frecto indico continens in summitate descripconem [sic] armorum Regis Arthuri in gallico cum costeriis secte eiusdem.’ The idiom here is rather difficult, and the meaning of the word ‘trine’ in the first part of the inscription is not obvious. A possible translation is: ‘For the abbot’s hall he provided two hangings, the first of them, without a border, is woven as regards its work, and displays the nine better knights of the three-fold [i.e. Trinitarian] faith. The second one, stained [and] with a border, displays the wars of the third king Edward after the Conquest. And moreover, he gave two other hangings for the manors, of which the first was white with dark blue embroidery, displaying at the top a description in French of the arms of King Arthur with borders of the same suit.’ (The second was red, and powdered with yellow butterflies.) Trinity College, MS R. 5. 16, fol. p. 218: ‘unum par aueez ex auro puro quod sibi domina Philippa regina anglie quondam dedit.’ For Monington’s tomb in the choir, see Leland, Itinerary, I, 288. The epitaph in Trinity College, MS R. 5. 16, p. 228, is probably taken from it, as it begins ‘Extitit hic’: ‘He who is [i.e. lies] here’. The tomb’s position cannot be fixed, and the suggestion that it was to the south of Arthur’s monument in A. E. Henderson, ‘Plan of Glastonbury Abbey Church […] Showing Suggested Arrangements’, Transactions of the St Paul’s Ecclesiological Society 10 (1937), 107–10 (plan) is unjustified.

47



JULIAN M. LUXFORD

of the hand, and the occurrence on the sheet of a watermark identical to one dated 1549 in Briquet’s catalogue.29 The rest of the sheet, recto and verso, was subsequently filled up with notes on the signatories of medieval royal charters by William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley (1521–1598): the last of these occurs in the upper right-hand corner of the recto, above the account of the translation, but has nothing to do with it.30 Someone (probably Cecil) has written dates next to the account, and the whole constitutes interesting evidence of Arthurian curiosity on the part of a major Elizabethan statesman. The text, which is presented in two parts, reads as follows. Abbreviations have been expanded and punctuation and capitalization modernized. Memorandum quod anno domini millesimo trecentesimo sexagesimo octavo, et regni Regis Edwardi tertij post conquestum quadragesimo secundo, tempore reverendi in Christo patris dompni Walteri de Moni[ng] ton, dei gracia tunc abbatis monasterij Beate Marie Glastonie, qui novum opus chori feliciter consumauit, nono Maij31 amotus fuit tumulus incliti Regis Arthuri ab inferiore parte chori versus magnum altare, propter ampliacacionem chori, et honorem Regis eiusdem, in cuius tumulo invente due ciste ossa Regis eiusdem et Gwinavere uxoris sue continentes, sigillis Regis Edwardi, avi Regis Edwardi tertij post conquestum, et Alienoris uxoris sue, filie domini fferandi Regis Hispanie, consignate. Cedula testimoniali superposita super cistam Regis Arthuri, cuius tenor sequitur in hac forma. Hec sunt ossa nobilissimi Regis Arthuri et Gwenavere Regine uxoris eiusdem, que anno incarnacionis Dominice millesimo ducentesimo septuagesimo octavo xiijo kalendis Maij,32 per dominum Edwardem regem Anglie illustrem, hic fuerunt sic locata, presentibus domina Alienora eiusdem Regis consorte et filia domini fferandi Regis Hispanie, domini Amadeo comite Sabanoie, domino Henrico de Lacye comite Lincolnie, domino Willelmo de Midilton, Thoma33 Noriwicensi [sic] electo, magistro Thoma Beck tunc archidiacono Dorsesie [sic] et predicti Regis thesaurario, et multis alijs magnatibus Anglie.

29

30

31

32 33

C. M. Briquet, Les filigranes: Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600, ed. A. Stevenson, 4 vols. (Amsterdam, 1968), II (no. 11.371), IV (plate): a raised left hand, palm displayed and fingers together, with a fleur des lys on the wrist beneath a band inscribed ‘A B’, the number ‘3’ above; a flower with five petals extending on a short stalk from the central finger. W. H. Black, A Descriptive, Analytical and Critical Catalogue of the Manuscripts bequeathed unto the University of Oxford by Elias Ashmole (Oxford, 1845), col. 476. A faint pencil inscription, ‘Burleigh’s hand writing’, occurs at the head of these notes. That is, the feast of the Translation of St Nicholas, presumably considered a fitting occasion to move an important burial. If ‘nonis Maij’ (i.e. 7 May) is intended here, which would be more orthodox (and is perhaps more likely), then the feast is the less obviously appropriate one of St John of Beverley. The feast of St Eleutherius: presumably a resonant one at Glastonbury. Sic: perhaps a case of eye-skip, as the same name occurs correctly shortly afterwards.

48



KING ARTHUR’S TOMB AT GLASTONBURY, 1368

Translation: Let it be remembered that in the year of our Lord 1368, and the fortysecond year of the reign of King Edward, the third after the Conquest, in the time of the reverend father in Christ Lord Walter of Monington, then by God’s grace abbot of the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Glastonbury, who successfully completed the new work of the choir, the tomb of the famous King Arthur was moved, on the ninth of May, from the lower part of the choir [to a position closer] towards the high altar, because of the enlargement of the choir and in honour of the same king. In whose tomb were found two boxes containing bones of the same king and Guenevere, his wife, sealed with the seals of King Edward, grandfather of Edward the third after the Conquest, and his wife Eleanor, daughter of the Lord Fernando, king of Spain. A testimonial document was placed on top of the box of King Arthur, whose substance follows in this form: These are the bones of the most noble King Arthur and the Queen Guenevere, wife of the same, which, on 19 April in the year of the Lord’s incarnation 1278 were located here in this manner by the illustrious Edward, king of England, in the presence of Eleanor, the wife of the same lord king and daughter of the Lord Fernando, king of Spain; Lord Amadeus, count of Savoy, Lord Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, Lord William of Middleton, bishop-elect of Norwich, Master Thomas Bek, at that time archdeacon of Dorset and treasurer of the aforesaid king, and many other magnates of England.

Perhaps the first thing to note is that the category of text from which this account is taken is uncertain. Neither is a Glastonbury provenance obvious. The second part is very close to the text of the inscription given by John of Glastonbury, the only noteworthy difference occurring in the order of names at the end.34 But this, of course, simply indicates dependency on the document taken from the tomb rather than John’s chronicle. Over and above his Arthurian concerns, the writer was apparently interested in and well disposed towards Glastonbury. He is suitably respectful of Abbot Monington and his major architectural achievement, mentions the abbey’s dedication, and seems either to have attended the relocation and opening of the tomb, or obtained a detailed account of the event by an eyewitness. Because it describes Monington as a former abbot, the account is obviously retrospective; but how long after his death in 1375 it was composed is also unclear. Perhaps the best guess is that the writer was a resident or friend of the abbey, but there are no firm grounds for supposing his text an extract from a chronicle, or notes towards one. It could have come from a commonplace book, register, newsletter, or some other source. On the face of it, the account may appear to contain little important information that could not be obtained elsewhere. Even if it did not exist, 34

Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, pp. 244 and 246.

49



JULIAN M. LUXFORD

the translation of Arthur and Guenevere’s tomb within the remodelled church could be supposed on the basis of Leland’s description. However, for the historian of monasticism at least, confirmation of Monington’s involvement is highly valuable for demonstrating the abbot’s interest in a major historical tradition. This interest has hitherto been thought slight, but, as suggested above, it is likely that the tomb played an integral part in the planning of his main architectural project.35 Whatever its precise location, the site ‘ante magnum altare’ recorded in 1278 had been relegated by the building works to ‘inferiore parte chori’. The position was not thought sufficiently respectable, and Arthur and Guenevere’s black, polished tomb was thus moved to the modish Gothic heart of the new work. It is also interesting, if not particularly surprising, that the aging Edward III seems not to have played a part in the relocation. The account is terse, but any such involvement would surely have rated a mention (and, of course, other witnesses to royal attendance might also be expected). Whether the king was even told about the event seems doubtful: at any rate, he was probably as reluctant to travel to Glastonbury in the late 1360s as Monington was to accept royal summonses to London during the period.36 Notwithstanding Edward’s documented Arthurian interests, which were stimulated as early as 1331 by the ‘antiquities and wonders’ of the abbey, the reopening of the tomb must have been understood to have little or no political usefulness in the context of the French wars.37 The account does not say that the boxes containing the bones were even opened: in fact, the likelihood is that they were not. In the absence of replacements, their royal seals were surely of greater value to the abbey intact than broken. Together with the document affixed to the top of the box containing Arthur’s bones (whose positioning is an interesting, if minor, detail), they were incontrovertible evidence of royal involvement and esteem. In conclusion, it may be noted that by isolating and recording the relocation of 1368, the writer of the Ashmole 826 account reflects the tenacious appeal of a remarkable historical tradition. He helps to plot the trajectory of Arthur and Guenevere’s tomb, spatially and architecturally, to its end-point: from here on, little is learned about the monument until Leland’s time, and there are no firm grounds for supposing further relocation or embellishment of it.38 Acquaintance with Abbot Monington’s 35 36

37 38

Cf. Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, p. xxviii. See Monington’s letters of excuse in his surviving register, London, British Library, Arundel 2 (e.g.) fols. 44v (declining an invitation to attend the funeral of Isabella, the king’s mother, at the Franciscan church in London in 1358), 78v (declining an invitation to Parliament). The Great Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. A. Watkin, 3 vols., Somerset Record Society, 59, 63 and 64 (Frome, 1947–56), I, 194–5 (Edward’s visit to Glastonbury in 1331). Leland, Itinerary, I, 288, notes ‘Crucifixi imago in capite tumuli’, i.e., at the west end of the tomb. This does not sound like a twelfth-century feature, and nothing militates against its having been added later (perhaps as an accessory rather than a carved element). However, the exceptional nature of the monument cautions against any firm hypothesis. Frederick Bligh Bond thought he

50



KING ARTHUR’S TOMB AT GLASTONBURY, 1368

art and architectural patronage fleshes out in colourful detail the context that the account does not record. When brought together, the evidence suggests nothing more strongly than the importance of the monument for the monks of Glastonbury in an era when its broader political utility was diminishing. The convent which had made the monument and provided it with an unrivalled position in its church continued to have it polished and promote it as an evidence of Arthur’s existence down to the Dissolution.39 Even in the last days of the monastery, when the fervid younger monks gave themselves names in religion such as Arthur, Edgar, Kentwyn and Yne (all kings actually or supposedly buried at Glastonbury), the tomb continued to do local duty as evidence of an unimpeachable antiquity and precedence.40 That no effort appears to have been made to preserve it is perhaps not as surprising as it may seem, for Henry VIII’s agents probably identified it, sitting high in its privileged position, as first and foremost a conventual rallying-point. They were, in any case, unsentimental men.

39

40

might have found an arm from a dark-stone effigy belonging to the tomb (‘Glastonbury Abbey: Eighth Report on the Discoveries made during the Excavations’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 61 (1915), 128–42 (p. 134)). The existence of a highrelief effigy would also suggest later modification: but Bond’s speculation was probably incorrect. For the polishing, recorded in sacrists’ account-rolls from 1446/7 until the Dissolution, see R. W. Dunning, Arthur: The King in the West (Stroud, 1988), p. 68; idem, Somerset Monasteries (Stroud, 2001), p. 99 (illustrating the 1446/7 roll). See Dunning, Somerset Monasteries, pp. 131–8, for the names in religion. It is a sad irony that John Thorne, the monk who took the name ‘Arthur’, was executed with Abbot Whiting in November 1539.

51

III

BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII: AN EDITION AND TRANSLATION* Joshua Byron Smith

Introduction As one of the few pieces of Welsh literature written outside of Wales, Benedict of Gloucester’s Vita Dubricii holds a curious place in the history of medieval British literature. It chronicles the life of Dyfrig, a Welsh saint who is not only portrayed as an exceptional ecclesiastic and miracleworker but also as King Arthur’s main spiritual support. A peculiar mix of hagiography and Arthurian history, Benedict’s Vita Dubricii combines two previously separate accounts of the saint – an earlier version of Dyfrig’s life and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae. The resulting narrative stresses Dyfrig’s sanctity and historical importance by claiming that King Arthur’s great success was possible only through Dyfrig’s piety and prayers. Written in the mid-twelfth century, just as enthusiasm for Arthurian literature began to seize Britain, Benedict’s life of Dyfrig is strikingly pioneering in the way that it deploys and reworks Arthurian history. Nonetheless, Benedict’s Vita Dubricii is not well known. This edition and translation of the Vita Dubricii addresses this neglect, while revealing that the work can help shed light on the early reception of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae. Indeed, as a collation shows, the text’s exemplar belongs to a small group of Historia manuscripts that circulated in southwestern England. Furthermore, Benedict’s Vita Dubricii is testament to the vibrant literary culture of the Welsh March and demonstrates how Welsh texts could find audiences outside of Wales.

* I would like to thank Paul Russell, Barbara Newman, Mark Kauntze and an anonymous reader for their valuable comments on this project; all mistakes are of course my own.

53



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

Aside from the starring role in a few footnotes, Benedict’s Vita Dubricii has attracted little scholarly attention.1 This lack is understandable as Benedict’s Vita is, at its core, a reworking of two earlier sources, both of which have suitable editions: Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, which has been well served by scholarship, and an earlier life of Dyfrig.2 This earlier life of Dyfrig, which I will call the Vita prima Dubricii for ease of reference, survives in two copies, one in Cotton Vespasian A.xiv, an important collection of Welsh saints’ lives, and the other in Liber Landauensis (The Book of Llandaf), an equally important manuscript containing charters, vitae and a host of material concerning the ecclesiastical history of southeastern Wales.3 The Liber Landauensis was edited by Gwenogfryn Evans and John Rhys in 1893, and their edition contains the standard, and only, edition of the Vita prima Dubricii.4 Unsurprisingly, scholars interested in the early hagiography and literary culture of Wales have preferred this earlier, un-redacted version of Dyfrig’s life, which contains none of Benedict’s fanciful importations from the Historia regum Britanniae. While Benedict’s Vita Dubricii may be of negligible importance when attempting to discern the facts about Dyfrig’s early cult or sphere of influence, it can be of great help to those who wish to study the use and exportation of Welsh literary traditions in the mid-twelfth century or trace the early reception of Geoffrey’s Historia. 1

2

3

4

For recent mentions of Benedict’s Vita Dubricii see J. R. Davies, The Book of Llandaf and the Norman Church in Wales (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 108 and 42; G. H. Doble, Lives of the Welsh Saints (Cardiff, 1971), pp. 81–2. For recent work on the textual history of the Historia regum Britanniae, see Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain: An Edition and Translation of the De gestis Britonum, ed. M. D. Reeve, trans. N. Wright (Woodbridge, 2007); J. Crick, The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, 4. Dissemination and Reception in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991); The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, 3. A Summary Catalogue of the Manuscripts (Cambridge, 1989); The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, 2. The First Variant Version, ed. N. Wright (Cambridge, 1988). For London, British Library, Cotton MS, Vespasian A.xiv, see K. Hughes, ‘British Library MS. Cotton Vespasian A.XIV (Vitae Sanctorum Wallensium): Its Purpose and Provenance’, in Celtic Britain in the Early Middle Ages, ed. D. Dumville (Woodbridge, 1980); S. M. Harris, ‘The Kalendar of the Vitae Sanctorum Wallensium’, Journal of the Historical Society of the Church in Wales 3 (1953), 3–53; H. D. Emanuel, ‘An Analysis of the Composition of the “Vita Cadoci”’, The National Library of Wales Journal 7 (1951–2), 217–27. Most of the Vespasian vitae are edited in Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et Genealogiae, ed. A. W. Wade-Evans (Cardiff, 1944). Robin Flowers’ description of the manuscript is found in Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et Genealogiae, pp. viii–xi. For recent work on the Liber Landauensis, see Davies, The Book of Llandaf, pp. 1–6. The Text of the Book of Llan Dâv, ed. J. G. Evans and J. Rhys (Oxford, 1893), pp. 78–86. The third appendix contains a list of variant readings from Cotton Vespasian A.xiv (pp. 359–60). The textual relationship between the versions of the Vita prima found in the Book of Llandaf and Vespasian A.xiv is more complex than Evans believed: the version in Vespasian was not copied from the surviving version of the Book of Llandaf. See P. Sims-Williams, ‘The Emergence of Old Welsh, Cornish and Breton Orthography, 600–800: The Evidence of Archaic Old Welsh,’ Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 38 (1991), p. 30.

54



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

Nonetheless, Benedict’s Vita has not been subjected to any serious scrutiny, and the lack of a modern edition has only contributed to this neglect. The only printed edition of Benedict of Gloucester’s Vita Dubricii is Thomas Wharton’s 1691 edition.5 In true early modern fashion, Wharton, or his amanuensis, ‘corrected’ many of the text’s medievalisms, misread several passages and omitted – both through carelessness and a conscious decision to exclude two miraculous episodes – around one quarter of the text.6 While one can applaud the initial efforts of Wharton, his edition nonetheless falls short of modern critical standards.

St Dyfrig: His History and the Composition of the Vita Prima Dubricii The first extant appearance of Dyfrig occurs in the eighth-century Vita Sancti Samsonis, which was written at the Breton monastery of Dol:7 in it, Dyfrig enters without introduction and ordains Samson first as a deacon, and later as a priest and bishop.8 Dyfrig is later said to customarily spend Lent on an island that Samson visits, where Dyfrig has his own dwellings.9 He also appoints Samson to the position of cellarer in the monastery, and after the presiding abbot dies, it is at Dyfrig’s suggestion that Samson is himself promoted abbot.10 Finally, Dyfrig has a vision of Samson wherein he is consecrated bishop. After Dyfrig informs the counsellors of his vision, Samson is elected without a dissenting vote.11 The overall impression that the Vita Sancti Samsonis gives of Dyfrig is that of a respected and well known ecclesiastic in south Wales. From the Vita Sancti Samsonis we can be relatively certain that Dyfrig held sway over the ecclesiastical administration of southern Wales sometime in the late fifth or early sixth century. Although we do not know exactly where the centre of his administration was based, the Romanized areas of southern Wales, particularly Caerwent or Carmarthen, seem probable candidates.12 He next appears in the tenth-century Annales Cambriae,

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

H. Wharton, Anglia sacra, sive, Collectio historiarum partim antiquitus, partim recenter scriptarum, de archiepiscopis & episcopis Angliæ, a prima fidei Christianæ susceptione ad annum MDXL (London, 1691), I. 43–44, pp. 208–10. My edition notes Wharton’s omissions and alterations. While most of Wharton’s corrections are unnecessary, I have on occasion retained a few of his emendations. La vie ancienne de Saint Samson de Dol, ed. P. Flobert (Paris, 1997). La vie de Saint Samson, I. 13, pp. 166–8. La vie de Saint Samson, I. 33, p. 196. La vie de Saint Samson, I. 34, pp. 196–8. La vie de Saint Samson, I. 43–44, pp. 208–10. Davies, The Book of Llandaf, pp. 10–11.

55



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

which records the death of a Bishop Dyfrig in 612.13 And in the late eleventh century, Rhygyfarch ap Sulien mentions Dyfrig in his Vita Sancti Dauid, where Dyfrig, Deniol and David meet at the synod of Brefi.14 This passage would seem to agree with the assertion that Dyfrig was an early bishop of south Wales because ‘if David represents the south-western diocese, and Deniol represents the northern (or north-western) bishopric, based in Bangor, then Dyfrig is probably meant to represent the southeastern bishopric’.15 These three mentions of Dyfrig are important early witnesses to his tradition since, in the early twelfth century, the figure of Dyfrig became entangled in the ecclesiastical disputes of southern Wales, and the Dyfrig that emerged at the end of that century likely represented an aggrandized portrayal of this early Welsh bishop. Thanks to the recent work of John Reuben Davies, our knowledge of the historical Dyfrig and the circumstances of the Vita prima’s production has grown greatly.16 In 1107 the see of Glamorgan obtained a new bishop whose ambition would incite a small renaissance of southern Welsh hagiography. Urban, of Cambro-Norman descent, seems to have been a native of southeastern Wales; he was closely associated with Llancarfan, and had served Bishop Herewald, the previous holder of the seat, in the capacity of archdeacon. The exact extent of the diocese which Urban inherited remains unknown, but we can reasonably assume that it encompassed, more or less, the Welsh kingdoms of Gwent and Morgannwg.17 By the close of the eleventh century, the wars of Norman marcher barons, coupled with the feuds of various Welsh dynasties, had left southern Wales devoid of any dominate power centre, and the area’s ecclesiastical as well as political boundaries were in flux. Upon Bishop Urban’s arrival to the seat, he took advantage of this disarray and embarked on an ambitious plan to expand the influence and authority of his diocese, promoting Llandaf as its centre of power. He sought both to secure the rights of the diocese, claiming lands that the Norman barons had previously seized, and to significantly expand its holdings at the expense of the bishop of St David’s to the west and the bishop of Hereford to the east. In doing so he undoubtedly pursued territories that the bishopric of Glamorgan had never held. Throughout Urban’s episcopate, he pressed his claims at the papal curia and before papal legates in London.18 Although Urban experi13 14 15 16

17 18

‘Conthrigirni obitus, et Difric epscopi’, Annales Cambriae, ed. J. W. ab Ithel (London, 1860), p. 6. Rhigyfarch’s Life of St. David, ed. J. W. James (Cardiff, 1967), pp. 22. Davies, The Book of Llandaf, pp. 86–7. Davies, The Book of Llandaf, esp. pp. 84–6 and 109–12; ‘The Saints of South Wales and the Welsh Church,’ in Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West, ed. A. Thacker and R. Sharpe (Oxford, 2002), 361–95. The following account of the history of Llandaf is largely indebted to these works. Davies, The Book of Llandaf, pp. 9–31. Davies, The Book of Llandaf, pp. 32–45.

56



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

enced some success in reasserting and solidifying the rights of the see of Llandaf – as he preferred to call his bishopric in opposition to the older ‘see of Glamorgan’ – he ultimately failed to make significant incursions into the rights of St David’s and Hereford. Still pleading Llandaf’s cause, Urban died on October 1134 in Pisa at the papal curia of Innocent II. In order to shore up his significant claims, Urban had the Liber Landauensis, or Book of Llandaf, compiled. Into it were gathered the lives of Welsh saints, a slew of charters, a history of the bishops of Llandaf and various papal bulls and letters, all of which support Urban’s august vision for his diocese.19 The Book of Llandaf promotes Dyfrig as the chief ecclesiastical figure in the history of southern Wales. The first text written by the main scribe of the Book of Llandaf, De primo statu Landauensis ęcclesię et uita archiepiscopi Dubricii,20 presents Dyfrig ‘as the foundingfather of the Welsh Church and of the see of Llandaf’.21 The Book of Llandaf styles him ‘blessed Dyfrig, the greatest teacher’ and ‘Archbishop over all the Britons of the southern part of Britain’.22 The Book of Llandaf also records several churches supposedly dedicated to Dyfrig, primarily in Ergyng, an ancient Welsh kingdom called Archenfield in English, which eventually became incorporated into the diocese of Hereford. Furthermore, the Book of Llandaf studiously lists Dyfrig’s many disciples and places his sphere of activity in Ergyng – precisely one of those disputed areas into which Urban hoped to expand Llandaf’s influence. The Dyfrig that the Book of Llandaf describes – a dominant presence in the early history of the Welsh church whose native land was Ergyng – was accepted by scholars for many years. G. H. Doble, for instance, ends his overview of Dyfrig in this manner: ‘it is clear that Dubricius was one of the chief figures in the creation of Christian Wales’.23 However, Davies has convincingly argued that the Dyfrig of the Book of Llandaf was largely an invention of Bishop Urban. It merits quoting Davies in full: Before this point [i.e. the last decade of the eleventh century], we have nothing that can be interpreted as a cult of St Dyfrig. There are historical or pseudo-historical references to him as an important and holy ecclesiastical figure, but he is not unequivocally acknowledged as a ‘saint’; there is nowhere that could be regarded as his burial place or the centre of his

19 20 21 22

23

For a summary of opinions regarding the trustworthiness of the Liber Landavensis as a historical source, see Davies, The Book of Llandaf, pp. 1–6. The Text of the Book of Llan Dâv, pp. 68–71. Davies, The Book of Llandaf, p. 77. ‘Super omnes autem britannos dextralis partis britannię beatum Dubricium summum doctorem a rege et ab omni parrochia electum archiepiscopum consecrauerunt.’ The Text of the Book of Llan Dâv, p. 69. Doble, Lives of the Welsh Saints, p. 86.

57



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

cult. Our principal evidence of a cult of St Dyfrig therefore comes from the Book of Llandaf.   There is no evidence of dedications to Dyfrig independent of the Book of Llandaf, and – more significantly – there is no evidence of a connection with Ergyng. The Liber Landauensis alone places the saint and his cult in south-west Herefordshire. Even on its own evidence, the Book of Llandaf makes only three explicit references to churches dedicated to Dyfrig, and two of those are said to have been consecrated in the mid to late eleventh century. The evidence suggests that the cult of St Dyfrig was rehabilitated and superimposed upon certain churches in Ergyng by the episcopal familia of Llandaf-Llancarfan no earlier than the second half of the eleventh century.24

To round off the scheme, Bishop Urban had Dyfrig’s relics translated to Llandaf in 1120. Urban, or more specifically the hagiographer working under Urban, had only the Vita prima Sancti Samonsis and perhaps a few other older references to Dyfrig to work with.25 But these few hints were enough to transform Dyfrig, the early Welsh churchman who may have founded the bishopric of Glamorgan, into Dyfrig the miracle-working archbishop of southern Wales whose authority was respected throughout the Brittonic church. Furnished with a cult, an illustrious history, a band of famous disciples and records that listed his churches, Dyfrig became the linchpin in the Book of Llandaf’s claims to property in southern Wales and Herefordshire.

The Composition of Benedict’s Vita Dubricii Dyfrig’s life and the other lives written especially for the Liber Landauensis were completed during the 1120s.26 At some point thereafter, a few of these Llandaf lives were collected at St Peter’s Abbey in Gloucester.27 St Peter’s had been the beneficiary of the Norman conquests in southern Wales: Norman barons, seeking to solidify their hold on their conquered Welsh lands, would grant newly obtained property to churches and monasteries in England and the continent. As a result, Gloucester Abbey held several Welsh properties and had close connections with Welsh ecclesiastical centres.28 For example, around the turn of the twelfth century Gloucester Abbey had obtained St Cadog’s Church in Llancarfan, where

24 25 26 27 28

Davies, The Book of Llandaf, p. 86. Davies makes a strong case that Cadog of Llancarfan authored the Book of Llandaf. See Davies, The Book of Llandaf, pp. 132–42. Davies, The Book of Llandaf, pp. 109–31. Hughes, ‘British Library MS. Cotton Vespasian A.XIV.’ C. N. L. Brooke, The Church and the Welsh Border in the Central Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1986), pp. 50–94.

58



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

the famous hagiographer – and perhaps author of the Book of Llandaf – Caradog operated. But in addition to properties in the diocese of Llandaf, Gloucester Abbey also held several churches in the diocese of St David’s. Holding these Welsh properties, spread out across two dioceses, spurred the monks of Gloucester into collecting the vitae that concerned their new lands.29 However, in the surviving manuscripts of Gloucester Abbey, no trace of these Welsh vitae remains, but given the disastrous effects of the dissolution on the abbey’s holdings, this is hardly surprising. Instead, evidence for Gloucester’s collection of Welsh hagiography comes from Kathleen Hughes’s careful analysis of Cotton Vespasian A.xiv, the first part of which contains that famous collection of early Welsh saints’ lives.30 Hughes argues that while Cotton Vespasian A.xiv was likely assembled at Monmouth, it was based in part on material collected by Gloucester Abbey. Arguing that only Gloucester Abbey had interests diverse enough to warrant the collection of so many of the vitae in this manuscript, vitae that reflect the interest of both the dioceses of St David’s and Llandaf, Hughes concludes: ‘Our examination of the evidence suggests that, in the 1130s or later, material from the hagiographical schools of Llandbadarn Fawr in West Wales, and possibly from Llandaf, was gathered together at Gloucester. These texts were copied about 1200 into [Cotton Vespasian A.xiv].’31 This manuscript contains the only surviving copy of Benedict

29

30 31

Hughes, ‘British Library MS. Cotton Vespasian A.XIV’. Hughes seems to favour a scenario in which the monks of Gloucester gathered the Welsh material as a single endeavour. However, there is nothing to rule out a gradual process of assembling these vitae. Furthermore, as Hughes notes, Gloucester received Llanbadarn Fawr, one of the probable sources for these Welsh vitae, soon after 1115 but it became independent again after the Welsh rebellion of 1136. She rightly points out that Gloucester would have most readily had access to the Llanbadarn Fawr material during these years: Hughes, ‘British Library MS. Cotton Vespasian A.XIV,’ 61. However, we can provide a narrower window for the importation of the Llanbadarn Fawr material: In 1122 the abbey suffered a destructive fire, and only three mass vestments and a few books survived the blaze. Indeed, after the fire, most scribal activity ‘seems to have involved copying borrowed texts’: R. B. Patterson, ed. The Original Acta of St. Peter’s Abbey, Gloucester c. 1122 to 1263, Gloucestershire Record Series (Gloucester: Bristol and Gloucestershire Archeological Society, 1998), p. xxiv. Perhaps the impetus for the collection of the Welsh material partly stems from the monks’ desire to replenish their library? Regardless, we can be sure that the Welsh material arrived after 1122, as no writing earlier than this date survives from Gloucester. See R. Thomson, ‘Books and Learning at Gloucester Abbey in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,’ in Books and Collectors 1200–1700, ed. J. P. Carley and C. G. C. Tite (London, 1997), pp. 3–26 (p. 6). Furthermore, I as argue below, Benedict of Gloucester’s Vita Dubricii, which uses material from Llancarfan, was composed sometime between 1148 and 1183. Moreover, Davies suggests that the life of St Gwynllyw, which he believes was composed for Gloucester, was written ‘some time in the sixth decade of the twelfth century’. See Davies, The Book of Llandaf, p. 134. Therefore, its seems likely that Gloucester did not solicit these lives in a single go but rather would have been in the process of gathering Welsh material from 1122 to 1183, or even beyond. Hughes, ‘British Library MS. Cotton Vespasian A.XIV’. Hughes, ‘British Library MS. Cotton Vespasian A.XIV’, p. 64.

59



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

of Gloucester’s Vita Dubricii as well as another copy of the Vita prima Dubricii, nearly identical to the version found in the Book of Llandaf. At Gloucester, the Vita prima Dubricii found an attentive reader in a Benedictine monk named Benedict. Like so many other medieval authors, we know little about him, and we are almost entirely dependent on what we can infer from his own writing. In the prologue to Vita Dubricii Benedict calls himself ‘a monk who wears the habit of the monastery of St Peter’s Gloucester’, and without this statement we would have little evidence indeed to place our author in Gloucester. 32 The only other piece of documentation that survives for Benedict is a charter for Margam Abbey written sometime between 1150 and 1166; three of its witnesses are monks from Gloucester, and the Benedict that appears there is likely our author.33 Benedict lets on that he is something of a specialist in hagiography, saying that he has devoted himself to the deeds of the holy fathers for a considerable amount of time.34 When Benedict writes that Dyfrig ‘in his time … was the most outstanding of all the saints dwelling in Britain in his merits and his way of life, and indeed he was most renowned for his miracles and for the gift of healing’, he implies that he has studied the lives of other early British saints, or at least that he is familiar with the exaggerated view of Dyfrig promoted by Llandaf.35 Benedict’s stated motive in writing a new life is to remedy what he views as gaps in the historical record: he laments that he could scarcely bear the fact that the deeds of so laudable a saint remained unknown.36 (Interestingly, in this statement we perhaps have further confirmation of Davies’s argument that Dyfrig was not as celebrated as the Liber Landauensis would have him.) In the well-stocked library of St Peter’s Abbey Benedict could find the necessary materials to produce his new life; the abbey had an extensive and wide-ranging liberal arts collection, with particular emphasis on Augustinian works.37 Here Benedict’s antiquarian impulses would have been well served, and Gloucester’s interests in Welsh hagiography provided Benedict the opportunity to compose the life of a Welsh saint, without setting foot in Wales. Benedict was active in the mid or late twelfth century, though we have few clues as to when exactly he composed his Vita Dubricii. Of course, his ample use of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae gives us a terminus post quem of 1138. At the other end, the manuscript that

32 33 34 35 36 37

‘… ego Benedictus habitu cenobii apostolii Petri Claudiocestriae monachus …’(§1). ‘Edwino, Adam, Benedicto monachis Gloec.’, Llandaff Episcopal Acta, ed. D. Crouch (Cardiff, 1988), no. 25. ‘… in gestis sanctorum partum diutius operam studio dedissem …’ (§1). ‘… sanctumque Dubricium omnium sanctorum tunc temporis in Brittannia degentium meritis et uita prestantissimum signis necnon et gratia sanitatum celeberrimum …’(§1). ‘… egre tuli ipsius gesta nesciri …’(§1). Thomson, ‘Books and Learning at Gloucester Abbey in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’.

60



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

contains Benedict’s life of Dyfrig is dated to around 1200.38 Confidence in a more specific date is shaky; however, enough circumstantial evidence exists to suggest that Benedict may have written his Vita Dubricii during the episcopate of Nicholas ap Gwrgan, bishop of Llandaf. Nicholas ap Gwrgan had been a monk at St Peter’s Gloucester for some thirty years before being consecrated bishop of Llandaf in 1148.39 After becoming bishop of Llandaf, Nicholas became something of a go-between for the Welsh and the Anglo-Normans. He retained close ties with the Gloucester abbey, and helped William, earl of Gloucester, to establish peace with the Welsh princes of Glamorgan.40 Furthermore, the charter from Margam abbey that Benedict witnessed, as mentioned above, was issued by none other than Bishop Nicholas. It is almost certain, therefore, that the two men knew one another. It seems possible then that Benedict of Gloucester sought to combine the new material about Dyfrig that he found in Geoffrey’s Historia with the life of Dyfrig that Gloucester had obtained in order to help Nicholas promote Llandaf as the centre of Dyfrig’s cult. Indeed, in one of the few passages in Vita Dubricii that has no analogues in either the Vita prima Dubricii or Historia regum Britanniae, Benedict writes, Blessed Dyfrig not only enlarged the metropolitan see of the church of the City of Legions with rich properties, but he also enlarged the Church of Llandaf, which had been dedicated in honour of Saint Peter the apostle, with estates, many territories and fertile fields, and he likewise enriched it with woodlands and rivers teeming with fish.41

Tellingly, Gloucester Abbey never held the rights to Llandaf. Why else would a monk of Gloucester show such concern for the property of Llandaf if not to please an old friend of the abbey, Bishop Nicholas? One of Benedict’s aims in writing the Vita Dubricci, with its exciting mix of hagiography and Arthurian narrative, was to promote Dyfrig’s cult at Llandaf. Given the connections between Bishop Nicholas and Gloucester Abbey, Benedict is likely to have composed his life of Dyfrig during Nicholas’s episcopate, which would narrow the time of composition to a period between 1148 and 1183.

38 39 40 41

Emanuel, ‘An Analysis of the Composition of the “Vita Cadoci”’. For the appointment of local men at Llandaf, see David Walker, ‘The Medieval Bishops of Llandaff’, Morgannwg: Transactions of the Glamorgan Local History Society 6 (1962): pp. 5–32. D. Walker, ‘Nicholas ap Gwrgan (d. 1183)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). ‘Beatus ergo Dubricius non modo metropolitanam sedem ecclesię Vrbis Legionum copiosis possessionibus amplificauit, uerum etiam Landauensem ęcclesiam in honore Sancti Petri apostoli consecratam prediis et pluribus territoriis atque fertilibus agris, siluis utique et piscosis amnibus locupletauit’ (§15).

61



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

Furthermore, another of Benedict’s goals was to harmonize the Dyfrig found in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia with the Dyfrig championed by Llandaf; this too would be to Llandaf’s benefit. Geoffrey himself had little time for Bishop Urban’s propaganda about the diocese of Llandaf and Dyfrig’s importance to it.42 In fact, he ignores Llandaf altogether and, in one the Historia’s more brazen fabrications, makes Caerleon, the City of Legions, home to Britain’s most distinguished and ancient see. And Geoffrey makes Dyfrig the magnificent bishop of this imagined bishopric. Of course, this clashes with Llandaf’s claims about Dyfrig, and as the Historia became more and more popular, it may have become necessary for some proponent of Llandaf to square Geoffrey’s account with Llandaf’s. Benedict’s Vita Dubricii does just that. Since Llandaf features in the Vita prima on only one occasion, in the appendix which describes the translation of Dyfrig’s relics from Bardsey Island to Llandaf, Benedict must only make one minor, albeit clumsy, adjustment: Where the Vita prima reads ‘sanctus Dubricius landauensis ęcclesię episcopus’ (Saint Dyfrig bishop of the church of Llandaf ).43 Benedict writes, ‘Sanctus Dubricius olim landauensis episcopus, siue ecclesię Vrbis Legionum que nunc appelatur Caerlion archiepiscopus’ (Saint Dyfrig, once bishop of Llandaf, or archbishop of the church of the City of Legions, which is now called Caerleon).44 Here, Benedict skirts the issue, offering only a meek siue in lieu of an actual explanation as to why the two sources differ. Nevertheless, because the Vita prima does not describe Dyfrig’s tenure as bishop in detail, this lack of explanation does not necessarily cause any misunderstanding, especially when read outside of its original context in the Liber Landauensis. Benedict may not have fully succeeded in integrating the two versions of Dyfrig, but his Vita is certainly a step in that direction. In addition to revealing the alliance between Llandaf and Gloucester, the Vita Dubricii contains other markers of its composition in an AngloWelsh border milieu. During the twelfth century, Welsh and English culture mingled at St Peter’s abbey in Gloucester; in addition to literary exchange, the monastery attracted Welsh oblates and students. Bishop Nicholas, who had spent some thirty years at St Peter’s Abbey, was perhaps himself a Welsh speaker.45 Gerald of Wales is perhaps the most famous Welsh writer to have studied at Gloucester, but Walter Map, another border-writer, may have studied there as well.46 As F. G. Cowley explains, ‘Before the advent of the Cistercians into the heart of Wales 42 43 44 45 46

J. S. P. Tatlock, The Legendary History of Britain: Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae and its Early Vernacular Versions (Berkeley, CA, 1950), pp. 71–2. The Text of the Book of Llan Dâv, p. 84. §26. D. Walker, ‘The Medieval Bishops of Llandaff’, p. 16. The case of Gerald studying at Gloucester is well-known. See R. Bartlett, Gerald of Wales,

62



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

in the forties of the twelfth century there were very few opportunities open to Welshmen who were attracted to the monastic vocation. A few Welshmen favored by “birth or brilliance” could find admittance to one of the larger abbeys along the border.’47 Could Benedict have been one of these Welshmen who ventured outside of his native land in search of the monastic vocation? If Benedict were in fact Welsh, one can more easily see how he landed on Dyfrig as a topic for his hagiographical interests. One piece of linguistic evidence could be mustered to support the idea that Benedict may have been a Welsh speaker, namely his use of dextralis to describe southern Wales: ‘Super omnes utique dextralis Britanniae fines beatum Dubricium metropolitanum archipresulem ab Ambrosio Aurelio … necnon et ab omni clero et populo illius Archidioceseos canonice delectum conscrauerunt’ (They consecrated blessed Dyfrig as archbishop over all the territory of southern Britain in accordance with canon law; he had been chosen by Ambrosius Aurelius … and also by all the clergy and people of that archdiocese).48 Dextralis here means ‘south’ and owes its use to the Welsh word Deheubarth which literally means ‘right part’ but refers to the southern kingdom of Wales. In Latin, only Welsh authors use dextralis in such a manner.49 However, this passage is not original to Benedict but reworks a similar passage that precedes Dyfrig’s life in the Liber Landauensis and that travelled to Gloucester together with it.50 Nonetheless, the earlier passage is not glossed and Benedict does not feel compelled to provide any explanation in his version of the passage. While dextralis does not prove that Benedict spoke Welsh, it does show, at the very least, that Benedict was familiar with the term and that he felt confident enough that his readers would recognize this specialized use of dextralis for him to leave it unglossed. Indeed, this passage may reveal more about the extent of knowledge of southern Wales among the Normans and English who inhabited the borderlands than it does about Benedict himself: this specialized use of dextralis is likely to have been quickly adopted by Norman colonizers. We must therefore refrain from making any judgments about Benedict’s languages or ethnicity unless further evidence surfaces. The one instance in which it appears that Benedict has misunderstood Welsh arose as a result of a scribal error in the text’s transmission and not from Benedict himself. In §5, my edition reads ‘uidelicet in insula Iniserbdil’, which translates as ‘namely, in the

47 48 49 50

1146–1223 (Oxford, 1982), p. 29. For Walter Map see G. Stollberg, Die soziale Stellung der intellektuellen Oberschicht im England des 12. Jahrhunderts (Lübeck, 1973), p. 72. F. G. Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales, 1066–1349 (Cardiff, 1977), p. 46. §7. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, ed. R. E. Latham (London: Oxford University Press, 1975-), s.v. ‘dextralis.’ ‘Super omnes autem britannos dextralis partis britannię beatum Dubricium … archiepiscopum consecrauerunt’. The Text of the Book of Llan Dâv, p. 69.

63



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

island Ynysefrddyl’. Since inis (Modern Welsh ynys) is the Welsh word for ‘island’, it seems that Benedict has not recognized that ‘iniserbdil’ means ‘Efrddyl’s Island’, and that he has instead treated the whole word as a proper noun – akin to writing ‘the isle of Efrddylisle’. If Benedict could not recognize the meaning of a simple, easily analysable Welsh place name, it would seem that he had little command of Welsh. However, the manuscript clearly reads ‘miserbdil’ not only in Benedict’s vita, but also in the copy of the Vita prima found in Cotton Vespasian A.xiv, which more closely represents the text that Benedict was working from than the copy of the Vita prima found in The Book of Llandaf, which itself preserves the original reading. Therefore, the blame for this error likely lies with the scribe who misconstrued the initial minims of inis at some point in the text’s journey from Llandaf to Gloucester. If Benedict merely preserved what he found in his copy of the Vita prima, it is difficult to infer anything about his linguistic abilities from this passage alone.51

Style and Content of the Vita Dubricii Benedict’s style of adaptation is typical for the Middle Ages; he tends to accurately relate what his sources say, though not necessarily verbatim. He often replaces adjectives and adverbs with synonyms, and at times he paraphrases longer passages or episodes, especially from Geoffrey. As mentioned earlier, his two main sources are the version of Vita prima Dubricii and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, but he also uses part of the Liber Landauensis titled De primo statu Landauensis ęcclesię et uita archiepiscopi Dubricii, which presents introductory material about the diocese of Llandaf and Dyfrig. This document travelled to Gloucester as well and forms a prologue to the Vita prima Dubricii in Cotton Vespasian A.xiv. Very little of Benedict’s prose is without precedent in these sources. When he departs from them, it is easy to discern the bent of his own contributions: whenever possible he stresses the role of the clergy, especially in those passages based on the Historia regum Britanniae. He was an attentive reader of the Historia – he caught every mention of Dyfrig – but he evidently found that Geoffrey had underemphasized the importance of the church. One of the most conspicuous examples is when Arthur welcomes King Hoel from Brittany and the two are about to set upon the Saxons at Lincoln. At this point Benedict 51

This scenario assumes that the insertion of insula is Benedict’s own and not a later scribe’s, and also that the scribal slip of ‘miserbdil’ for ‘iniserbdil’ did not occur later in transmission. However, this latter scenario is less likely, because it would require exactly the same error to happen twice (once in the copy of the Vita prima and once in Benedict’s life); it is easier to assume that the mistake happened once in the Vita prima’s transmission to Gloucester, and that it was then copied by Benedict.

64



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

qualifies their plans by adding that they journeyed to Lincoln only ‘after Dyfrig’s judgment had been imparted’.52 Clearly, Benedict feels that the saint should be consulted not only in ecclesiastical matters but military ones as well. Perhaps Benedict was working to correct with his own pious hands the same deficiency in the Historia that hundreds of years later J. S. P. Tatlock would notice – ‘One feels that the book would not much please earnest ecclesiastics.’53 Indeed, the interaction between Dyfrig and Arthur is one of the key narrative strands of the Vita. However, Benedict was not the first to use Arthur as a character in a hagiographical work. In some Welsh saints lives – Vita prima Sancti Carantoci, Vita Sancti Iltuti, and Vita Sancti Paterni – Arthur features as a minor character, usually set in opposition to the saint in question. Siân Echard, writing about the proliferation of Arthurian narrative in Latin, describes Arthur’s role in these lives: ‘Arthur appears in mere episodes in these works, and it has been suggested that his unsatisfactory or unsavory behaviour in some of these episodes is simply the result of his assimilation to a stock hagiographical figure, the Recalcitrant King, whose purpose is simply to be chastised by the saint’.54 In these lives, Arthur is nothing more than a ‘narrative convenience’ utilized by the hagiographers because of his ‘name-recognition’.55 Crucially, these vitae were written before Geoffrey of Monmouth had established the canonical version of Arthur, at a time when his figure was ‘sufficiently indeterminate and flexible’.56 Benedict, however, must deal with Arthur after the appearance of the Historia regum Britanniae. The Arthur he has read about is not the malleable figure of Welsh legend, but rather the stern and eminent leader of the British. As such, there are no scenes in Benedict’s Vita Dubricii where Arthur is humbled by the saint, as in earlier vitae. Instead, Benedict uses Arthur’s remarkable success as evidence of the holiness of Dyfrig. In Benedict’s retelling, Dyfrig becomes the hero of those episodes drawn from Geoffrey’s Historia regum Britanniae. More than once Benedict insists that Dyfrig is the only reason that Arthur prospers: I have described these matters concerning Arthur so that everybody may know how many blessings he enjoyed as long as he was propped up by the prayers of holy Dyfrig, how many swords and misfortunes he was exposed

52 53 54

55 56

‘communicatoque sancti Dubricii consultu’ (§10). Tatlock, The Legendary History of Britain, p. 277. S. Echard, Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition (Cambridge, 1998), p. 198. See also J. Rider, ‘Arthur and the Saints’, in King Arthur Through the Ages, ed. V. M. Lagorio and M. L. Day (New York, 1990). Echard, Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition, p. 198. Rider, ‘Arthur and the Saints’, p. 17.

65



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

to without him, and how he was forever ruined after Dyfrig left him, as long as he lived.57

Indeed, Arthur’s downfall begins on the very day that Dyfrig leaves the king to retire from worldly affairs. For Benedict, emphasizing Arthur’s dependence on Dyfrig not only demonstrates Dyfrig’s sanctity, but it also makes Dyfrig part of Arthurian history, creating a vita that had great appeal for a contemporary audience. If one of Benedict’s aims in writing the vita is to promote Dyfrig’s cult at Llandaf, emphasizing the saint’s connection to Arthurian tradition would surely go a long way in the midtwelfth century. Nonetheless, Benedict’s attempts to popularize Dyfrig seem to have little immediate effect, since we know of only two early copies of Benedict’s life, the one copied into Cotton Vespasian A.xiv at Monmouth and Benedict’s own copy written at Gloucester, which has not survived.58

Benedict’s Text of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae Thanks to the work of Julia Crick, Michael Reeve, and Neil Wright, it is now possible to speak of distinct textual traditions in the surviving manuscripts of Historia regum Britanniae (HRB) with much more accuracy and authority than before. Anyone who examines the Vita Dubricii will see that enough of HRB’s diction and syntax remains in place for a collation to prove useful. Indeed, more than enough recorded textual variants are present in the Vita Dubricii to allow us to identity with some certainty those surviving manuscripts which most closely resemble Benedict’s exemplar. For my collation, I chose only those passages from Vita Dubricii that most faithfully preserve the Latin of HRB. Accordingly, I have omitted those in which Benedict is clearly paraphrasing HRB. The passages that I 57

58

‘Hec itaque de Arthuro prosecutus sum ut cunctis liquido pateat quantis felicitatibus fortunatus extiterit, quamdiu beati Dubritii suffragiis suffultus extitit, quantisque cladibus et infortuniis ab eo desertus, quoad uixit, pessundatus subiacuit’ (§21). However, Benedict’s life did find some readers in the later Middle Ages and the early modern period: ‘Vespasian A.xiv was known to the mid-fourteenth-century hagiographer John Tynemouth, who uses Benedict, albeit in heavily abbreviated form, as the basis for the account of Dyfrig in his own Sanctilogium. After the Reformation the manuscript passed via Sir John Price of Brecon (a strong believer in the historicity of Geoffrey of Monmouth) and Sir Henry Sidney to Archbishop Matthew Parker, whose secretary noted Benedict’s life of Dyfrig as being among its contents. Early in the seventeenth century it came into Sir Robert Cotton’s collection.’ Henry Summerson, ‘Gloucester, Benedict of (fl. c.1150),’ in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). A heavily abbreviated version also appeared in English translation in 1516 in The Kalendre of the Newe Legende of England. See Nova Legenda Anglie, ed. C. Horstman (Oxford, 1901), p. xxi.

66



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

chose to collate are: §101.369–73; §130.281–98; §143.1–12; §144.48–57; §146.89–93; §147.94.110; §156.306–314; §156.318–22; §157.356–72; §158.404–10.59 I have ignored for the most part spelling variants and postpositive particles, both of which are prone to differ in even the most closely related manuscripts. I began my collation by attempting to identify a reading in the Vita Dubricii that would significantly narrow down the field of 217 manuscripts. Luckily, Vita Dubricii preserves a very rare reading at §143.4 that has been misconstrued in all manuscript traditions, with only no. 34 preserving the correct reading out of the manuscripts that Reeve collates:60 Vrgebat enim eos necessitas §143.4 Vrgebat 34; Arguebat Ω

As Reeve notes, ‘It is hard to see how arguebat can be appropriate. In classical Latin its commonest sense is “convict”, usually in the context of demolishing an assertion; at §7.82, its only other occurrence in the work, it means accusabat or something of the kind.’61 Reeve does not, however, fully collate no. 34 in his edition but rather calls on it occasionally to explain the behaviour of M, to which it is closely related. I therefore collated the relevant passages in all of the manuscripts that Reeve lists as showing some relationship to no. 34, as well as no. 34 itself. These are: 34 Cambridge, Sidney Sussex College 75 (s. xii/xiii) 152 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Oriel College 16 (s. xv) 125 Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional 6319 (F.147) (s. xii) 103 London, British Library, Harley 4003 (s. xiii) 46 Cambridge, University Library, Ee.1.24 (s. xv) 88 London, British Library, Arundel 326 (s. xiii/xiv) 41 Cambridge, University Library, Dd.4.34(209) (s. xiv)

Although all of these manuscripts display some similarities with Benedict’s exemplar, it quickly becomes apparent that nos. 34 and 152 most consistently agree with the version of HRB behind the Vita Dubricii.62 Below is the list of readings shared by Benedict’s exemplar and by this group of manuscripts. In each case, nos. 34 and 152 agree with Vita Dubricii. Benedict, in a passage characteristic of his style of adaptation, writes ‘quibus rex communi consilio rectores restituere gestiens’, whereas most versions of HRB preserve the phrase ‘communi populorum consilio’. 59 60

61 62

These paragraph numbers refer to Reeve’s edition, which I follow. I have followed Reeve’s Sigla: Ω = the common source of all the major manuscript traditions. I also follow Crick’s manuscript numbers, see Crick, A Summary Catalogue of the Manuscripts. I use the abbreviation ‘Vd’ to refer to Benedict of Gloucester’s Vita Dubricii. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia, p. lxxi. See the Appendix for a complete list of the collation.

67



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

However, Benedict’s omission of ‘populorum’ can be explained by the behaviour of his exemplar: §130.291–2 quibus communi populorum consilio consulere volens om. populorum Vd 34 152 103 46 88

Along with no. 34, nos. 152 and 125 also preserve the reading ‘Vrgebat’ for ‘Arguebat’. §143.4 Arguebat Vrgebat Vd 34 152 12563

And in four other instances in which Benedict’s Vita Dubricii differs from Reeve’s text of HRB, the variations are shown to be inherited from this family of manuscripts rather than altered by Benedict’s own hand. None of these variations is listed in Reeve’s apparatus. §146.90 Deo meo conservans seruans Vd 34 152 103 46 88

§147.95 celsa uoce exclamit excelsa Vd 34 152 125

§147.101 Christumque insequi non ambigitur sequi Vd 34 152 125

§158.409 uita et boni mores uirum commendauerant commendabant Vd 34 152 103 46

Furthermore, another passage which betrays Benedict’s use of this group of manuscripts is §156.306, where the Vita Dubricii has ‘Cum uero solempnitas Pentecostes appropinquasset’. Here Reeve’s edition has ‘Cum igitur sollempnitas Pentecoste aduenire inciperet’. However, nos. 34, 152, 103, 46 and 88 all read ‘aduenire incepisset’ for ‘aduenire inciperet’. Thus, we can see that while Benedict substitutes the verb ‘appropinquare’ for the phrase ‘aduenire incipere’, he has nonetheless retained the use of the pluperfect subjunctive from his exemplar. Reeve tentatively identifies no. 34 (and thus its relatives) as belonging to the same family, which he designates by the letter M.64 Unsurprisingly then Benedict’s exemplar twice agrees with the variants that Reeve reports for M. Nos. 34 and 152 also agree with M here.

63

64

As Reeve notes, no. 125 has been corrected by a copy closely related to no. 34. Therefore, although it belongs to a different textual tradition, it nonetheless offers testimony about the distribution of no. 34 and its related manuscripts. See below, pp. 70–1. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia, pp. xv–xvi.

68



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

§147.100 pro confratribus fratribus O AD QYM Vd 34 152 10365 46 88

§157.372 totus dies celebrationi daretur daretur] vacaret E YM Vd 34 152 103 46

Benedict’s exemplar consistently shares enough variants with nos. 34 and 152 to allow us to confidently demonstrate that they all belong to a related family of manuscripts. They do not, however, agree at all points; nos. 34 and 152 contain variants that are not seen in the Vita Dubricii. An analysis of their divergences makes it possible for us to establish a relative chronology of Benedict’s exemplar against nos. 34 and 152. §147.108 auream galeam simulacro draconis insculptam inscultam 34 152 41

§157.356 ut regem diademate regali coronent regali] regio 34 152

§157.370 ut prae nimia dulcedine om. prae 34 152 103 46

In each of these three cases the Vita Dubricii preserves either the more correct reading, as in the case of ‘insculptam’ and ‘prae’, or it preserves a reading that all other manuscript families agree on, as in the case of ‘regali’. On the basis of this evidence, it would seem that the manuscript that Benedict had access to was an earlier witness to its family than nos. 34 and 152. Otherwise, one would expect the Vita Dubricii to preserve the variations found in these three instances. Another passage that may suggest that Benedict was working from a relatively early exemplar is §144.55, which in Reeve’s edition reads ‘in portu Hamonis applicuit’. Reeve’s listed variants combined with my collation gives: §144.55 in portu Δ Σ Vd; portum Φ 34; in portum 152; portum 125 103

Through his analysis Reeve identifies two major manuscript families, Φ and Δ, and all extant texts ultimately side with one of these two traditions. Benedict’s exemplar, and its close relatives nos. 34 and 152, all belong to Φ. In this passage, however, the Vita Dubricii agrees not with its own manuscript group Φ, but with Δ, which Reeve concludes preserves the best reading. On the surface it seems that Benedict’s exemplar contained the more satisfactory reading ‘in portu’, implying that it reflects an early 65

In no. 103 the scribe first wrote patribus suis for fratribus suis then deleted patribus with puncta delentia and finally followed with fratribus.

69



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

reading, before this passage was corrupted in the rest of Φ. However, given the muddled state of this passage in Φ, with even no. 34 and no. 152 at odds, it seems prudent to resist the temptation put too much weight on this passage as evidence of the earliness of Benedict’s exemplar, since Benedict, finding this passage somewhat mangled, could have easily changed this reading himself. The fact that the copy of Historia regum Britanniae that Benedict read at Gloucester Abbey is most closely related to no. 34 and no. 152 allows us to begin to understand the regional distribution of this group of manuscripts. Although I have not yet conducted a full investigation into the provenance of this group of manuscripts, enough evidence exists for a preliminary judgment. Reeve reports that no. 34 contains two ‘interpolations of interest’:66 §119.33 in natione Hergin §151.196 …cessabant

According to Julia Crick, this manuscript’s medieval provenance is Wells cathedral in Somerset, in southwestern England, and it dates from around s. xii/xiii.67 These two interpolations that Reeve notes do not, in fact, originate with no. 34, but reflect a common source with no. 152, which witnesses them as well.68 No. 152 is a relatively late manuscript, dating from around the first part of the fifteenth century, and its medieval provenance is as yet unknown. While the second interpolation merely relates some confused though widespread knowledge of St Samson,69 the first interpolation suggests that the common source of these manuscripts at one time circulated in southwestern England, and possibly the southern Welsh Marches: ‘Hergin’ is the ancient Welsh kingdom of Ergyng, an area that was only fully incorporated into Herefordshire in the later Middle Ages and remained culturally Welsh well into the early modern period. To the English and Normans, Ergyng was known as ‘Archenfield’ or ‘Urchinfield’. That the interpolator has enough local knowledge to know that ‘Ergyng’ is the Welsh name for ‘Archenfield’ doubtless implies a familiarity with the southern March and western Herefordshire. At the moment, I can muster one other piece of evidence, slender though it may be, that the ancestor of no. 34, no. 152 and Benedict’s exemplar circulated in southwestern England. Although no. 125 is not directly

66 67 68 69

Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia, p. xxxv. Crick, A Summary Catalogue of the Manuscripts, pp. 57–9. Reeve does not report that no. 152 contains these innovations. See M. J. Curley, Geoffrey of Monmouth (New York, 1994), pp. 55–6.

70



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

related to this family, it has been corrected by a close relative of no. 34.70 No. 125 now resides in Madrid, in the Biblioteca Nacional, but Crick has found some evidence for an English provenance. She writes, ‘Annotations in Anglicana script suggest later mediaeval English provenance. In Early Modern hand on 74v “Thomas Nortonus”, possibly Thomas Norton of Bristol whose Ordinall was printed by Ashmole…’.71 If the identification of Thomas Norton is correct, then we have one more piece of evidence that this family of manuscripts circulated in southwestern England, as Bristol is certainly well within the area in which a relative of no. 34 could be found and used to correct no. 125. Much work is yet to be done on the textual history of the Historia regum Britanniae, but an initial analysis of this small subset of Historia manuscripts suggests that they have a provenance in southwestern England and possibly the southern Marches. We know that at St Peter’s Abbey, Gloucester, Benedict used a text of the Historia that is closely related to nos. 34 and 152. We know that no. 34’s late medieval provenance is Wells cathedral in Somerset. We also know that no. 34 and no. 152 share an interpolation that betrays a familiarity with the geography of the southern March or western Herefordshire. And finally, we know that no. 125 was corrected by a close relative of no. 152, and that this manuscript may have spent time in Bristol. This is sufficient evidence, I think, to conclude that Benedict’s exemplar, no. 34, no. 152 and the common source of nos. 34 and 152 form a small family of Historia manuscripts whose early medieval provenance is situated in southwestern England and the southern Welsh Marches or western Herefordshire.

70 71

Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia, p. xliii. Crick, A Summary Catalogue of the Manuscripts, p. 207.

71



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

An Edition of Benedict of Gloucester’s Vita Dubricii1

§ 1 [71r] Incipit Prologus in Vitam Sancti Dubricii Archiepiscopi. Sanctorum patrum conuersationes et gesta ideo memorie pluribus antiquariorum editionibus traduntur quatinus, eorundem preclaris exemplis animati, mores illorum et uitam actuum et deuotionum gressionibus totis nisibus imitemur. Quippe cum illorum digna laudum merita, spiritus eorum in supernis uigere; et in Christo uiuere, et Christum in illis, crebris preclarisque miraculis testificantur. Quibus ego Benedictus habitu cenobii apostoli Petri Claudiocestriae monachus adhortatus orationibus quoque et meritis beatissimi2 Dubricii archipresulis confisus opere precium duxi lucubrationi insistere ipsiusque actus uel rudi stilo digerere, quo indocti etiam edita intellectu prout gnari perciperent, peccatoresque mei pares nullatenus inscitia patrociniis tanti patroni carerent, ceterum eius apud Dominum preclara merita cognoscentes ipsius suffragium optinerent. Nam cum in gestis sanctorum patrum diutius operam studio dedissem, sanctumque Dubricium omnium sanctorum tunc temporis in Brittannia degentium meritis et uita prestantissimum signis necnon et gratia sanitatum celeberrimum egre tuli ipsius gesta nesciri. Cuius pre omnibus ueterum preceptorum testimonio cognoui apud dominum interuentionis patrocinia3 preualere 4. Quocirca que in autenticis patrum digestis super eodem patre repperi compilare et coadunare stilo non erubui.

Explicit prologus. Incipit uita sancti Dubritii Archiepiscopus XVIII. kalendas Decembris Igitur quidam regulus Ertici regionis Pepiau uocatus Britannice § 2 uero clauorauc cognominatus, quod Latine reumaticus siue spumosus interpretatur. Hic dudum aduersus hostes in expeditionem profectus, atque cum tropheo ad propria regressus, precepit filie sue nomine Eurdil5 pre labore peractę pugnę caput ipsius abluere. Verum enimuero ubi iussum 1

2 3 4 5

Sigla: W = Henry Wharton’s 1690 edition in Anglia Sacra; I do not indicate Wharton’s classicized spelling; VP = The copy of Vita prima Dubricii found in London, British Library, Cotton MS, Vespasian A.xiv; LL= The copy of Vita prima Dubricii found in Liber Landauensis. beatissi patrocinium W preualeri corr. prevalere cf. ebrdil LL k.l. et passim.

72



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

A Translation of Benedict of Gloucester’s Vita Dubricii Here begins the prologue to the Life of Saint Dyfrig the Archbishop § 1 The conduct and deeds of the holy fathers are passed down in memory by the many written works of scribes, so that stirred by their splendid examples we might imitate their character and life with all our strength in the living out of our actions and devotions, inasmuch as their praiseworthy deeds have merited that their spirits flourish in the heavens; by frequent and splendid miracles they give witness that they live in Christ and Christ in them. By these things I, Benedict, a monk who wears the habit of the monastery of St Peter’s Gloucester, was encouraged, and I also found reassurance in the prayers and merits of the most blessed Archbishop Dyfrig; I considered it worthwhile to give myself over to long nights spent cataloguing Dyfrig’s deeds, even if only in a plain style, so that those yet unlearned, as well as the learned, would seize with their understanding what was written, and so that sinners like me would in no way lack the protection of such a patron due to their ignorance, and additionally so that recognising Dyfrig’s distinguished merits before the Lord they would obtain his intercession. Although I had devoted myself to the study of the deeds the holy fathers for some considerable time, I have scarcely been able to bear the fact that Dyfrig’s deeds remained unknown: in his time Saint Dyfrig was the most outstanding of all the saints dwelling in Britain in his merits and his way of life, and indeed he was most renowned for his miracles and for the gift of healing. I recognised from the testimony of the ancient teachers that his intercessory protections surpassed all others before the Lord. Therefore, I felt no shame in plundering what I discovered about this particular father from the authentic documents of the fathers and drawing it all together with my pen. Here ends the prologue. Here begins the life of Saint Dyfrig, Archbishop, whose feast day is 14 November. § 2 There was a prince of Ertici who was called Peibio but nick-named Claforog in British, which means ‘rheumatic’ or ‘frothy’ in Latin.1 He had some time ago set out on a campaign against his enemies, and when he returned victoriously to his own land, he instructed his daughter Efrddyl to wash his head on account of the toil of the battle he had completed. However, when she tried to carry out her father’s command, he perceived from her weight that she was pregnant. Burning with deep rage because

1

As Doble and others have noted, claforog typically means ‘leprous’ in Welsh and not ‘frothy’. Indeed, this is the only instance of the word meaning ‘frothy’ or the like. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, ed. R. J. Thomas et al. (Cardiff, 1967–2002), s.v. ‘claforog’.

73



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

patris eadem conaretur perficere, ex ipsius grauitate genitor animaduertit pregnantem existere. Quamobrem rex nimis ira succensus iussit eam in quodam utre includi et in flumen precipitari ut, quocunque sors eam ageret, in alto fluuii demergeretur. Quodque6 Deo minime placuit, fieri nequiuit. Iam priusquam proles quam in utero habebat nasceretur, dignatus est dominus misericordiam et protectionem exhibendo cuius meriti foret ostendere, cum genitrix eiusdem nullo modo potuit undis submergi: nam quotiens ponebatur in flumine, totiens ad ripam illesa denuo ferebatur. § 3 Vnde pater, indignans quod illam minus compos esset fluctibus inmergere, decreuit eam igne comburi. Cuius ad preceptum rogus ilico preparatur ad ipsius interitum et ad aliarum terrorem puellarum, in quem prelibati regis nata Eurdil [71v] uiua flagrantibus incendiis inicitur7. In crastino autem mane dum funditus rebatur focis exusta, missis a patre legatis scitum si quid ossium8 genitę inustum remaneret. Inuenerunt eam incolumem filiumque quem in medio pire pepererat tenentem in gremio, uestibus illius atque capillis ab omni combustione illesis. Pergrande namque saxum iuxta quod enixa est filium in ostensionem natiuitatis9 pueri ibidem positum est. Locus autem in quo puer ortus est Britannice Matle appellatus est, quod in eo natus extitit beatus homuncio, qui modo per corruptionem Anglici idiomatis Meddelega nominatur. Puer autem ut lauacrum regenerationis nactus est, Dubricius uocatur, spiritusque sancti gratia statim repletur. Quis uero eius genitor extiterit, huius temporis hominibus omnino constat ignotum, atque idcirco nempe quidam erronei eum fabulose patre carere mentiuntur.

§ 4 Cum itaque pater premisse puellę miranda beneficia et signa que Dominus erga illam et ipsius10 natum patrauerat a suis apparitoribus acceperat, quemadmodum etiam modo mirabili ignium in meditullio genitum ediderat11, quinimmo mirandam tantilli pueri12 speciem ac13 decorem Deique gratiam in eo prefulgidam illos nimium intueri desiderans, filiam cum nuper nata prole confestim ad se adducere preceptus14, quibus sibi presentatis, infantulum paterno15 affectu continuo complectens eundemque deosculans. Is puer manum instinctu diuino sursum porri6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Quod quia W mittitur W ossiium natiuitatem ipsum W Quemadmodum … ediderat W omit. pueri tantilli W atque W precepitus; precipit W cf. paterno LL; materno VP

74



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

of this, the king ordered her to be sealed in a leather bag and to be cast into a river, so that, wherever fate should carry her, she would sink into the depths of the river. But whatever does not totally please God cannot happen: even before the child that she held in her womb was born, the Lord deemed it right, by displaying mercy and protection, to show how meritorious he would be, when in no way could his mother be submerged by the waves. As often as she was put in the river, she was carried back to the bank again unharmed. Then her father grew indignant because he was not powerful § 3 enough to force her under the waves, and he determined to have her consumed by fire. At his command a pyre was immediately prepared for her own death and for the terror of other girls. When the flames were blazing hot, the king’s daughter Efrddyl was thrown into the blazing flames alive. However, on the next morning, when she was thought to have been completely burned up by the fire, her father sent messengers to find out if any of his daughter’s bones remained un-scorched. They found her unharmed and holding in her lap a son whom she had born in the middle of the pyre, and her garments and her hair were unburnt. Next to where she had given birth to her son, a very large stone was set to mark the child’s birthplace. The place where the boy was born is called Matle in British because that is where that blessed little man was born, but through the corruption of the English language it is called Meddelega. When the boy received his baptismal bath, he was called Dyfrig, and he was instantly filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. But it is agreed that in this age nobody knows who his father could have been; on that account misguided men are certainly lying when they prattle about him lacking a father. § 4 When this girl’s father learned from his ministers about the wonderful miracles and signs that the Lord worked for her and for her son, and also how she had miraculously given birth to a child in the midst of flames, he indeed desired that they should admire beyond measure the wonderful sight of so small a boy and the beautiful grace of God shining forth in him, and he ordered them to hastily lead his daughter to him along with her newborn child. After they were presented to him, he immediately embraced and kissed the little infant with paternal affection. Prompted by a divine impulse, the child, stretching up his hand in a childish manner,

75



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

gendo puerili more faciem ipsius ore tenus contrectauit, ilicoque diuinitatis nutu ex infantis16 intactu ab incurabili morbo quo laborabat curatus est: saliua enim ab ore illius incessanter profluebat quam, ut fertur, duo clientes ad hoc deputati uix manutergiis extergere poterant. Qui ubi sospitati se redditum palpatu puerperii restante superfluo gutturis reumate cognouit, oppido gauisus est, ueluti naufragus cum peruenerit ad portum salutis, siue mortis reus cum liber a diuturno carceris squalore dimittitur: quisque prius toruus utpote rugiens extitit, deinceps in agni mansuetudinem dextere excelsi transmutatione17 conuertitur18. De cetero quidem super omnes liberos et nepotes exorsus est infantem diligere19, illiusque fundi in quo natus est effecit heredem, qui Matle ab indigenis, i. e. bonus locus, uocitatur, eo quod bonus seu beatus homo ibi satus fuerat.

Porro transactis paucis annorum curriculis, prefatus rex Pepiau § 5 totius illius insule Dubricium constituit heredem, ipsamque a genitricis eius nomine, scilicet Eurdil, iussit Iniserbdil20 exin numcupari. Puerulus exinde diatim proficiebat etate et sapiencia, oportunumque tempus discendi nactus, literis erudiendus traditur. Qui paulo post prudencia quidem una cum diuinorum dogmatum [72r] scientia magnanimiter claruit, et licet annis adolescens, uir tamen sensu et doctrinę uirtute canus in breui effectus. Eloquentia pariter et utriusque testamenti peritia per uniuersam Britanniam adeo celebris fama preconabatur ut ex omnibus fere totius regni prouinciis non modo rudes, sed etiam gnari diuerso dogmate informandi edificandique gratia ad eum confluerent. Quorum primarii constant Sanctus scilicet Theliauus, Samson discipulus eius, Vbelinus atque Aidanus, cum aliis XVI21, quorum nomina huic historie inserere ineptum duximus, exceptis aliis mille clericis quos VII annorum circulis liberalibus disciplinis instituendos in territorio quod Hentlan uocatur quod situm est secus litus Gui fluminis, i. e. Waia, secum detinuerat, formam eis prebens in semetipso religiosę uitę et karitatis perfectę. Rursus nempe doctor itidem in natiuitatis sue solo, uidelicet in insula Iniserbdil22 iuxta ripam amnis23 qui Waia numcupatur, aptam sibi multitudinique discipu-

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

infantii transmutacionem corr. transmutacione eundemque deosculans … transmutatione conuertitur W omit. nepotes illum exorsus est diligere W miserbdil; cf. miserbdil VP; iniserbdil LL corr. fals. supra XVIII; whoever corrected the MS incorrectly counted the omitted number of saints, at least according to LL and VP. miserbdil; cf. miserbdil VP; iniserbdil LL. See introduction, n. 51. annis

76



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

caressed his face right up to his mouth, and with divine assent he was immediately cured by the infant’s touch of that incurable disease which had oppressed him: for spit used to unceasingly flow out from his mouth to the extent that he had assigned two servants, the story goes, whose job it was to attend to this matter and who were barely able to wipe away the spit with towels. When the excess spit stayed back in his throat, he realised that he had been returned to health by the newborn’s caress, and he became exceedingly happy, just as a shipwrecked sailor when he arrives at the port of health, or a man accused of murder when he is set free from the enduring filth of prison: whoever was fierce to the point of roaring before is afterwards skilfully converted into the meekness of a lamb through a heavenly transformation. Moreover, he began to love the infant above all his children and grandchildren, and he made him heir to that piece of land in which he had been born, which is called Matle by the locals, that is ‘the good place’, because a ‘good’ or ‘holy’ man had been sown there. § 5 Later on, after the passing of a few years, this aforementioned King Peibio established Dyfrig as heir to the entire island, and he commanded that it be called Ynysefrddyl thereafter, from the name of his mother, Efrddyl. Day by day the little boy grew in age and wisdom, and when he reached a suitable time for education, he was given over to be instructed in literature. A little while afterwards he became very renowned for his prudence as well as his knowledge of divine teachings, and although he was young in years, nonetheless he shortly became wise in sense and in the power of his learning. From his eloquence and his skill with both testaments, so much was his reputation proclaimed repeatedly through all of Britain that from almost every province of the entire kingdom uneducated men as well as those learned in all manner of doctrine flocked to him to be guided and strengthened. The most distinguished of those men are well known, namely: Saint Telio, his disciple Samson, Ubelinus, and Aidan, in addition to another sixteen, whose names I think it inappropriate to insert into this history, along with the other thousand clerics that he kept for seven years and instructed in the liberal arts in the territory that is called Hentlan, located along the bank of the river Gwy, that is the Wye. He himself served as a model of religious life and perfect charity for them. The teacher, back again in the land of his birth – namely, the island Ynysefrddyl next to the bank of the river called the Wye – chose for himself and for his crowd of disciples a suitable residence, rich with

77



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

lorum suorum sedem siluis et piscibus opulentam eligens, pluribus annis24 studium illud regendo mansit, imponens loco nomen Mochros, i. e. locus porcorum. Merito plane locus suum dicitur, quia precedenti nocte angelus in sompnis apparuit illi dicens, ‘Locum proposuisti et elegisti. In crastino circumquaque proficiscere, et ubicumque inueneris scropham candidam cum suis porcellis cubantem, ibi fundamentum iace, et in nomine Sancte Trinitatis oratorium construe.’ Vir Dei errectus25 a sompno memor angelici mandati, festinauit locum cum suis discipulis circuiuitque, et pro angelica sponsione suem albi coloris cum suis porcellis in eodem loco prosilire prospexit. Quapropter angelico tutus oraculo, habitaculum construxit, eoque26 multis27 dierum decursibus sanctissime deguit, predicans docensque clerum et populum eius prelucente doctrina per totam Britanniam, prout lucerna super candelabrum, remota quaque praui dogmatis superstitione. Cuncto quoque tempore quo uerbum uitę Brittonnibus predicauit, sinceram fidem catholicamque eadem gens conseruauit. § 6 Cum igitur beatus Dubricius in doctrina simul et potenti facundia floreret, illustrissimorumque natalium suorum largitionibus locupletaretur, paradisi introitus insignis uiri kategoriis una cum exemplis magis ac magis fideli populo patescens. Indies dilatabatur. Nam cum labor amplius crescebat in corpore, plus gaudebat pro tanto onere, manens retributionem celęstis patrię. Quippe manus eiusdem impositione diuersarum ualetudinum languores crebrius fugabantur, quicumque uero debiles et anxii ad [72v] eum ueniebant, leti ac incolumes repedabant. Propterea non dubie28 fama sanctitatis illius et religiosę in diuinis mandatis deuotionis, prius celebrem, postea uero per uniuersam Britanniam celeberrimum, cito reddidit. § 7 Quamobrem ut orbita priscorum annorum ad id temporis uoluendo peruenit, quo Pelagiana heresis totum pene uiroso dogmate contaminauerat orbem, ad eam delendam sanctus Germanus Autisiodorensis et Lupus Trecacensis episcopus ab antistibus Gallie destinantur, quo uerbum Dei Brittonibus predicarent, fidemque catholicam letiferam heresim penitus extirpando redintegrarent. Corrupta namque fuerat christianitas29 eorum, tum propter paganos Saxones quos rex Vortigernus illis associauerat, tum propter Pelagianam heresim cuius uenenum in ipsis pluribus serpserat diebus. Namque Brittones multotiens directis internunciis a Gallie presulibus patrocinium flagitabant, quia nec prauo 24 25 26 27 28 29

W omit. perrectus corr. errectus Merito plane…eoque W omit. Ibi multis W dubiae W christianitatis corr. christianitas

78



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

forests and fish. For many years he remained there, directing studies, and he named the place Mochros, that is, ‘the place of pigs’. It is called the place of pigs very deservedly, since the night before an angel appeared to him in his sleep, saying, ‘You have proposed and chosen this location. In the morning go everywhere around the place, and wherever you find a white sow lying with her piglets, there set your foundation and build an oratory in the name of the Holy Trinity.’ The man of God jumped up from sleep, remembering the angelic command, and he hurried to the location with his disciples and walked around it; just as the angel had promised, he saw in that very place a white pig with her piglets rush out. Feeling assured by the angelic prophecy, he built his residence. There he dwelt for the course of many days in utmost holiness, preaching and teaching his clergy and people with instruction that shone forth through all of Britain, just as a lamp on a stand, and every superstition caused by perverse teaching was removed. For the entire time in which he preached the word of life to the Britons, the people kept their faith pure and orthodox. § 6 When blessed Dyfrig flourished in his doctrinal knowledge and likewise in his compelling teaching, and when he was endowed by the generosity of his very distinguished family, he opened the gates to paradise to an increasingly faithful populace by the preaching and parables of that exceptional man. From day to day he grew exalted. When the work grew greater in the flesh, he would become more joyful of such a burden, as he awaited the award of his heavenly home; illnesses of various conditions were put to flight in droves at the touch of his hand, and whoever came to him weak and troubled returned happy and healed. Certainly for this reason the reputation of his holiness and of his religious devotion towards the divine commandments quickly made him first famous but thereafter the most famous man in all of Britain. Then, as time went on, when the roll of ancient years came to the § 7 point when the Pelagian heresy had fouled almost the whole earth with its rank teaching, the bishops of Gaul sought to destroy it by sending sent St Germanus, the bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, the bishop of Troyes, to preach the word of God to the Britons, and to renew orthodox faith by thoroughly wiping out that harmful heresy.2 For their Christianity had been degraded, not only on account of the pagan Saxons, whom King Vortigern had united with them, but also on account of the Pelagian heresy, whose poison had been creeping into them for days on end. Many times the Britons sent straightforward messages demanding protection from the bishops of Gaul, since the Britons did not agree with the perverse teachings of the heretics yet they did not have the strength to completely abolish them with their own arguments as long as the corrupted men resisted and evaded them. When these aforementioned specialists in

2

§7 is adapted from The Text of the Book of Llan Dâv, pp. 68–9 and HRB §101.

79



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

dogmati hereticorum adquiescebant, nec illud tamen suis allegationibus tergiuersatione prauorum renitente omnino abolere ualebant. Verum ut prenotati dogmatiste eandem heresim funditus eradicauerant, episcopos ad roborandam orthodoxam fidem in pluribus regionibus consecrauerunt. Super omnes utique dextralis Britannie fines, beatum Dubricium metropolitanum archipresulem ab Ambrosio Aurelio rege totius Brittonum monarchie, filio Constantino30 fratre quoque Vther patris Arthurii magni, necnon et ab omni clero et populo illius archidioceseos31 canonice delectum conscrauerunt. § 8 Supradictus itaque rex Ambrosius dapsilis erat in dandis, sedulus in diuinis obsequiis, modestus in cunctis, et super omnia mendacium uitans, mitis, pius, atque benignus, fortis pede, fortior equo, et ad exercitum regendum eruditissimus. Defuncto igitur Tremorino Vrbis Legionum metropolis32 tunc temporis archiepiscopo, isdem rex quo memoriale procerum Britannię quos Hengistus Saxonesque sui complices nefanda proditione33 in Monte Ambrii, qui nunc uulgo Stanhenges dicitur, trucidauerat (scilicet quadringentorum octoginta consulum atque baronum) eternum fieret, pergrandes lapides, qui ibidem in horum memoriam usque in presens34 positi sunt, ab Hibernia cum magna manu germano suo Vther illuc transmisso fecit illinc deportari. Qui cum allati fuissent, nonnullos per diuersas Britannię partes nuntios direxit, edixitque uniuersis regni magna[73]tibus cum clero pariter apud Montem Ambrii in pago qui nunc Salesberia dicitur conuenire, quo cum magno honore prememoratorum uirorum sepulturam repararent. Ad edictum ergo huiusmodi conuenerunt pontifices atque abbates ex unoquoque ordine, prout illis indictum fuerat. Cumque cuncti congregarentur instante die prefinita, imposuit Aurelius diadema capiti suo, festumque regio more celebrauit, ac tribus sequentibus diebus celebritati uacauit. Destitute siquidem fuerunt hac tempestate due metropolitanę sedes pastoribus suis, Eboraci uidelicet atque Vrbis Legionum, que uulgo Caerligion nominatur; quibus rex communi consilio rectores restituere gestiens, Eboracum Samsoni illustri uiro sanctitateque famoso contulit, Vrbem uero Legionum archipresulatum inclito Dubricio, quem diuina prouidentia eidem35 sedi prelegerat. Cumque haec et alia in regno suo rite disposuisset, precepit Merlino uati saxa circa sepulturas36 erigere que de Hibernia nauigio attulerat. Quod et factum est.

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

constantini corr. supra. constantino archidioceos Metropolitanae W prodicionem corr. prodicione precens eedem sepultura

80



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

dogma had completely destroyed the heresy, they consecrated bishops in many regions in order to strengthen orthodox faith. They consecrated blessed Dyfrig as archbishop over all the territory of southern Britain in accordance with canon law; he had been chosen by Ambrosius Aurelius – ruler of the entire kingdom of the Britons, Constantine’s son, and the brother of Uther, who was the father of Arthur the Great – and also by all the clergy and people of that archdiocese. § 8 This King Ambrosius was lavish in gift-giving, attentive in divine services, and modest in all matters.3 Above all, he avoided falsehood. He was meek, pious, and liberal, brave on foot, braver on horseback, and very skilled in directing an army. Therefore, after Tremorinus, who was at that time the archbishop of the see of the City of Legions, had died, in order to create an everlasting memorial for the noblemen of Britain (whom Hengist and his Saxon accomplices slew in an act of wicked betrayal on Mount Ambrius, which is now commonly called Stonehenge – of course I am talking about those four hundred and eighty consuls and barons) this same king had large stones set up there in their memory which can still be seen, for he had ordered them to be brought there from Ireland after he had sent his brother Uther thither with a large band of troops.4 When the stones had been brought over, he arranged for messengers to go through the various parts of Britain, and he proclaimed to all the magnates of the kingdom, and to the clergy as well, that they should meet on Mount Ambrius in the county now called Salisbury, so that they could rededicate the tomb of those aforementioned men. Therefore, just as it had been announced to them, priests and abbots from each order gathered at his proclamation. When they were all gathered together on the appointed day, Aurelius placed the crown on his head and held a feast in royal fashion, and the following three days were made free for celebration. Since at this time two metropolitan sees had been lacking their incumbents – namely York and the City of Legions, which is commonly called Caerleon – the king, eager to restore leaders to these cities with everyone’s consent, bestowed York upon Samson, a very illustrious man who was famous for his holiness, and the archbishopric of the City of Legions upon renowned Dyfrig, whom divine providence had already selected for this very seat. When the king had properly arranged these and other matters in his kingdom, he ordered the prophet Merlin to erect the stones which he had transported on a ship from Ireland around the graves. And this was done.

3 4

§8 is adapted from HRB §120.60–2 and contains a synopsis of HRB §120–30. Benedict then picks up at HRB §130.281. That is, he sent them to Ireland to retrieve the stones. Cf. HRB §128–30.

81



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

§ 9 Igitur paucis annorum cursibus euolutis, insignis rex Ambrosius Aurelius ueneno perimitur, huic itaque Vther cognomine37Pendragon, id est capud draconis, eiusdem germanus, in regno successit, nec ipse diu degens; in exitium pene totius Brittannie leto debitum pependit38. Quo defuncto, conuenerunt ex diuersis prouinciis magnates Brittonum in urbem39 Silcestrie, Dubricio Vrbis Legionum archiepiscopo suggerentes, quatinus Arturum filium Vther Pendragon in regem coronaret. Vrgebat enim arcta necessitas, quod predicti regis accepto obitu, Saxones conciues suos ex Germania conciuerant, Brittonesque a patria radicitus euellere moliebantur. Subiugauerant enim sibi totam partem insulę que a flumine Humbri usque ad Datanensium equor protenditur. Venerabilis ergo40 Dubricius calamitatem patrie dolens, associatis sibi episcopis, Arturum regni41 diademate insigniuit. § 10 Erat autem Arthurus xu42 annorum, iuuenis inauditae uirtutis atque largitatis, in quo quippe tantam gratiam diuina bonitas prestiterat ut a cunctis43 fere gentibus amaretur. In signibus44 itaque regiis initiatus, ex more largitati indulsit. Qui ut regia potestate potitus est, Saxones audacter pluribus praeliis aggreditur, nec tamen illos a regno funditus exstirpare ualuit. Eapropter conuocato clero primatibusque regni sui, consuluit eos quid potissimum contra paganorum Saxonum irruptionem faceret. Communi tandem consilio mittuntur Armoricam, i. e. minorem Brittanniam, a rege nuntii ad Hoelum regulum illius patriae qui [73v] ei calamitatem Brittannię notificarent. Vnde postquam supradictus regulus agnouit, cum xu millibus armatorum classem intrauit, prosperisque uentorum flatibus in portu Hamonis, qui nunc Hamtonia uocatur, applicuit. Qui honorifice ab Arthuro susceptus, communicatoque Sancti Dubricii45 consultu, ad urbem Lincolniam tunc temporis a Saxonibus obsessam cum magna manu proficiscentes, ibidem cum illis prelium commiserunt. Eadem nempe die ceciderunt ex Saxonibus sex millia uirorum, qui partim fluminibus submersi, partim telis percussi occubuerunt. Vnde ceteri perterriti, terga fugientes uerterunt donec in nemus Colidonis peruentum fuisset, illoque a Britannis obsessi, tandem inedia sunt in deditionem coacti. Arthurus autem tropheo potitus, omni auro ac argento

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

cognomento W pendidit urbe W igitur W regem W uim supra cuntis sinibus ras. Dubricii

82



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

§ 9 Therefore, after a few years had run their course, the distinguished King Ambrosius Aurelius was killed by poison, and so his brother Uther, named Pendragon – that is, the head of the dragon – succeeded him in the kingdom, but he himself did not last long; to the ruin of almost all Britain, he paid his debt to death.5 And when he had died, the leaders of the Britons of various regions assembled in the city of Silchester, urging Dyfrig, the archbishop of the City of Legions, to crown Arthur the son of Uther Pendragon as king. A pressing need spurred them on, because when the Saxons learned of Uther’s death, they mustered their compatriots from Germany and attempted to utterly tear the Britons up by their roots from their homeland. For they had taken control of every part of the island that stretches out from the river Humber up to the sea of Caithness. Therefore, after the bishops had joined him, the venerable Dyfrig, mourning the misfortune of his homeland, distinguished Arthur with the crown of the kingdom. § 10 Arthur was fifteen years old and a youth of unparalleled virtue and generosity. Divine goodness furnished him with such grace that he was loved by almost all people.6 And once he entered into kingship, he exercised customary largess. And when he took control of royal power, he boldly attacked the Saxons in many battles, but nonetheless he was not strong enough to completely eradicate them from the kingdom. Therefore, he summoned the clergy and the rulers of his kingdom and he asked them what would be the most powerful thing he could do against the invasion of the pagan Saxons. In the end, they all agreed that messengers should be sent from the king to Amorica, that is Brittany, to Hoel, prince of that country, to inform him about Britain’s misfortune. When this king had been made aware of the matter, he manned a fleet with fifteen thousand armed men, and with favourable gusts of the wind he landed in the port of Hamo, which is now called Hampton. After he was honourably received by Arthur and after Dyfrig’s judgment had been imparted, with a great band of soldiers they set out for the city of Lincoln, which at that time had been besieged by the Saxons, and there they engaged them in battle. On that very day, six thousand of the Saxons fell, some drowned in the streams, and others were struck down by weapons. As a result, the rest were frightened and turned their backs in flight until they reached the forest of Caledonia, and after they were besieged by the Britons there, they were finally compelled to surrender by starvation. When Arthur had

5 6

§9 is adapted from HRB §143. §10 is adapted from HRB §143, §144 and §145.

83



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

eorum46 sublato, cuum et obsidibus susceptis quod tributum Germanie sibimet47 annuatim persoluerent, federatos cum solis nauibus repatriare permisit. § 11 His ita gestis, paucis interim diebus interuenientibus, peractę pactionis Saxonibus48 puduit, atque uiribus resociatis49 ab inchoata profectione50 regressi, fedus suum irritum fecerunt, urbemque Badonis obsidione uallant. Quibus ab Arthuro compertis, dimissa Pictorum et Scottorum oppressione, obsidionem dispergere festinauit. Postremo conspectis cominus hostium castris, huiuscemodi suos51 est adhortatus52: ‘Quoniam quidem inpiissimi Saxones fidem mihi dedignati sunt exhibere, ego, fidem Deo meo seruans, sanguinem ciuium meorum ulcisci conabor. Armate uos, uiri, armate! Et proditores istos uiriliter aggredimini quos proculdubio suffragante Christo triumphabimus!’ § 12 Hec illo prosequente, Sanctus Dubricius Vrbis Legionum archiepiscopus ascenso cuiusdam montis cacumine, excelsa uoce exercitum sic affatur: ‘Viri christiana professione insigniti, maneat in uobis conciuium uestrorum pietas et patrię. Qui proditione paganorum exterminati uobis sempiternum53 cedent in opprobrium, nisi ipsos totis nisibus defendatis. Pugnate pro patria uestra, et mortem si superuenerit, ultro pro eadem patimini, ipsa enim uictoria est et animę remedium. Quicumque etenim pro fratribus suis mortem inierit, uiuam hostiam se prestat Deo, Christumque sequi haud ambigitur qui pro fratribus suis animam dignatus est ponere. Igitur si quis uestrum in hoc bello letum subierit, sit ei mors illa omnium delictorum suorum penitentia et remissio, dum eam hoc modo recipere non diffugerit. § 13 Nec mora beati uiri benedictione hilarati maturauit quisque armari se et eius preceptis parere. Ipse quidem Arthurus lorica tanto uiro digna indutus, auream galeam simulacro draconis insculptam capiti adaptat, humeros etiam suos clipeo protegit, quo imago Sancte Marie Dei genitricis depicta constitit, quam sibi crebrius in auxilium [74r] inuocauit. Exin certe quasi leo concite54 cum suis in Saxonum cuneos irruens, adiutus 46 47

48 49 50 51 52 53 54

eorum argento W cuum…sibimet marg.; sublato, obsidibus susceptis ut sibiment … annuatim persolverent W. Cf. HRB §145: Cum igitur Saxones quo uescerentur indigerent, ne subita fame perirent petierunt eo pacto egressum ut relicto omni auro et argento cum solis nauibus Germaniam redire sinerentur. Promiserunt quoque se daturos ei tributum ex Germania obsidesque inde mansuros. saxonis associatis W profectionem corr. profectione [oratione] suos W adorsus in sempiternum W W omit.

84



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

seized victory, he took away all their gold and silver and he collected hostages so that Germany would pay yearly tribute to him. He allowed them to return home under treaty with nothing but their boats. § 11 Then, a few days later, the Saxons were ashamed of the truce that had been agreed upon, and after regathering their strength, they turned back from the journey which they had begun, rendered their agreement invalid and encircled the city of Bath with a blockade.7 When Arthur had learned these things, the attack on the Picts and Scotts was abandoned, and he hastened to break up the siege. At last, after he had observed the camps of the enemy at close quarters, he encouraged his men in this manner: ‘Since the unfaithful Saxons have refused to show faith to me, I, keeping faith with my God, will try to avenge the blood of my citizens. Take up your weapons men, take them up! Bravely assail those traitors, over whom we will undoubtedly triumph with Christ’s aid!’ § 12 As he spoke this, Saint Dyfrig, archbishop of the City of Legions, climbed to the top of a mountain and in a high voice addressed the army in these words:8 ‘O men marked by your avowal of Christianity, let loyalty for your fellow-citizens and country abide in you! Those killed by the pagans’ betrayal will fall into eternal disrepute unless you defend them with all your might! Fight for your country, and if it comes to death, willingly suffer it on your country’s behalf, for this itself is victory and a medicine for the soul. Indeed, whoever should die on behalf of his brothers offers himself as a living sacrifice to God, and let there be no doubt that he who considers it worthwhile to give up his own life for his brothers follows Christ. Therefore, if one of you should undergo death in this battle, let that death be for him a penance and absolution for all his sins, as long as he does not in any way shun receiving it.’ § 13 At the prayer of the cheerful, saintly man each hurried to make himself armed and to obey his commands without delay.9 Indeed, Arthur himself put on a coat of mail fit for such a man and fastened on his head a golden helmet sculpted in the likeness of a dragon, and he also covered his shoulders with a shield, upon which was painted an image of Saint Mary, the mother of God, whom he frequently called upon for aid. Straightaway, he rushed into the Saxons’ battalions with his men as if he

7 8 9

§11 is adapted from HRB §146. §12 is adapted from HRB §147. §13 is adapted from HRB §147 and contains a brief summary of §148.

85



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

beati Dubricii suffragiis eos55 debellauit, nomenque beate Dei genitricis exorando multa millia56 prostrauit. Demum quoque principibus et ducibus eorum omnibus interfectis, miserabili modo paucos qui stragem euaserant in deditionem compulit. § 14 Hoc utique modo isdem rex almi Dubricii precibus et meritis in cunctis preliis uictor extiterat, necnon et uniuersa regnaque singulorum uocabulis indicare tediosum foret, scilicet ab Alpibus cum adiacentibus regionibus et insulis usque ad ultima Tile, id est Islandiam obtinuerat, regesque illorum et principes aut sue dicioni subegerat, aut atrociter trucidauerat. § 15 Igitur quoniam ad ostendendum uiri Dei meritum aliquantisper ab incepta recitatione57 digressi sumus, nunc ad propositam narrationem calamum infligamus. Beatus ergo Dubricius non modo metropolitanam sedem ecclesię Vrbis Legionum copiosis possessionibus amplificauit, uerum etiam Landauensem ęcclesiam in honore Sancti Petri apostoli consecratam prediis et pluribus territoriis atque fertilibus agris, siluis utique et piscosis amnibus locupletauit. Patronus itaque58 isdem cenobium uenerabilis Iltuti abbatis quod in Glamorcanti prouincia constructum est quadragesimali tempore uisitauit ut corrigenda corrigeret, ordinem uero sacrosancte religionis corroboraret. Ibidem namque nonnulli sanctissimi uiri conuersabantur, plures quoque deteriores59 liuore, inter quos insignis Samson filius Amon morabatur, qui a beato Dubricio meruit ad sacros ordines, id est diaconatus atque sacerdotii apicem, prouehi, ad ultimum uero diuina reuelatione in episcopum consecrari. Quotiens itaque sacris ordinibus benedictionibus inolitis promouebatur, totiens60 a beato presule ac sancto Iltuto abbate uisa est columba candidissima celitus in capite eius descendere, illicque dum sacrum compleretur officium absque discessu consistere. § 16 Ministeria nempe cenobii almi patris Iltuti diuersa diuersis fratribus congregationis ex more committuntur, quemadmodum res exigebat. Administratio siquidem promptuarii Samsoni uenerabili uiro pro prepollente Dei pre ceteris in illo gratia licet renitenti uellet nollet iniungitur. Qui die noctuque cenobitis atque hospitibus cum egenis ministrans communi populo complacebat. Quadam die cum omnia pene pocula hospitibus erogauerat, euacuatis fere quibusque penoris uasis ob magnam 55 56 57 58 59 60

marg. milia recitationem corr. recitatione marg. et deteriores W toties W

86



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

were a lion. Helped by blessed Dyfrig’s prayers, he attacked them, and, as he entreated the name of the blessed mother of God, he struck down many thousands. When finally all of their princes and leaders had been killed, he compelled the very few men who had evaded the slaughter in a piteous manner to surrender. § 14 And so with the prayers and merits of holy Dyfrig, the king became the victor in all battles. In fact, it would be wearisome to relate in words each and every kingdom that he had obtained, from the Alps and their adjacent regions and islands, all the way up to Ultima Thule, that is Iceland. He either subdued their kings and princes to his authority, or he slaughtered them cruelly. § 15 Therefore, since we have digressed for some time from the story that we started in order to show the worth of this man of God, let us now bend our pen back to our proposed story. Blessed Dyfrig not only enlarged the metropolitan see of the church of the City of Legions with rich properties, but he also enlarged the Church of Llandaf, which had been dedicated in honour of Saint Peter the apostle, with estates, many territories and fertile fields, and he likewise enriched it with woodlands and rivers teeming with fish. And during Lent this same patron visited the monastery of the venerable Illtud, which was built in the province of Glamorgan, so that he could set right those things which needed to be set right and so that he could strengthen their order of venerable worship. Some very saintly men dwelt in that place, but also many who were rather corrupted by envy. With these men Samson, the distinguished brother of Amon, lived. From blessed Dyfrig he earned the right to take the sacred orders, as deacon and then to the top of the presbyterate, and finally he earned his consecration as a bishop by divine revelation. Every time that his customary blessings advanced him in the sacred orders, a very bright dove was seen by the blessed priest and the holy abbot Illtud descending from above onto his head, and would stand there, not departing, as the sacred office was being performed. § 16 It was the monastic community’s custom that the different ministries of holy father Illtud’s monastery, whichever were needed, were performed by different brothers. Accordingly, Samson, a venerable man, was charged with the administration of the storeroom – whether he wanted it or not and even though he demurred – since the grace of God was more powerful in him than in the others. Samson ministered day and night to those monks or guests in need, and this pleased everybody. One day, when he had given out almost all of the cups, and when the barrels of provisions were almost emptied on account of great rejoicing

87



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

aduentus patris Dubricii leticiam, cuisdam fratris inuidia qui paulo prius eodem officio fungebatur61 delatus est se quiquid [74v] in cellario potus habuerat prodiga manu dilapidasse. Vnus in fratrem conuentu non minimus murmur exoritur. Quo precepto uenerandus Samson nimis erubescens, rem beato Dubricio pandit dicens, ‘O pater sancte, O flos pastorum patrię, mihimet in instanti necessitate succurre.’ Cuius flagitationibus archipresul pietatis uisceribus commotus, orauit Dominum quo Samsonem clementer a presenti liberaret angustia. Quapropter diuinitatis commonitus instinctu, cellarium comite Samsone ingressus, dextra sursum librata cum pretensa benedictione, mirum dictu confestim replentur uasa solito summo tenus liquore, quasi nil ab eis exhaustum fuisset. Vnde citius emulationis liuore sublato confusis apprime derogatoribus, que caritatiue dispertita sunt impertiendo, redintegrantur gratia Dei recompensando. Vere plane mirabilis Deus in sanctis suis; qui sic eos adhuc carnis inclusos ergastulo glorificat ut se in illis manere nulli sane mentis scruplosum existat.

§ 17 Confluentibus undique populis ad beatum Dubricium archiepiscopum, egris eius precibus et meritis corporum et animarum salutem integram recuperantibus, quidam62 potens uir regali prosapia creatus, Guidguetanai nomine, flexis genibus eum adiuit uti filiam suam energuminam a demonio supplicationibus erueret. Que in tantum inmundo spiritu uerberatur63 ut uix manus uincta restibus poterat detineri quin unda submergeretur, uel combureretur, aut sibi cuncta contigua dentibus dilaceraret. O quam clarum Deo seruire qui cuncta tenet suo moderamine et coercet ad suum uelle! Genitoris itaque memorate puelle audita supplicatione, uir Dei prodicens in terram faciem profusus lacrimis dominum64 attentius exorauit quatinus beati Petri, apostolorum principis, omniumque sanctorum intercessionibus miserandę adolescentulę succurreret, eamque a demoniaca aporiamine misericorditer demeret, necnon pristinę sospitati restitueret. Que concito meritis et precibus beati uiri65 defecatius demone expiata, integerrime66 sanitati sensu67 et scientia reditur. Eadem uero prisca incolumitate letificata, sanctique spiritus gratia aspirata, secularibus oblectamentis omnino abrenuntiatis, uirgo permansit, uirique Dei doctrinis obtemperans, quo aduixit deuotius Domino seruiuit, demumque

61 62 63 64 65 66 67

fuingebatur corr. fungebatur quiadam corr. quidam uerabatur dominumi corr. dominum. uir intergerrime sensu sensu corr. sensu

88



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

at Father Dyfrig’s arrival, owing to the jealously of a certain brother who had performed this same duty a little while before, he was alleged to have squandered whatever he had in the cellar to drink. A murmur arose in the community, and not the smallest one either, against Samson. When venerable Samson learned about it, he grew exceedingly embarrassed and laid out the matter to blessed Dyfrig, saying, ‘O holy father, O flower of our country’s priests, help me in this urgent need!’ The archbishop, moved to the very core of his pity by Samson’s entreaties, prayed to the Lord to mercifully free him from his current anguish. Therefore, urged on by divine inspiration, he entered the cellar with his companion Samson, and he raised his right hand high and released a prayer. What a wonder to relate: all the containers were quickly refilled with liquid up to their normal height, as if nothing had been drawn out of them! Then, after the envious feelings had fled, those who had mocked him grew extremely embarrassed, and, in sharing what was lovingly distributed, they made up for their wrong doing and were renewed by the grace of God. Indeed, God is truly wonderful in his saints – he who so glorifies those who are still locked in the prison of the flesh that no one of sound mind may doubt that he dwells in them. § 17 When people were flocking from everywhere to blessed Dyfrig the archbishop and while the sick were completely recovering the health of their bodies and minds through his prayers, a powerful man named Gurdgentiuei, who came from a line of kings, approached him on bended knee, so that he could wrest his demoniac daughter back from a demon by his supplications.10 She was assailed by an unclean spirit to such an extent that her bound hand could hardly be restrained by ropes from drowning herself in water, or burning herself, or tearing everything in her vicinity to shreds with her teeth. O how brilliant it is to serve God, who holds all things in his governance and confines them to his will! When he had heard the entreaty of the girl’s father, the man of God, fixing his face upon the ground and pouring out tears, diligently prevailed upon the Lord to aid the pitiable young girl with the intercessions of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, and all the saints, to mercifully remove her from this devilish vexation, and to return her to her earlier health. Right away she became cleansed by the prayers and merits of that blessed man, and the demon was expelled from her; her sense of sanity and her mind wholly returned to her. Joyful that she had regained her previous health, she was inspired with the grace of the holy spirit. After utterly renouncing worldly delights, she remained a virgin, observing the man of God’s teachings. She served the Lord quite devoutly in the place where she lived, and finally

10

Benedict omits the daughter’s name, which both the Liber Landauensis and the copy of Vita prima Dubricii found in Vespasian A.xiv record as ‘Arianell’.

89



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

mortem perdidit et uitam ineuit, quoniam autorem uite medullitus dilexit. O quam magna saluatoris bonitas mira benignitas, qua sancti Dei, dum carnis sarcina etiam grauantur, tantis gratiarum donis donantur ut ex zabulorum cauernis sedem spiritu sancto inspirante condunt diuinitatis.68 § 18 Igitur cum basileus Arthurus totius patrię statum in pristinam dignitatem restaurasset, duxit uxorem Guenwaram ex nobili genere Romanorum progenitam, exin ubi Norwegiam, Daciam, Galliam, Aquitaniam, necnon et Andegauiam ceterasque prouintias uniuersas una cum Estrusi, id est Normannia, suo dominio armis subiugasset, denuo reuersus est Parisius,69 tenuitque curiam illic. Quo conuocato clero et populo, pacem regni legitimo ritu confirmauit. De cetero quidem pacificatis ibidem ciuitatibus et populis, incipiente uere Brittanniam reuersus est. § 19 Cum uero solempnitas Pentecostes appropinquasset, post tantum triumphum oppido exhilaratus affectauit ilico curiam tenere, seque diademate redimiri, reges utique ac duces sibi subditos ad ipsam festiuitatem inuitare ut et illam honorificentius celebraret et inter proceres suos pacem firmaret. Iccirco namque consilium cepit ut in Vrbe Legionum suum exequeretur propositum. In Glamorgantia etenim super Oscam amnem ameno situ locata, pre caeteris70 ciuitatibus habundans opibus, tante solempnitati congruebat. Duabus quippe eminebat ecclesiis, quarum una in honore Iulii martyris consecrata uirgineo Deo dicatarum choro perpulcre decorabatur. Alia plane in beati Aaron eius socii constructa nomine canonicorum conuentu subnixa tertiam71 primariam metropolitanamque sedem habebat. Omnibus denique in Vrbe Legionum congregatis, instante festiuitate, archipresules ad palatium ducuntur quo basileum diademate regali laurearent. Beatus ergo Dubricius, quoniam in sua diocesi curia tenebatur, paratus diuinorum celebrationi regalibusque obsequelis huiusce rei curam suscepit. Tandem uero rex, caput laureatus, ad templum metropolitane sedis regio cultu decusiatus conducitur. A dextra quippe laeuaque bini archipontifices ipsum tenentes agebant. Quatuor quoque reguli Albanię uidelicet atque Cornubię, Demeticę, et Venedotię, quorum ius id fuerat, quatuor aureos gladios manibus ferentes illum precedebant. Conuentus etiam72 multimodorum ordinatorum73 miris modulationibus precinebat. Ex alia siquidem parte reginam suis nichilominus insignibus

68 69 70 71 72 73

Quadam die… diuinitatis W omit. parisiis W prae caeteris W tertia etiiam corr. etiam marg.

90



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

she destroyed death and entered into life, since she loved the author of life from the bottom of her heart. Oh how great is the goodness of our Saviour, how wonderful his mercy! Through his goodness, the saints of God, while they are still oppressed by the burden of the flesh, are given such gifts of grace, so that out of the caves of devils they build a seat of divinity while the holy spirit inspires them. § 18 Therefore, once King Arthur had restored the state of the entire country to its earlier esteem, he married Guenevere, who was born from the noble race of the Romans, and then, when he had brought Norway, Dacia, Gaul, Aquitaine, Anjou, and other provinces as well as Estrusi, that is Normandy, under the yoke of his lordship through wars, he returned again to Paris and held court there.11 And there all of the clergy and the laymen were called together, and he declared peace by the lawful right of his kingdom. And when the cities and people there were pacified, he returned to Britain at the beginning of spring. § 19 When the observance of Pentecost neared, he, exceedingly happy after such a great victory, desired to hold court there and to be crowned.12 He also wished to invite the kings and counts who were subject to him to the festivities so that he could celebrate with much honour and cement peace among his nobles. Therefore, he received advice that his intention be carried out in the City of Legions; it was situated in Glamorgan over the river Usk in a very pleasing location, and overflowing with more wealth than other cities, it suited such solemnity. The city stood out because it had two churches, one of which was dedicated to the honour of Julian the Martyr and was very beautifully adorned with a convent of nuns. The other was built in the name of blessed Aaron, his companion, and it supported a regular monastery and also held the distinguished seat of third metropolitan see of Britain. When everybody had finally gathered in the City of Legions, the archbishops were led to the palace as the festivities grew more lively, and they crowned the king with the royal crown. Moreover, since court was being held in blessed Dyfrig’s diocese, he took responsibility for his part, and he was prepared for mass and for complying with royal custom. Finally, the king, with his head crowned, was led to the cathedral with lavish accompaniment and royal adornment. The two archbishops led him on, holding him by his right and left hands. The four princes, whose right it was to do so – namely those from Scotland, Cornwall, Dyfed and Gwynedd – went before him bearing four golden swords in their hands. The gathering of all types of clergy sang out with marvelous melodies. From another direction archbishops and princes led the queen, who had likewise been decked with her own honours and crown, to the monastery of the veiled virgins. Moreover, when the proces-

11 12

§18 is adapted from HRB §152.208–10 and 155.298–305. §19 is adapted from HRB §156 and §157.

91



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

diademateque redimitam74 archiepiscopi75 atque pontifices ad cenobium uelatarum uirginum adducebant. Porro peracta processione, tot cantus in utrisque fiunt templis [75v] ut pre nimia dulcedine milites qui aderant nescirent quod templorum potius prius peterent. Cateruatim ergo nunc ad hoc nunc ad illud ruebant, nec si totus dies celebrationi uacaret, tedium aliquod generaret. Primis denique tribus diebus Pentecostes inter colendum decursis, quarta asciscuntur cuncti qui regi pro adipiscendis honoribus obsequium prestabant. Singulique singulis possessionibus, ciuitatibus uidelicet atque castellis, locupletantur. Clerus uero se decentibus ecclesiarum pastoribus uacantium infulis, quisque quod sibi competebat, donantur. § 20 Beatus igitur Dubricius, ad heremiticam uitam totis uiribus hanhelans, archiepiscopali fasce gliscens absolui, pristinę dignitatis sede sese76 sponte deposuit. Cui successit in archiepiscopatum agius Dauit auunculus regis, cuius uita uirtutibus et miraculis claruit, ac totius bonitatis exemplum fuit. In loco uero sancti Samsonis Dolensis antistitis Theliauus illustris presbiter Landauiae consecratur, Hoelo rege Armoricanorum Britonum annitente, cuius doctrina et mores illum commendabant. Episcopatus quoque Silcestriae Maugennio, Wintoniae uero Duuiano laudabilibus uiris decernuntur. § 21 Silentio namque non est pretereundum: quoniam dum reuerendae memorię Dubricius in archiepiscopali administratione77 perstitit, eius consultu et orationibus adiutus rex Arthurus prospere in cunctis agebat, ac in omnibus bellis iugiter triumphabat, illiusque monarchia in summa pace consistebat. At ubi sanctissimi Dubricii patrocinio destituitur, quoad uixit numquam a pugnarum uexatione78 quieuit, donec et ipse bello occubuit. Eadem quippe die qua Sanctus Dubricius archipresulatus curam deseruit, xii legati Lucii Cesaris uenerunt, uectigal Britannię minaciter exigentes, epistolam imperatoris79 ampullosis uerbis refertam regi deferentes. Quibus Arthurus oppido in iram lacessitus, consultu primitus habito, ad congrediendum cum imperatore non modicum animatur. Quocirca ab omnibus regibus ducibus consulibus atque baronibus ibi congregatis, ad expugnandos Romanos auxilium rogat. Collectis inde equitibus c octoginta tribus milibus ac ducentis (exceptis peditibus qui innumerabiles existebant), prostremo80 cum omni transfretauit exercitu Augustudunum proficiscens. Ibique imperatori necnon et immani exer74 75 76 77 78 79 80

redimita archiepiscoporum; cf archpræsules atque pontifices HRB §157.365. se W administrationem corr. administratione uexationem corr. uexatione inperatoris Post tremo

92



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

sion had finished there was so much singing in both churches that in the face of so much sweetness those knights who were present did not know which church to seek first. In large numbers they rushed at one moment here and at another there, and if the entire day had been dedicated to this celebration, it would not have produced any boredom. After the first three days of Pentecost had been passed in worship, on the fourth day all of those who paid service to the king in order to obtain honours were admitted and each of them was enriched by being given their own possessions, namely cities and castles. And the clergy enriched themselves with the honours of vacant churches appropriate for priests: each was given what was suitable to him. § 20 Therefore, desiring with all his strength to return to the life of a hermit and eager to be free from the office of archbishop, Dyfrig removed himself from the seat of pristine dignity by his own free will.13 Holy David, the king’s uncle, whose life abounded in virtues and miracles, succeeded him in the Archbishopric, and he was an example of every goodness. And in the place of holy Samson, the archbishop of Dol, Telio, the famous priest of Llandaf, was appointed. Hoel, the king of the Amorican Britons, assented to this, and Telio’s teaching and saintly habits commended him to the king. Praiseworthy men decided to make Maugannius the bishop of Silchester and Duvianus the bishop of Winchester. § 21 This fact must not be passed over in silence: as long as Dyfrig, whose memory should be held in reverence, served as archbishop, Arthur, aided by his counsel and prayers, lived prosperously in every manner, and he was always victorious in battles, one after another. His kingdom remained in the greatest peace.14 But when he lost the protection of most holy Dyfrig, he never rested from the disturbance of battles as long as he lived, until he himself lay dead in war. On the day when holy Dyfrig the archbishop left the court, twelve ambassadors of Lucius Caesar arrived, and with threats they demanded a tax from Britain. They brought a letter stuffed with pompous words to the king, which wholly provoked him into a rage. After first taking his customary council, he was very much roused to meet with the emperor in a large battle. Therefore, he sought assistance in assaulting the Romans from all of the kings, dukes, consuls, and barons that had gathered there. When they had assembled one hundred and eighty three thousand knights, soldiers, and commanders – not counting those on foot who formed part of the innumerable rabble – he at last crossed the channel with the whole force, setting out for Autun. Meeting the emperor

13 14

§20 is adapted from HRB §158. §21 summarises HRB §158–178.

93



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

citui illius occurrens, prelium mutuo commiserunt. Arthurus [76r] tamen quamuis suis omnibus fere interemptis magnatibus, execeptis81 Walwano et Hoelo rege nepotibus ac paucis aliis, triumphauit, Lucio Cesare cum cunctis bellatoribus eius enectis. Istis explicitis, festinantibus nuntiis Arthuro, innotuit Modredum nepotem suum cui curam Brittannię commiserat diadema nequiter sumpsisse, Gannumaramque reginam nefarie sibi nupsisse. Quo audito rex Arthurus, furoris bile commotus, cum insulanis qui cedem euaserant regibus continuo non minimum angustiatus repatriauit. Regressus namque tribus preliis inter se et Modredum nonnulla strage gestis, ad ultimum uero consertis gladiis Arthurus a Modredo letaliter sauciatur. At ille robustius in Modredum irruens extimplo prostrauit, atque 82 cum multis suorum in cocitum direxit. Sicque mutuis occubuere uulneribus. Hec itaque de Arthuro prosecutus sum ut cunctis liquido pateat quantis felicitatibus fortunatus extiterit, quamdiu beati Dubritii suffragiis suffultus extitit, quantisque cladibus et infortuniis ab eo desertus, quoad uixit, pessundatus83 subiacuit.

§ 22 Perspiciens igitur uir Dei Dubricius huius seculi curam celeste regnum desiderantibus magnum generare84 detrimentum, quatinus expeditius ad beatam uitam a fallaci transiret, cunctis illecebris et curis secularibus exutus, anachoreticam uitam, archiepiscopali dignitate sponte depositus, opere pretium agere duxit. Vnde cum pluriibus sanctis uiris et discipulis laboribus manum suarum uiuentibus in insula Enli nonnullis annis a seculo procul remotus deguit, et ad ultimum ueram beatitudinem erumnosa egestate commutauit. Senio quidem confectus, sanctique spiritus gratia repletus, diutius optatum perhene gaudium uranicique regni premium xuiiio kalendas Decembris adipisci promeruit. Nam ea die uinculis carnis absolutus, talentum sibi traditum Domino suo cum lucro reportauit. § 23 Prelibata ergo Enli insula, qua beatus Dubricius ultimo dierum suorum tempore sanctę religionis religioseque sanctitatis uitam duxit, in extremitate regni sita, propter longinquitatem et periculosum freti transitum, antiquitus Roma Brittannice nominabatur ob loci sanctitatem, cum inibi uiginta milia et eo amplius, ut fertur, tam martirum quam confes-

81 82 83 84

excepto W marg. uice comib pessumdatus generrare corr. generare

94



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

and also his vast army there, they both launched into battle. Although almost all of his magnates had been killed, with the exceptions of his nephews Gawain and King Hoel and a few others, he nonetheless won the day, having killed Lucius Caesar and almost all his warriors. When these events had unfolded, messengers hurried to Arthur and it became known that Mordred, Arthur’s nephew, to whom he had entrusted the responsibility of Britain, had wickedly taken the crown and that he had heinously married Queen Guenevere. When Arthur heard this, he was shaken by a frenzied wrath and he, deeply disturbed, immediately returned home with the kings of the islands who had escaped the slaughter. After he returned, three battles were waged with great carnage between Mordred and Arthur, but in the end he was lethally wounded by Morded in a swordfight; Arthur, nonetheless, was more powerful, and charging upon Mordred he immediately struck him down, and he sent him with many of his men to hell. Thus they both lay dead with the wounds they had given each other. I have described these matters concerning Arthur so that everybody may know how many blessings he enjoyed as long as he was propped up by the prayers of holy Dyfrig, how many swords and misfortunes he was exposed to without him, and how he was forever ruined after Dyfrig left him, as long as he lived. § 22 Therefore, Dyfrig, the man of God, observing that concern for this world produces great harm to those who desire the heavenly kingdom, stripped off all worldly enticements and care, voluntarily resigned from the honour of being an archbishop, and decided that leading an anchoritic life was worthwhile in order to pass unencumbered from the false life to the blessed one. And so he dwelt for some years on Bardsey Island, far removed from the world, along with many holy men and disciples, living off the labour of their own hands. Finally, he received true holiness in exchange for wretched poverty. Having died from old age and filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, he attained the eternal joy and the reward of the heavenly kingdom, which he had long desired, on the fourteenth of November. On that day he was released from the chains of the flesh and he carried back with interest that talent which had been given to him by his Lord. § 23 Bardsey Island, where blessed Dyfrig spent his last days in a life of holy and pious devotion, was located in the country’s outlying regions, since it was so far away and required a dangerous sea-crossing to get to. It was formerly called ‘Roma’ in British on account of the holiness of the place, because, as the story goes, the bodies of twenty thousand or more martyrs as well as confessors rest buried in that place, awaiting

95



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

sorum corpora humata requiescant operiendo beatam immortali[76v] tatis85 et immortalis beatitudinis resurrectionem. § 24 Eadem quidem86 insula undique tetide circumfusa, orientali plaga licet eminenti, promontorio occidentali uero regione plana arui cespite, dulciflua fontis latice opima. Salum insuper illic delfinis habundans; fundus serpente, buffone, ranaque carens, et, quod commendabilius omnium, extat quia nullus illo iuuenis defungitur, ast in senectam uiget87. Porro pauca de multis enucleauimus miracula, quippe cum gesta sanctissimę conuersationis uiri Dei membranis impressa, uel ignibus hostium exusta, seu ciuium exilio fuissent deportata. § 25 Quod uero postmodum diligenti studio antiquorum patrum siue historiographorum editionibus de Beato Dubricio reperimus, uel quorsum constat tumulatus infra sepulturam agiorum uirorum Enli, quoue sit inde postea translatus, necnon et quemadmodum seu et88 a quo, quorum immo principum diebus Landauiam sit aduectus, operam dedimus apicibus insinuare, quatinus meritis ipsius et precibus mereamur illius glorię participes existere, prestante domino nostro Iesu Christo qui cum patre et spiritu sancto uiuit et regnat Deus per omnia secula seculorum Amen. § 26 Igitur sex sentesimo duodecimo dominice incarnationis anno, Sanctus Dubricius olim Landauensis episcopus, siue ecclesię Vrbis Legionum que nunc appelatur Caerlion archiepiscopus, xuiii kalendas Decembris migrauit ad Dominum. Millesimo uero centesimo uicesimo bissextilique89 anno, ui feri nonis Mai, ex insula Enli ab Vrbano Landauensi90 antistite translatus, fauente Radulfo Cantuariensi metropolitano, assensu quoque Dauid Bangornensis pontificis, atque Griffudi reguli Guinedotie, quod91 Anglice Snauduna92 dicitur, totiusque cleri et uulgi consultu. xo kalendas Iunii dominica die in suam ecclesiam Landauię cum decenti processione sanctis reliquiis eiusdem obuiam facta honorifice receptus est, et in eadem basilica uenerabiliter busto reconditus. § 27 Eodem uero tempore, tota Glanmorgantia93 nimia siccitate afficiebatur, nequaquam enim pluerat uiii septimanis in illa prouincia, et in aduentu sanctarum reliquiarum beatissimi Dubricii pluuia copiosa uald85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

immortalitatem W quippe W uiuit W omit. W bisextili LL; bisextilique VP landauensii corr. landauensi quae W spauduna Glatmorgantia

96



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

the blessed resurrection of immortality and the resurrection of immortal happiness. § 24 This island is surrounded on all sides by the sea, with an eastern expanse that juts out into a promontory, but its western region is flat and rich with the soil of arable land and with the sweet-flowing water of streams. Furthermore, there the open sea teems with dolphins, and the land lacks snake, toad and frog. And what is most praiseworthy is that no man dies there young, but thrives until old age. I have just explained a mere few of many miracles in detail, because the written accounts of the man of God’s most holy way of life have either been burned up by the fires of enemies or carried off in citizens’ exile.15 § 25 I have made an effort to append a brief summary of what I recently found about blessed Dyfrig through careful study of the old fathers or in the statements of historians, concerning the fact that all agree that that he was buried in the tomb of the holy men of Bardsey Island, concerning where he was translated to afterwards – both in what manner this was done and by whom – and also concerning the dates that those leading men brought him to Llandaf, so that I may merit a share in his glory by his rewards and prayers, as long as our Lord Jesus Christ is present, who with the Father and Holy Spirit lives and reigns as God for ever and ever. Amen. § 26 Thus, in the six hundred and twelfth year of the Lord’s incarnation, Saint Dyfrig, once bishop of Llandaf, or archbishop of the church of the City of Legions, which is now called Caerleon, journeyed to the Lord on the fourteenth of November. But in the year 1120, on Friday, the seventh of May, he was moved from the Bardsey Island by Urban, bishop of Llandaf, with the approval of Radulf, archbishop of Canterbury, and also with the assent of David, bishop of Bangor, and Gruffudd, prince of Gwynedd, which is called in English Snowdon, and with the assent of the entire clergy and people. On Sunday, the twenty-third of May, he was honourably received into his church at Llandaf with a fitting procession done facing his holy relics. In that church he was reverently sealed away in a tomb. § 27 At that same time, all of Glamorgan was afflicted by a drought, for it had not rained at all in that province for eight weeks, but at the arrival of the holy relics of most blessed Dyfrig, plentiful rain poured

15

cf. Gildas: the Ruin of Britain and Other Works, ed. and trans. M. Winterbottom (London and Chichester, 1978), p. 90, §4.4.

97



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

eque populo salutaris effunditur. Quarto demum nonis Iunii iiiita feria, piae memorie Vrbanus Landauensis episcopus pregrandis itineris labore paululum quiete refocillatus, atque pro tanti patroni reliquiis indeptis non nihil gauisus. Facto primum ieiunio deprecationibus insistendo, conuocatis clericis suis Elni, scilicet decano magnee prudentię uiro et [77r] Ysaac prestantis probitatis capellano suo ceterisque sancti altaris officialibus, sacrosanctas eximii Dubricii reliquias solo tenus deposuerunt. Que dum diligenter manibus prescriptorum presulum, Vrbani scilicet at Dauid94, in tribus peluibus limpha coram aram Petri apostoli et sanctorum confessorum Dubricii, Theliaui, Odocei lauarentur. Mirum in modum extimplo pignoribus almis unda intinctis, eadem ebullire cepit, ac si lapis oppido ignitus immitteretur. Nec modo prodigium ebullientis aquę admirati sunt, immo etiam cum algida fuisset, repente admodum calidam stupentes persensere. Quinimmo quamdiu ossa ab illis abluebantur, calor laticis multiplicabatur, sonusque feruentis undę95 audiebatur. Vere mirabilis Deus in sanctis suis. Tandem episcopus unum os brachii exhilaratus remisit in aquam, et illapsum fundo tenus nullo se tangente quasi per unam horam huc illucque diuinitus haud sine admiratione cunctorum mouendo natauit. Quod cum primum prelibatus presul inspexisset, decano protinus cum capellano prememorato ascito,96 contemplari commotionem ossis iubentur ut in ore duorum uel trium testium stet omne uerbum; intuendoque miraculum Deo gratias agant, qui sua ineffabili pietate sanctos suos mirabiliter glorificat. His ita peractis, ad honorem et utilitatem ęcclesię Dei, sancti Dubritii reliquię pariter in ueteri monasterio mausoleo reponuntur ante aram sanctę Dei genitricis ad aquilonem. Postea plane Vrbanus antistes, monasterii angustam breuitatem perpendens tantis patronis incongruam, decreuit illud dilatari. Quapropter monasterio ueteri diruto, maius construi cepit in honore apostoli Petri et sanctorum confessorum Dubricii, Theliaui, Odocei, anno millesimo centesimo uicesimo dominicę incarnationis anno, xuiiio kalendas Maii, quarta feria, acceptis sibi et ęcclesię suę literis domini archiepiscopi cum impressa benedictione, et iniuncte penitentię condonatione cunctis ad inceptum opus beneficia et suppetias prestantibus. Explicit uita sancti Dubricii Archiespiscopi. xuiiio kalendas Decembris.

94 95 96

Urbani … David marg. aquae W ascitis W

98



BENEDICT OF GLOUCESTER’S VITA SANCTI DUBRICII

down and was a salvation to the people. Finally, on Wednesday, the second of June, Urban, the bishop of Llandaf, dear to our memory, was rather peacefully relieved by the toil of the great journey, and he rejoiced that the relics of such a saint had been acquired. At first he held a fast, devoting himself to prayers. And after his clerics from Bardsey Island had assembled – namely, the deacon, a man of great prudence, and his chaplain Ysaac, a very honest man, and the other servants of the holy altar – they laid the sacred relics of that extraordinary Dyfrig down in the earth. The relics were carefully washed by the hands of the aforementioned bishops, namely Urban and David, with water in three bowls before the altar of Peter the Apostle and of the holy confessors Dyfrig, Telio and Euddogwy. Miraculously, when the holy relics were dipped into the water, it began to boil, as if a red hot coal had been cast therein. Not only did they watch the marvel of the boiling water with amazement, but they were also astounded when they realised that although the water had been cold, it was suddenly very hot. Furthermore, as long as they washed the bones, the heat of the water increased and the sound of boiling-hot water was heard. Truly, God is marvellous in his saints. At length, the bishop grew cheerful and he stuck one arm-bone back into the water, and after it had fallen to the bottom it swam hither and thither as if it were under the influence of God for an hour, though no one touched it, and everyone marvelled at this. As soon as the archbishop had observed this, it was straightaway taken up by the deacon with his chaplain, and they were ordered to observe the movement of the bone, so that each testimony could be based on the speech of two or three witnesses. As they were watching they thanked God for the miracle, for he wondrously glorifies his saints with inexpressible piety. When these things were done, for the honour and advantage of God’s church the relics of Saint Dyfrig were also placed in a mausoleum in an old monastery before the altar of the Holy Mother of God, facing north. Afterwards, Bishop Urban judged the confined narrowness of the monastery to be ill-fitting for such a patron, and he ordered that it be expanded. Therefore, after the old monastery was demolished, a larger one began to be built in honour of the apostle Peter and of the holy confessors Dyfrig, Theilio and Eddogwy, in the year 1120 on Wednesday, the fourteenth of April; a letter was taken to him and to his church with the blessing of the lord archbishop written on it and with the gift of enjoined penance to all those exhibiting aid and kindness at the work’s beginning. Here ends the life of Archbishop Saint Dyfrig, whose feast day is 14 November.

99



JOSHUA BYRON SMITH

Appendix: Results from the Collation Vd shares innovations with the family of no. 34 §130.291–2 communi consilio1 Vd 34 152 103 46 88 §143.4 Vrgebat Vd 34 152 125; Arguebat Ω §146.90 Servans Vd 34 152 103 46 88; conservans Ω §147.95 excelsa uoce Vd 34 152 1252 §147.100 fratribus Vd O AD QYM 34 152 46 88 1034 §147.101 sequi Vd 34 152 125; consequi Ω §156.306 appropinquasset Vd; aduenire incepisset 34 152 103 46 88; aduenire inciperet Ω §157.372 vacaret E YM 34 152 103 46; esset 125; om. 41 §158.409 commendabant 34 152 103 46; commendauerant Ω

Vd disagrees with one or more of no. 34’s family §130.282 ac om. 41 §130.282 naciones 88; partes Ω §130.284 uero 125; ergo Ω §130.293 Vrbis Vd; §130.293 illustrio 34; §143.4 in sinibus Vd; §143.10 praestiterat bonitas 88 §146.89 om. atque inuisi 88 1253

Vd agrees with another tradition but not relatives of no. 34 §130.293 legionum E A QG Vd §144.55 in portu Δ Σ Vd; portum Φ in portum 152; portum 125 103 §147.106 armari] armare KM

§146.89 dedignantur 48 §147.103 fiat 125; sit Ω §147.109 om. suorum 88 §147.109 om. et ablutio … diffugerit 88 §147.108 inscultam 34 152 41 §156.318–22 om. 88 §156.320 uero 125; quidem Ω §157.356 regio 34 152; regali Ω Vd §157.370 om. prae 34 152 103 46 §158.410 mauganio 34; maugennio Vd

1

quibus rex communi consilio rectores restituere gestiens Vd; quibus communi consilio consulere volens 34; quibus communi populorum consilio consulere volens Ω 2 celsa corr. excelsa 3 though 125 corr. marg 4 In 103 the scribe first wrote patribus suis for fratribus suis, then deleted patribus with puncta delentia, and finally followed with fratribus.

100

IV

NEW EVIDENCE FOR AN INTEREST IN ARTHURIAN LITERATURE IN THE DUTCH LOW COUNTRIES IN THE FIFTEENTH AND EARLY SIXTEENTH CENTURIES Sjoerd Levelt

Introduction: The Reputed Absence of Late Medieval Dutch Arthurian Literature The complex of Arthurian stories, from Latin historiography to French romance, was particularly popular in the Dutch Low Countries,1 and Middle Dutch authors produced a wealth of Arthurian texts – translations, adaptations and original works – in the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, transmitted in a small number of manuscripts and numerous fragments from throughout the fourteenth century.2 It has been generally thought, however, that the production of new Middle Dutch Arthurian literature ceased altogether by the fifteenth century, as did most new manuscript production of older works.3 The only early known Arthurian printed text in Dutch is a Merlin of the second quarter of the sixteenth century, based on an English edition of the same text from 1510.4 This state of affairs forms a stark contrast with the situation in the surrounding 1

2 3

4

G. H. M. Claassens and D. F. Johnson, ‘Arthurian Literature: An Introduction’, in their King Arthur in the Dutch Low Countries (Leuven, 2000), pp. 1–33; J. Crick, The Historia regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth 4: Dissemination and Reception in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991), p. 210. B. Besamusca, Repertorium van de Middelnederlandse Arturepiek. Een beknopte beschrijving van de handschriftelijke en gedrukte overlevering (Utrecht, 1985). Claassens and Johnson, King Arthur; B. Besamusca, ‘The Medieval Dutch Arthurian Material’, in The Arthur of the Germans. The Arthurian Legend in Medieval German and Dutch Literature, ed. W. H. Jackson and S. A. Ranawake (Cardiff, 2000), pp. 187–228. See M. E. Kronenberg, ‘Een onbekend volksboek van Merlijn (c. 1540)’, in Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde 48 (1929), pp. 18–34; Claassens and Johnson, ‘Arthurian Literature’, p. 32; Besamusca, Repertorium, pp. 40–1. The two surviving quires of this edition are quires B and D in a copy of Die cronijcke van Vlaenderen int corte van 621–1532 (Antwerp, 1539), Brussels, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Bibliothèque Royale, sig. v.H.27526.

101



SJOERD LEVELT

English, French and German traditions, where Arthurian texts continued to be produced, and in the late fifteenth century particularly concerted efforts were made at synthesizing the Arthurian traditions in vast compendia.5 While the disappearance of the Arthurian tradition from the Dutch Low Countries in the late Middle Ages is often remarked upon, a convincing explanation has not yet been proposed; scholars appear to attribute it to the volksgeist of the Dutch people: King Arthur, it has been claimed, was ‘too far removed from the roots’ of the people of the Low Countries in the late Middle Ages to be considered particularly relevant.6 It has also been noted with respect to the Dutch Charlemagne tradition that ‘it was especially the more fantastical and outlandish versions of the legend that appeared in print, whereas the more historiographically oriented texts fell out of favor’.7 It is argued that correspondingly the Arthurian tradition, with its historiographical aspirations, may have fallen victim to this same preference. The same authors do add a note of caution: ‘The state of its transmission may for all we know be misleading, but it would seem that Arthurian romance in the Low Countries was a decidedly medieval phenomenon’.8 However, the apparent disappearance may be a mirage, partly caused by undue reliance on arguments based on the absence of evidence, and partly by a limited, and limiting, perspective on the late medieval Arthurian tradition. During my recent research into the early sixteenth-century chronicles of Holland, on the contrary, I came across several indications that the Dutch Arthurian tradition did not cease in the fifteenth century. The indications presented here are sketchy and haphazard, but do provide cumulative evidence for an interest in the Arthurian tradition – and, in one case, convincing support for the existence of a previously unidentified late fifteenth-century Arthurian print from Holland. In fact it was the historiographically minded material, rather than the fantastical (if such a distinction can indeed be maintained with regards to the Arthurian tradition) which retained its relevance to audiences in Holland well into the first quarter of the sixteenth century, and, as I argue elsewhere, formed the basis of important elements in the development of the Batavian myth.9 In fact, it may well have been scholars’ limited acquaintance with that historiographical tradition and their preoccupation with the romance tradition10 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cf. B. Windeatt, ‘The Fifteenth-Century Arthur’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Arthurian Legend, ed. E. Archibald and A. Putter (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 84–102, at 84. H. Pleij, Het gevleugelde woord: geschiedenis van de Nederlandse literatuur 1400–1560 (Amsterdam, 2007), p. 503: ‘hij bleef te ver af staan van de eigen wortels’. Claassens and Johnson, ‘Arthurian Literature’, p. 33, n. 135. Claassens and Johnson, ‘Arthurian Literature’, p. 33. S. Levelt, Jan van Naaldwijk’s Chronicles of Holland: Transition and Continuity in the Historical Tradition of Holland during the Early Sixteenth Century (Hilversum, 2011), chapters 3 and 4. The positive exception being W. P. Gerritsen, whose publications on historiographical Arthuriana,

102



INTEREST IN ARTHURIAN LITERATURE IN THE DUTCH LOW COUNTRIES

which allowed the evidence for an Arthurian historiographical awareness in Holland to go unnoticed for so long. In fact, the continued development of Arthurian narrative in fifteenth-century historiography should not surprise us, as it is paralleled in other national and local traditions; in Anglo-Latin historiography, for example, Arthurian history was given new political relevance in local traditions, partly informed by romance texts, in this very same period.11

Erasmus The earnestness with which authors on the threshold between the late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period engaged with the Arthurian tradition can be measured by the comments of that most famous of early sixteenth-century Dutchmen, Desiderius Erasmus. When he ridiculed, in his Praise of Folly, how ‘one traces his roots back to Aeneas, another to Brutus, and another again to Arthur’,12 he was not merely stating the obvious, but did so with a clever joke, which would have been immediately recognized by an audience well versed in Arthuriana: the three enumerated lineages were in fact one lineage, as Arthur was a descendant of Brutus, the founder of Britain, who himself was a direct descendant of Aeneas.13 Thus these different genealogical claims very literally rested on a single fallacy. Erasmus did not merely complain about the Arthurian tradition, but did so by engaging with it, and subverting it in the process – a strategy as old as the tradition itself.14

11

12

13

14

however, remained limited to the late thirteenth-century Spiegel historiael: W. P. Gerritsen, ‘Jacob van Maerlant and Geoffrey of Monmouth’, in An Arthurian Tapestry: Essays in Memory of Lewis Thorpe, ed. K. Varty (Glasgow, 1981), pp. 368–88. A. Putter, ‘Latin Historiography after Geoffrey of Monmouth’, in The Arthur of Medieval Latin Literature: The Development and Dissemination of the Arthurian Legend in Medieval Latin, ed. S. Echard (Cardiff, 2011), pp. 85–108. Desiderius Erasmus, Moriae Encomium Id Est Stultitiae Laus, ed. Clarence H. Miller, Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, vol. IV, tom. 3 (Amsterdam, 1979), 128 (§ 42): ‘Alius ad Aeneam, alius ad Brutum, alius ad Arcturum genus suum refert’. Translation from idem, Praise of Folly, trans. B. Radice, in his Collected Works 27 (Toronto, Buffalo and London, 1986), 77–153, at 116. I believe it was indeed King Arthur to whom Erasmus meant to refer in the passage, since Arthur is the logical third name after Aeneas and Brutus. ‘Arcturus’ is an alternative, although not standard spelling for King Arthur found in medieval manuscripts (G. Anderson, King Arthur in Antiquity (London, 2003), p. 29); the identification of King Arthur with the star Arcturus appears to have been intelligible to early sixteenth-century audiences (cf. Windeatt, ‘The FifteenthCentury Arthur’, p. 100). S. Levelt, ‘Citation and Misappropriation in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britannie and the Latin Galfridian Tradition’, in Citation, Intertextuality and Memory 2, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Medieval Culture (Exeter Studies in Medieval Europe), ed. G. di Bacco and Y. Plumley (Exeter, forthcoming).

103



SJOERD LEVELT

The comment needs to be seen in its context – a Latin work, written while the author lived in England, and dedicated to Sir Thomas More; Erasmus may in fact not have had much regard for the intellectual life of the Low Countries anymore by the time he wrote it. The comment is therefore not necessarily indicative of a particularly or exclusively Dutch engagement with Arthurian literature. Nevertheless, it attests to a thorough understanding of Arthurian narrative – to be specific Arthurian (genealogical) historiography – by an author who had been schooled in the Dutch Low Countries in the late fifteenth century. It can, therefore, be seen as evidence for the bearing of Arthurian historiography on the late medieval historical consciousness in Holland.

The Old Short Chronicle of Gouda Such a relevance is also attested by a work which was compiled almost a century before Erasmus’s comment: a thorough understanding of Arthurian historiography similar to that evidenced by Erasmus is displayed by the work of an anonymous author of the second quarter of the fifteenth century, whose revised version of a slightly older short chronicle continued to exert influence well into the age of print.15 It became the first history of Holland to appear in print, published by Gerard Leeu, in Gouda, in 1478.16 Its significance for our understanding of the late medieval historical consciousness in Holland is unmatched, as it was without rival the most widely disseminated history of the county in the late fifteenth century, and was still very current in both manuscript and print in the early sixteenth century. In the seventeenth century it became known, with reference to the place of its first printing, as Het oude Goutsche chronycxken (The Old Short Chronicle of Gouda).17 The supplementary material that had been added in its first reworking included an account of the pre-history of Holland, which provided the

15

16

17

The consecutive versions of this chronicle are set out in A. Janse, ‘De Historie van Hollant. Een nieuw begin in de Hollandse geschiedschrijving in de vijftiende eeuw’, Millennium. Tijdschrift voor middeleeuwse studies 21 (2007), 19–38, and A. Janse, ‘De gelaagdheid van een middeleeuwse kroniek. De ontstaansgeschiedenis van het zogenaamde Goudse kroniekje’, Queeste. Tijdschrift over middeleeuwse letterkunde 8 (2001), 134–59; for a provocative new interpretation of the intentions of its authors, see W. Keesman, ‘De Hollandse oudheid in het “Gouds kroniekje”: over drukpers en geschiedschrijving’, Spiegel der letteren 49 (2007), 165–82. The first modern edition, taking account of the manuscript and printed witnesses, is being prepared by A. Janse. Chronicle of Gouda: Die cronike of die hystorie van Hollant van Zeelant ende Vrieslant ende van den sticht van Utrecht (Gouda, 1478): Goff N1; Narrative Sources (www.narrativesources. nl) NL0177. Copies of the two printed editions (1478, 1483) are in the British Library, as is a manuscript of a version ending in 1476 (Cotton MS Vespasian D.ix, art. 10). P. Scriverius (ed.), Het oude Goutsche chronycxken van Hollandt, Zeelandt, Vrieslandt en Utrecht (Amsterdam, 1663).

104



INTEREST IN ARTHURIAN LITERATURE IN THE DUTCH LOW COUNTRIES

kind of foundation myth that had only been ambiguously present in earlier chronicles of Holland. The account details the earliest inhabitants of the region, the foundation of its first cities, as well as the origin and etymology of the geographical place names, and it concludes with the establishment of Holland’s first count.18 This type of origin history, while conspicuously absent from earlier chronicles of Holland, had become current throughout Western Europe since the appearance of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britannie – the very same work which provided the authoritative basis for the roles of Merlin and Arthur in British history –, and it is not coincidental that several of the elements of the story of Holland’s settlement derive from the tradition begun by Geoffrey. After a very brief introductory note setting out the subject of the chronicle, the work starts – innovatively, for a chronicle of Holland – with the fall of Troy and the subsequent capture by Brutus and his people of the island of Albion, which they would call Britain, freely following the history of Britain as described by Geoffrey of Monmouth.19 A new element to this narrative in the Chronicle of Gouda is the assertion that the giants who inhabited the island of Albion and who, according to Geoffrey, were expelled by Brutus and his men, sailed to the continental North Sea coast where they became the earliest inhabitants of Holland.20 Thus, after their expulsion by Brutus, in an interesting mirror image of the later AngloSaxon invasion of Britain, the giants (here identified with a people called the Slavs known from earlier chronicles of Holland) initially arrive in the country of the ‘wild Saxons, which is now called Friesland’.21 When they are expelled by these Saxons, the Slavs settle to the southwest of their first point of arrival. ‘This was the first origin of Holland.’22 A final addition using elements from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s version of history completes the story: the Slavs, illustrious ancestors of the people of Holland, were the only continental European people to resist King Arthur successfully in battle. In earlier chronicles the people of Holland 18

19

20

21 22

Chronicle of Gouda, sig. a2r, prologue: ‘hoe dat lant eerst begrepen ende bewoent wort Ende wye sy waren die die steden eerst begrepen ende betymmerden, ende hoe si hoer namen eerst creghen, ende hoe dat lant nae beheert wort van graue dirc die eerste graue’ (‘How the land [i.e. Holland] was first founded and populated, and who they were who first founded and built the cities, and how they first received their names, and how the land was afterward ruled by Count Dirc, the first Count’). Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia regum Britannie, ed. M. D. Reeve, trans. N. Wright (Woodbridge, 2007), lib. I. The author of this passage in the Chronicle of Gouda derived his information from the World Chronicle of Claes Heynenzoon (Janse, ‘De Historie’, p. 23, n. 21 and pp. 26–7). The inclusion of the material from Geoffrey of Monmouth was occasioned by the omission of an account of the earliest history of the region ultimately derived from Bede. In my view, maintaining a link to legendary British history, after the excision of Bede’s narrative, was the principal reason for introducing the story of the giants of Britain. See Janse, ‘De Historie’, p. 28, and Keesman, ‘Hollandse oudheid’, p. 175, for alternative views. Chronicle of Gouda, sig. a3v: ‘wilder sassen ... dat nu vrieslant is ghehieten’. Chronicle of Gouda, sig. a3v-a4r: ‘Ende dit was dat eerste begrijp van hollant’.

105



SJOERD LEVELT

and Utrecht had been represented as owing direct fealty to the Roman Empire. The author of the Chronicle of Gouda enhanced this semi-independent status by having the ancestors of the Hollanders, the Slavs, win for themselves the right to determine their own affairs: ‘and they would remain free, without tribute’.23 These narratives in the Chronicle of Gouda alert us to the fact that our definition of Arthuriana can be a limiting factor in our recognition of the continued impact of Arthurian literature in the Dutch Low Countries. The reference to Arthur’s conquest of Europe in connection to the story of the Slavs, however, shows that our author would not have failed to recognize the story of Brutus – Arthur’s far ancestor and forerunner as king of all Britain – as part of Arthurian historiography, as would indeed Erasmus almost a century later. That, if these examples are to be seen as representative, the late medieval Dutch interest in Arthuriana had a primarily historiographical focus rather than one grounded in romance may be an explanation for why Dutch scholars have failed to recognize its extent.

Jan van Naaldwijk A final strong, yet perhaps less representative, indicator for continued interest in the historical Arthurian tradition is provided by the work of the little known early sixteenth-century chronicler Jan van Naaldwijk. While his sole surviving works are two chronicles of Holland, he also claimed to have written a chronicle of England, which may have been a compilation: Froissart’s Chroniques appear to have been its principal source, but it also contained the Trojan foundation myth of Britain, which is not part of Froissart’s chronicles as they only cover the period 1322 to 1400.24 Jan’s interest in British affairs is striking, and in addition to the English chronicle he also claimed to have written a History of King Arthur.25 As this text is now lost, its contents must remain speculation, but based on Jan’s references we can determine that it was a translation of a single French source. The little detail Jan gives does not allow us to identify this source – it was a French text which linked Merlin to a forest in Northumberland, but this had been commonplace since Robert de Boron, and had first found its way into Dutch in the Book of Merlin of Jacob van Maerlant as early as the 1260s.26 Jan’s interest in British matters and the more or less contemporary 23 24 25 26

Chronicle of Gouda, sigs a8v-b1r: ‘Ende si souden vry sitten sonder scatten’. London, British Library, MS Cotton Vitellius F.xv, fols 20v, 132v, 148v, 153v. Vitellius F.xv, fol. 49r: ‘die Histori van Coninc Artus die jc Jan van Naeldwijck ghetranslateert hebbe wt den Walschen in Duijths’. Jacob van Maerlant, Merlijn, on the Cd-rom Middelnederlands (The Hague and Antwerp, 1998), ll. 5846–80.

106



INTEREST IN ARTHURIAN LITERATURE IN THE DUTCH LOW COUNTRIES

comment by Erasmus, together with the earlier attempt of the Chronicle of Gouda to create a link between the mythical British history and that of Holland, suggest that the Arthurian historical tradition was not ‘too far removed from the roots’ of the people of the Low Countries in the late Middle Ages to be considered particularly relevant. Quite the contrary, it was central to vernacular culture as well as that of Latinate intellectuals in Holland. The issue remains of the absence – with the exception of the 1540 Merlin – of early Arthurian prints from the Dutch Low Countries.

A Late Fifteenth-Century Dutch Arthurian Edition? This issue, also, may be a product of the limited ability of Dutch scholars to recognize Arthurian narratives for what they are. In fact, the single most read late medieval chronicle of Holland, the Divisiekroniek, contains important evidence for the involvement in the 1480s of a publisher from Holland in an Arthurian publication. This evidence should be considered immediately obvious to those acquainted with the historiographical Arthurian tradition, but has been overlooked – and misinterpreted – by several scholars with a thorough knowledge of the chronicle and its printing history. The Divisiekroniek, an illustrated chronicle combining universal history with that of the county of Holland, was printed in 1517. In its treatment of the early history of Holland, the construction of two fortresses play a significant role: these are the so-called ‘Slavenburg’ (Slavs’ Castle, so called for its builders) and the ‘Brittenburg’ (the British Castle, so named for its geographical location, on the coast opposite the island of Britain). A woodcut used to illustrate both the construction of the Slavs’ Castle and that of the ‘Brittenburg’ is particularly well suited for the purpose when seen in the context of the historiographical tradition of Holland. The Chronicle of Gouda had introduced a direct link to the mythical history of Britain; the Slavs, in that version, were the giants expelled from Britain by Brutus and his people. With the ‘Brittenburg’, the British Castle, the name was indicative of its geographical location, opposite the island of Britain. The woodcut has never been identified correctly.27 In fact, it is in origin not a generic illustration of the construction of any random castle, but a very specific image of Merlin next to the castle of the British King Vortigern. In the original account of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Merlin was asked to explain why the fortress kept collapsing during construction; on 27

W. M. Conway, The Woodcutters of the Netherlands in the Fifteenth Century. 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1884), sect. 25, 8, no. 1; M. J. Schretlen, Dutch and Flemish Woodcuts (London, 1925), plate 75. H. van de Waal, Drie eeuwen geschied-uitbeelding, 1500–1800: een iconologische studie (The Hague, 1952), p. 137 and n. 2.

107



SJOERD LEVELT

Disclaimer: Some images in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook. To view the image on this page please refer to the printed version of this book.

1.  The construction of the Slavenburg, Divisiekroniek, fol. 17r. (Woodcut also used for the construction of the Brittenburg, fol. 29r.)

108



INTEREST IN ARTHURIAN LITERATURE IN THE DUTCH LOW COUNTRIES

his urging, the foundation was dug up, and two eggs were found. The eggs hatched, and two dragons came out and started fighting. When Merlin was asked for the meaning of these events, he uttered his famous prophecies. In the context of the Divisiekroniek, Vortigern’s castle, being the central castle of British legendary history, served as a symbolic representation of the essence of both the ‘Slavenburg’ and the ‘Brittenburg’, namely their connection to British history and Britain. Thus, the use of this particular woodcut suggests an audience well versed in Arthuriana, who would have immediately grasped the symbolism, and never misidentified the characters as ‘a king’ and ‘two monsters’, as did modern scholars.28 But besides being an indication that such an audience existed in the Dutch Low Countries in the early sixteenth century, the woodcut also provides evidence for an Arthurian incunabulum in the Low Countries. Very few of the woodcuts used for the Divisiekroniek were originally produced for the chronicle; most are known to have been recycled from earlier productions. The woodcut of Vortigern’s castle was one of a set which have been identified as products of a woodcutter who was active in Gouda in the second half of the 1480s.29 It would therefore have been cut for an early Arthurian text to be produced in Gouda, and may well have been meant for an early Dutch Arthurian edition (the possibility that the planned edition was in another language, however, should not be discounted). The extremely unlikely circumstances of the survival of a unique fragment of the earliest surviving Dutch Arthurian publication, of circa 1540, and the complete disappearance of works such as the Dutch edition of the immensely popular De duobus amantibus Eurialo et Lucretia opusculum,30 suggest that such a possible earlier Arthurian publication in Dutch could very well have entirely been lost.31

28 29 30

31

Thus, Conway, Woodcutters, sect. 25, 8, no. 1. Conway, Woodcutters, sect. 25, 8, no. 1. L. Debaene, De Nederlandse volksboeken: ontstaan en geschiedenis van de Nederlandse prozaromans, gedrukt tussen 1475 en 1540 (Antwerp, 1951), pp. 207–8. Additional evidence is provided to us by Jan van Naaldwijk, Vitellius F.xv, fol. 223r: ‘Mer want dit gheprent is in duijtss en wil ick hijerom ghenen verloren arbeijt doen om dat ouer te setten wt den latijnen’ (But because this has been printed in Dutch I do not wish to waste my time translating it from Latin). Possibly, such a translation was printed by Jan van Doesborch of Antwerp, who may have printed the English version, and regularly produced parallel editions in English and Dutch; W. Nijhoff and M. E. Kronenberg, Nederlandsche bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540, 6 vols. (The Hague, 1923–71), no. 2240; Debaene, Nederlandse volksboeken, p. 208, gives a summary of the evidence. The attribution is challenged, however, by P. J. A. Franssen, Tussen tekst en publiek: Jan van Doesborch, drukker-uitgever en literator te Antwerpen en Utrecht in de eerste helft van de zestiende eeuw (Amsterdam, 1990), pp. 18 and 20. These fragments were only preserved because at the printer’s shop they were accidentally bound into a chronicle of Flanders of the same printer, replacing the quires of that chronicle which should have been bound in their place: Debaene, Nederlandse volksboeken, p. 123; Kronenberg, ‘Een onbekend volksboek’.

109



SJOERD LEVELT

Conclusion The illustration of Vortigern’s castle in the Divisiekroniek adds strength to the argument that the concept of Arthuriana should not be drawn too narrowly when looking for the continued dissemination of Arthurian narratives in the Dutch Low Countries in the late Middle Ages. Erasmus’ intimate understanding of Arthurian genealogical historiography, Jan van Naaldwijk’s interest in Arthuriana and his interest in all things English, the Arthurian content of the Chronicle of Gouda, all appear to have been more typical for contemporary readers as well as authors of the Dutch Low Countries than has previously been accepted; while the French romance traditions and their Middle Dutch derivations may have lost currency in the fifteenth century, the evidence suggests that with a renewed interest and less limited and less limiting perspective on Arthurian literature, we should be able to come to a better understanding of the role of the Arthurian narrative in late medieval Dutch culture, not as far removed from readers’ experiences, but as an integral part of the historical consciousness and imagination of authors and readers alike.

110

V

MALORY’S SOURCE-MANUSCRIPT FOR THE FIRST TALE OF LE MORTE DARTHUR P. J. C. Field Malory based the first tale of his Morte Darthur on an unusual version of a very popular romance, the thirteenth-century Old French prose Merlin.1 The romance falls into two parts. The first, which we may call the Merlin proper, tells the story of Merlin’s life and the wonders he works in a legendary Britain up to Arthur’s coronation, which he is instrumental in bringing about. The second part is a continuation, or Suite, which tells the story of the early years of Arthur’s reign, when he establishes his kingdom, and some of his most famous knights make their reputations. Merlin again has a notable role. The popular, or ‘vulgate’, version of the Merlin is the second of the five parts of the Vulgate Cycle, the best-known version of the Arthurian legend in the Middle Ages. The Vulgate Merlin survives in nearly fifty French manuscripts, and was translated into Italian, Dutch, and Middle English.2 Although Malory seems to have known and occasionally used this Merlin,3 he based his first tale on its obscure literary cousin, the Post‑Vulgate Merlin,4 which is part of another cycle of romances, the Post-Vulgate Cycle or Roman du Graal, that combines material from the Vulgate Cycle and the Old French Prose Tristan into a narrative that focusses more on Arthur and the Grail than on the adventures of the 1

2

3 4

Sir Thomas Malory, The Works, ed. Eugène Vinaver, 3 vols., 3rd edn, rev. P. J. C. Field (Oxford, 1990), pp. 1–180 (text) and 1267–82 and following (Commentary). References to Malory are to this edition, by page and line, and are given parenthetically in my text. I am obliged to Linda Gowans for kindly letting me see a prepublication copy of her essay ‘Malory’s Sources – and Arthur’s Sisters – Revisited’, which appears elsewhere in this volume. Alexandre Micha, ‘Les manuscrits du Merlin en prose de Robert de Boron’, Romania 79 (1958), 78–94, 145–74; Annie Combes,‘The “Merlin” and its “Suite”’, in A Companion to the LancelotGrail Cycle, ed. Carol Dover (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 75–85. Ralph Norris, Malory’s Library: The Sources of the Morte Darthur (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 54–60 and passim. For recent criticism of the Post-Vulgate Suite and related texts, see Miranda Griffin, ‘The Space of Transformation: Merlin between Two Deaths’, Medium Aevum 80 (2011), 85–103.

111



P. J. C. FIELD

Knights of the Round Table.5 The Post-Vulgate version of the Merlin proper is almost identical with the Vulgate version, but its Suite is very different. Since the Post-Vulgate Merlin survives only in three incomplete French manuscripts and half a dozen much smaller fragments,6 it is sometimes helpful to check the corresponding Hispanic Post-Vulgate texts to see what mediaeval French versions are likely to have said at textually difficult points. All the surviving Hispanic manuscripts are fragmentary, but the two early Spanish printed editions, the Baladro del sabio Merlin, published in Burgos in 1498, and the Demanda del sancto Grial, published in Seville in 1535, are both complete.7 Malory began his story late in the Post-Vulgate Merlin proper, with the first meeting between Arthur’s future parents, and followed it to its end, Arthur’s coronation. In the longest surviving manuscript of the PostVulgate Suite, Cambridge University Library, Additional 7071, Arthur’s coronation is followed by an episode of which there is no trace in any of the other surviving Post-Vulgate texts. It is a reworked version of the first episode in the Vulgate Suite, in which a number of kings rebel against Arthur.8 It seems to have been added to the Post-Vulgate Suite by a later adaptor who unfortunately failed to eradicate some discrepancies between the new material and the old.9 Malory’s tale includes the Rebellion of the Kings. He has removed some of the discrepancies, but still calls the sword that Arthur draws from the stone Excalibur and names Grifflet as a knight who fights in the rebellion, although later Excalibur is the sword given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake and Grifflet appears as a squire asking Arthur to knight him. These discrepancies and a number of close verbal parallels show that Malory’s source-manuscript was more closely related

5 6

7 8 9

Fanni Bogdanow, ‘The Vulgate Cycle and the Post-Vulgate “Roman du Graal”’, in A Companion to the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, pp. 33–51. The only fragment that relates any part of the narrative of the Morte Darthur is a bifolium in the municipal archives of Siena that contains two passages from the story of the wedding of King Arthur, published in Fanni Bogdanow, The Romance of the Grail (Manchester, 1966), pp. 228–41. Six other fragments discovered in Imola, Bologna and Barcelona (the last in GalicianPortuguese) contain material that Malory omitted: Monica Longobardi, ‘Frammenti di codici in antico francese dalla Biblioteca Comunale di Imola’, Miscellanea di studi in onore di Aurelio Roncaglia (Modena, 1990), pp. 727–59; ‘Nuovi frammenti della Post‑Vulgata: la Suite du Merlin, la continuazione della Suite du Merlin, la Queste e la Mort Artu (con l’intruzione del Guiron)’, Studi Mediolatini e Volgari 38 (1992), 119–55, Amadeu-J. Soberanas, ‘La Version GalaïcoPortuguese de la Suite de Merlin’, Vox Romanica 38 (1979), 174–93. Harvey L. Sharrer, A Critical Bibliography of Hispanic Arthurian Material, 1. Research Bibliographies and Checklists (London, 1977), Ae4, Ae5. For a critical edition, see ‘The Rebellion Portion of the Suite du Merlin from the Cambridge Manuscript,’ ed. Ruth Gilpin, unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1951. Robert H. Wilson, ‘The Rebellion of the Kings in Malory and in the Cambridge Suite de Merlin’, University of Texas Studies in English, 31 (1952), 13–26; Fanni Bogdanow, ‘The Rebellion of the Kings in the Cambridge MS. of the Suite de Merlin,’ UTSE 34 (1955), 6–17; Wilson, ‘The Cambridge Suite de Merlin Re-examined,’ UTSE 36 (1957), 41–51.

112

MALORY’S SOURCE-mANUSCRIPT FOR THE FIRST TALE OF LE MORTE DARTHUR

to the Cambridge manuscript than to any other known text. One scholar has noted that the discovery of the Cambridge manuscript revealed that Malory took fifteen characters from his source who had previously been thought to be Malory’s own invention.10 The Cambridge manuscript breaks off at the end of fol. 342v, in the middle of a sentence, part way through the last Post-Vulgate episode that Malory retells, the story of Gawayne, Ywayne, and Marhalt. Happily for Malory studies, another French Post-Vulgate manuscript survives that contains the whole of the story of Gauvain, Yvain, and le Morholt. This is Paris, BnF, fonds français 112, a huge composite manuscript made up of substantial extracts from a range of French Arthurian romances. One of these is from the Post-Vulgate Suite, and it tells the story from the beginning of the story of Gauvain, Yvain, and le Morholt to the end of the Suite. It shows that Malory followed his source quite closely for Gawayne’s adventures, but replaced what it said about the other two knights with stories of his own devising, freely based on a variety of romances in English and French.11 He then omitted the rest of the Suite, which tells how Arthur’s nephew Gaheriet is knighted and of his first adventures afterwards. Gaheriet is the counterpart of Malory’s Gareth, so that part of the Post-Vulgate Suite is incompatible with Malory’s fourth tale. Since Malory’s second and fifth tales also omit final episodes in their sources that are incompatible with other parts of his book, it is reasonable to assume that all three omissions were deliberate. There is certainly no reason to suppose that Malory’s manuscript of the source of his first tale was in any way incomplete. The only other sizeable French Post-Vulgate manuscript is London, British Library, Additional 38117, usually called the Huth Manuscript, after an early owner. Huth contains the Merlin and most of the Suite, but not the Rebellion of the Kings episode, is sometimes less close to ­Malory’s wording, has lost several complete folios, and comes to an end earlier in the story of Gauvain, Yvain, and le Morholt than the Cambridge manuscript does. Vinaver, who worked closely with both French manuscripts, said (1281) that Malory’s book agrees with Huth against Cambridge in ways that show that Malory’s manuscript of the Post-Vulgate Merlin and Suite descended from a lost ancestor of these two French manuscripts.12 The evidence he cites, however, is not impressive. Most of it is in two notes in his Commentary. One (10.7) is about King Nentres, who marries one of Arthur’s stepsisters. In the Cambridge manuscript, Nentres’s kingdom is Garot, in the Huth it is Sorhaut (although Garelot some pages later), and in Malory, like the standard edition of the Merlin, 10 11 12

Robert H. Wilson, ‘Addenda on Malory’s Minor Characters,’ JEGP 55 (1956), 263–87 (p. 265). Norris, pp. 41–52. See Works, p. 1281, and E. Vinaver, ‘Le Genèse de la Suite de Merlin,’ in Mélanges de philologie romane et de littérature médiévale offerts à Ernest Hoepffner (Paris, 1949), pp. 295–300.

113



P. J. C. FIELD

Garlot. Malory’s better reading, however, does not necessarily imply that he used a better manuscript. Although Nentres has not been mentioned earlier in the Merlin, Malory took an enthusiastic interest in the names and relationships of Arthurian characters, and could easily have remembered the ‘correct’ spelling of the name of Nentres’s kingdom from some other Arthurian romance. The other note (151.34) is to the enigmatic amyvestyall, the most difficult word in the Morte Darthur. If, as Vinaver believed, Malory was prompted to invent this word by a phrase with an entirely different meaning at the corresponding point in his source, Huth’s slightly longer version of the source-phrase is a more plausible trigger, because it could explain every syllable in Malory’s word, which Cambridge’s shorter phrase cannot. Malory scholars have not, however, endorsed Vinaver’s theory, although they have not been able to suggest a better one. Vinaver’s Commentary said that there were other agreements between Malory and Huth against Cambridge, but he only specified one very weak one (43.33). Vinaver’s conclusions have recently been challenged by Jonathan Passaro, who argued in this journal that Malory worked directly from Cambridge.13 If true, that would be an important discovery. It would make Cambridge the only known manuscript that Malory used, and it would simplify study of the first tale. Malory scholarship could in principle ignore all the Post-Vulgate texts except Cambridge, apart from the Paris manuscript for the part of the text that Cambridge has lost. We would have to assume that when Malory used it, Cambridge included the whole of the Gauvain, Yvain, and le Morholt episode, but there is nothing implausible about that. Passaro, however, failed to make good his case in the form in which he set it out. He saw many similarities between the Winchester and Cambridge manuscripts in accidentals, particularly in abbreviation and rubrication. The two texts, however are far from identical. It could hardly be otherwise when one is effectively a précis of the other in a different language. Even if the similarity in accidentals is all Passaro claims it to be,14 there are limits to what it can reveal. It could tell us something about Malory’s working methods – for instance, that he is unlikely to have drafted his words on wax tablets or dictated them to a scribe. It might well tell us that Malory worked from a manuscript textually close to the Cambridge manuscript, but we knew that already. What it cannot do is prove that Malory worked from the Cambridge manuscript itself. The kind of evidence Passaro cites can never exclude the possibility that two manuscripts were copied from a common original, or one from a lost intermediary that was copied from the other. The most that Passaro’s 13 14

Jonathan Passaro, ‘Malory’s Text of the Suite du Merlin’, Arthurian Literature, 26 (2009), 39–75. An examination of the two manuscripts by Kevin Whetter casts doubts on those claims: see his ‘Malory, Hardyng, and the Winchester Manuscript: Some Preliminary Conclusions’, Arthuriana, 22.4 (Summer 2012), forthcoming.

114

MALORY’S SOURCE-mANUSCRIPT FOR THE FIRST TALE OF LE MORTE DARTHUR

evidence could establish would be a more cautious formulation: that the totality of the available evidence is most economically explained by the idea that Malory worked directly from the Cambridge manuscript, and that scholars should therefore take that as their working hypothesis. This, however, would only be true if Malory’s agreements with Huth against Cambridge were (at least probably) the product of coincidence, but the sets of variants that Passaro puts forward all support Vinaver’s hypothesis rather than his own. Indeed, they provide stronger support for Vinaver’s hypothesis than the evidence that Vinaver himself proposed. There are three of these sets of variants. In the first, Malory’s Arthur tells Merlin that he prefers the sword he has been given by the Lady of the Lake to its scabbard. Merlin replies the scawberde ys worth ten of the swerde

54.3–4

Huth (fol. 93c) says the same, Cambridge (fol. 243d) that the scabbard is worth a hundred swords. Passaro (54) suggests Malory reduced Cambridge’s hundred to make it sound less exaggerated, and by chance picked ten as the number to reduce it to. There is, however, nothing in this tale to suggest that Malory was trying to make Merlin’s acts less amazing. In the story of Arthur and Accolon, Accolon wakes from an enchanted sleep and is approached by a dwarf with a grete mowthe and a flatte nose

140.21–2

Huth (fol. 195c) says the same, Cambridge (fol. 311a) just that he has a mouth and a flat nose. Passaro suggests that Malory noticed that Cambridge’s reading was peculiar, and by chance picked the same word as Huth to repair the oddity. A little later in the same episode, Accolon says to the dwarf about Morgan le Fay Now I suppose … she hath made all this crauftis and enchauntemente for this batayle 141.4–5

Huth (fol. 195d) says the same, Cambridge (fol. 311c) by an obvious homoeoteleuton omits a key phrase that included the word enchantement. There is no simple explanation for Malory using enchauntemente except that it appeared in his source manuscript. There is other evidence apart from that cited by Vinaver and Passaro. Some of that evidence is found in the accounts of the marriages of Arthur’s half-sisters, the daughters of Ygrayne.15 The standard Vulgate Merlin text says Arthur has two half-sisters, the elder an unnamed but apparently legitimate one who marries King Lot of Orkney and becomes the mother of Gawain, Gaheries, and Gareth, the other a bastard called Morgains 15

Works, p. 10.5–12.

115



P. J. C. FIELD

who marries King Nentres of Garlot and is sent to study in a convent, where she acquires so much knowledge of the arts, astronomy, and natural science that she is called Morgain la fee.16 Cambridge agrees (fol. 195a) almost word-for-word with this. A medieval reader who thought about this would no doubt have inferred that the marriages were arranged (as was not uncommon with upper-class marriages in real life) at a time when Morgains was too young to be able to contract a valid marriage, and so she was sent off to get an education first. A careless reading, however, could take the passage as saying that Nentres marries her and that then le roi (either Nentres himself or his overlord Uther Pendragon) sends the Queen of Garlot off to become a pupil in a convent school. Huth resolves that seeming implausibility by splitting the second daughter into two, Morgans, who marries Nentres, and Morgue, who is sent to a convent where the same study earns her the same nickname, and who is not given a husband.17 Malory gives three sisters in a sequence close to Huth. That constitutes a strong agreement between him and Huth against Cambridge. Malory says the sister who marries Nentres is called Elayne. She is anonymous in the Vulgate Merlin and Cambridge and Huth. Perhaps Malory, who liked giving names to his sources’ anonymous characters, simply supplied a suitable name for her, as he did for the Fair Maid of Ascolat – and indeed used the same name in both cases. The equivalent passage in the Spanish Demanda del Sancto Grial, however, says that daughter who marries Lot is called Elena. Robert H. Wilson pointed out long ago that that raises the possibility that Malory found the name in his source-manuscript.18 Malory also provided a husband for the third sister. He says that she later marries King Uriens of Gore, who was the father of Sir Ywayne le Blaunche Maynes, and that her studies made her a grete clerke of nygromancye. The first part of this might again be attributed to Malory’s interest in the names, lives, and relationships of his characters, and the second part to chance. The Spanish Baladro del Sabio Merlin, however, says at the corresponding point that Morgaina married King Uriens and later had a son called Ivan (i.e. Ywayne), and learned so much nigromancia that she came to be known as Morgaina el Hada (Morgan le Fay).19 It is surely unreasonable to suppose that agreements like these are the product of chance. The alternative is to assume that what Malory says about the ‘later’ marriage and about Ywayne and necromancy comes from

16 17

18 19

Merlin: Roman du XIIIe siècle, ed. Alexandre Micha (Geneva, 1980), pp. 242–45. Other romances say the same, but my present case does not require pursuing the fascinating and difficult questions of priority among them. Interested readers will wish to consult the essay by Linda Gowans mentioned above. Wilson, ‘Addenda’, 265. I owe this information to Linda Gowans, who cites El baladro del sabio Merlin, según el texto de la edición de Burgos de 1498, ed. Pedro Bohigas, 2 vols. (Barcelona, 1957–62), vol. I.

116

MALORY’S SOURCE-mANUSCRIPT FOR THE FIRST TALE OF LE MORTE DARTHUR

his source-manuscript. Cambridge, however, does not speak of a ‘later’ marriage, or refer to Yvain or to necromancy. The other group of relevant passages bears on Vinaver’s contention (38.35–41.10n) that Malory’s version of the Rebellion of the Kings episode preserved elements of the Vulgate Suite that do not survive in the Cambridge manuscript. If Malory was working from Cambridge, those elements must be the product of contamination (i.e. Malory must have taken them from another source, presumably the Vulgate), or of coincidence. Four passages suggest themselves in this connection. In the first, early in the rebellion episode, Malory names the eleven rebel kings (25.27– 26.15), of whom the first seven appear in Cambridge in the same order (fol. 216b). Two others, Tradelmans (Malory’s Cradilmas) and Carados, appear at the corresponding point in the Vulgate Suite.20 In the second of these passages, later in the same episode, Malory includes a knight called Brascias as a member of an elite group of more than twenty of Arthur’s men who volunteer to attack the rebel army (36.3–12). Brascias does not appear in Cambridge (fol. 223d), but the equivalent name, Bretell, does appear at the same point in the equivalent list in the Vulgate Suite.21 However, just as Malory’s enthusiasm for supplementing his major sources with Arthurian names remembered from minor sources might explain his superior spelling of the name Garlot, so he might have supplemented the two Cambridge lists from the Vulgate Suite. It would be hard to resist that explanation like that in the case of Cradilmas and Carados, since exactly that is the obvious explanation for the appearance of the names of the final two rebel kings, Angwysshauns and Nentres. Brascias’s appearance among the volunteers who attack the rebels could be explained in an even simpler way. Since his name follows that of Ulphuns, with whom he is often paired in earlier episodes of the Morte Darthur, copying Ulphuns’s name could easily have been brought Brascias to Malory’s mind.22 With the remaining two cases, however, there is no easy explanation. Malory says of the scene at the climactic point in the decisive battle between Arthur and the rebel kings that it was pité to se and to beholde (33.10–11). Vinaver pointed out that that phrase looks more like a product of the Vulgate Suite’s grant dolor & grant mortalite23 than of the corresponding phrase in Cambridge (fol. 222d), which he gives as grant martyre et grant occision, but which should be the grant estour et grant

20 21 22 23

The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, ed. H. O. Sommer, 8 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1909–16), 2:110. Vulgate Version, 2:188, and see P. J. C. Field, ‘Malory’s Forty Knights’, Arthurian Literature 23 (2006), 18–29. Thus Gilpin, ‘Rebellion Portion’, pp. xvi–xvii. Vulgate Version, 2:120.14.

117



P. J. C. FIELD

mortalite earlier in the same sentence. He also inadvertently attributed the first passage to Huth, which does not include the Rebellion of the Kings episode, but he clearly intended the Vulgate Suite, where the words he quoted appear in the right place. The essential point, however, is that Vinaver was clearly right that the Vulgate’s dolor is a plausible trigger for pité, and the Post-Vulgate’s estour and martyre are not. If Malory worked from the Cambridge manuscript, we have no explanation of why he should have chosen to replace a word in his source with an English equivalent of the word that his source’s source used at that point. The final case is even more difficult to explain. It is an agreement in error in the description of the battle standard of Arthur’s ally King Ban of Benwick (32.32). No doubt because none of the scribes knew much about heraldry, all three texts appear to be corrupt, creating problems that go beyond the scope of this essay. We may suggest, if only for the sake of clarity, an underlying original that said Ban’s standard displayed blue and gold crowns on yellow bends (i.e. diagonal stripes) on a green field (champ, i.e. background). This would not be a professional blazon, because yellow is not a recognized heraldic colour, but, if we take the yellow as a variant of gold, it would give us a believable coat of arms that observed the heraldic rule that ‘colours’ like green and blue should only appear on ‘metals’ like gold and silver, not on each other, and vice versa. The blue crowns should no doubt be understood as appearing on the yellow bends, and the gold crowns (which would be invisible against a yellow background) on the green ‘field’ visible between the bends. Coming now to our three texts, Cambridge (fol. 222d) says the standard had corns dor e dazur bende den trauers de listes iaunes si estoit li champs verts com herbe de pre, gold and blue horns on yellow bends on a green field. The horns (corns) will be a corruption of crowns (courounes). The Vulgate appears to have preserved the crowns, but lost listes iaunes si estoit li champs, which makes up the end of one of Cambridge’s clauses and the beginning of the next. It therefore says Ban’s standard displayed courounes dor & daisur & a bendes entrauers de uert comme herbe de pre, gold and blue crowns on green bends. Malory’s version of this has suffered from the combined effects of abbreviation and further corruption. He says than com into the felde Kynge Ban as ferse as a lyon, with bendis of grene and thereuppon golde 32.32

It is clear that a noun, presumably crowns or horns, whichever appeared in Malory’s source-manuscript, has gone missing after golde. Although that word is lacking in both primary texts of the Morte Darthur, we should not attribute its disappearance to Malory. It was the professional opinion of the only herald to have reviewed the heraldry of the Morte Darthur that, although Malory was inclined to accept the heraldry his sources gave him, 118

MALORY’S SOURCE-mANUSCRIPT FOR THE FIRST TALE OF LE MORTE DARTHUR

he understood what he was accepting.24 If so, this heraldic travesty should be attributed not to him but to the scribe of the archetype from which the two primary texts descended. If Malory had a good understanding of heraldry, it becomes very difficult to explain his grene bendis except as a response to the reading of the passage in the Vulgate Suite. If he had been using the Cambridge text and had been dissatisfied with it, for instance because yellow is not a regular heraldic colour, his normal reaction would not have been (like a modern scholar) to search for another manuscript that would give him a better reading, but to supply the best solution he could on the spot. The obvious solution was to replace the problematic yellow with gold, one of the most popular of the regular heraldic colours, and certainly not green, the least popular. The disappearance of the Vulgate’s blue crowns may well have been the product of a similar reaction, a characteristically Malorian quick solution, cutting blue-on-green because it was bad heraldry. Certainty is hard to find in textual criticism, and particularly in the textual criticism of medieval vernacular romance. Malory’s willingness to change what his sources said to what he thought they should have said, often drawing fleetingly on memories of other romances in the process, makes it difficult to say in any one of the cases discussed above that no supplementary hypothesis could be devised to explain Malory’s disagreement with the Cambridge manuscript. I suggest, however, that taken together these examples make it unreasonable to suppose that Malory worked up his first tale from Cambridge Additional 7071.

24

C. W. Scott-Giles, ‘Some Arthurian Coats of Arms’, The Coat of Arms 8 (1965), 332–39; 9 (1966), 30–5.

119

VI

MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED* Linda Gowans In volume 26 of Arthurian Literature, Jonathan Passaro claimed that Cambridge University Library, Additional 7071 is very likely to be the actual manuscript of the Suite du Merlin used by Malory.1 Details of the case he makes for the text of the Suite itself form part of the examination by P. J. C. Field in his contribution to the present volume,2 and in this article I would like to establish whether Passaro’s findings hold for the earlier part of the Merlin story. The material on which I shall concentrate precedes a division that is not always sufficiently acknowledged in discussion of the cycles which form the background to Malory’s know­ ledge, and of the manuscripts in which they are contained. In the course of my investigation, details will emerge that I hope will contribute to the wider study both of Malory’s source material and of the Merlin manuscript tradition. Each manuscript of the Vulgate or Post-Vulgate Merlin begins with the story of the sage as told in the Robert de Boron cycle,3 of which some * This article has been developed from a paper given at the meeting of the British Branch of the International Arthurian Society at St Catharine’s College, University of Cambridge, in September 2010. My thanks go to the participants, especially Laura Campbell, Ambra Finotello, Roger Middleton and Leah Tether, for help and guidance. I would also like to thank the Biblioteca Marucelliana, Florence, the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, and Cambridge University Library for copies of manuscripts cited, Barbara Miller for assistance with the Spanish material, Regina Psaki for her invaluable time and trouble in personally inspecting Marucelliana MS B. VI. 24, and the National Library of Scotland for much additional help. 1 J. Passaro, ‘Malory’s Text of the Suite du Merlin’, Arthurian Literature 26 (2009), 39–75. I am most grateful to Dr Passaro for allowing me access to his unpublished transcript of the Merlin section of Cambridge University Library, Additional 7071. On the Suite du Merlin and its place in the Post-Vulgate cycle, see F. Bogdanow, ‘The Post-Vulgate Roman du Graal’, in The Arthur of the French: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval French and Occitan Literature, ed. G. S. Burgess and K. Pratt, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages 4 (Cardiff, 2006), pp. 342–42. 2 P. J. C. Field, ‘Malory’s Source-Manuscript for the First Tale of Le Morte Darthur’, Arthurian Literature 29 (2012), pp. 111–19. 3 Robert de Boron, Merlin: Roman du XIIIe siècle, ed. A. Micha, Textes littéraires français (Paris and Geneva, 1980).

121



LINDA GOWANS

exemplars would have had no continuation, while others would have contained the full cycle with the Perceval.4 In addition to the repeated copying of individual cycles, the number of manuscripts with what I shall call the ‘old Merlin’ would have increased each time a new continuation was produced. The result would have been a great many copies in circulation and a great many opportunities either for discrepancy, or for revision when old and new parts of the story were brought together. Decorated initials are used sparingly in the Cambridge manuscript: an ornate M to mark the opening of the old Merlin section (fol. 158va, following a Vulgate Estoire del Saint Graal), and a C or an O to introduce and emphasize ‘Ci endroit di li contes’ or ‘Or dit li contes’. The old Merlin portion of the text ends, in Cambridge as in most other manuscripts, with Arthur’s coronation and the statement that he held the realm for a long time in peace,5 and the opening of the Suite is then marked by a decorated capital C to introduce the statement ‘Ci endroit dit li contes’(fol. 202rb). In other words, the division is linked to a reference to an authority, rather than providing us with any information about a possible change of model. For the relevant part of Malory’s account, because the first eight folios of Winchester are missing, we can only consult Caxton, where the story opens with Uther sending for the Duke of Cornwall and his wife Igrayne.6 Malory drastically condenses the remainder of the undeniably verbose text of the old Merlin; probably, as Ralph Norris has noted in his recent study of Malory’s sources, under the influence of John Hardyng’s own concise verse rendering of the story of Arthur’s conception and birth.7 Many details which one would like to be able to compare with surviving French manuscripts have been lost in abridgement, though potentially important points of comparison remain, and it can be seen that there are instances in which Malory differs from the Cambridge manuscript. An example occurs during the famous transformations brought about by Merlin to satisfy Uther’s longing for Ygrayne. In Cambridge (fol. 191vb), London, British Library, Additional 38117 (Huth)8 and other Merlin manuscripts, as well as in Hardyng’s Chronicle, Merlin takes on the likeness of Bretel,

4 5 6 7

8

See The Didot Perceval: According to the Manuscripts of Modena and Paris, ed. W. Roach (Philadephia, 1941; repr. Geneva, 1977). Merlin, ed. Micha, 91. 58. The Works of Sir Thomas Malory, ed. E. Vinaver, revised P. J. C. Field, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1990), I, 7 (hereafter Malory). The edition of the Winchester manuscript begins on I, 20 at l. 24. The Chronicle of Iohn Hardying ... together with The Continuation by Richard Grafton …, ed. H. Ellis (London, 1812; repr. New York, 1974), pp. 118–21. See R. Norris, Malory’s Library: The Sources of the Morte Darthur (Cambridge, 2008), p. 17. The other French manuscript with a Post-Vulgate Suite. Merlin: Roman en prose du XIIIe siècle … d’après le manuscrit appartenant à M. Alfred H. Huth, ed. G. Paris and J. Ulrich, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886) (I, 111). (Hereafter Huth.) See also La Suite du roman de Merlin, ed. G. Roussineau, 2 vols., Textes littéraires français (Geneva, 1996). Paris and Ulrich edit the complete Merlin section, while Roussineau’s edition contains only the Suite.

122



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

while Ulfin becomes like Jordain. Malory reverses this: Ulfyus becomes like Sir Brastias, and Merlin like Sir Jordanus.9 Eugène Vinaver observes that ‘The fact that the Auchinleck MS. Of Arthour and Merlin agrees here with M[alory] is probably a mere coincidence’.10 This may not be the case, for more than one reason. Norris has already noted evidence, albeit ‘of a rather weak kind’, that personal names in Auchinleck may lie behind Malory’s work,11 and there is in fact a stronger link between the two accounts. When Malory’s Arthur has withdrawn the sword from the stone, he promises a boon to Ector, now revealed as his foster-father, and adds: ‘I shalle not faille yow. God forbede I shold faille yow’ (I, 15). Micha’s edition of the prose Merlin has ‘vous ne me savroiz ja chose demander que je ne face’ (87. 12), and I have not found any substantial variant in French or English versions. In A and M, however, when Antour has asked Arthur to make Kay his steward, Arthur’s words, ‘When ich euer faile Kay / Crist me forʒete þat day’ (vv. 2969–70) immediately resonate with Malory’s choice of wording. The reversal of names in A and M and in Malory may even represent a small branch of the extensive French manuscript tradition that lies behind the international network of recopying and retelling to which the old Merlin gave rise – for there is a third example, in the early printed Spanish Baladro del Sabio Merlín of 1498 and 1535. Here, Ulfin takes on the likeness of Bretel, and Merlin that of Jordán.12 The source of the Auchinleck A and M was a manuscript with a Vulgate Merlin continuation, while Malory and the Baladro include a Post-Vulgate Suite, but other details to be considered in this article suggest that in the old Merlin section we may be dealing with more than coincidence. I would like to revisit a complex but important section of the old Merlin: the marriage alliances formed at the time of Uther’s wedding to Igrayne.13 The ‘mainstream’ situation, as given by Micha, is that the Duke of Cornwall’s eldest daughter, unnamed, marries King Loth of Orcanie and has various sons (which of them are listed varies widely),

9 10

11 12

13

Malory, I, 9. There are also fragments of the Suite, but they do not contain material from the old Merlin section. See La Suite du roman de Merlin, Roussineau’s introduction, pp. xlv–xlvii. In his notes to Malory III, 1285. Cf. Of Arthour and of Merlin, ed. O. D. Macrae-Gibson, 2 vols., EETS 268 and 279 (London, 1973 and 1979), I, vv. 2517–19. (The work is hereafter cited as A and M; the text contained in the Auchinleck manuscript alone is being discussed.) Norris, Malory’s Library, p. 26, cf. also p. 161. El Baladro del Sabío Merlin según el texto de la edición de Burgos de 1498, ed. Pedro Bohigas, 2 vols. (Barcelona, 1957, 1962), I, 149. For the 1535 edition, which forms the first part of La demanda del sancto Grial (Seville, 1535), I have used the copy in the National Library of Scotland, silently expanding abbreviations when quoting. The passage cited is on fol. xxiiiira. D. Salo’s online translation of the 1498 Burgos edition, El Baladro del Sabio Merlín / The Cry of Merlin the Wise is at: http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/53560/index.html?sequence=44 (accessed 11 February 2012). The seminal work on the subject is by M. Blaess, ‘Arthur’s Sisters’, BBIAS 8 (1956), 69–77.

123



LINDA GOWANS

while another daughter, a bastard called Morgain, marries King Neutres de Garlot, is put to study and becomes known as Morgain la faee. Other children are mentioned, but their names are not specified.14 As Morgain’s role grows and flourishes along with the Arthurian legend itself, Neutres seems increasingly to be considered an inappropriate or inconvenient match. Various measures are taken to overcome the situation, some more effective than others. One solution that is potentially counterproductive is employed in the early printed Italian Historia di Merlino: il Re Loto prese per moglie la fada Morgana figliola bastarda del duca de Cintanel : & una altra figliola madrinale del duca & de madonna Izerla la dete per moglie al Re de Gaules.15 (King Lot took as wife Morgana the fairy, bastard daughter of the duke of Cintanel [Tintagel], and another daughter of the marriage of the duke and lady Izerla was given as wife to the King of Gaules [here replacing the usual Garlot].)

This simply reverses the sisters, so that Loth marries la fada Morgana, the late duke’s bastard daughter, meaning that Arthur and Loth’s wife are not actually blood relations. Such a situation would somewhat undermine the effectiveness of the story, were the Italian text not followed by an account of Merlin’s prophecies rather than of Arthur’s unwitting liaison with his sister. The Cambridge manuscript has what appears to be a standard version of the situation, but there are two details to note. G. D. West explains that, ‘The form “Morgue” appears sometimes as the nominative of “Morgain” and sometimes as a variant.’16 ‘Morgue’ is not found in the group of manuscripts on which Micha’s edition is based, and its introduction and use within both of West’s categories is a visible feature of manuscript relationships. Here, whatever was in the Cambridge scribe’s exemplar has led him to eliminate altogether the more familiar ‘Morgain’ for the name of the second daughter. In addition, there is an erroneous reading ‘honora’ for the usual ‘ouvra’: de la fille quil [Uther] dona le roi loth issi mordres e mi sire Gawains e Gueriers e Gahies e rois Neutres de Garot out laute fille bastarde que auoit noun morgue par le conseil de tuz les amis ensemble si fist li rois aprendre lettres en une maison de religion . e cele aprist tant e si bien quele

14 15 16

Merlin, ed. Micha, 72. 1–14, with variants from Micha’s selected manuscripts indicated. See also A. Micha, Étude sur le ‘Merlin’ de Robert de Boron (Geneva, 1980), pp. 52–5. Luca Venitiano’s Historia de Merlino (Venice, 1480) (unpaginated). G. D. West, An Index of Proper Names in French Arthurian Prose Romances, University of Toronto Research Series 35 (Toronto, 1978), p. 226, with many examples of single or combined use of the forms.

124



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

aprist des ars e si sout merueilles dune art que home apelle astronomie e ele en honora moult tuz iors . e sout moult de fisike e par cele clergie fu ele apelle morgue la fee.17 (From the daughter that he [Uther] gave to King Loth came Mordres and Sir Gawain and Gueriers and Gaheries and King Neutres of Garot had the other bastard daughter who was called Morgue; on the advice of all the friends together the king made her learn letters in a house of religion. And she learned so much and so well that she learned about the arts and knew a wonderful amount about one that people call astronomy and she paid it special attention18 a great deal each day. And she knew much about physic and through this learning she was called Morgue the Fee.)

Grammatical distinction, present in an underlying French manuscript, would appear to have supplied the forms ‘Morgeins’ and ‘Morgne’ to the English prose Merlin: And of her doughter that was maried to kynge loth com Gawein, Agrauuayn, Gaheret, and gaheries, and mordred. And the kynge uentres of Garlot hadde a-nother of hir doughters, that was geten on baste, whos name was Morgeins. And be the counseile of alle hir frendes the kynge sette hir to skole in an house of religion, and she lerned so moche of an arte that is cleped astronomye, where-in she wrought many tymes ; and by that crafte was she cleped morgne-le-fee.19

The situation becomes more complex when some manuscripts make retrospective revisions to the situation in the old Merlin, and create another, anonymous, daughter to marry Neutres. At this stage, exemplified by Bonn, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek S 126, Morgain is named as the third, with an expanded two-stage account of the learning whereby she acquires her epithet: Et de la fille que il [Uterpandragon] donna le roi Loth issi mesire Gavains et Agravains et Guerrehés et Gaheriés et Mordrés. Et li roi Nantes de Garlot i ot une autre fille bastarde. Et il en i ot une qui ot a nom Morgain. Cele mist li rois a l’escole pour aprendre des letres par le conseil de tous ses parens. Et aprés le mist en une maison de religion. Et cele aprist tant et si bien qu’ele aprist des ars, et si sot a merveille bien d’une art con apele astrenomie, ele en ouvra molt a tous jours, et si resot molt de fusique. Et par cele clergie fu ele apelee Morgain la Fee.20

17 18 19 20

Cambridge University Library, Additional 7071, fol. 195ra. Passaro’s transcript, slightly adjusted (with permission) by reference to the manuscript. It is difficult to tell what interpretation the scribe had in mind. Merlin, or The Early History of King Arthur: A Prose Romance..., ed. H. B. Wheatley, Vol. I, EETS Original Series 10 (London, 1869; repr. Cambridge, 2000), p. 86. Le Livre du Graal, I. Joseph d’Arimathie, Merlin, Les Premier Faits du roi Arthur, ed. D. Poirion, publiée sous la direction de P. Walter, with A. Berthelot, R. Deschaux, I. Freire-Nunez, and G. Gros, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 476 (Paris, 2001), pp. 739–40. Micha (Merlin, footnote to

125



LINDA GOWANS

(And from the daughter that he [Uterpandragon] gave to King Loth came Sir Gawain and Agravain and Guerrehés and Gaheriés and Mordred. And King Nantes of Garlot had another, bastard, daughter. And there was one of them called Morgain. She the king put to school to learn letters, on the advice of all his family. And afterwards he put her in a house of religion. And she learned so much and so well that she learned about the arts, and she knew a wonderful amount about one called astronomy; she worked hard on it every day, and knew much about physic. And through this learning she was called Morgain la Fee.)

Also downstream of the development that has created a third sister is Sommer’s London, BL, Additional 10292 (which omits to state that the second daughter is a bastard). In a similar manner to the English Prose Merlin quoted above, it uses the forms ‘Morgain’ and ‘Morgue la fee’ for the same individual, but this time for the third daughter: de la fille a la dame [ygerne] & del roy lot issi messire gauuains & agrauains & gerehes & gaheries et mordres . et li rois nextres de garloc ot . j . autre fille . & il i ot vne autre qui ot anon morgain cele mist le rois por aprendre lettres par le conseil de ses parens en vne maison de religion & cele aprinst tant & si bien quele aprinst des ars . et si sot a meruelle dun art que on apele astrenomie . & en ouura moult a tous iors & si sot moult de fisique & par cele fusique et par le sens quele ot lapeloit on morgue la fee.21 (from the lady’s [Ygerne’s] daughter and King Lot came Sir Gawain and Agravain and Gerehes and Gaheries and Mordred, and King Nextres of Garloc had another daughter, and there was another named Morgan. She the king put to learning letters, on the advice of his family, in a house of religion, and she learned so much and so well that she learned about the arts, and knew a wonderful amount about an art called astronomy, and worked hard on it every day and knew a great deal about physic, and through this physic and through the intelligence she had she was called Morgue the fee.)

Some manuscripts overcome the anonymity of the middle sister. In Modena, Biblioteca Estense, E 39, the status of bastard is made into a personal name. Here, the forms ‘Morghe’ and ‘Morghain’ are both applied to the third daughter, as in Sommer, but appear in the reverse order: Et Igerne avoit trois filles del duc. Si en ot l’une li rois Lot d’Orchanie : de celi issi Mordrés, et mesire Gavains, et Guirrés, et Gariés. Et li rois Niautres de Garlerot ot l’autre fille qui ot non Batarde. Et l’autre fille avoit non Morghe. Par le consel de ses amis fu la damoisele mise a letre en une

21

72. 6–7) indicates the same variant; a second, bastard daughter and another named Morgain, in Paris, BnF, fonds français 24394. The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, edited from manuscripts in the British Museum. Vol. II: Lestoire de Merlin, ed. H. O. Sommer (Washington, D.C., 1908; repr. New York, 1979, p. 73, ll. 21–8. (The edition is of BL Add. 10292, cited hereafter as Sommer II.)

126



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

maison de relegion; et cele aprist si bien qu’ele sot des ars assés, et si sot molt d’astronomie et fisike, et s’en ouvra molt et faisoit tant que li gent s’en esmerveloient et l’apelerent Morghain li fée.22 (And Igerne had three daughters by the duke. King Lot of Orchanie had one: from her came Mordred, and Sir Gawain, and Guirrés, and Gariés. And King Niautres of Garlerot had the other daughter, who was called Bastard. And the other daughter was called Morghe. On the advice of her friends the young lady was put to letters in a house of religion, and she learned so well that she knew enough about the arts, and knew much about astronomy and physic, and she worked and achieved so much that people marvelled and called her Morghain the Fee.)

The related Huth manuscript gives the second, bastard daughter the name Morgans, and creates a double, Morgue la fee, for the third. It also shares with Sommer’s BL Add. 10292 the repetition of ‘physic’ in the last line of the quotation: Et de la fille que il [Uter] donna le roi Loth issi Mordrès et me sires Gauvains et Gerhès et Gahariès. Et li rois Neutres de Sorhaut ot l’autre fille bastarde qui ot non Morgans. Par le conseil de tous ses amis ensamble une autre fille qui ot a non Morgue fist li rois aprendre a lettre en une maison de relegion, et elle aprist tant et si bien que aprist les set ars, et si sot mierveilles d’un art que on apiele astrenomie, et elle en ouvra moult tost et tous jours, et moult sot de fisike, et par cele fisike fu elle apielee Morgue la fee. (Huth, I, 120) (And from the daughter that he [Uter] gave to King Loth came Mordred and Sir Gawain and Gerhès and Gahariès. And King Neutres of Sorhaut had the other, bastard, daughter who was called Morgan. On the advice of all his friends together, another daughter who was called Morgue was made by the king to learn letters in a house of religion, and she learned so much and so well that she learned the seven arts, and knew wonders about an art called astronomy, and she worked hard at it early and every day, and knew much about physic, and through this physic she was called Morgue the Fee.)

Alexandre Micha’s 1957 analysis of the manuscripts of the Merlin from the Robert de Boron cycle places Cambridge in his Version α, group x3, Modena and Huth in a derivative group x4, and Bonn and Sommer’s BL Add. 10292 in Version β, group x’. (Version β manuscripts have adjusted certain details to anticipate Vulgate Cycle material which follows in the manuscripts concerned.)23 The relationship of these families to the development of the naming of the middle sister in Huth and Modena (she is 22 23

Robert de Boron, Le roman du Graal: Manuscrit de Modène, ed. B. Cerquiglini, Bibliothèque médiévale (Paris, 1981), p. 176. A. Micha, ‘Les Manuscrits du Merlin en prose de Robert de Boron’, I and II, Romania 78 (1957), 78–94, 145–74. See the summary of manuscript groups on p. 174.

127



LINDA GOWANS

anonymous in Bonn and BL Add. 10292) is, as might be expected with a very popular work, additionally complicated by details such as the ‘physic’ repetition in BL Add. 10292 and Huth, and the history of the ‘Morgue’ form, whether as grammatical usage or, as in Huth, a separate name. Modena and Huth ultimately share an ancestral lost manuscript of the Robert de Boron cycle, though O’Gorman finds that Modena represents a stage of development later than Huth.24 Both have the three-daughter format, but whether the separation of Morgue and Morgain had already occurred in a predecessor of Huth, where and when the form Morgue was first used, and the sequence of Morgan’s separation from and (in Huth) return to Neutres, are uncertain factors. Though Cambridge and Huth both, like Malory’s source, contain the Post-Vulgate Merlin Suite, the relationship between them at this stage is not as close as might be anticipated. As we have seen, Cambridge has two sisters, and uses only the name ‘Morgue’ for the second, having lost the form ‘Morgain’ altogether, while Huth has three, with ‘Morgans’ and ‘Morgue la fee’ as separate people. The direction of influence not only between individual manuscripts but sometimes between families is not always obvious, and Micha’s own indecision was expressed in a later analysis: ‘Le manuscrit de Cambridge … a influencé la famille β, à moins que ce ne soit l’inverse’ (‘The Cambridge manuscript … has influenced family β, unless it is the other way round’).25 The question of multiple exemplars may, in addition, raise its problematic head, and their availability to redactors is confirmed by the presence of witnesses to all three Arthurian cycles in the manuscripts being considered here. Modena has the complete Robert de Boron cycle of Joseph, old Merlin and Perceval; Huth has Robert de Boron’s Joseph and the old Merlin with a Post-Vulgate Merlin continuation, while Cambridge has the Vulgate Estoire del Saint Graal, the old Merlin and a Post-Vulgate Merlin continuation with the ‘Rebellion of the Kings’ episode at the beginning. The latter feature it shares not only with Malory but, notoriously, also with the Vulgate Merlin continuation; a situation with which few discussions of Malory and the Post-Vulgate can avoid engagement. Vinaver summarizes the learned exchange about the relationship of the Cambridge and Huth manuscripts of the Post-Vulgate Suite.26 He shows how conflicting views were expressed about whether the ‘rebellion of the kings’ episode was an interpolation into Cambridge or had been there from the start, with the problem made more complex by demonstration of the priority of the Cambridge text over a secondary stage represented 24 25 26

Robert de Boron, Joseph d’Arimathie: A Critical Edition of the Verse and Prose Versions, ed. R. O’Gorman (Toronto, 1995). See the stemma on p. 15. Merlin, ed. Micha, Introduction, p. li. An exchange largely between R. H. Wilson and Fanni Bogdanow; see Vinaver in Malory III, 1280–2, esp. p. 1281 n. 2 and references there cited.

128



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

by Huth. In the introduction to his edition of the Suite Gilles Roussineau revisits the long controversy: there is no doubt of his own position on the ‘rebellion’ section when he speaks of ‘une addition maladroite’ and ‘une … discordance fâcheuse’.27 The fortune of this particular branch of scholarly disharmony has recently come only just short of full circle, for Fanni Bogdanow writes in The Arthur of the French that: In the Cambridge codex (fols 202d–230a) and in Malory, but neither in the Huth codex nor in the Baladro, an account of Arthur’s wars against the rebel kings, based on the Vulgate Merlin, is inserted between the end of the Merlin and the beginning of the Suite proper. Though not absolutely certain, it is highly probable that this section dealing with Arthur’s early wars formed an integral part of the original P-V Arthuriad.28

There is a solution which would keep Roussineau (justifiably) happy, without undermining the careful work of those who have carried out detailed study of the relationship of the various Suite texts. This would be that at some stage a copy of the Post-Vulgate Suite had been written out using for its old Merlin section a manuscript that already contained a Vulgate Merlin continuation. The Suite had mistakenly been added at the wrong place, later than originally intended, leaving in at least the Vulgate account of Arthur’s post-coronation court and the rebellion of the kings. The scribe, as we find the situation in the Cambridge manuscript at any rate, was evidently aware of the content of what he had to add – or realized his mistake too late and took evasive action rather than wasting parchment. During the Vulgate passage he leaves out any reference to Arthur having fathered a son on Lot’s wife while still a squire in London (Merlin’s throwaway remark at Sommer II, 96, and the full, retrospective account at Sommer II, 128–9), and he devises a link to the Post-Vulgate’s opening. In the Vulgate continuation, Gawain and his brothers go in search of Arthur and rapidly find themselves on the battlefield (Sommer II, 134–5), but now Loth’s wife accompanies her sons direct to court. The artificial nature of the link is clearly revealed when it is seen joined to the obviously pre-existing Post-Vulgate opening, marked in Cambridge by a decorated initial at the ‘O’ of ‘Ore dit li contes’: [Loth’s wife, her sons and a large company] cheuaucherent tant quil vindrent a carlion en Gales la ou lui roi artus tenoit court grant e merueillus. Ore dit li contes que il auint apres le corunement li rois artus vint a une grant

27

28

La Suite du Roman de Merlin, I, xlvii–liv (p. li). Roussineau’s detailed footnotes on pp. l–li give references which enable the reader to follow the sequence of the lengthy exchanges on the subject; he does not include the ‘rebellion’ passage from Cambridge in his own edition. Another factor in the content of Malory’s opening tale is pointed out by Norris, Malory’s Library: ‘Malory knew both Merlin continuations and used the Vulgate Suite as a minor source’ (p. 14). ‘The Post-Vulgate Roman du Graal’, p. 347.

129



LINDA GOWANS

court que li rois tint a carlion en Gales la femme le roi loth dorquenie seore le roi arthu.29 (they rode until they came to Carlion in Wales, where King Arthur was holding a great and wonderful court. Now the story tells that after King Arthur’s coronation there came to a great court that the king held at Carlion in Wales the wife of King Loth of Orquenie, sister of King Arthur.)

Had the texts been fully integrated, ‘Une grant court’ would need no introduction, for we had only just been told of its existence, and we would not need the emphasis on who was arriving, for she had only recently been described. The Huth Suite would presumably reflect what was originally envisaged as the true opening of the Post-Vulgate: the post-coronation court attended by Loth’s wife, whose relationship to Arthur is as yet unknown. The old Merlin portion of Huth, related both to Modena and to Didot, the two manuscripts which contain the full Robert de Boron cycle, is very likely to have been copied from an exemplar which contained a cyclic Perceval,30 perhaps influencing the scribe’s discussion of the tripartite division of his model, transferred to a Post-Vulgate context (Huth I, 280). There are numerous questions which we cannot answer about the provenance of his Suite, and which text or texts (if any) accompanied it when it came to him to copy. Nor can we know which manuscript branch of the old Merlin once prefaced the surviving Suite fragments, how many copies of the Suite were directly attached to an old Merlin, or how many were circulating with an error that had attached Vulgate material by accident rather than interpolation. We can, however, see that the structure of the Cambridge manuscript may not have been unique in its day. The Baladro has its own transitional passage (1489: pp. 182–7; 1535: fols. xxix va– xxx va) in which Merlin and Blaise converse about the necessity of revealing Arthur’s lineage, and Merlin predicts the coming of Lanzarote del Lago and Galaz, before the story moves on to tell of Arthur’s court at Cardoyl to which Lot’s wife comes; there is no duplication of the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate ‘court’ openings as found in Cambridge. Though the passage appears original to the Baladro, the statement that the nobles are expressing covert doubts about Arthur, and Merlin’s concern at the developing situation, may indicate an underlying passage that has been replaced by something less obviously incompatible. Far less complex than the manuscript tradition which lies behind the French Merlin material which ultimately became available to Malory is 29

30

Cambridge Add. 7071, fol. 230ra, Passaro’s transcription. Through judicious abridgement and revision Malory presents a far neater situation, though a scene shift is still achieved with the aid of a source reference, the previous topic being closed with ‘as hit tellith in the booke of aventures’ (I, 41). See O’Gorman’s stemma cited at note 24 above.

130



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of how Arthur’s parents Uther and Igerna have one daughter, Anna, who marries Loth. This is the version followed by Hardying,31 while Malory chose the Merlin pattern. He evidently knew that he was dealing with two different versions of the story, and he made no attempt to conflate them, but his list is very different from Cambridge and Huth: three sisters, no anonymity, no bastard, and the introduction of ‘kynge Uryens’: And kynge Lott of Lowthean and of Orkenay thenne wedded Margawse that was Gaweyns moder, and kynge Nentres of the land of Garlot wedded Elayne: al this was done at the request of kynge Uther. And the thyrd syster, Morgan le Fey, was put to scole in a nonnery, and ther she lerned so moche that she was a grete clerke of nygromancye. And after she was wedded to kynge Uryens of the lond of Gore that was syre Ewayns le Blaunche Maynys fader.32

In the ‘rebellion of the kings’ section at the beginning of the Suite in Cambridge and Malory (i.e. the part derived from the Vulgate Merlin, and absent from Huth and the Baladro), the original two husbands’ names are listed again, when Loth and Neutres attend Arthur’s court, together with Urien of Gorre, still single. The relevant portions from both versions of this second list are given below: a cele feste vint li rois loth qui tint la tere de loonois e une partie dorquenie a tut . v. c. (203ra) cheualiers . Dautre part vint lui rois Uriens de la tere de Gorre qui estoit iouens cheualiers de moult grant pris a tut . cccc. cheualiers . E apres vint li rois Nentres de Garloth qui eust a femme la seore le roi artu a tut . vij. c. cheualiers. (Cambridge, fol. 202vb)33 (To this feast came King Loth who held the land of Loonois and a part of Orquenie with 500 knights. From another direction came King Uriens from the land of Gorre who was a young knight of great worth with 400 knights. And after came King Nentres of Garloth who was married to the sister of King Arthur with 700 knights.) Unto the fest come kyng Lott of Lowthean and of Orkeney with fyve hondred knyghtes with hym; also ther come to the feste kynge Uryens of Gore with four hondred knyghtes with hym; also ther come to that feeste kyng Nayntres of Garloth with seven hundred knyghtes with hym. (Malory I, 17)

Malory is very close to Cambridge at this stage, after the ending of the old Merlin, and he seems to have used this list to revise his earlier one, in particular adding Lothian to Lot’s territory. However, he has not derived

31 32 33

The Chronicle of Iohn Hardying, ed. Ellis, p. 120. Malory I, 10. Malory conflates Yvain son of Urien and Yvain of the White Hands. Passaro’s transcript, slightly adjusted (with permission) by reference to the manuscript.

131



LINDA GOWANS

from Cambridge, either from this list or the earlier one, the names of Morgawse and Elaine, nor the note about Urien’s marriage, nor the form Morgan Le Fey rather than Morgue; details to which I shall return. At this stage, we can note that the Cambridge and Huth Suites were not attached to an identical text of the old Merlin, and that Malory’s account does not reproduce either of them. In the Vulgate Merlin continuation another previous marriage for Ygerne is introduced, with additional daughters, making a total of five half-sisters for Arthur. This development provides a recipe for confusion by disagreeing with the old version, so that an exemplar would no longer be in harmony with what was being added. Now, while Loth and Neutres still marry the first and second daughters, Urien marries the third. The fourth, who had married Karadan or Carados, is deceased, and the fifth is the one at school (Sommer, II, 96). Not until later are names provided: a situation to which Arthurian romance is well accustomed, but here consisting of a somewhat low-key use of the device that does not serve to exploit any dramatic potential.34 Neutres’ wife, the second daughter, is Blasine, and they have a son, Galescin (Sommer II, 127). Eventually we find that Urien’s wife, the third daughter, is Brimesent; their son is, of course, Yvain (Sommer II, 165). Given a situation in which some manuscripts of the old Merlin make Morgain the third sister, followed by a statement in the Vulgate Merlin continuation that Urien marries the third sister (whose name is not given until much later), it is hardly surprising that someone took the decision to have Urien marry Morgain la fée as we find in the Post-Vulgate.35 In some works which are based on the old Merlin plus a continuation, the list of marriage alliances in the old Merlin section is retrospectively revised to add Urien’s marriage, and to provide names for the children of marriages other than Loth’s (the latter had been included from the start). Examples of such revision occur in works for which connections have already been noted: the Auchinleck Of Arthour and of Merlin, the Spanish Baladro and Malory. Malory’s list has already been quoted, but is repeated here for ease of comparison, with names of female spouses shown in bold:

34 35

On delayed naming see J. Bliss, Naming and Namelessness in Medieval Romance (Cambridge, 2008), passim. For a discussion of the more traditional explanations of this relationship, see R. Bromwich, ed., Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Welsh Triads, 2nd edition (Cardiff, 1978), ‘Note on Modron and Morgain la Fée’, pp. 461–3, and most recently R. Hutton, ‘Medieval Welsh Literature and Pre-Christian Deities’, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 61 (Summer 2011), 57–85 (p. 59).

132



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

Of Arthour and of Merlin I, 180 (Auchinleck MS) King Nanters of Garlot 2601 Þer nam Blasine God it wot Ygerns douhter bi Hoel, Hir lord was bifor Tintagel, In whom he biȝat Galaas 2605 Þat strong and hardi and noble was. King Lot þere nam Belisent Also Ygerns douhter gent In whom he seþþe biȝat Wawein And Guerehes and Agreuein 2610 And Gaheriet þat was so fre, For better kniȝtes no miȝt non be. King Vriens þe þridde nam Þat was king of Schorham* In whom he biȝat Ywayns 2615 * wife named as Hermesent at v. 7627

El Baladro del Sabio Merlín, 1498, pp. 158–9

Malory I, 10

dió [Úter] la fija menor por muger a Urián, rey, que avía nombre Morgayna. E de la fija de Iguerna que dió al rey [Lot] salió Galván, e Agranay, e Gariete. E de la que dió al rey Urián, que avía nombre Morgayna, salió Iván, mas esto no fué ante que Artur fuese conoscido por fijo de Úter Padragón, ni estonces mas después dende en adelante, como Merlín dixo a Yguerna. E aquella Morgayna venció después a Merlín, como la crónica lo recontará adelante, ca el le enseñó tanta de nigromancia, e de encantamentos que fué maravilla, e porque ella supo tanto fué después llamada Morgayna la fada.

And kynge Lott of Lowthean and of Orkenay thenne wedded Margawse that was Gaweyns moder, and kynge Nentres of the land of Garlot wedded Elayne: al this was done at the request of kynge Uther. And the thyrd syster, Morgan le Fey, was put to scole in a nonnery, and ther she lerned so moche that she was a grete clerke of nygromancye. And after she was wedded to kynge Uryens of the lond of Gore that was syre Ewayns le Blaunche Maynys fader.

([Uter] gave her [Iguerna’s] youngest daughter to be the wife of Urien, king, and her name was Morgaina. And from the daughter of Iguerna who was given to King Lot came Galvan, and Agravain, and Gariete. And from her who was given to King Urien whose name was Morgaina, came Ivan, but this did not occur before Arthur was known as the son of Uterpadragon, not then, but afterwards, as Merlin told Iguerna. And that Morgaina later vanquished Merlin, as this chronicle will eventually recount, for he taught her such necromancy and enchantments that it was a marvel, and because she found out so much, she was afterwards called Morgaina the fairy (trans. Salo).

A and M has more than adjusted for the Vulgate Merlin, devising a name for Lot’s usually anonymous wife, though, unusually, mentioning Nanters and Blasine first. Urien’s wife’s name is missing at this point, but she is named later as Hermesent, and the editor O. D. Macrae-Gibson comments:

133



LINDA GOWANS

A minor alteration in AM supplies a name for Lot’s wife, and suppresses that of Urien’s. Very possibly the poet knew of Urien’s in a form like the Hermesan which Sommer, in the Index to his Vulgate Version, records from MS Bibl. Nat. F. fr. 337 of [Lestoire de Merlin] (see AM 7627 Hermesent), but finding here in his source some form of the Brimesent which appears in [BL Add. MS 10292, ed. Sommer] (165, 21) took this as another person, assumed it must therefore be misapplied, and so transferred it to Lot. Whether the form Belisent is his own casual alteration, or reflects a variant in his particular source, one cannot tell.36

This does not really address the question of whether multiple French manuscript sources are being proposed for A and M, and it is not a subject which falls within the scope of this article, but nevertheless the reference to BnF, fonds français 337 opens up a new field of enquiry. This is the manuscript which contains the Livre d’Artus,37 a unique Merlin continuation which departs from the Vulgate version after the story of how Guenevere put an end to the affair between Guiomar and Morgain (at Sommer II, 338). Unfortunately, its early folios, part of a conventional Vulgate Merlin continuation, in which Sommer noted the ‘Hermesan’ variant, remain unpublished,38 but they may have something to tell us about the underlying manuscript tradition, for Sommer’s Brimesent and BnF fr. 337’s Hermesan are not so far apart as they may appear. Bonn has the intermediate Bermesent (p. 952), Lodewijk van Velthem’s translation of the Vulgate Merlin into Middle Dutch verse has Ermesint,39 while Antoine Vérard’s 1498 Merlin incunable in fact agrees with A and M in its reading Hermesent.40 The A and M text may be the result of its own author’s study of his French manuscript in its entirety before starting work, though, as we shall see shortly, we cannot be certain that an immediate source did not already

36 37

38

39 40

Of Arthour and of Merlin, II, 102–03, note to vv. 2601–19 (p. 103, with the editor’s abbreviations expanded in square brackets); see also II, 116, note to v. 4209, for Urien as king of Schorham. The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, edited from manuscripts in the British Museum. Vol. VII: Supplement: Le Livre d’Artus, ed. H. O. Sommer (Washington, D.C., 1913; repr. New York 1979). The edition is of BnF fr. 337, fols. 115a–294d. N. Koble is currently preparing a new edition. See also F. Bogdanow, ‘The Livre d’Artus’, in The Arthur of the French, pp. 357–64. The portion of BnF fr. 337, up to the point at which the Livre d’Artus takes over at fol. 115r, is part of a long version of the Vulgate Merlin continuation; see R. Trachsler, ‘Pour une nouvelle édition de la Suite-Vulgate du Merlin’, Vox Romanica 60 (2001), 128–48.  Jacob van Maerlant’s Merlijn, ed. J. van Vloten (Leiden, 1880), v. 19539. (The Vulgate Merlin section was, in fact, translated by Lodewijk van Velthem.) Antoine Vérard, Le Premier Volume de Merlin (Paris, 1498; repr. London, 1977), fol. cxlii, foot of col. a. This is the first of three volumes of Vérard’s publication, on which see N. Koble, ‘Le testament d’un compilateur: montages textuels et invention romanesque dans l’édition princeps des “livres de Merlin” (Antoine Vérard, 1498)’, in Du Roman courtois au roman baroque, ed. E. Bury and F. Mora (Paris, 2004, pp. 251–64. Koble considers that it is very likely the compiler had compared different Merlin manuscripts (p. 258).

134



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

refer to ‘Vriens’. There is also an underlying relationship, which is not immediately apparent, between the second and third examples shown above, in which Malory and the Baladro have the Post-Vulgate situation, with Morgan and Uryens an item.41 These lead us into one of the unsolved Malorian mysteries – why Morgawse? There is already the name Morcadés or Norcadés given to Loth’s wife in the First Continuation of Perceval and the Enfances Gauvain,42 but another factor may be embedded in the transmission of Merlin manuscripts, more specifically in the details in Malory that are not in the Cambridge manuscript. The Baladro is interesting not only for its parallel of Malory’s note that Urien’s marriage took place at a later stage of the story than is currently being related, but also for the position of the first mention of Urien’s wife. In the Baladro the name of Morgaina first appears early in the passage, just before the reference to Lot’s wife. Had Malory seen a French manuscript with this sequence, leading him to adopt, deliberately or accidentally, a similar name for the female partner in the first marriage he was about to include in his own list, that of Lott? For example, the manuscript Paris, BnF, nouvelles acquisitions françaises 4166 (Didot), fol. 81vb, contains a ‘mainstream’ two-sister account of the marriage alliances in the old Merlin, but joined minims, on the two occasions on which the second daughter is named, present the readings ‘morgauiz’ and ‘morgainz’, showing just how easily the name which appears in Malory’s list could have been created. Neutres has vanished from the Baladro, so that once again only two sisters are involved: this represents a significant difference from Malory, but the situation is by no means straightforward. Something similar seems to have occurred in the old Merlin section of Florence, Biblioteca Marucelliana, B. VI. 24,43 a fourteenth-century manuscript written in French in Italy, in which the description of the marriage alliances (fol. 64ra) also has only two sisters, both unnamed. The first marries Loth d’Orcanie, and the list of offspring includes ‘Mordrez qui fu fiz au roi Artus’. The other daughter is given, by consent of the king and barons, to ‘roi Vrien de blasc’ (or ‘blast’). Marucelliana appears, so far as I am aware, to be unique in having a marriage for Urien, no Neutres, but no Vulgate or

41

42

43

Also, as P. J. C. Field points out, the Baladro and Malory agree on Morgan having acquired great skill in ‘nigromancia/nygromancye’, not specified in the Cambridge manuscript. See ‘Malory’s Source-Manuscript for the First Tale of Le Morte Darthur’, p. 116. See G. D. West, An Index of Proper Names in French Arthurian Verse Romances 1150–1300, University of Toronto Romance Series 15 (Toronto, 1969), p. 118, for a list of variants and detailed references. The manuscript has been little studied, except by F. Bogdanow, ‘Un manuscrit méconnu de la mise en prose du Joseph-Merlin de Robert de Boron’, Revue d’Histoire des Textes 26 (1996), pp. 205–45.

135



LINDA GOWANS

Post-Vulgate continuation.44 However, the royal and baronial agreement normally applied to the account of Morgan’s schooling is found here in connection with a marriage, and Urien’s otherwise unexplained land of Blasc or Blast may have been suggested by the name of Blasine, Neutres’s wife from the Vulgate Merlin continuation. Marucelliana’s reading therefore seems to have been created from a three-sister exemplar at a stage of revision that had brought in Blasine from the Vulgate to replace Morgan as Neutres’s wife, and added the post-Vulgate connection of Morgan and Urien (as well as stressing Mordred’s incestuous birth, unless this is the scribe’s own addition). Dealing with the Marucelliana manuscript is made especially frustrating by the fact that the column containing folios 64rb and 64va has been torn off. The last words before the tear are ‘dont il essi messirre’ – leaving us without the name of the offspring of ‘roi Vrien’ and no subsequent wording to compare with the Baladro. Despite Neutres’s disappearance from the old Merlin at some stage of transmission, the Post-Vulgate Suite contains an echo of his former presence. In the Cambridge and Huth manuscripts and the Baladro, when Urien marries Morgain (Morgue in the Cambridge manuscript) his territorial title is changed to that of the now-absent Neutres so that he becomes Uriens de Garlot in Cambridge (fol. 244rb), Uriiens de Garlot in Huth (I, 201), and Avrián de Garlote in the 1498 Baladro (p. 239; Orian de Garloc in 1535, fol. xl ra). All three of these Suites therefore, while presenting a reading that must have been present in an ultimate common source, differ from their own old Merlin sections, which themselves already enshrine variant readings. In addition, Cambridge contradicts its own earlier list (from the Vulgate material preceding its post-Vulgate Suite), in which both Uriens of Gorre and Nentres of Garloth are present. Malory – who appears to have done more reading than most before he started to write – restores consistency by omitting the actual wedding, consequently leaving Uryens with his more familiar land of Gore (I, 77). In his initial list we see that Malory not only includes Nentres of Garlot but also tells us the name of his wife – why Elayne? Vinaver suggested that ‘Elayne is probably Malory’s own invention’,45 though in fact we have in the Arthurian family a kind of ‘floating Elaine’ – floating not down to Camelot, but between generations and relationships. In the Perceval that forms part of the Robert de Boron cycle Elainne is a daughter of

44

45

The scribe did have knowledge of additional material, including the ascription of Arthurian texts to Walter Map, and appears to have planned a longer Arthurian work, though his manuscript, containing the Joseph and Merlin of the Robert de Boron cycle, concludes with only a few lines summarizing the post-Merlin situation. See Bogdanow, ‘Un manuscrit méconnu’, pp. 239– 40, and Linda Gowans, ‘Is Merlin Always Right?’, Proceedings of the 22nd Congress of the International Arthurian Society, Rennes, July 15th–20th 2008, online at: http://www.sites.univrennes2.fr/celam/ias/actes/pdf/gowans.pdf (accessed 11 February 2012). Malory III, 1285, note to 10. 5–7, though see the work of Robert H. Wilson, note 48 below.

136



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

Lot d’Orchanie in the Modena manuscript (and reappears as Helainne in the Prose Tristan),46 while in the Didot manuscript Aleine is daughter of Niautre de Galerot.47 This interchangeable situation has come about by 1301, the date of Didot, which like Modena included the old Merlin. In the part of Malory drawn from the old Merlin Elayne is the wife, not the daughter, of Nentres, while in the Suite section of the 1498 Spanish Baladro Elena is the wife, not the daughter, of King Lot of Ortania, and therefore the sister with whom Arthur unwittingly sleeps: vino a una grand corte que él [Artur] tenía concertada en Cardoyl, en Galaz, Elena, muger del rey Lot de Ortania, hermana del rey Artur, mas no sabía él si era su hermana, ni Elena sabía que él fuese su hermano.48 (there came to a great court that he [Artur] had called in Cardoyl, in Wales, Elena, wife of King Lot of Orkney, sister of King Artur, but he did not know that she was his sister, nor did Elena know that he was her brother.)

The old Merlin section of Malory’s French source seems, therefore, to have been related not to Cambridge but to a manuscript that also lies somewhere behind the Baladro. It would represent a stage before Neutres’s name disappeared and before the description of Morgain’s education in a religious house was dropped in favour of Merlin’s tuition, but after Morgain had grown to sufficient importance for her name to be brought to the fore in an already fluid portion of text – which, as we have seen, also happened in Italy at the same place in the story but with a different outcome. Other international correspondences may be the result of coincidence, but can nevertheless be noted here. For example, Arthur’s foster-father is almost universally named Antor, Auctor (in Huth) or another variant with an initial A, and the Cambridge manuscript’s Hector is therefore instantly comparable with Malory’s Ector – but is the form Entor in Modena’s old Merlin section part of a wider set of variants now lost? A further example occurs when French manuscripts, Vérard and the Italian Historia de Merlino all unite in indicating that Antor is not rich, and some, including Cambridge and Bonn, even state that he is not a

46 47 48

Didot-Perceval, p. 145, p. 309; see also Roach’s Introduction, pp. 40–2. Fol. 96vb, amended from Didot-Perceval, p. 145. Baladro, 1498, p. 187; 1535 fol. xxx va. (Bohigas corrected his edition of the 1498 version from a reading ‘e Galaz et Elena’, where Galaz, only just named in Merlin’s prophecy (p. 186) had been substituted for Gales, the location of Arthur’s court.) Elena’s appearance in the Baladro was first pointed out by Robert H. Wilson, ‘Addenda on Malory’s Minor Characters’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 55 (1956), 563–87 (p. 565). Wilson was using the 1535 edition, in which Elena’s name as wife of the king of Organia has been incorporated into the list of marriage alliances (fol. xxv vb) and Morgayna’s name is not given until afterwards, a conventional format rather than that of 1498 which privileged Morgayna. Wilson suggested that ‘Morgawse … is an unthinking transliteration of a form like Morgains’ (p. 565).

137



LINDA GOWANS

baron.49 Once again, A and M, the 1498 Baladro and Malory reverse the situation, with A and M reading ‘a man of gret noblay’ (v. 2650), the Baladro ‘el hombre bueno es rico’ (p. 160), and Malory ‘a lord of fair lyvelod’ (I,10). It is easy to see how a small omission could have affected the reading of the Spanish (indeed the 1535 edition, fol. xxvi ra, has ‘no es rico’), and this may rather be another example of Malory being influenced by A and M. Where Malory both abridges his principal source and departs from it to draw on other versions of the Arthurian story, identification of detail becomes especially problematic. As Norris points out, it is very likely that John Hardyng’s Chronicle, with its ‘unusually compassionate’ treatment of Arthur’s mother, has influenced Malory’s decision to have Uther tell Igrayne that he is the father of her child, where other versions employ a cruel deceit that leaves her puzzled as well as bereft of her son.50 A striking feature of the Post-Vulgate is her survival, to be reunited with the long-lost Arthur. Merlin, in the old section, had already told Uther of her death,51 and the Huth scribe leaves this statement in (I, 129), only to have her reappear alive in his Suite. The Cambridge scribe leaves her death out of the old Merlin, but so do other manuscripts. There is omission of the single statement in Cambridge, abridgement in Modena and the early printed Italian, and conscious adaptation in the Baladro. The latter changes Merlin’s words to indicate, not bluntly that Iguerna has died, but more obscurely that she is no longer able to provide Uter with an heir (1498, p. 164; 1535, fol. xxvi vb). In Hardyng’s Chronicle she simply fades from the story. Malory has abridged so much that we cannot make a direct textual comparison, so that, though the omission in Cambridge agrees with the situation in Malory, we have no firm evidence for the specific account to which he was responding. The location of Uther’s death, and later of Arthur’s coronation, varies between Logres and Londres across a range of versions. In both cases, Cambridge and Huth have Logres while Malory, Marucelliana, and the Italian and Spanish early printed books all have London, but these may represent informed individual decisions rather than a division in the underlying manuscript tradition. A considerably more startling innovation occurs when Malory has both Merlin and the dying Uther speak very publicly:

49 50 51

Merlin, ed. Micha, 73. 28–9; Sommer II, 74; Huth I, 122; Vérard I, fol. lxv v; Cambridge fol. 195vb; Bonn, p. 743. See also Vinaver in Malory III, 1285, note to 10. 39–40. Norris, Malory’s Library, pp. 18–19 and passim, engaging with work including E. D. Kennedy, ‘Malory’s Use of Hardyng’s Chronicle,’ Notes and Queries, 214 (1969), 167–70. Merlin, ed. Micha, 78. 53–4.

138



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

Thenne Merlyn said aloud unto kyng Uther, ‘Syre, shall your sone Arthur be kyng after your dayes of this realme with all the appertenaunce?’ Thenne Uther Pendragon torned hym and said in herynge of them alle, ‘I gyve hym Gods blissyng and myne, and byd hym pray for my soule, and righteuously and worshipfully that he clayme the croune upon forfeture of my blessyng,’ and therwith he yelde up the ghost. And thenne was he enterid as longed to a kyng, wherfor the quene, fayre Igrayne, made grete sorowe and alle the barons. (I, 11–12)

Hardyng’s chronicle version does, indeed, have Uther’s realm openly ‘lefte in good felicyte’ to Arthur,52 but we have already found that Malory rejected Hardyng’s account of Arthur’s family, apparently seeing the confusion it would cause in a version of the story based on French romance. Did he not realize this time that his sources, Hardyng and Merlin, were colliding, leading him comprehensively to undercut all the drama and secrecy that should be a requisite of his next episode, the Sword in the Stone? It would be valuable to know what his French source told him at this point. Most French manuscripts, including Huth and Cambridge, have Uther’s barons tell Merlin the king is dead, for he has not spoken for three days. Merlin says that he will make Uther speak (and Malory follows thus far, showing that he has chosen the French account rather than the poisoning related by Hardyng). In the French, Merlin then tells all who wish to hear the king’s last speech to approach. He whispers in Uther’s ear that Arthur will succeed him – thus secretly naming the absent son – and Uther replies to Merlin, ‘priiés li pour Dieu que il prit a Jhesucrist por moi’.53 We are told that no one heard what Uther said except Merlin. So Merlin has not actually lied – those present have heard Uther’s last speech, though without knowing what it contained. This is the tricky Merlin of the Robert de Boron cycle, who manages to be technically right.54 Here he is operating on the outer fringes of good taste given the circumstances, but the author thus overcomes the problem that Uther’s hearers could otherwise be left wondering who was the ‘he’ being asked to pray for the king. Malory is not alone in omitting the statement that no one but Merlin heard Uther’s exact words, though most others, uninfluenced by Hardyng, retain the secrecy with which Merlin reveals to Uther the name of his son and heir. The most successful resolution is that of Henry Lovelich, who simply has Uther turn and publicly ask all the people to pray for him,55 52 53 54 55

Chronicle of Iohn Hardyng, p. 121. Hardyng follows the story established by Geoffrey of Monmouth in which Arthur is crowned king as his father’s known and acknowledged successor. Huth, I, 131, with similar readings in other French manuscripts. cf. Gowans, ‘Is Merlin Always Right?’. Merlin, a Middle-English Metrical Version of a French Romance, by Henry Lovelich, ed. E. A. Kock, Part 1, EETS Extra Series, 93 (London, 1904; repr. Cambridge, 2001), vv. 6803–6.

139



LINDA GOWANS

while Auchinleck has only Merlin present, so that he and Uther can talk freely. Marucelliana and Modena, independently, make omissions in the course of abridgement, Modena bequeathing an ambiguous situation by having Merlin whisper very quietly in the king’s ear to name Arthur as his heir, but then announcing that those present had heard the king’s last utterance without making it clear that no one else knew precisely what it was.56 The Spanish Baladro subtly amends the king’s response to ‘Bendito seas tú, que de tal plazer me feziste cierto’ (1498 p. 167; similarly 1535 fol. xxvii ra) (‘Bless you, who made me sure of such pleasure’), which could, if overheard, be interpreted as a reference to salvation rather than to the earthly succession. Whichever account of Uther’s death Malory found in his manuscript, if it was one that already omitted the carefully constructed secrecy, Malory’s combination of his French source with Hardyng’s openness would have presented fewer obstacles. Once again, the possibility of coincidence must be acknowledged, but it can be noted that in Malory and the 1498 Baladro (though not in the 1535 edition) Uther’s death is followed (briefly in the English, and at some length in the Spanish) by a statement of Igrayne’s sorrow (Malory I, 12; Baladro, pp. 167–8). Just how much detail remains to be explored amongst the maze of connections that surface in international retellings of the story of Uther, Igrayne, Merlin and Arthur, can be illustrated by a return to the account of the marriage celebrations involving Arthur’s half-sisters. None of the French manuscripts discussed in this article (including Huth and Cambridge) give an indication of timescale for the festivities, but appropriate comments are made by the following: A & M: ‘Þe fest lasted fourten niȝt / To al þat euer come ypliȝt’ (vv. 2625–6) Vérard’s early printed Merlin: ‘Dura la feste quinze iours entiers a tous venans (I, fol. lxiiii v) The 1498 Baladro: ‘duró la fiesta quince días’ (p. 159, not in 1535 edition) The Italian Historia: ‘ fu tenuto corte magnificamente per giorni viii’ Malory: ‘they were maryed in a mornynge’ (I, 10)

It is not, of course, possible to propose a direct influence on Malory’s very different wording. However, once again the 1498 Baladro and A & M (the latter once more supported by a reading in Antoine Vérard’s Merlin incunable) raise questions about how much is coincidental individual innovation, and how much is evidence for underlying developments in the French manuscript tradition of the old Merlin – upon which all the versions cited above ultimately drew. In this study we have found that, for the old Merlin portion of his work,

56

Ed. Cerquiglini, pp. 181–2.

140



MALORY’S SOURCES – AND ARTHUR’S SISTERS – REVISITED

Malory’s source appears closer to that of the Baladro than to Cambridge,57 and that the Cambridge manuscript in its entirety displays three stages of inconsistency. In its old Merlin section Neutres de Garot marries the bastard Morgue before Arthur is born (fol. 195ra); in its Vulgate continuation portion Nentre is married to Blasine (fol. 228rb), and in its PostVulgate Suite Uriens de Garlot marries Morgue, with the agreement of her adult brother Arthur (fol. 244rb). We have also found that Malory probably made more use of Arthour and Merlin than has been acknowledged, and that the background to the latter work merits further exploration. If Malory’s source manuscript had an old Merlin section related to that of the Baladro, its Suite must nevertheless have contained the Vulgate material found in the Cambridge manuscript. Following investigation of another group of variant readings, I shall offer a tentative suggestion of how this situation could have come about. In his demonstration of Malory’s closeness to the Cambridge manuscript, one of Passaro’s few examples from the old Merlin section is that ‘Ten knights guard the sword in the stone in Cam and Malory, while nine do so in H[uth]’;58 but the background is potentially almost as complex as that of the ‘sisters’ variants and revisions we have already explored. Micha’s base manuscript, BnF, fonds français 747, has a carefully socially structured guard of twenty men: ‘et lors fu comandez li perrons a l’espee a garder a dis prodomes et a .V. clers .et a .V. lais’ (83. 24–5). One small alteration, as demonstrated in Vérard’s incunable, has the potential to conflate the five clerics and five laymen with the original ten noblemen: ‘dix preudommes les cinq clercs et cinq laiz’ (fol. lxxivb, my emphasis). Some manuscripts have the simple statement that the number of the guard is ten: ‘prodeshomes’ in Didot,59 ‘preudomes’ in BL Add. 10292 (Sommer II, 81); or ‘homes’ (Bonn, p. 762), while the multiple structure of the guard survives, in variant form, in the English Prose Merlin: ‘x worthi men ... and ... two clerkes’ (ed.Wheatley, I, 98), though Lovelich has only the ‘.x. worthy men’ (ed. Kock, v. 7156). So far as the old Merlin texts which are completed by a Post-Vulgate Suite are concerned, Cambridge preserves what appears to have been the 57

58 59

Others have found connections between Malory’s materials and Spanish Arthurian literature. K. C. Jones, ‘The relationship between the versions of Arthur’s Last Battle as they appear in Malory and in the Libro de las Generaciones’, BBIAS 26 (1974), 197–205, points out that the incident of a serpent at Arthur’s last battle in Peninsular chronicle predates Malory’s source the Stanzaic Morte Arthur. See also E. D. Kennedy, ‘Arthur’s Rescue in Malory and the Spanish “Tristan”’, Notes and Queries 215 (1970), 6–10, and ‘Malory and the Spanish “Tristan”: Further Parallels’, in ‘Two Notes on Malory’, Notes and Queries 217 (1972), 7–10: ‘there is a relationship between Malory’s source and the French source of the Spanish Tristan’ (p. 9). ‘Malory’s Text of the Suite du Merlin’, p. 52. Didot-Perceval, p. 287. (Modena does not specify a number for the guard, and the passage does not feature in A and M.)

141



LINDA GOWANS

original situation, with ‘a .x. prodomes a .v. clercs e a .v. lais’ (fol. 199va). Huth has a variant of this, with ‘a neuf preudommes et a cinq clers’ (I, 135), the 1498 Baladro has ‘a diez ombres buenos, y los cinco dellos heran clérigos’ (p. 171, my emphasis), and the 1535 Baladro has ‘a diez hombres buenos onde eran los cinco legos & los cinco clerigos’ (fol. xxvii va, my emphasis) reflecting a development of the kind seen above in Vérard’s reading. Malory’s ‘ten knyghtes, men of good fame’ (I, 13) may indeed be an adaptation of a reading close to Cambridge, but he could equally well be adapting something closer to the Baladro. In the latter, the 1535 edition includes the detail of five laymen not in the 1498 version, and (when we compare Vérard) seems therefore to have drawn on an exemplar which already contained it, so that even here the background situation has complexities to be explored. A possible model would be that a manuscript very similar to Cambridge, with its Post-Vulgate Suite originally added to an exemplar at the wrong stage, was subsequently revised so that its old Merlin portion gave an account of Arthur’s sisters more in line with what was to come. This formed a branch which lies behind both Malory and the Baladro, the latter removing the extraneous Vulgate material and replacing it with its own short intermediate passage to lead into Lot’s wife’s fateful arrival at court, while a full version with the error came down to Malory. Meanwhile, the version with an unrevised old Merlin continued to be used and developed its own variants, with Huth passing straight from the old Merlin to the Post-Vulgate court, thus restoring the original intention – though with what degree of design, accident, or nature of exemplar we cannot now recover. I suggest, therefore, that the number of lost Merlin manuscripts, the complexity of their cyclical composition, and the amount of transmission activity in England, were all greater than may yet have been envisaged. More specifically, the person who wrote on fol. 189r of the Cambridge manuscript the striking piece of Middle Franglais, ‘Ci commence le livre que Sir Thomas Malori Chevalier reduce in Engloys et fuist emprente par William Caxton’,60 does not seem to have had in his hands the document which formed Malory’s direct source.

60

Illustrated opposite Malory III, 1280.

142

VII

PEACE, JUSTICE AND RETINUE-BUILDING IN MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’1 Ryan Naughton Sir Thomas Malory’s ‘The Tale of Sir Gareth of Orkney’ (a tale in Le Morte Darthur, c. 1470)2 tells the story of Gareth, the youngest of the Orkney brothers, who seeks to prove himself worthy of knighthood through his knightly performances and not simply through his lineage. For this reason, young Gareth hides his identity for much of the romance. Because the youth refuses to reveal his name and lineage when he arrives at the Arthurian court, he is rudely nicknamed Bewmaynes (meaning ‘fair hands’) and is relegated to working in the kitchen – a rather unceremonious beginning to his knightly career. Nevertheless, when the damsel Lyonette arrives at court asking for a champion to rescue her besieged sister (who is later identified as Lyonesse), Gareth asks Arthur, ‘“that ye woll graunte me to have this adventure of this damesell, for hit belongyth unto me”’ (297.11–13). While readers are not initially sure what Gareth means when he declares that Lyonette’s quest ‘belongyth unto’ him at the outset of his adventures, they eventually do see how he is perfectly suited for this quest and ‘prove[s] himself a useful Arthurian knight’.3 By defeating thieves and murderers, freeing Lyonesse from the unchivalrous behaviour of the Red Knight of the Red Lands and subjugating other colour-coded knights4 who could potentially disrupt society, Gareth 1

2

3

4

Many thanks to D. Armstrong, M. Dutton, S. F. D. Hughes, M. Johnston, T. H. Ohlgren, M. Ryan, R. Sévère and the anonymous referee for their insightful comments, all of which have significantly sharpened my analysis of the ‘Gareth’. All quotes from ‘The Tale of Sir Gareth of Orkney’ (cited by page and line numbers in the text and endnotes) will be drawn from The Works of Sir Thomas Malory, ed. E. Vinaver, rev. P. J. C. Field, 3rd edn, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1990). B. Wheeler, ‘“The Prowess of Hands”: The Psychology of Alchemy in Malory’s “Tale of Sir Gareth”’, in Culture and the King: The Social Implications of the Arthurian Legend: Essays in Honor of Valerie M. Lagorio, ed. M. B. Shichtman and J. P. Carley (New York, 1994), pp. 180–95 (p. 188). The term ‘colour-coded’ is derived from Kenneth J. Tiller’s rather convincing argument that the knights Gareth encounters are symbolic of gradation on the heraldic spectrum. See ‘The Rise of

143



RYAN NAUGHTON

at once proves himself worthy of his status as a knight and signifies what type of knight he wishes to be – in this case, a governor of the people, which is a fitting social role for a youth auspiciously nicknamed Bewmaynes, since ‘fair hands are a “tokenyng of good gouernance”’ in the Middle Ages.5 Thus, the foregrounding of Gareth’s battles for peace and justice (aspects of the knightly role of governing the people often represented in medieval chivalric texts6) can be read as a reflection of the underlying apprehensions about poor governance during the social and political instability of the first half of the Wars of the Roses (roughly 1450–1470).7 The tale’s preoccupation with the governing duties of knights – specifically upholding justice and preserving the peace – reveals the uneasy relationships between peacekeeping, bastard feudalism and good governance that were being worked out in a variety of contemporary chivalric texts. These texts often exemplified proper knightly behaviour for an intended knightly audience8 – an audience anticipated by both Malory (i.e., ‘all

5

6

7

8

Sir Gareth and the Hermeneutics of Heraldry’, Arthuriana 17.3 (Fall 2007), 74–91. Moreover, almost all of the knights Gareth encounters in the tale are initially known by the colour of their shields and trappings and only later by their Christian names. J. R. Ruff, ‘Malory’s Gareth and Fifteenth-Century Chivalry’, in Chivalric Literature: Essays on Relations between Literature and Life in the Later Middle Ages, ed. L. D. Benson and J. Leyerle (Kalamazoo, 1980), pp. 101–16 (p. 108); Middle English quote from Three Prose Versions of the Secreta Secretorum, ed. R. Steele, EETS ES 74 (London, 1898), p. 117. Moreover, Malory is fairly consistent in calling Gareth ‘Bewmaynes’ or ‘sir Bewmaynes’ throughout the first half of the tale (i.e., when the youth is at once defeating unruly knights and hiding his true identity), which further supports the theory that the youth is striving to fulfill his social role of governing the people. See, for example, ‘Gareth’, 302.34, 303.36, etc. For example, see R. Lull, Libre del orde de cavalleria/The Book of the Ordre of Chyualry, trans. W. Caxton, ed. A. T. P. Byles, EETS OS 168 (London, 1926), pp. 24–46; Lancelot do Lac: The Non-Cyclic Old French Prose Romance, ed. E. Kennedy, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1980), vol. 1, p. 144, ll. 30–32; and J. Gower, Vox Clamantis, in The Complete Works of John Gower: The Latin Works, ed. G. C. Macaulay (Oxford, 1902), p. 201, Book V, Ch. 1, ll. 4–8. The Wars of the Roses are typically dated 1453–1487, yet the conflict really begins around 1450. For studies of the Wars of the Roses, see M. Hicks, The Wars of the Roses (New Haven, 2010); and the collection of essays entitled The Wars of the Roses, ed. A. J. Pollard (New York, 1995). For more on the historical connections between Malory’s overall work and its historical context, see U. Ege, ‘The Historical Analysis of the Concept of Chivalry in Malory’s Morte D’arthur’, Frankofoni 8 (1996), 115–34; F. Riddy, Sir Thomas Malory, Medieval and Renaissance Authors 9 (Leiden, 1987), Ch. 1; and P. J. C. Field, The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory (Cambridge, 1993). The idea of an intended audience is borrowed from Paul Strohm’s landmark article ‘Chaucer’s Audience(s): Fictional, Implied, Intended, Actual’, Chaucer Review 18.2 (Fall 1983), 137–45. According to Strohm, an intended audience encompasses those to whom the work is specifically dedicated as well as those at whom the author appears to direct his tale. To clarify, Strohm states, ‘What we have in an intended audience, then, is precisely evidence of intention—not a guarantee that the intention was fulfilled, but something between the author’s hope and shrewd estimate as to the kinds of persons likely to fall inside the relationship that a literary work implies, and the kinds of persons likely to become its actual readers’ (p. 142). While Strohm is specifically speaking of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, applying his theories to a wide variety of medieval

144



MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’

the jentylmen and jentylwymmen that redeth this book of Arthur and his knyghtes’ [1260.20–21]) and William Caxton, the first printer and sometimes amender of the Morte, who ‘have doon sette it [i.e., the Morte] in emprynte to the entente that noble men may see and lerne the noble actes of chyvalrye, the jentyl and vertuous dedes that somme knyghtes used in tho dayes, by whyche they came to honour, and how they that were vycious were punysshed and ofte put to shame and rebuke’ (cxlv.30–35).9 By reading Malory’s ‘The Tale of Sir Gareth of Orkney’ as an exemplum for the benefit of an intended knightly audience10 and not just an idealized representation of knightly acumen,11 readers can see how the youth’s adventures suggest that historical knights should use any means necessary – including force,12 diplomacy and even retinue-building – to subdue rebellious peers and subjects and thus (re)establish and maintain peace and justice in late fifteenth-century England.

9

10

11

12

texts can provide fruitful results, such as deeper insight into the social and historical contexts of the works in question. For knights as readers of romances, see E. Kennedy, ‘The Knight as Reader of Arthurian Romance’, in Culture and the King, ed. Shichtman and Carley, pp. 70–90; and R.  Kaeuper, ‘The Societal Role of Chivalry in Romance: Northwestern Europe’, in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance, ed. R. L. Krueger (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 97–114. It should be noted that Caxton also specifically refers to ‘al noble lordes and ladyes wyth al other estates, of what estate or degree they been of’ in this passage (cxlv.36–37), but, as John Leyerle astutely observes, Caxton probably was simply trying to increase his book sales and not attempting to bring the lesser gentry and middling classes into the chivalric sphere. See Leyerle, ‘Conclusion: The Major Themes of Chivalric Literature’, in Chivalric Literature, ed. Benson and Leyerle, pp. 131–46 (p. 145). Certainly, knights were not the only readers of romances – ladies, the lesser gentry and the middling class were reading/listening to them as well (see previous note) – but knights were the ones who fulfilled the social role of governing the people. For discussions on the noble and gentry audiences of the Morte, see R. Radulescu, The Gentry Context for Malory’s Morte Darthur, Arthurian Studies 55 (Cambridge, 2003); and D. Armstrong, ‘Gender and the Script/Print Continuum: Caxton’s Morte Darthur’, Essays in Medieval Studies 21 (2004), 133–50. This is the typical reading of Malory’s ‘Gareth’. See, for example, L. D. Benson, Malory’s Morte Darthur (Cambridge, MA, 1976), pp. 92–108. In Knighthood in the Morte Darthur, Arthurian Studies 11 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 127–47, B. Kennedy’s primary argument is that Gareth’s career fits into her type of true knighthood (and thus focuses on the ways in which he fulfills an idealized form of knighthood). Nevertheless, she does conclude that Gareth becomes an administrator of justice and a territorial ruler (pp. 128, 138, 146) – not unlike the argument being made in this article. Nevertheless, the present argument further develops these general conclusions and departs from her analysis in a few regards, not the least of which is her misreading of the ways in which Arthur and Gareth bring the colour-coded knights under their sway. For the latter, see n. 55 below. The term ‘force’ is used in this article in lieu of ‘violence’ as a way of differentiating between acts that maintain the peace and those that disrupt it. For an excellent discussion of the complex idea of ‘violence’ in late medieval England, see P. C. Maddern, Violence and Social Order: East Anglia 1422–1442 (Oxford, 1992), Chs. 1 and 3.

145



RYAN NAUGHTON

Gareth as Defender of Justice: Punishing Unruly Knights In Gareth’s first battle on the way to Lyonesse’s castle, the text immediately shifts focus to his social role of defending justice. As he and Lyonette are riding along, they are accosted by a frightened servant who appeals to the youth’s sense of his knightly duty: ‘“A, lorde”, he seyde, “helpe me, for hereby in a slade is six theffis that have takyn my lorde and bounde hym sore, and I am aferde lest that they woll sle hym”’ (300.28– 30). Gareth at once accepts the challenge and follows the servant to the clearing. Upon seeing the beleaguered knight bound, Gareth springs into action, slaughtering three thieves in as many strokes. Although he is hard beset by the other three thieves, who gang up on the youth in a very unknightly fashion, Gareth is ultimately victorious in slaying them all and thus freeing the knight. The brutal contest simultaneously provides Gareth with a chance to demonstrate his knightly abilities and to prove he is a worthy knight by bringing thieves to justice. In recompense for rescuing him, the unnamed knight proffers to ‘worshypfully rewarde hym for his good dedis’, which provides a way for Gareth to illustrate that he is interested in upholding justice regardless of any rewards that might be garnered therefrom (301.6).13 Gareth responds kindly to the knight’s offer: ‘“Sir”, seyde Bewmaynes, “I woll no rewarde have. Sir, this day I was made knyght of noble sir Launcelot, and therefore I woll no rewarde have but God rewarde me”’ (301.7–9, emphasis added). From his enlightening speech, readers can infer that Gareth performs his social role out of a sense of duty and not because he expects any monetary reward – except that which God would deign to grant him. If Gareth properly fulfils his social role of governing the people, then he will be rewarded by God in this life and the one to come for doing his part to sustain justice and establish peace. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Gareth refers to his dubbing here. Gareth seems to be doing what he thinks Launcelot would do in a similar situation.14 In other words, Gareth is emulating the knight who dubbed him, seeing him as a role model for his own knightly performances – surely an echo of how the intended knightly audience should read Gareth as an exemplum for their knightly deeds. Gareth soon gets another chance to prove that he is devoted to preserving justice when he and Lyonette encounter two knights who guard a passage through a raging river: ‘And there was a grete ryver and but one passage, and there were redy two knyghtes on the farther syde to lette the passage’ (301.29–31). At first, readers may assume that the knights are participating 13

14

This is not to say that Gareth is not rewarded for his performances. He is certainly paid when he rescues Lyonesse (with her hand in marriage and lordship over her lands), and he gains an outstanding reputation for properly performing knighthood. For a similar reading, see Kennedy, Knighthood, pp. 136–7.

146



MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’

in a pas d’armes and that Gareth is just another knight challenged to a (not-so-) friendly competition. However, the word ‘lette’ in this passage, which Eugène Vinaver defines as ‘to hinder; to stand in the way of’,15 suggests that the knights are using their positions of power as members of the order of knighthood to harm those who seek to venture through the passage. Furthermore, Malory later reveals that the two knights, named Gararde le Breuse and Arnolde le Bruse, are ‘murtherers’ (317.30). Now it should be noted that Gareth does not know that Sir Gararde and Sir Arnold are murderers; Lyonesse reveals this information later in the tale when she is listening to Gareth’s dwarf recount the youth’s fine feats of arms performed on his way to her castle.16 Regardless, Gareth seems to understand that the two knights are in need of castigation for blocking the passage. In a gruesome show of force, Gareth knocks one unconscious with his lance (he drowns in the river) and ‘clevid [the other’s] helme and his hede down to the shuldyrs’ as recompense for ‘letting’ the passage (302.9–10). Through his impressive knightly performance, Gareth demonstrates what punishments await shameful knights who use their positions of social power to hinder innocent travellers. For Gareth, then, this is the perfect opportunity to display his prowess and dispense justice, even if he does not know the full extent of the knights’ treachery. A third battle that demonstrates Gareth’s dedication to maintaining justice comes much later in the romance, long after the youth has proven himself worthy of being a member of the order of knighthood and his true identity has been revealed. Following the Assumption Day tournament, in which Gareth carries off all the honors, the youth comes across ‘a castell, and there he herde muche mournyng of ladyes and jantyllwomen’ (355.6–7). Gareth soon learns that the Brown Knight without Pité ‘“waytyth dayly uppon this castell”’ (355.12). While it is not immediately clear what this means, Malory soon states that the youth ‘sawe the thirty ladyes knele and lay grovelynge uppon dyverse toumbis, makynge grete dole and sorow. Than sir Gareth knew well that in tho tombis lay their lordys’ (355.33–36).17 Readers can thus infer that the Brown Knight is disrupting the peace by improperly using his social status as a knight to lay siege to the castle and to wrongfully kill the ladies’ husbands, presumably when they come out to challenge the besieger. To right the wrongs being done to these ladies, Gareth eagerly engages the Brown Knight in battle: ‘And whan aythir of othir had a syghte, they let theire horsis ren, and the Browne Knyght brake his spere, and sir Gareth smote hym 15 16

17

Malory, Works, p. 1724. Malory’s backward reference to the knights as ‘murtherers’ at once signifies the praise Gareth deserves for bringing them to justice and the fitting nature of the punishment doled out to these disrupters of the peace. After all, why would Malory add these details to such minor characters who are unceremoniously killed earlier in the ‘Gareth’? Malory also tells readers that ‘all they [i.e., the ladies] be wydowys’ (355.11).

147



RYAN NAUGHTON

thorow the body, that he overthrewe hym to the grounde sterke dede’ (355.21–25). In one deft run of his horse, Gareth again illustrates both his prowess and his constant devotion to maintaining justice.18 For preserving the balance of justice and ratifying the upright nature of the order of knighthood, Gareth is recognized as a hero by the page who witnesses his performance and by the besieged castle’s ‘ladyes and jantyllwomen’ who thank him before journeying to the Arthurian court at his request to recount his knightly service on their behalf – undoubtedly a reference to the praise that awaited contemporary historical knights who upheld the common good.19 After all, in his preface to Malory’s opus, Caxton himself avers that, if the intended knightly audience should ‘doo after the good and leve the evyl, … it shal brynge you to good fame and renommee’ (cxlvi.7–8).20

Gareth and the Red Knight of the Red Lands: The Paragon and the Antithesis Nonetheless, Gareth’s most impressive performance of his social role comes when he finally reaches Lyonesse’s besieged castle and squares off against the formidable Red Knight of the Red Lands (named Sir Ironside). As the combat against the Red Knight is Gareth’s main quest, readers get a bit of information about the situation at the beginning when Lyonette appeals to King Arthur for assistance: Lyonesse ‘“is beseged with a tirraunte, that she may nat oute of hir castell”’ and the ‘“tyrraunte ... besegyth her and destroyeth hir londys”’ (296.21–22; 296.29). The repetition of ‘tirraunte’ and ‘besege’ in Lyonette’s description of the situation reinforces the notion that the Red Knight is acting improperly: he 18

19

20

Shortly before this episode, Gareth defeats a knight (Sir Bendaleyne) who either slays or imprisons those who seek to journey through a mountain pass. Just like in his encounter with the Brown Knight, Gareth defeats the mischievous knight and eliminates another foe of justice. For this episode, see 354.16–355.4. As J. L. Watts avers, the common good is subjective and sometimes shifting. In ‘Polemic and Politics in the 1450s’ (in The Politics of Fifteenth-Century England: John Vale’s Book, ed. M.L. Kekewich, et al. (Stroud, 1995), pp. 3–42), Watts perceptively notes several instances in which the Yorkists and Lancastrians use the term to demonstrate – even justify – their actions against an anointed king. Nevertheless, the term is used in this article to generally signify actions that are in the best interest of the realm as a whole. Likewise, Sir Gilbert Hay, a fifteenth-century translator and adapter of Ramon Lull’s classic thirteenth-century chivalric treatise Libre del orde de cavalleria, asserts that ‘The commoun prouffit / and the prince ar mekle behaldin to the worthy knychtes / for the mony parilis yat thai expos’ thaim jn for jt … / Bot mekle mare is jt honourable custume to knychtis till vs’ resoune jn all his dedis / and gud will and wele sett / that is the glore of knychthede’ (in The Buke of the Ordre of Knychthede, in The Prose Works of Sir Gilbert Hay Volume III: The Buke of the Ordre of Knychthede and The Buke of the Gouernaunce of Princis, ed. Jonathan A. Glenn, Early Scottish Texts Society 21 (Edinburgh, 1993), p. 41).

148



MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’

has taken away Lyonesse’s autonomy and ability to properly govern and protect her lands by denying her the possibility of leaving her castle.21 Additionally, the fact that the Red Knight is laying waste to Lyonesse’s lands depicts the knight as a despicable man who is using his social status and his prowess to get what he wants. From just this brief summary of Lyonesse’s dilemma, readers can see that Gareth is being called upon to dole out justice and reassert the peace by punishing the Red Knight for his misdeeds. Malory gives more insight into the wickedness of the Red Knight of the Red Lands a little later in the tale when the Indigo Knight (Sir Persaunte) relates to Gareth and Lyonette all he knows about Lyonesse’s situation: ‘“This Rede Knyght of the Rede Laundys hath layne longe at that seege, well-nye this two yerys, and many tymes he myght have had hir and he had wolde, but he prolongyth the tyme to this entente, for to have sir Launcelot du Lake to do batayle with hym, or with sir Trystrams, othir sir Lamerok de Galys, othir sir Gawayne, and this is his taryynge so longe at the sege”’ (316.1–8). Right here, readers find out that the Red Knight is not necessarily interested in taking Lyonesse’s lands and castle or in winning/forcing her hand in marriage; instead, he simply wishes to joust against one of the great Arthurian knights.22 Although readers at first may think his actions are commendable – after all, many knights joust against their more famous peers to increase their renown – it is important to remember that the Red Knight is using his knightly abilities to penalize an innocent victim – a damsel in distress – to gain what he wants. Hence, the Red Knight of the Red Lands ‘“doth grete wronge to that lady, and that is grete pyté”’ (315.32–33). For this reason, Gareth must vanquish the knight in order to rescue the lady and reestablish peace in her lands – lands that he will eventually rule. Although the Red Knight of the Red Lands is strong and powerful 21

22

Hyonjin Kim convincingly argues that Lyonesse is a chatelaine – a ruler of her own castle and territory – because she is a widow. Her status as a widow gives her the potential to own – and control – her own property independent of her nearest living male relative, which is a detail in keeping with late medieval English law (The Knight without the Sword, Arthurian Studies 45 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 40–44). Lyonesse’s widowhood explains why her brother Gryngamoure does not come to her defence when the Red Knight of the Red Lands besieges her castle and why he does not have to approve the marriage between Gareth and Lyonesse. To support this viewpoint, Kim identifies instances in Malory that clearly depict Lyonesse as the sole ruler of her territory: ‘As a chatelaine, she fights for autonomy over her property, holds a tournament, and responds in person to her overlord’s summons’ (p. 41). Kim also points out the fact that Lyonesse is almost invariably called ‘dame’ and not ‘damsel’, something Malory is surprisingly consistent in doing to distinguish unmarried, married and widowed female characters (pp. 41–42). These pieces of evidence support the postulation that Gareth does in fact become ruler of Lyonesse’s territory following their marriage, thus enabling him to continue to fulfil his knightly social role of governing the people. Later, readers find out why the Red Knight wants to fight against these knights: he has been tricked by his erstwhile beloved (see 325.1–9).

149



RYAN NAUGHTON

– the Indigo Knight himself avers that the Red Knight ‘“is the moste perelyste knyght that I know now lyvynge”’ (315.29–30) – he lacks the chivalric qualities befitting a proper knight, as signified through his lack of mercy and cruelty towards others (knights, ladies, the peasantry and, most likely, the townspeople), and thus serves as a counterpoint to Gareth and his devotion to justice and peacekeeping. For instance, when the youth first nears the castle walls, he sees a ghastly sight: ‘And whan they com nere the sege sir Bewmaynes aspyed on grete trees, as he rode, how there hynge full goodly armed knyghtes by the necke, and their shyldis aboute their neckys with their swerdis and gylte sporys upon their helys. And so there hynge nyghe a fourty knyghtes shamfully with full ryche armys’ (319.34–320.2). Lyonette soon tells the youth that these are the bodies of the knights who have unsuccessfully attempted to lift the siege around Lyonesse’s castle. Earlier in the text, readers see that Gareth grants mercy to those who ask for it – so long as Lyonette wills it.23 So, this shocking display of noble knights hanged in a gruesome chivalric display – a performance of the dead – at once vilifies the Red Knight of the Red Lands and valorizes Gareth for his ability to treat fellow knights in a courteous manner.24 Readers can also probe a little deeper into this chivalric display by reading the bodies of the knights as tokens of the Red Knight’s achievements on the battlefield. Unlike Gareth, who sends the knights he vanquishes to Arthur’s court as tokens of his accomplishments,25 the Red Knight keeps his victims both as an indicator of his capabilities as a knight – for he has to be a man of great prowess to decimate so many knightly foes – and as a scare tactic to intimidate any who come by the castle. Therefore, the fight between Gareth and the Red Knight of the Red Lands will prove once and for all that Gareth is a formidable knight

23

24

25

For example, after defeating the Green Knight, Gareth grants the vanquished knight’s appeal for mercy because it is Lyonette’s will (306.9–33). See also the episodes with the Red Knight (310.6–11) and Indigo Knight (314.11–13). Ironically, the Red Knight’s abominable traits are juxtaposed with his fitness for knighthood – if only he could be reformed. As Lyonette assures Gareth, ‘“In hym is no curtesy, but all goth to the deth other shamfull mourthur. And that is pyté”, seyde the damesell, “for he is a full lykly man and a noble knyght of proues, and a lorde of grete londis and of grete possessions”’ (320.15–19). Clearly, the Red Knight of the Red Lands has the potential to be a proper knight. As it stands, he uses his exceptional abilities to disrupt civilized society, not unlike the ‘murtherers’ Gareth overcomes in other parts of the tale. For these reasons, the Red Knight must be either reformed or killed. And, since Gareth’s primary knightly social role is to maintain peace and justice, it is his responsibility to subdue this rebellious knight while proving himself worthy of his own status as a knight – and winning the lady in the process (321.28–29). The only exceptions are Sir Bendaleyne and the Brown Knight without Pité. The former and many of his retinue are slain by Gareth, so no one is able to report his deeds. Since Gareth slays the Brown Knight on behalf of ‘ladyes and jantyllwomen’, he sends them to Arthur’s court instead. The Green Knight, Red Knight and Indigo Knight also journey to the court to report on their defeats and to swear homage to the king (342.32–34).

150



MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’

in his own right, one who is dedicated to his role as defender of peace and justice. Immediately before the battle between Gareth and the Red Knight of the Red Lands, the youth himself asserts his status as an enforcer of justice in a diatribe against the malevolent knight: ‘Fy for shame!’ seyde Bewmaynes, ‘that ever thou sholdyst sey so or do so evyll, for in that thou shamest thyself and all knyghthode, and thou mayste be sure there woll no lady love the that knowyth the and thy wykked customs. And now thou wenyste that the syght of tho honged knyghtes shulde feare me? Nay, truly, nat so! That shamefull syght cawsyth me to have courrage and hardynesse ayenst the muche more than I wolde have agaynste the and thou were a well-ruled knyght.’ (322.13–21)

Because he possesses an idealized view of the order of knighthood – and is well on the way to becoming a paragon of chivalry in his own right – Gareth cannot fathom how the Red Knight could commit such atrocities against women and other knights.26 As Joseph R. Ruff perceptively notes, ‘Gareth’s worst opponent is the Red Knight of the Red Lands, whose vile customs make him the antithesis of the ideal chivalry that Gareth seeks to achieve’.27 It is therefore unsurprising that Gareth is undaunted by the Red Knight’s treacherous ways and is instead inspired to perform his duty as champion of peace and justice.28 In a similar vein, the Pentecostal Oath instituted earlier in the Morte specifically forbids almost every act committed by the Red Knight of the Red Lands, which further underscores Gareth’s desire to uphold justice and institute peace. According to the oath, knights are never to do outerage nothir mourthir, and allwayes to fle treson, and to gyff mercy unto hym that askith mercy, uppon payne of forfiture of their worship and lordship of kynge Arthure for evirmore; and allwayes to do ladyes, damesels, and jantilwomen and wydowes socour: strengthe hem in hir ryghtes, and never to enforce them, uppon payne of dethe. (120.17–23)

While the Red Knight is not a member of the Round Table fellowship and hence has not sworn the Pentecostal Oath, it is still evident that the oath 26

27 28

Compare the Red Knight of the Red Lands’ actions with Maddern’s rules for accepted violence; namely, violence should be ‘carried out by someone in a right relationship with authority’, ‘done for a good motive’ and ‘undertaken only against certain people’ (i.e., those deserving punishment) (Violence and Social Order, pp. 84–5). The Red Knight of the Red Lands’ actions clearly violate all three of Maddern’s clauses. Not surprisingly, Gareth’s behaviour here and elsewhere in the ‘Gareth’ is in keeping with all of these rules. First, he is granted the quest by the king. Second, he is only trying to keep the peace and dispense justice. And third, he is only fighting against those knights who disrupt – or have the potential to disrupt – society. ‘Malory’s Gareth’, p. 109. Kennedy too sees the fight with the Red Knight of the Red Lands as Gareth’s ‘most explicity judicial act’ (Knighthood, p. 137). See pp. 137–38 for Kennedy’s analysis of the entire episode.

151



RYAN NAUGHTON

serves as a fairly general guide to proper knightly behaviour throughout the Morte and should thus be followed by all Malorian knights – or they will ostensibly be punished by the Knights of the Round Table (i.e., to the ‘forfiture of their worship’).29 Significantly, Gareth himself is not a member of the Round Table fellowship either, yet it certainly is no coincidence that he comes to the court at the feast of Pentecost when the knights swear the oath and that he accepts his quest to rescue Lyonesse on the same day, albeit one year later. In this way, it is quite possible that Malory is anticipating Gareth’s fulfilment of the oath, specifically to fight for damsels like Lyonesse and Lyonette and to punish ‘theffis’ and ‘murtherers’.30 This foreshadowing reinforces the notion that Gareth’s knighthood is based on his performance as a defender of justice, one who seeks to create peace amid the turbulence of Arthurian society – a reminder to the intended knightly audience who should likewise maintain justice and keep the peace, especially in light of the treacherous acts being committed by Yorkists and Lancastrians in fifteenth-century English society.31 29

30

31

For more on the Pentecostal Oath and its impact on the Malorian chivalric community, see D. Armstrong, Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur (Gainesville, 2003), pp. 27–44. See Wheeler, ‘Prowess of Hands’, p. 190; and W. L. Guerin, ‘“The Tale of Gareth”: The Chivalric Flowering’, in Malory’s Originality: A Critical Study of Le Morte Darthur, ed. R. M. Lumiansky (Baltimore, 1964), pp. 99–117 (pp. 108–9). One such contemporary example can be found in London, British Library, Additional 48031A. In a letter dated to 1455, William, Lord Bonville (a Yorkist who was executed at the second Battle of St Albans in 1461) accused Thomas Courtenay, earl of Devon (a Lancastrian who died at Abingdon in 1458) of a variety of crimes resembling those committed by Gareth’s opponents: ‘thow by divers tymes and oftyn falsly, cowardly and traiturously haste arraied and laide in awaite to muscheve and murdre me and my servauntes being the kinges trewe liegemen’ and ‘made divers and many assemblees of suche as shulde be the kinges trewe liege people being arraunt theves, housbrenners and murderers be thyne abettement procuring, receyving and mayntenanunce. And theruppon takin, robbed, murdered and also biseged, assauted and put at raunson the kinges trewe liege people’ (in John Vale’s Book, ed. Kekewich et al., pp. 262–3). Not surprisingly, the earl refuted the accusations and challenged Bonville to a trial by battle to prove his innocence: ‘I saye that thou in thi saying in all suche premisses arte fals and untrewe … And that wol I, in my propre personne, as atrewe knight and the kinges trewe liegeman, upon thy fals body prove, at tyme and place by me and the appoynted’ (also in John Vale’s Book, ed. Kekewich et al., p. 263). Bonville’s accusations and Devon’s reply were the result of years of competition and infighting in Devonshire and the surrounding counties and came on the cusp of an all-out civil war in the area that lasted about three months and culminated in the fight at Clyst (late 1455). Moreover, it seems that Devon really was guilty of these offences and more. That year, his son, under the earl’s orders, was responsible for the most heinous murder in the 1450s – that of Nicholas Radford of Upcott. (For details of the murder, see M. Cherry, ‘The Struggle for Power in Mid-Fifteenth-Century Devonshire’, in Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces, ed. R.A. Griffiths (Gloucester, 1981), p. 136; and R. L. Storey, The End of the House of Lancaster (London, 1966), pp. 168–70.) The interchange reveals the types of crimes committed by both Yorkists and Lancastrians – all purportedly done in the name of the common weal – and demonstrates the urgent need for stability and social order in the period. For more on the conflict between Bonville and Devon, see Cherry, ‘Struggle for Power’, pp. 123–44; and Storey, End of

152



MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’

Saving Face and Preventing Strife: The Diplomatic Solution Unsurprisingly, Gareth is presented with another situation in which he must demonstrate his dedication to his knightly role. When the youth ultimately defeats the Red Knight of the Red Lands, the latter cries for mercy – an irony considering he never showed mercy to any he vanquished.32 In light of the travesties performed by the Red Knight, Gareth pauses to think about how to deal with the recreant knight: ‘Than sir Bewmaynes bethought hym on his knyghtes that he had made to be honged shamfully, and than he seyde, “I may nat with my worship to save thy lyff for the shamefull dethys that thou haste caused many full good knyghtes to dye”’ (324.27–31). Here, Gareth’s knightly role of maintaining justice is again pushed to the forefront of the tale through the reference to the mistreated knights who were slain as well as through the youth’s desire to punish the Red Knight for committing atrocities against them. Nevertheless, Gareth is asked to spare the Red Knight by many of those who witnessed the harrowing battle between the two powerful knights: ‘Than cam there many erlys and barowns and noble knyghtes and prayde that knyght [i.e., Gareth] to save his lyff, “and take hym to your presoner”. And all they felle uppon their kneis and prayde hym of mercy that he wolde save his lyff’ (325.12–15). Their request for the Red Knight to be spared at first seems surprising. After all, for two years the Red Knight has besieged Lyonesse’s castle and laid waste to her lands, all the while mercilessly slaying any knight who has attempted to rescue the lady. Yet, by reading the nobles’ desires in the context of the knightly role of sustaining peace and justice, readers can see that, following an impressive display of force, Gareth is now granted the opportunity to exercise diplomacy in recon-



32

House of Lancaster, pp. 165–75. For other disruptive occurrences during the same period, see M. H. Keen, England in the Later Middle Ages: A Political History (London, 1997), pp. 391–8.   A second earlier but possibly more applicable contemporary example comes from the life of Malory himself. In 1450, he was accused of raping a woman (on two different occasions), of vandalism, of theft, of cattle rustling, of ambushing the duke of Buckingham, of pillaging an abbey and of other criminal offences. For these crimes, Malory was imprisoned for about eight years. (For a full discussion of Malory’s alleged crimes and imprisonment, see Field, Life and Times, pp. 83–147.) This is not the only list of crimes attributed to Malory, however. In 1468, Malory was probably implicated in the Cornelius plot against Edward IV (a surprising act of treason, especially since Malory appears to have been a supporter of the Yorkist cause for much of the 1460s), which, according to Field, was the reason for his imprisonment during the time he composed the Morte (p. 143). Field also plausibly argues that Malory may have been writing his opus as an act of redemption or remorse for his previous behaviour (p. 145–7). Wheeler suggests that in ‘defeating Sir Ironside [the Red Knight of the Red Lands], Gareth symbolically absorbs his power’ (‘Prowess of Hands’, p. 184). Her idea nicely describes the reversal of power indicated in the text. After all, Gareth is the one who is now placed in a position of power; he can deal out justice in whatever fashion he deems worthwhile – a significant shift from the Red Knight’s improper use of his knightly power.

153



RYAN NAUGHTON

ciling the Red Knight and Lyonesse and in heeding the requests of the ‘erlys and barowns and noble knyghtes’, who swear to become his own subjects if he makes ‘amendys for all partyes’ (325.20).33 The point is clear: although Gareth should be praised for his prowess on the battlefield, it is just as important for him to illustrate that he is compassionate and diplomatic in his dealings with knights who have disrupted the peace. Moreover, in contrast to the knights killed by Gareth in other parts of the tale, who deserve their fate since it is never indicated that they could be reformed, the Red Knight is worthy of redemption precisely because he can be transformed into an outstanding specimen of knightly achievement, as exhibited by the nobles’ and Lyonette’s comments on his behalf.34 In addition, Gareth’s response to the nobles’ appeal is indicative of his desire to use diplomacy to maintain justice and (re)establish peace: ‘Fayre lordys’, seyde Bewmaynes, ‘wete you well I am full loth to sle this knyght, neverthelesse he hath done passynge ylle and shamefully. But insomuche all that he dud was at a ladyes requeste I blame hym the lesse, and so for your sake I woll relece hym, that he shall have his lyff uppon this covenaunte: that he go into this castell and yelde hym to the lady, and yf she woll forgyff and quyte hym I woll well, with this he make her amendys of all the tresspasse that he hath done ayenst hir and hir landys.’ (325.22–30, emphasis added)

While Gareth is certainly swayed by the Red Knight’s story about his former lover’s complaint, it is even more noteworthy that the youth will ‘relece hym’ because it is the nobles’ will. However, Gareth is also preoccupied with fulfilling chivalric custom, which indicates that he must take into account the will of the lady for whom he is fighting. By inserting the caveat that he will spare the Red Knight only if Lyonesse ‘forgyff and quyte him’, readers are again reminded of Gareth’s duty to the lady and of his decision to grant mercy to the previous four colour-coded knights so long as the lady (in this case, Lyonette) wills it. In this way, Gareth at once fulfils his social role of maintaining peace and justice and upholds the Pentecostal Oath that informs his proper knightly behaviour. Additionally, both the Pentecostal Oath and diplomacy are at play in Gareth’s decision to send the Red Knight of the Red Lands to Arthur’s court as a measure of peacekeeping: ‘“And also, whan that is done, that he goo unto the courte of kynge Arthur and that he aske sir Launcelot mercy and sir Gawayne for the evyll wylle he had ayenst them”’ (325.30–33). To ensure the continuance of the peace, Gareth must thwart any ill feelings between these three knights – especially since they will most likely 33 34

It is probable that at least some of these nobles are part of the Red Knight’s retinue as well. See 326.1–2. It cannot hurt that the Red Knight has proven himself on the battlefield, unlike the other unruly knights who are slain rather easily. For Lyonette’s remarks, see 320.15–19 and note 24 above.

154



MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’

resolve their disputes through violence. If Gareth does not require the Red Knight to seek reconciliation with Launcelot and Gawayne, the youth is providing the potential for future hostility between the Red Knight and one or both of these Knights of the Round Table.35 By balancing diplomacy and the use of force, Gareth is instituting a pattern of good governance, one by which he will ostensibly abide throughout his time as ruler over Lyonesse’s lands36 – and one that the intended knightly audience would do well to remember as they square off against their own unruly peers and subjects.37

Retinue-Building as a Tool for Success: Gareth and the Colour-Coded Knights Gareth displays his desire to uphold justice and keep the peace in another very important way: retinue-building. At first, Gareth does not appear to be interested in bringing the colour-coded knights he defeats under his sway. He is too fixated on his quest to rescue Lyonesse and on proving himself a worthy knight through knightly performance. Yet, with the submission of the Green Knight38 and his promise ‘to become [Gareth’s] man, and thirty knyghtes that hold of me for ever shall do [him] servyse’, a pattern for retinue-building is set, one that is followed throughout the rest of the tale (306.24–25). As Gareth continues to overcome colourcoded knights, he initially accepts their allegiance and soon expects that they will do homage to him once he has defeated them. The young knight seems to learn very quickly that he can increase his reputation not only by beating other knights and maintaining justice but also by bringing them into his service once they have cried for mercy. Moreover, as Gareth overwhelms each colour-coded knight in longer, more intense battles, the number of knights who swear homage to the youth grows incremen-

35 36

37

38

As demonstrated later in the Morte, it is precisely these types of acrimonious feelings that ultimately lead to the destruction of the Round Table fellowship and hence Arthur’s kingdom. In Knight without the Sword, Kim astutely points out that, as a younger son, Gareth must make his own way in the world – i.e., he must secure his own lands through marriage (pp. 42–4). This is precisely what he does in the ‘Gareth’: by marrying the chatelaine Lyonesse, Gareth becomes a powerful – and ostensibly wealthy – territorial ruler in his own right. Watts cites and discusses several historical occurrences of nobles using diplomacy, force and the idea of the common weal as rationale for committing atrocities against their enemies and even their king. See ‘Polemic and Politics’, pp. 3–42. See also J. T. Rosenthal, ‘Feuds and Private Peace-making: A Fifteenth-Century Example’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 14 (1970), 84–90. The Green Knight is one of four brothers (along with the Black Knight, the Red Knight and the Indigo Knight) Gareth faces. The youth’s battles against these brethren prevent potential disruptions of the peace, especially in light of the fact that Gareth inadvertently kills the Black Knight (the first of the brothers he fights) and the others seek revenge for his death.

155



RYAN NAUGHTON

tally bigger (thirty with the Green Knight, fifty with the Red Knight,39 a hundred with the Indigo Knight, a hundred with the Duke de la Rouse and three hundred with the Red Knight of the Red Lands).40 It seems that the more effort it takes for Gareth to overcome a particular knight directly correlates with the number of followers the vanquished knight proffers the youth in exchange for mercy – and with the increase in honour that the youth garners for defeating progressively more powerful knights. The colour-coded knights themselves further foreground the idea of retinue-building through their desire to become members of Gareth’s retinue.41 Directly following the youth’s marriage to Lyonesse, the five living colour-coded knights arrive to again do ‘omage and feauté to sir Gareth [presumably because he has just acceded to Lyonesse’s lands], and all [their] knyghtes sholde do hym servyse and holde their londis of hym for evir’ (361.27–29).42 Each knight also asks to serve a specific household role for Gareth at his wedding feast: the Green Knight as chamberlain, the Red Knight as chief butler, the Indigo Knight as attendant at the meal, the Duke de la Rouse as wine server and the Red Knight of the Red Lands as carver.43 Swearing fealty and performing these roles, which are probably fulfilled by the knights at all future ceremonial occasions, are indicative of vassalage,44 yet the way in which Gareth obtained the colour-coded knights’ loyalty – i.e., retinue-building – is a component of bastard feudalism – a complex and controversial practice that reached its apogee during the Wars of the Roses. Briefly, bastard feudalism (a term coined by Charles Plummer in the late nineteenth century45) is the disintegration of land-based feudal ties and the rise of service for pay that emerged in the High and Later Middle Ages. However negatively Plummer and his contemporary William 39 40 41 42 43

44

45

In fact, the Red Knight brings ‘three score knyghtes’ before the youth to swear homage. See 310.22–4. In Knight without the Sword, Kim points out that Gareth ‘secures lordship over five mighty vassals and some 600 knights’ (p. 40). See also Wheeler, ‘Prowess of Hands’, p. 184. See also D. B. Mahoney, ‘Malory’s Tale of Gareth and the Comedy of Class’, in Arthurian Yearbook I, ed. K. Busby (New York, 1991), pp. 165–93 (p. 180). Note: there is very little variation in the passages where the colour-coded knights swear allegiance to Gareth. For an analysis of this pattern, see Mahoney, ‘Comedy of Class’, pp. 192–3. See Riddy, Sir Thomas Malory, p. 75; S. Gordon, ‘Kitchen Knights in Medieval French and English Narrative: Rainouart, Lancelot, Gareth’, Literature Interpretation Theory 16.2 (April– June 2005), 189–212 (p. 208); and Mahoney, ‘Comedy of Class’, p. 174. For detailed definitions of vassalage, see B. B. Broughton, Dictionary of Medieval Knighthood and Chivalry: Concepts and Terms (New York, 1986), p. 466; and J. Le Goff, ‘The Symbolic Ritual of Vassalage’, in Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages, trans. A. Goldhammer (Chicago, 1982), pp. 237–87. In J. Fortescue, Governance of England: The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy, ed. C. Plummer (Oxford, 1885), pp. 15–29 (pp. 15–16). For a good discussion on why Plummer coined the term bastard feudalism, see M. Hicks, Bastard Feudalism (London, 1995), pp. 12–19.

156



MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’

Stubbs46 envisioned this shift (and, by extension, this concept), bastard feudalism has been commandeered by later historians, including K. B. McFarlane, Peter Coss and David Crouch, and transformed into an almost positive term indicating a shifting – indeed, a competing – ideology in medieval England.47 Under this social structure, men were retained by nobles and royalty for pay and other benefits (known as maintenance).48 In return, these men would perform some sort of military, household and/or administrative service for their lord. One major problem with this system is that there were no limitations on who became a member of a royal or noble affinity. Monarchs and magnates were retaining anyone who might be of service.49 The person may have been drawn from the noble, gentry, merchant or yeoman class and may or may not have been an upstanding member of society – not unlike the ‘theffis’ and ‘murtherers’ Gareth encounters in the ‘Gareth’. In some cases, especially when it related to military or political service, these men were ultimately brought into the noble sphere: they were knighted, granted noble titles, given large annuities and even endowed with governing power.50 This phenomenon necessarily upset the ‘natural’ nobility and caused a backlash that further exacerbated the problem and, according to later medieval writers like William Caxton, led to a decline in knightly ideals and in the stability of the medieval social order as a whole.51 The same reactions – and the fears behind them – can certainly be

46 47

48 49

50 51

The Constitutional History of England, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1875), vol. 2, pp. 273–8. See K. B. McFarlane, ‘“Bastard Feudalism”’, in England in the Fifteenth Century, rev. ed. (London, 2003), pp. 23–43; P. R. Coss, ‘Bastard Feudalism Revised’, Past and Present 125 (November 1989), 27–64; D. Crouch and D. A. Carpenter, ‘Bastard Feudalism Revised’, Past and Present 131 (May 1991), 165–89; P. R. Coss, ‘Bastard Feudalism Revised: Reply’, Past and Present 131 (May 1991), 190–203. McFarlane is the first to turn Plummer’s term into something positive – and the first to place the blame for contemporary societal problems elsewhere. Crouch goes further in identifying some very early indenture contracts (ones for a specified period of time and for a certain wage) that originated in Norman England (the earliest in 1102). In other words, indentures existed side-by-side with ‘traditional’ feudal ties (some for life and some in perpetuity) in England throughout the High and Later Middle Ages. See also Hicks, Bastard Feudalism, Ch. 1; and J. M. W. Bean, From Lord to Patron: Lordship in Late Medieval England (Manchester, 1989), pp. 121–53. Kennedy gives a succinct description of maintenance in Knighthood in the Morte Darthur, p. 37. In fact, as Field points out in Life and Times, Malory himself was an unsavoury character (albeit a member of the noble class) who was courted by both Yorkists and Lancastrians, despite his alleged crimes (pp. 103, 125, 131–2). In other words, Malory seems to be at once encouraging judicious retinue-building and critiquing the very concept that landed him in prison in 1468 – a contradiction no less surprising than the stark contrast between his real-life actions and his attitude toward those who violated their commitment to ‘the High Order of Knighthood’ (like some of the colour-coded knights in the ‘Gareth’). Keen, Chivalry, pp. 145–51. See, for example, William Caxton’s “Epilogue” to Lull’s Libre del orde de cavalleria/The Book of the Ordre of Chyualry, pp. 121–2.

157



RYAN NAUGHTON

read in Malory’s ‘Gareth’.52 For example, the colour-coded knights are all unquestionably members of the noble class, as vividly symbolized by their trappings of knighthood, their landed possessions and their prowess on the battlefield. Even the ‘murtherers’ are ‘natural’ members of the noble class, notwithstanding their predilections to harm others.53 And, with each knight he conquers, Gareth reestablishes the social order either by removing the knight in question from the chivalric community or by realigning the knight’s improper behaviour with that dictated by the Pentecostal Oath. Furthermore, because all of the colour-coded knights are eventually brought under Gareth’s sway (i.e., the youth brings them into his affinity and thus becomes their lord via acts of homage), they are at once legally beholden to him and tied to his outlook on maintaining peace and justice – not unlike Gareth’s own desire to do what Launcelot would do. If the colour-coded knights do not adhere to Gareth’s views on maintaining social order, they will receive fitting punishment at the youth’s hand precisely because he is now their overlord. Likewise, it is no accident that those knights who are killed by Gareth are incapable of reforming their ways: like the contemporary upstarts who seek to gain entry into late fifteenth-century English society and thus disrupt the ‘natural’ order of that society, the ‘murtherers’ do not deserve their social status as knights because of their improper behaviour and are summarily removed from the possibility – indeed, the potential – to continue their illegal ways and, worse still, to influence others to follow their examples. Instead, implies the ‘Gareth’, it is imperative that the intended knightly audience follows Gareth’s example, to (re)establish peace and maintain justice through retinue-building – but only by retaining those who are worthy of their status, ostensibly based on birth and proper knightly performance. Significantly, although the colour-coded knights’ acts of homage grant the youth the potential to construct his own court independent of Arthur’s, Malory ensures that the chivalric community of the romance is not torn asunder with rival factions – at least not yet – by having Arthur induct each colour-coded knight into the Round Table fellowship at the end of the ‘Gareth’ (362.29–363.5). Thus, the colour-coded knights and their liege Gareth are assimilated into the Arthurian chivalric community and are thence beholden to Arthur and expected to adhere to his outlook on peace and justice.54 Gareth is still the nominal ruler 52 53 54

Kennedy too notes some of the striking parallels between the historical context and the romance (Knighthood, pp. 50–55). For example, Lyonesse calls Gararde le Breuse and Arnolde le Bruse ‘two good knyghtes’ before she condemns them for their murdering ways (317.29). It is rather surprising that Malory never states that Gareth is inducted into the Round Table fellowship. Later in the Morte, however, Gareth is referred to as a member of Arthur’s fellowship, so he is presumably a Knight of the Round Table (1114.8–9). Perhaps Malory and his contemporary

158



MALORY’S ‘THE TALE OF SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY’

over the colour-coded knights – and over his new wife’s lands – but Arthur becomes lord over them all.55 Malory’s ‘Gareth’ thus proposes that the uneasy balance between the antiquated ideas of classic vassalage and the controversial ones of bastard feudalism can be solved through a hybridization of the two. Yes, Gareth does initially accept and eventually demand the submission of the colour-coded knights, but he only does so because he is seeking to maintain justice and keep the peace. To this end, Gareth’s actions negate the possibility that the colour-coded knights will seek revenge for vanquishing and, in some instances, humiliating them. And, Gareth is a savvy enough knight to realize that he can avert potential disputes by using retinue-building to diffuse acrimonious feelings among knights – just like Malory’s intended knightly audience could do, but only if they shrewdly use retinue-building as a means of properly fulfilling their social role of governing the people. Malory’s ‘The Tale of Sir Gareth of Orkney’ suggests, then, that a combination of force and diplomacy, coupled with the hybridization of classic feudalism and its bastardized form, is necessary for maintaining peace and justice in late fifteenth-century England. This is not to say that ­Malory’s text implies that a contemporary knight should go on a knightly quest like Gareth does; this clearly belongs to the realm of fiction. Instead, the text seems to suggest that, by performing his knightly social roles – specifically establishing peace and maintaining justice – a contemporary knight could help sustain the medieval social order. In this light, Malory’s tale appears to be a commentary on the first half of the Wars of the Roses in which Malory himself was personally embroiled and during which he purportedly committed crimes of his own and later suffered the vicissitudes of fate for supporting one side and then the other.56 Nevertheless, if

55

56

audience assumed that the youth would become part of the community because of his birth and his impressive knightly performance. Or, perhaps this is another reference to Gareth’s loyalty to Launcelot, the man who made him a knight, and thus to the youth’s divided loyalties, as vividly demonstrated at the Great Tournament and the attempted burning of Gwenyver at the end of the Morte. Kennedy too sees the alliances between Arthur, Gareth, and the colour-coded knights (Knighthood, pp. 51–52, 146). However, Kennedy misreads the passage, stating that only three knights are granted positions of power in Gareth’s court (they all are) and that the same three are the only ones who become Knights of the Round Table (again, they all do). As P. J. C. Field notes in Life and Times, ‘It is hard to believe that Malory, writing in the midst of a civil war that had done immense damage to his country and put him in prison, was treating it [i.e., the political reality] as a mere literary commonplace. This may be the one point at which considering Malory’s life and writings together may make it possible to guess his motives for an otherwise inexplicable act ... Nevertheless, if in the 1460s Malory deplored the way in which his country had been riven by faction, if he blamed the division on the great lords of his time, but above all on the Duke of York, whose cause he had to some degree supported, and if he saw Henry VI as a good king destroyed by his subjects’ fickleness, then what drove him to desert York for Lancaster, the winning side for the losing one, may have been a bad conscience’ (p. 173).

159



RYAN NAUGHTON

the Yorkist and Lancastrian knights would strike a balance between force, diplomacy and (judicious) retinue-building, maybe they could settle their individual disputes and set about properly governing their dominions, which would ultimately lead to the stability of English society. If they continue to split into rival factions and squabble amongst themselves, however, then the entire kingdom will be in jeopardy—just as Arthur’s is at the end of the Morte. For this reason, the intended knightly audience would do well to remember – and follow the example of – Gareth’s tale of heroism, romance and good governance.

160

VIII

MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: THE (PHYSICAL) PLACE AND (NARRATIVE) SPACE OF CORNWALL* Dorsey Armstrong Place is three-fourths of time. Ursula Le Guin ‘Walking in Cornwall: A Poem for the Solstice’1 Hit befell in the dayes of Uther Pendragon, when he was kynge of all Englond and so regned, that there was a mighty duke in Cornewaill that held warre ageynst him long tyme, and the duke was called the duke of Tyntagil. And so by means kynge Uther send for this duk, charging hym to brynge his wyf with hym, for she was called a fair lady and a passing wise, and her name was called Igrayne.2 (7.1–7)

Thus begins Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur, the most comprehensive, coherent and consecutively-ordered single-author treatment of the Arthurian legend until the modern period. Drawing on multiple French and English sources, Malory re-arranged, de-interlaced and reworked his source material to tell the story of King Arthur from the events surrounding his conception and birth to his death, including the immediate situational aftermath of the realm he had established and the fates of the knights upon whom he had depended. Malory’s text is in many respects contradictory, vexed and divided; a work that seems to celebrate the values of chivalry while simultaneously and contradictorily mourning their self-destructiveness. Written during the tumultuous time of the Wars of the Roses by a knight-prisoner incarcerated for some very unknightly

* The initial stages of research and writing of this article were made possible by a Humanities Center Fellowship in the College of Liberal Arts at Purdue University during the Fall 2009 semester. 1 Ursula Le Guin, ‘Walking in Cornwall: A Poem for the Solstice’, composed 1976. Reprinted in Walking in Cornwall (Maidstone, Kent, 2008). 2 All citations are to The Works of Sir Thomas Malory, ed. Eugène Vinaver, rev. P. J. C. Field, 3 vols., 3rd edn. (Oxford, 1990). All future citations will be made parenthetically.

161



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

behaviour,3 and existing in both manuscript and print versions, the Morte Darthur is a text fraught with – and implicated in – questions of borders and limits, boundaries and identities. That this is so is heralded from the outset, when Malory tells us that ‘kynge of all Englond’ Uther Pendragon is engaged in a conflict with the Duke of Cornwall. The very fact of this opposition is significant, as technically Cornwall should be considered part of ‘Englond’ – both in Malory’s day and during the historical periods when most of Malory’s sources were composed. The very fact of the titles being used here – ‘duke’ and ‘king’ – implies a feudal relationship and that Uther is the duke’s liege lord, even if the duke has ‘held warre ageynst him long tyme’. At the same time, the passage suggests that the issue of overlordship may exist as only a technicality in the Morte: in Malory’s source text, the thirteenth-century French Suite du Merlin, the Duke of Cornwall is explicitly characterized as one of Uther’s barons, while in Malory’s version, mention of this relationship is not made. As Patricia Clare Ingham observes of this contradiction: ‘Either the “all” of England Uther rules does not include Cornwall, or Uther remains only titular ruler there, his power compromised by the Duke’s rebellion.’4 This complicated state of affairs concerning the relationship of ‘England’ with ‘Cornwall’ persists beyond the opening of the Morte Darthur: narrative threads originating in the realm of Cornwall make up the massive middle third of Malory’s text, and upon Arthur’s death his throne passes to his cousin, Constantine of Cornwall, a fact we learn on the last page of the text. Thus, the Morte Darthur begins and ends with Cornwall, and its middle portion is firmly rooted in this southwest corner of Britain. When considered in this light, understanding Cornwall would seem to be critically necessary to understanding Malory’s text. The treatment of Cornwall in the Morte Darthur becomes all the more intriguing when we compare carefully the opening of Malory’s text with the parallel moment in Malory’s source, the thirteenth-century French Suite du Merlin: Tant que une fois auint que au roy prinst talent quil semonroit tous ses barons & por lonor & lamor de lui quil amenassent tout lor femes & baron & chevalier … le dus de tinaiel y fu & ygerne sa feme … & sot bien en son corage que li rois lamoit….5

3

4 5

For Malory’s biography and historical context the standard critical work is P. J. C. Field, The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory (Cambridge, 1993). See also Christina Hardyment, Malory: The Knight Who Became King Arthur’s Chronicler (New York, 2005). Patricia Clare Ingham, Sovereign Fantasies: Arthurian Romance and the Making of Britain (Philadelphia, 2001), p. 201. H. Oskar Sommer, ed., The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, 7 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1908-16), II.58.

162



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

[At length the king happened, one certain time, to wish to call his barons together, and, for the honor and love of him, he wanted them to bring their wives and noble vassals and knights … the duke of Tintagel was there and Ygraine his wife … And when he saw Ygraine, the king knew well in his heart that he loved her …]6

The differences, though subtle, are striking: as I suggested above, Malory is identifying ‘this mighty duke’ as an enemy of King Uther Pendragon, rather than a vassal, as his source text states explicitly. Malory’s text also suggests that Uther already has a particular interest in the Duchess Igraine – she on whom he will conceive the future King Arthur – while the French Suite characterizes Uther’s love for Igraine as sudden and unlooked-for. And a key difference: Malory’s text takes care to note that Tintagel is the castle of the Duke of Cornwall, where the source does not. It is this regional specificity and this specific region – and the larger matters to which it calls attention – that I wish to discuss in this article. Engaging Malory’s text through the lens of Cornwall in its various guises and functions helps us see that in large measure the logic and progression of the Morte Darthur is the product of an ‘othering’ that occurs on multiple levels: first within the movement of the narrative itself, and secondly, in terms of the physical shape and structure of the text – the selection and arrangement of the narrative sources that make up its whole. The ‘physical place’ of Cornwall – its geography in both Malory’s text and the ‘real world’ – is a locus marked both by odd difference and striking familiarity when considered alongside the ‘England’ of which it is supposedly a part. At the same time, the ‘narrative space’ of the Cornish material – Malory’s arrangement of his sources so that the narrative strands concerned with Cornwall are at the centre of his text – repeats and reinforces many of the themes, ideals and plotlines of the larger narrative but in a strikingly different (some might say discordant) key. From what we might call an English point of view, the Morte Darthur is about the greatness of Arthur, the exploits of the knights who act as his agents and the cruel forces that undo the magnificence of the Arthurian community. When we consider the text from the Cornish point of view, 6

My translation; this is a slight variation of that given by Rupert T. Pickens, trans., Merlin in Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation, 5 vols., general ed. Norris J. Lacy (New York, 1993-1996), I.199. Although Malory’s direct source appears to have been a manuscript of the Suite du Merlin, the Suite incorporates a significant amount of the Merlin material – enough to give Malory what he needed to tell his story. Thus, the translation I have given here comes from the Merlin. On the matter of Malory’s sources, see also Jonathan Passaro, ‘Malory’s Text of the Suite du Merlin’, Arthurian Literature 26 (2009), 39–75. Passaro argues that Malory’s text was either Cambridge University Library, Additional 7071 or a manuscript closely related to it. My thanks to the anonymous reader at Arthurian Literature for bringing this important article to my attention.

163



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

the focus shifts dramatically, and this becomes a very different narrative, one that focuses on concerns such as: the failure of kingship; the Duke of Cornwall’s strained relationship with King Uther; the jealous tyranny of King Mark of Cornwall, detested by his wife and subjects; the refusal of Arthur’s kingdom to provide Cornwall a champion in its hour of need, when confronted with a challenge from Ireland; the decision of the Cornish faction to side with Lancelot in the final conflict between Arthur and his greatest knight.7 There is a powerful tension in Malory’s text between the English and Cornish attitudes toward Arthur’s realm.

I While concerns of geography, place, and conquest/control are prominent in much medieval romance literature – particularly Arthurian romance – Malory’s text is unique among accounts of King Arthur for the way in which it imagines the map of Arthur’s world, an imagining that is best understood when viewed in light of some of the specific concerns of fifteenth-century England. Engaging the Morte Darthur from the perspective of Cornwall helps throw into sharp relief the contours of the unique problems inherent in the late medieval British relationship between regionalism and nationalism. Using Cornwall in Malory as a kind of pivot point, we can apprehend this relationship between the whole and the part, but we cannot resolve it. Indeed, close analysis reveals that it can never be resolved, and herein lies the significance. The stubborn refusal of Cornwall to be categorized – and our attention to this resistance – helps us to see better the Morte Darthur as a text that produces difference and presents challenges so that its characters have a means of defining themselves. Cornwall helps make plain the necessity of always striving toward resolution, toward incorporation, but never achieving it. The endless deferral is essential to Malory’s narrative. I have argued previously that the Morte Darthur is a text that depends on a logic of alterity and indeed, often deliberately creates ‘otherness’ as a strategy for advancing its narrative; further, I have suggested that certain aspects of the narrative may be most fruitfully excavated by means of the tools of postcolonial theory.8 Concerns about difference are prominent in many areas of Malory’s Arthurian community, as several recent important studies that analyze and engage the tensions that fracture Camelot have shown, and significantly, postcolonial theory has been

7 8

My thanks to Kenneth Hodges for his insightful comments about the difference between the Cornish and English points of view. Dorsey Armstrong, ‘Postcolonial Palomides: Malory’s Saracen Knight and the Unmaking of Arthurian Community’, Exemplaria 18.1 (2006), 175–203.

164



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

key in many of these studies.9 Among other issues, many of these studies have focused in particular on constructions of gender and concerns of kinship, demonstrating how ideals of masculinity/femininity and familial bonds can simultaneously support and undermine Arthur’s realm. For example, a particular ideal of the feminine as helpless, rape-able and in constant need of rescue seems to provide Arthur’s knights with an endless array of quests that help them to define, consolidate and maintain their masculine individual identities as particular knights and as members of the Round Table Order, even as adherence to this gender ideal contradictorily produces a situation in which knightly identity is ever always under threat.10 Similarly, Malory’s Arthur receives some of his strongest support from his kin – particularly his nephews, sons of Arthur’s sister Morgause and King Lot of Orkney – but kin loyalty also precipitates the collapse of his kingdom when blood-feud erupts between the Orkney brothers and the family of King Pellinore; in addition, Arthur’s nephews grow resentful of the prominence enjoyed by Lancelot, who is neither relative nor countryman. In a telling moment, Aggravain and Mordred sum up their antagonism toward Lancelot by pointing out his lack of blood connection to the king: ‘We be your syster sunnes, we may suffer hit no lenger’ (1163.7–8). While gender and kinship are sources of conflict, the category of the geographic is just as divisive to Arthur’s community, especially because geography is so often folded into matters of gender and kinship. Geographic concerns permeate Malory’s Arthurian narrative. Opening as it does with the conflict between Uther and the Duke of Cornwall, geography is front and centre from the first words of the text; after Uther’s reign the young King Arthur must deal with matters of geography, as his first tasks involve subduing rebel realms within the borders of Britain and bringing these territories back under his control. To do this, he forms alliances with Kings Ban and Bors in Gaul, bringing continental concerns squarely into the orbit of his rule. Once Britain is securely held, he turns his attention to Rome, conquering and claiming the remnants of the Empire as his rightful patrimony, and soon Arthur is a ruler on a truly international scale. The composition of his Round Table attests to this: the knights who sit at Arthur’s table include representatives of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France, 9

10

See, among others: Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, Hybridity, Identity and Monstrosity in Medieval Britain: On Difficult Middles (New York, 2006); idem, ed. Cultural Diversity in the British Middle Ages: Archipelago, Island, England (New York, 2008); idem, ed., The Postcolonial Middle Ages (New York, 2000); Laurie Finke and Martin Shichtman, King Arthur and the Myth of History (Gainesville, 2004); Kenneth Hodges, ‘Why Malory’s Launcelot Is Not French: Region, Nation, and Political Identity’, PMLA 125.3 (2010), 565–71; Ingham, cited above; Michelle R. Warren, History on the Edge: Excalibur and the Borders of Britain, 1100–1300 (Minneapolis, 2000). For more on this see my Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur (Gainesville, 2003). While I still see gender as a critical component of Malory’s text, attention to matters of geography can help further deepen our understanding of the narrative and its logic.

165



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

Turkey, Sarras (the Middle East) and many others. And if Sir Perceval’s aunt is to be believed, then the diversity of the Round Table extends beyond mere geography and into religion: ‘all the worlde, crystende and hethyn, repayryth unto the Rounde Table, and whan they ar chosyn to be of the felyshyp of the Rounde Table they thynke hemselff more blessed and more in worship than they had gotyn halff the worlde’ (906.18–21). But concerns of geography trump those of religion, and manifest themselves again and again in the text: for example, Arthur’s nephews are his kin but they are also from the far north of Britain (the Orkney Isles)11 and must negotiate multiple loyalties: to their father; to their mother12; to their homeland; to the claims of vengeance and justice; to the man who is their uncle and made them knights, and who also warred against their father to bring his realm within his domain. We see in the example of the Orkney brothers too how gender issues overlap with those of geography: upon his marriage to the Duchess Igraine, King Uther marries his step-daughter Morgause of Cornwall to King Lot of Orkney, presumably in an attempt to avoid precisely the conflicts of loyalties the text later describes. Other marriages throughout the Morte similarly function to wed places as well as people to one another, an unsurprising reflection of the realities of the medieval world, especially among the noble classes. And after all, the Wars of the Roses – the backdrop against which Malory composed his text – was in essence a family feud writ large; cousins contested violently against one another and measured success to some degree by their ability to claim the loyalties of certain geographic regions within the broader borders of ‘Britain’.13 11

12

13

As a matter of convenience they are often considered Scottish, but the Orkney Isles arguably constitute a unique and different geographic space than what we might think of as Scotland, a fact that underscores how regionalism functions in so many different ways in the Morte Darthur; regions enfolded within Arthur’s Britain themselves have multiple geographic/regional concerns of their own with which to contend. Gaheris famously resolves the matter of competing parental loyalties by beheading his mother, Morgause, upon discovering that she is in a sexual relationship with Sir Lamorak. As Lamorak is of the house of King Pellinore, who was King Lot’s greatest enemy, Gaheris sees this as a betrayal of the Orkney brothers’ father and a matter of great shame. All who hear of this act, however, condemn it in no uncertain terms. My thanks to the anonymous reader of Arthurian Literature for reminding me of the competing paternal and maternal loyalties at play here. A full discussion of the causes and specifics of the Wars of the Roses is beyond the scope of this article, but it is important at least to recognize that Malory was most likely in prison because of his part in a Lancastrian plot (after initially having been a Yorkist supporter), and that the fifteenth-century English society in which he lived was suffused in every aspect by the conflict between the houses of York and Lancaster. Malory was hardly unique among the nobles of his day for switching sides at some point in the conflict, and such changes of allegiance were especially significant for the ways in which territories and their revenues could sway the balance of power. For more on Malory and his political positions and imprisonment, see Field and Hardyment. For more on the Wars of the Roses see, among others: Christine Carpenter, The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, c.1437–1509 (Cambridge, 1997); Anthony Goodman, The Wars of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society, 1452–97 (London, 1981); Michael

166



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

It is a commonplace to note that the world in which Malory lived was one full of territorial concerns and the mourning of geographic losses.14 At the time when Malory was writing his text, the Angevin Empire had long been whittled away. All English continental holdings – save Calais – were gone, and England itself was fractured in multiple ways. Although both Malory and his first printer, Caxton, refer many times to ‘all ye Englishmen’, their contemporaries were much more likely to identify themselves first in terms of their local affinities rather than their national ones.15 Such a self-identification becomes all the more interesting when we consider that many of those living in Cornwall in Malory’s day most likely spoke Cornish as a first language, although many certainly also spoke English.16 Thorlac Turville-Petre argues that ‘…defining the nation in terms of territory or race presents considerable complications. By far the most satisfactory form of self-definition is in terms of language, wherever this can be achieved.’.17 By this definition, Cornwall would seem to be an entity distinctly separate from England. The position of this region within Malory’s text becomes even more interesting when we consider that Benedict Anderson has famously and contentiously suggested that it is the explosion of print culture that helps give rise to the nation – an ‘imagined community’ – through the fixing and dissemination of texts in vernacular languages.18

14 15

16

17 18

Hicks, The Wars of the Roses: 1455–1485 (London, 2003); J. R. Lander, The Wars of the Roses (Gloucestershire, 2007); Charles Ross, ‘Rumour, Propaganda, and Popular Opinion During the Wars of the Roses’, in Patronage, the Crown, and the Provinces in Later Medieval England, ed. Ralph A. Griffiths (Atlantic Highlands, 1981), pp. 15–32; John A. Wagner, Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses (Oxford, 2001). On this, see in particular Ingham and Warren. See Derek Pearsall, ‘The Idea of Englishness in the Fifteenth Century’, in Nation, Court, and Culture: New Essays on Fifteenth-Century English Poetry, ed. Helen Cooney (Dublin, 2000), pp. 15–27. Philip Payton notes that as late as 1549, when the Act of Uniformity was passed, there was a great deal of anger in Cornwall at the idea of an English Book of Common Prayer, as ‘the English language was to be imposed upon a population that was only partly English-speaking and which, in the west, still contained a great many monoglot Cornish-speakers’, Cornwall: A History (Fowey, Cornwall, 2004), p. 122. Thorlac Turville-Petre, England the Nation: Language, Literature and National Identity 1290– 1340 (Oxford, 1996), p. 19. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. (London, 2006). It is by now a commonplace to note that the example of England’s first printer, William Caxton, demonstrates how fraught the process of defining and consolidating national identity could be. In his prologue to Malory’s Morte Darthur, he asserts that he has decided to print this particular text because although there are many stories of Arthur written in French and Welsh, there are nowhere near as many in English, ‘our maternal tongue’ (I.cxlv.20), a deficit he feels needs redressing. And although here and in other of his prologues and epilogues Caxton addresses ‘Englishmen’, he acknowledges the fractured nature of language in England in his famous preface to the Eneydos: ‘And that comyn englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth

167



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

Language difficulties were clearly to be found throughout Britain, but Cornwall, with its unique combination of geographic remoteness and linguistic difference, presents a rather more pronounced example of this issue. Indeed, although some scholars argue that by 1500 the line marking a transition between Cornish and English speakers had moved significantly westward into Cornwall (to the Fowey-Camel line),19 others contend that Cornish was the dominant language of the region up to the Tamar until the time of the Tudors.20 Even if English was widely spoken in the eastern portion of Cornwall in the fifteenth century, it seems clear that knowledge and usage of Cornish was still very widespread in Cornwall at this time. Linguistic differences were not the only divisive factors disrupting any unified idea of England in the fifteenth century; in the tempestuous days of the Wars of the Roses, local allegiances certainly played a part in the division of England in terms of Lancastrian and Yorkist loyalties.21 When one pushes beyond politics and through linguistic variation, however, the ultimate source of particular local identities is arguably the geography of the land itself: rivers, hills, valleys and forests act as natural boundaries, separating one group of people from another and fostering the growth of a particular local identity. Cornwall’s geography has particularly contributed to its status of difference. Located in the far southwest corner of Britain, on a peninsula that is almost wholly divided from the rest of Britain by the river Tamar, it is no surprise that Cornwall developed in a climate of relative isolation and independence despite its ‘official’ status as part of Britain from the seventh century (more or less) onward.22 Thus, Cornwall

19 20

21 22

from another. In so moche that in my dayes happened that certayn merchautes were in a ship in tamyse for to haue sayled ouer the see into zelande and for lacke of wynde thei taryed ate forlond and wente to lande for to refreshe them And one of theym named sheffelde a mercer cam into a hows and axed for mete, and specially he axyd after eggys, and the goode wyf answerde that she coude speke no frenshe. And the merchaut was angry, for he also coude speke no frenshe but wolde haue egges and she vnderstode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstod hym wel’, Caxton’s Own Prose, ed. N. F. Blake (London, 1973), pp. 108-9. For more on this, see Ken George, ‘How Many People Spoke Cornish Traditionally?’, Cornish Studies 14 (1986), 67–70. N. J. A. Williams claims that ‘There is good evidence that until the Reformation, i.e., the middle of the sixteenth century, Cornish was probably spoken as far as the Tamar’, Cornish Today: An Examination of the Revived Language (Sutton Coldfield, 1995), p. 77. For more on this, see in particular Lander, The Wars of the Roses, pp. 60–1. While there were several attempts to incorporate Cornwall into the entity that we now think of as England from Roman times onward, the real push came under the auspices of the Kings of Wessex, who sought to include Cornwall as part of their rule repeatedly over the course of the seventh–tenth centuries; for more on this see Sam Turner, ed. Medieval Devon and Cornwall: Shaping an Ancient Countryside (London, 2006), pp. 1–4. In 936 King Aethelstan officially set the River Tamar as the border between Cornwall and England, a situation that contributed to the confusing status of the southwest peninsula as being both ‘separate and incorporated’ into England. Thus ‘Cornwall on the eve of the Norman Conquest had been transformed … to a

168



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

exists in a unique position in relationship to England, both today and in Malory’s time. By language and culture, it is in many ways more closely related to the so-called ‘Celtic fringe’ that includes Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Brittany. In terms of political history, it has technically been part of Saxon, or ‘English’ territory since the seventh century; while at times defiant in the face of English overlordship, it has nowhere near the history of resistance that, for example, has long been one of the defining characteristics of Wales. Indeed, Cornwall’s relative isolation meant that it was simply too far away and too difficult to access for there to be the kind of continuous and contentious interactions so typical of Wales and England in the medieval period and beyond. Thus, Cornwall is contradictorily both part of England and distinct from it, as Patricia Clare Ingham’s astute comment on the opening lines of the Morte Darthur makes clear. Cornwall is the source of Malory’s Arthurian community at the level of narrative – Arthur is born here to a Cornish mother – and Cornwall is the Morte Darthur’s centre in terms of structure – the middle third of Malory’s text is based on the Old French Prose Tristan. In the final conflict between Arthur and Lancelot, the knights of Cornwall side with Lancelot: ‘Then there felle to them, what of North Walys and of Cornwayle, for sir Lamorakes sake and for sir Trystrames sake, to the number of a seven score knyghtes’ (1170.26–29). And it is from Cornwall that Arthur’s heir comes, as we are told in the closing lines of the Morte: ‘Then syr Constantyn that was syr Cadores sone of Cornwayl was chosen kyng of Englond, and he was a ful noble knight, and worshipfully he rulyd this royaume’ (1259.27–29). Again and again, Malory’s Morte Darthur returns to the realm of Cornwall, as if seeking to reconcile the identity of this geographic space with that of the Arthurian community to which it gave birth, from which it remains estranged and to which it is essential.

II Recent important scholarship in the field of medieval studies has brought renewed attention to the issues of place and geography in medieval literature and focused a keen eye on matters of collective and individual identities. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and others have invoked postcolonial theory to excavate tensions surrounding geography and identity in medieval

recognizable geo-political entity accommodated within the consolidating English state’, Payton, Cornwall: A History, p. 69. After the Norman Conquest, William and his barons continued to try and push their way into the southwest, and in 1337 Edward III officially created the Earldom of Cornwall, which he bestowed on his eldest son, Edward the Black Prince. From this point on, Cornwall was particularly important as it was designated specifically as a holding and source of income for the eldest son and heir of the monarch, a fact I discuss in greater detail below.

169



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

literature;23 David Wallace24 has explored the pre-modern sense of place; Michelle R. Warren has argued that many of the texts that make up the Arthurian corpus seem to come from what we might call border areas, regions under various pressures of identity and loyalties;25 and Patricia Clare Ingham has explored how a fantasy of sovereignty is present in so much Arthurian literature, as authors try to imagine Arthur’s realm as a unified whole, including the ‘Celtic Fringe’, particularly Wales, Ireland and Scotland.26 Perhaps most relevant to my argument here is the work of Kathy Lavezzo, whose Angels on the Edge of the World: Geography, Literature, and English Community, 1000–1534 27 offers a compelling and fascinating reading of medieval maps that routinely depicted the British Isles as existing on the far edges of the known world. Often oriented so that East is at the top of the map and Jerusalem is in the centre, many mappae mundi seem barely to be able to find room to squeeze the British Isles in at all. What is even more interesting, as Lavezzo points out, is that English mapmakers in the Middle Ages seemed oddly taken with the idea of representing their homeland as hovering on the margins. Lavezzo compellingly makes the argument that in the medieval world ‘geographic margins had a certain social authority’ and further contends that, ‘if their otherworldliness made the English exceptional, their exceptionalism might also suggest how the English should be rightful masters of the earth itself’.28 In other words, it was the difference, distinction, and distance of the British Isles from the rest of the medieval world that made this realm exotic and powerful, and English mapmakers sought to exploit and emphasize the uniqueness of their homeland. The relationship of Britain to the rest of the medieval world as expressed in Lavezzo’s argument is arguably reproduced in microcosm in the relationship of Cornwall to the rest of Britain. Cornwall is a place of exceptionalism, of difference, from which exceptional and very different kings like Arthur might come. Paradoxically, however, in Arthurian legend Cornwall has also simultaneously been a place of lack, inferior to the glorious realm of Camelot over which its favourite son rules. If England was on the edge of the world, then Cornwall was on the edge of the edge – both extreme in its marginalism and thus, extreme in its exceptionalism. During the Wars of the Roses, Cornwall, while nominally Lancastrian, was mostly left to its own devices.29 It could thus become for a writer like Malory a place of possibility, even of hope; largely unknown and

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

See the texts cited in note 9, above. David Wallace, Premodern Places: Calais to Surinam, Chaucer to Aphra Behn (Oxford, 2004). Warren, History on the Edge, see especially Chapters 1–4. Ingham, Sovereign Fantasies, see especially Chapters 1–3. Ithaca, NY, and London, 2006. Lavezzo, Angels on the Edge of the World, p. 7; p. 21. See Payton, Cornwall: A History, Chapter 6.

170



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

unknowable to those in the eastern part of Britain, Cornwall served as a potentially potent locus of power and mystery, made all the more compelling by the fact that it was real – marked on the map and producing historical figures such as the historian John of Trevisa, a native son of Cornwall who emerged from the far west to make a significant, and measurable, mark on his world.30 But despite its status as part of Britain, Cornwall remained different and distinct from the rest of the isle: its social structures and agricultural practices were markedly different from the manorialism that characterized most of the rest of Britain during the greater part of the Middle Ages. Instead of the familiar categories of free, villein, or cottar … the Duchy operated tenancies that were free, conventionary, or villein … [t]he result of all this was that, in medieval Cornwall, a class of independent and potentially mobile peasants was created … [a]nd, just as the Duchy of Cornwall had served to create the independent small farmer, so its political and economic power served to inhibit the emergence of a strong and influential (and potentially rival) gentry. There were no great independent landowners …31

Although the port towns had a certain cosmopolitanism, no settlement in Cornwall ever approached a size significant enough to be considered a true city. Cornwall’s independence meant that when the larger nation of which it was supposedly a part tried to demand anything from it – for example, taxes levied in 1497 – the people living there rebelled, much as Duke Gorlois of Cornwall reacts to Uther’s overlordship with open defiance. As historian Philip Payton notes, ‘this independence during the Wars of the Roses made it even harder for the Tudors to whip Cornwall into shape … in a sense the Cornish rebellions of 1497 were as much the culmination of a period of lawless independence as they were resistance to the Tudor regime’.32 The place and impact of Cornwall in the Morte Darthur becomes all the more intriguing when we realize that Malory’s concern with matters geographic is not focused solely on Cornwall; rather, his mapping of Arthur’s realm is striking in that, while he maintains many of the ideas of place from his sources that are nebulously defined at best – ‘Logres’, ‘Lyones’ and other realms have borders so ill-defined that a knight risks crossing into them accidentally while out on the questing equivalent of a trip to the corner store – other locations are scrupulously defined, limned, precisely located. Careful attention to matters of place in Malory’s text

30 31 32

For more on Trevisa see David C. Fowler, The Life and Times of John of Trevisa, Medieval Scholar (Seattle, 1995). Payton, Cornwall: A History, p. 81. Payton, Cornwall: A History, p. 90.

171



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

reveals that the geographic sensibility of his text stands out as unique in the Arthurian tradition. Most recently, Kenneth Hodges has pointed out this interesting geographic concern on Malory’s part in ‘Why Malory’s Launcelot is Not French: Region, Nation, and Political Identity’.33 In this important and provocative article, Hodges points out that: ‘The long habit of assuming Arthur’s knights were English, save for the French Launcelot, comes from the unconscious assumption that our concepts of France and England can be read back through time, but … medieval loyalties cannot be deduced from modern borders.’34 In detailing how the categorization of Lancelot’s lands as comprising not just what we think of as ‘France’ but specific regions within France – Gascony, Poitou, Provence etc. – Hodges points to the strong presence of the idea of regionalism in Malory’s text. It is an idea that is confined not only to Malory’s treatment of Arthur’s (and his knights’) continental holdings, but one that also permeates the whole of Arthur’s realm: ‘Malory’s work is not a simpleminded celebration of nationalism through the deeds of unambiguously English knights, but instead a critical analysis of the interaction of growing nationalist claims with local identities.’35 Hodges is absolutely right, and while his analysis of Lancelot’s possession and doling out of lands often considered unproblematically French demonstrates the more complex and nuanced geographical matters that attend, the situation of Cornwall in Malory’s text demonstrates this and makes Hodges’ point even more emphatically. Cornwall and Lancelot’s lands in the Morte Darthur arguably represent two sides of the same coin of geographic concern: Cornwall serves as a place-holder for concerns about the tension between ‘English’ and ‘British’ and matters of regionalism and inclusion, while Lancelot’s situation is representative of larger issues of expansion, conquest and incorporation. The situation of Lancelot and his allegiance to Arthur points up the problem of bringing arguably ‘foreign’ lands under and within the control of a sovereign, while Cornwall’s status gets to the very heart of defining that sovereign identity that seeks to conquer and control. What is home? Where is the starting point? Is Cornwall source and alma mater or wild hinterland? Does its population live on the edge of civilization, or on the margins of a savage wilderness? The answer would seem to lie in one’s own geographic orientation – looking eastward into Anglia or westward into Cornubia. That Malory’s text itself at times seems unsure is both significant and illuminating.

33 34 35

PMLA 125.3, 556–571. Hodges, ‘Why Malory’s Launcelot is Not French’, 569. Hodges, ‘Why Malory’s Launcelot is Not French’, 565.

172



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

III It is no accident, I think, that Arthur’s territorial claims – mentioned several times throughout the text – are specifically and categorically re-iterated at the beginning of the ‘Tristram’ section, the portion of the text that moves from the familiar world of Arthur’s rule to the realm of Cornwall. Malory tells us that at that tyme kynge Arthure regned, and he was hole kynge of Ingelonde, Walys, Scotlonde, and of many othir realmys. Howbehit there were many Kynges that were lordys of many contreyes, but all they helde their londys of kynge Arthure; for in Walys were two kynges, and in the Northe were many kynges, and in Cornuayle and in the West were two kynges; also in Irelonde were two or three kynges, and all were undir the obeysaunce of kynge Arthure; so was the kynge of Fraunce and the kynge of Bretayne, and all the lord-shyppis unto Roome. (371.10-20)

Although we lack the exact version of the French Prose Tristan that Malory used as his source for the massive middle third of his narrative, those manuscripts that do survive seem unconcerned with detailing the specific regions over which Arthur holds sway. He is referred to frequently as ‘Artus, rex de grande bretagne’ in the text, and while mention of his overlordship of Ireland, Wales and Cornwall is indicated at several points throughout the narrative, there is no corresponding moment in the surviving Tristan manuscripts in which Arthur and his relationship to his sub-kings is so explicitly articulated; it would seem that Malory was keenly attuned to matters of regionalism and loyalty, and takes a moment at the start of the ‘Tristram’ section to clarify what is clearly a problematic matter for the Arthurian world. Indeed, in his commentary on this passage Eugène Vinaver points out that ‘This description of England is probably M[alory]’s own. He shows his partiality to Arthur by placing all the other kings under his rule, including those of France and Britain.’36 Recently, Michael Anderson has called attention to this opening passage of the ‘Tristram’ section as working to situate ‘Mark’s Cornwall in a recognizable time … readers can at least be certain where Mark stands in relation to Arthur’.37 More significant, I think, is the way in which Malory tries belatedly to explain the problematic relationship of Arthur’s rule to the sub-kings who owe him allegiance, an issue that has cropped up repeatedly within the narrative before this point. And this statement has hardly put the issue to rest: it falls smack in the midst of 36

37

Vinaver, Works, p. 1456. For more on Malory’s sources for the ‘Tristram’ section of the Morte, see Ralph Norris, Malory’s Library: The Sources of the Morte Darthur (Cambridge, 2008), esp. Chapter 6. Michael Anderson, ‘“The honour of bothe courtes be nat lyke”: Cornish Resistance to Arthurian Dominance in Malory’, Arthuriana 19.2 (2009), 42–57 (p. 44).

173



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

a discussion of Tristram’s father Melodias, who is king of the realm of Lyones and married to the sister of King Mark of Cornwall. The relationship of Lyones to Cornwall is never clearly spelled out (it appears most frequently to be a region within Cornwall, but sometimes appears to overlap or overlay it)38 and Cornwall’s relationship to Arthur’s realm is further complicated by the first major narrative thread involving Sir Tristram: he volunteers to do battle on behalf of Cornwall against a knight of Ireland, as apparently, Cornwall owes tribute to Ireland, is behind on the rent, and it is not possible to get a Round Table knight to fight on the realm’s behalf. When confronted with this issue, King Mark’s barons first suggest that Mark send to King Arthur and ask for the assistance of Sir Lancelot, but this solution is quickly shot down: Than som of the barowns seyde to kynge Marke and counceyled hym to sende to the courte of kynge Arthure for to seke sir Launcelott du Lake that was that tyme named for the mervaylyste knight of the worlde. Than there were other barownes and seyde that hit was laboure in vayne, bycause sir Marhalte was a knight of Rounde Table; therefore ony of hem wolde be loth to have ado with other, but yf hit were so that ony knight at his owne rekeyste wolde fyght disgysed and unknowyn. So the kynge and all his barownes assentyd that hit was no boote to seke aftir no knight of the Rounde Table. (377.8–19)

Again, we confront the problematic status of Cornwall in relationship to England and to Arthur’s vaunted Round Table. If Cornwall is part of Arthur’s realm, then the services of Round Table knights should be available to them. As I argued earlier in this article, membership of the Round Table supposedly trumps concerns of religion, geography and kin loyalty, but then, it also seems to mean that officially, one Round Table knight cannot fight another.39 It is fortunate for King Mark, then, that he has in Sir Tristram a blood relative who is not yet a member of the Round Table, who is willing to fight Sir Marhalt, and who is equal to his opponent in knightly prowess. What sort of odd triangulated relationship this creates in terms of England-Ireland-Cornwall in Malory’s Arthurian world is never satisfactorily sorted out, a confusion that lingers perhaps due to the antiquity of the Tristram and Isolde story: a compelling narrative in its own right long associated with Cornwall, only relatively late in its existence was it

38 39

My thanks to P. J. C. Field for offering his opinion that attempting to define the borders of Lyones in Malory is both ‘maddening’ and ‘impossible’. Of course, Round Table knights do end up fighting one another on multiple occasions, but in those instances there is usually the situation of a tournament that can construct these interactions as ‘play’ or else one of the knights is in disguise and thus unknown to his fellows. Although the rule about Round Table knights fighting one another gets broken repeatedly, nevertheless, it is a rule.

174



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

emphatically folded into the Arthurian narrative.40 Although the earliest stories of the Cornish hero Tristram do not survive, scholars generally concur that his tale was well established in the Cornish narrative tradition well before the twelfth century, when it was adapted by writers such as Thomas of Britain and Béroul. The story of the valiant knight Tristan (or Drustan) and his ill-fated love for Queen Isolde, wife of his Uncle King Mark, was co-opted, appropriated and claimed by the Arthurian legend as it expanded; as it grew in popularity, the legend of King Arthur devoured other narratives of knightly valour and courtly romance, building up its own mythos through a process of accretion throughout the centuries. As we can see, in both Malory’s text and the historic period in which he composed it, Cornwall occupies a vexed position – it is both origin and product, centre and margin, home and away. I have previously suggested that if we consider it through the lens of postcolonial theory, Cornwall’s relationship to the Arthurian community seems at first to be that of a settler colony to a colonizing power – Cornwall is ‘mined’ for status, loyalties, knights, territorial increase etc. – but because Cornwall is also the birthplace of King Arthur, this theoretical relationship of colonizerto-colonized quickly becomes complicated. On the one hand, Cornwall seems to be a border space, a place of margins and limits, while on the other, it is also somehow a hybrid space, a location where we can see ‘difference and sameness in apparently impossible simultaneity’.41 It is important to note that the ideas of ‘borders’ and ‘hybridity’, while they may seem in many ways similar and/or complementary – and both are certainly key elements in the work of postcolonial theory – claim two distinct theoretical spaces. They may butt up against one another, but the one can never truly blend with the other. They are two modes of sensibility that are always coming in contact with each other but never 40

41

The story of Tristan – sometimes ‘Drustan’ – and Isolde – sometimes ‘Iseult’ or ‘Isode’ –almost certainly was a popular legend in Cornwall and other Celtic regions during the early medieval period. Its basic narrative – a magic potion causes Tristan and Isolde to fall in love on the eve of her marriage to Tristan’s uncle King Mark, after which the couple commits adultery – eventually helped shape the Lancelot-Guenevere-Arthur plot, one reason why Tristram and Lancelot often seem to be so similar. For an overview of the Tristan-Isolde story, see the entry in the New Arthurian Encyclopedia, ed. Norris J. Lacy (New York, 1995) as well as: Renée L. Curtis, ‘The Problems of the Authorship of the Prose Tristan’, Romania 79 (1958), 314–38; idem, ‘Who Wrote the Prose Tristan? A New Look at an Old Problem’, Neophilologus 67.1 (1983), 35–41; Helaine Newstead, ‘The Origin and Growth of the Tristan Legend’, in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages, ed. Roger Sherman Loomis (Oxford, 1959), pp. 122–33; Eugène Vinaver, ‘The Prose Tristan’, in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages, ed. Loomis, pp. 339–47. Robert J. C. Young, Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race (New York, 1995), p. 26. For more on postcolonialism and hybridity, see also, among others: Homi K. Bhaba, The Location of Culture (London, 1994); Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Charles Lam Markmann (London, 1968), Gayatri Spivak, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in The Post-Colonial Studies Reader, ed. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffths and Helen Tiffin (London, 1995), pp. 24–8. On the specific issue of Malory’s Cornwall and postcolonial theory, see my ‘Postcolonial Palomides’.

175



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

converging: two divergent imaginaries that constantly interact but never fully connect. The same could be said of the relationship between Cornwall and England. To better understand how Cornwall can have such a diffuse and polyvalent identity, it might be useful to quickly review Cornwall’s history, especially in terms of its place in the Arthurian legend, and to look at the question from another direction. Cornwall has occupied a troubled position in relation to the rest of Britain from the earliest accounts of that island’s conquest. Medieval historians such as Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth consistently reported that Britain had taken its name from Brutus, descendent of Aeneas. In Geoffrey’s account, however, Brutus has a larger-than-life companion, Corineus. According to the Historia Regum Brittanie: Denique Brutus de nomine suo insulam Britanniiam appellat sociosque suos Britones … At Corineus portionem regni quae sorti suae cesserat ab appellatione etiam sui nominis Corineiam uocat, populum quoque suuem Corineiensem, exemplum ducis insecutus. Qui cum prae omnibus qui aduernerant electionem prouinciarum posset habere, maluit regionem illam quae nunc uel a cornu Britanniae uel per corruptionem praedicti nominis Cornubia appellatur. (ll. 459–467) [Brutus named the island Britain after himself and called his followers Britons … Corineus followed his leader’s example by similarly calling the area of the kingdom allotted to him Corineia and his people Corineians, after himself. He could have had his pick of the provinces before any other settler, but preferred the region now called Cornwall, either after Britain’s horn or through a corruption of the name Corineia.42]

As Michelle R. Warren has argued of this doubled origin myth: ‘Cornubia (Cornwall) thus takes shape externally to Britain, yet vaguely included in it … Cornwall can reunite the island because it lies both inside and outside of Britain, set out in a cartography of paradox before Britain’s own division’.43 And indeed, a glance at medieval mappaemundi and local maps of Britain vividly underscore Cornwall’s simultaneous connection to and disconnection from the main portion of the island. For example: consider folio 12 of London, British Library, Cotton Claudius D.vi, a map of Britain drawn by Matthew Paris sometime around 1250 (Figure 2). On this map, Cornwall is emphatically depicted as being almost entirely cut off from the rest of Britain by the River Tamar, and it retains its original name as attested in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s text: Cornubia. Indeed, maps of Britain well into the sixteenth century retained 42

43

Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain: An Edition and Translation of De gestis Britonum [Historia Regum Britanniae], ed. Michael D. Reeve; trans. Neil Wright (London, 2009), pp. 28–9. Warren, History on the Edge, p. 35.

176



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

2.  Matthew Paris map of Britain; BL Ms. Cotton Claudius D.vi, fol. 12v.

177



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

3.  Detail from the Hereford Mappa Mundi.

this particular name for the southwest region of Britain, with some maps, such as the ‘Anglia, nova tabula’ map – a woodcut done in Basel in 1552 – even attesting both names. Some maps, like the Hereford mappa mundi, actually depict the southwest part of Britain as virtually an island (Figure 3). While an important part of the larger English economy throughout the medieval period due to its shipping and tin industries, Cornwall had a reputation for lawlessness in the fifteenth century in part due to those very industries, which attracted less-than-savoury elements. As Hannes Kleineke has recently argued, ‘If the two principal branches of the southwestern economy played their part in fomenting violent crime, the situation was aggravated further by the region’s remoteness from the centre of royal administration in the south-east’44 and indeed, Cornwall’s lack of engagement with what was going on politically for most of the fifteenth century is made starkly clear by any examination of a map of the move-

44

Hannes Kleineke, ‘Why the West was Wild: Law and Disorder in Fifteenth-Century Cornwall and Devon’, in The Fifteenth Century III: Authority and Subversion ed. Linda S, Clarke (London, 2003), pp. 75–94 (p. 83).

178



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

ments and campaigns during the Wars of the Roses. A glance at any plan of military engagements or Yorkist and Lancastrian factionalism shows a flurry of activity to the east and north, and a great blank spot in the southwest. Cornwall’s inclusion with and distinction from ‘England’ is attested repeatedly by various witnesses throughout the Middle Ages. For example, on one of the copies of the Magna Carta, the arms of both England and Cornwall are displayed, as if to give them parallel status.45 In 1173, Earl Reginald referred to his barons, ‘both English and Cornish’.46 In the settlement story of Cornwall, the figure of Cornubia is described as being a man who delights in wrestling matches, and he picks Cornwall as his own territory because it is full, apparently, of giants that he can wrestle: ‘Delectabat enim eum contra gigantes dimicare, quorum copia plus ibidem habundabat quam in ulla prouinciarum quae consociis suis distributae fuerant’ [He loved to fight giants, and there were more of them to be found there than in any of the districts divided amongst his companions] (ll.467–469).47 Its relative distance and difference from the rest of Britain seems to have allowed these ancient traditions and beliefs to flourish unchecked. At the Battle of Agincourt, for example, a contingent of Cornishmen acquitted themselves admirably, but did so under their own banner – an image of two wrestlers. ‘The Cornish at Agincourt were an “other”, an identifiably different group apparently working well on their own as a team.’48 Numerous important medieval scholars hailed from Cornwall – John of Trevisa and Richard Carew, to name just two – but scholars have also noted how these figures often struggled to ‘defend their Cornishness while at the same time embracing Englishness’.49 In his Polychronicon, Ranulf Higden cites Alfred of Beverly as describing England as including thirty-six shires apart from Cornwall, a declaration that incensed John of Trevisa, who felt compelled to defend the region of his birth: For to make a redy somme it schulde be i-writte in this maner: In Engelond beeth seuen and thritty schires, and so is Cornewayle acounted with the othere schires … For Cornewayle is a schere of Engelonde; for, as he seith, Cornwaile is in this Bretayne hym self … Than hit is in oon of the chief parties of this Bretayne … Than Cornwayle is in Engelond, and is departed in hundreds, and is i-ruled by the lawe of Engelond, and holdeth schire and schire dayes, as other schires dooth. Yif Alfrede seith nay in that, he wot nought what he maffleth.50 45 46 47 48 49 50

Payton, Cornwall: A History, p. 72. Ian Soulsby, A History of Cornwall (Chichester, 1986), p. 52. Reeve and Wright, The History of the Kings of Britain, pp. 28–9. Payton, Cornwall: A History, p. 88. Payton, Cornwall: A History, pp. 88–9. Polychronicon, ed. Churchill Babington and J. A. Lumby (9 vols., Rolls Series, London, 1865-

179



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

Both Alfred of Beverly’s characterization of Cornwall as not being one of the thirty-six shires of England and John of Trevisa’s emphatic response that it absolutely should be speak to the reality of this region’s difference and distinction from the rest of England. As Jane Beal points out, ‘This compensatory move on Trevisa’s part also functions as a gesture of appropriation, rewriting the chronicle in English with a different geographical emphasis and inscribing identity through mapping-in-prose’.51 Although throughout the Middle Ages Cornwall was divided into manors that were held by English nobles, and the church established monastic houses and parishes there, very few nobles actually set foot in ‘their’ territories. Frustrated by a population that spoke what most English considered to be ‘West Welsh’ and the inability to connect with parishioners, representatives of the Church often expressed a reluctance to deal with the Cornish. In 1327 Bishop Grandisson declared that Cornwall was not only ‘the ends of the earth, but ... the very ends of the ends thereof’.52 And from this edge of Britain comes the ruler who unites, centralizes, and expands that entity known as ‘Britain’ – at least, writers like Malory seemed to wish to imagine that he had.

IV Until now, most treatment of Cornwall and the story of King Arthur has tended to look southwest – outward from Camelot and toward the Cornish peninsula. If we try to engage the Arthurian story from another direction – looking east and north – we may gain more fruitful insights. Specifically, I am referring to engaging the idea of Cornwall from the perspective of the text now known as the Bewnans Ke. The discovery of this text among the papers of the late Professor J. E. Caerwyn Williams caused a minor sensation in the year 2000, when his widow donated the contents of her husband’s library to the National Library of Wales.53 This text is one of only two known surviving late medieval Cornish miracle plays. The other known Cornish miracle play, Bewnans Meriasek, has been described by scholars as a ‘subversive document, perhaps even political commentary on Cornwall’s position in the late medieval and early Modern period as the Tudor State developed’54 and the Bewnans Ke arguably betrays a

51

52 53 54

86), II.91. Jane Beal, ‘Mapping Identity in John Trevisa’s English Polychronicon: Chester, Cornwall, and the Translation of English National History’, in Fourteenth-Century England III, ed. W. M. Ormrod (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 67–82 (p. 71). Cited in Fowler, The Life and Times of John of Trevisa, pp. 20–1. See Graham Thomas and Nicholas Williams, eds., Bewnans Ke/The Life of St. Kea: A Critical Edition with Translation (Exeter, 2007), p. x. Payton, Cornwall: A History, pp. 98–9.

180



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

similar attitude.55 Significantly, while much of its content concerns the miracles of a certain Saint Ke, it also includes a long section that deals with the story of Arthur’s exploits on the continent in his conflict with Rome.56 It affirms the long-standing imbrication of the Arthurian legend with the geographical place of Cornwall, its language and its people, and offers a chance to consider the far southwest of Britain and its relationship to the Arthurian legend from a new perspective. While certainly it can be useful to examine how the Arthurian ‘Engelonde’ of Malory’s text seeks to claim and incorporate Cornwall, it is even more productive to place this examination alongside the Cornish understanding of its claim on the Arthurian legend. Scholars have dated the Bewnans Ke to about the year 1500, placing it shortly after the conclusion of the Wars of the Roses and William Caxton’s decision to print the Morte Darthur.57 As such, it serves as an important witness to Cornwall’s place in the English Arthurian traditions, and ultimately, it reinforces Malory’s treatment of the region of Arthur’s birth: in the Morte Darthur, Cornwall is a place that is at once mythic and real, centrally important but also only marginally significant. In the Bewnans Ke, Arthur is a real figure who moves through an historically and geographically recognizable world – going from place to place that the local Cornish audience would have known well, even if the names of certain towns and locales might have sounded somewhat strange and unfamiliar to English ears. Frustratingly, the Bewnans Ke is missing leaves at key moments in the progression of its narrative. In addition to the absence of the first leaves, another gap comes at the moment when the first segment of the play (that which deals with the conflict between the Cornish Saint Kea and a tyrant called Teudar) segues into the account of Arthur’s conflict with the Roman Emperor Lucius. The second set of missing leaves comes at the conclusion of the miracle play. Presumably the two narrative threads would have been brought together at the finale – with Saint Kea somehow resolving Arthur’s betrayal by Mordred and Guenevere – but as the final leaves are missing, we cannot be sure how the two parts join up (or even if they do). The text is written in Middle Cornish, with a smattering of English, stage directions in Latin, and French words and phrases throughout. As such, the polyglot effect of these multiple languages underscores the fact 55

56 57

Apart from the critical edition of the Bewnans Ke edited by Graham Thomas and Nicholas Williams, there is practically no criticism on the text, apart from some passing references in works that deal with Cornwall and its history generally. This ‘Saint Kea’ is a different figure from the Sir Kay familiar to all scholars of the Arthurian tradition, although it is interesting that their names are so similar. The manuscript itself dates from the late sixteenth century, but the text itself seems to have been copied from an original dated c. 1500 (Thomas and Williams, i).

181



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

of Cornwall’s contradictory cosmopolitan (especially in its port cities) and rural natures. Cornwall had an active trading profile (some might say the word ‘piracy’ is more correct) throughout the medieval period, and was more likely to be in stronger, more consistent contact with ports in Wales, Ireland, Brittany and elsewhere on the continent than with the English nation – Anglia – of which it was supposedly a part.58 The Bewnans Ke itself suggests both a fierce regional pride and an acknowledgment of these political realities. Although when the Arthurian section opens King Arthur himself is not in Cornwall – rather, he is at his palace in Wales – the emphasis on Cornish identity and its troubled status in relation to English interests is clear from the first surviving lines of the Arthurian section. In response to the Roman embassy, the first to speak in the Bewnans Ke is Duke Cador of Cornwall, and he announces his intention to deal with this matter by seeking out Arthur in his palace at Kellywyk. When Arthur finally makes his appearance, the stage directions point up the conflicted nature of English/British and regional identities: Arthur is described as ‘ARTHURUS REX BRITANNIE (que nunc Anglia dicitur)’ [Arthur King of Britain (which is now called England)],59 a statement that conflicts somewhat with Cador’s earlier exhortation ‘“Pes, seniors, je vow command,/yonk ha loys, Gothal ha Scot!”’ [‘Peace, sirs, I command you,/young and grey, Irish and Scot!’] (ll. 1258–1259). Cador’s statement seems to acknowledge both regional identity and common interest, while the stage directions that identify Arthur as ‘King of Britain (which is now called England)’ convey a shifting of identities and the movement of one cultural group to collectively dominate those which could be loosely identified as ‘British’ while still maintaining some of their original, Celtic, individual, regional identities. The number of commas needed in the previous sentence to sort out that description is an indication of just how fraught and complex such identities could be. However complicated the relationship of Britain and England with the various territories found within it, one identificatory status that is never at issue is Arthur’s: throughout the Bewnans Ke: ‘“he is called Arthur the Cornishman”’ [‘y’n gylwyr Arthur Cornow’] (ll. 1658, 2502, 2650), he is ‘“the best hero/who ever came from Cornwall”’ [‘gwelha gour/a ve bythquath a Gurnow’] (ll. 1914–15), and most interestingly, he is often referred to as such not only by his own people, but by the characters of the Roman emperor and members of his entourage. The Emperor Lucius indicates his intent to send word to ‘Arthur the Cornishman’ and Lucius’ ambassadors address him in similar fashion. He may be King of Britain 58 59

See F. E. Halliday, A History of Cornwall: The Essential Guide to Cornwall Past and Present (Kelly Bray, Cornwall, 2009), esp. Chapter 7. This stage direction/description occurs in Thomas and Williams at pp. 144–5, just before line 1397.

182



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

and/or England, but even as far away as Rome, Arthur is Cornish first, everything else second. When the author or authors of the Bewnans Ke imagined how the rest of the world saw Arthur, his Cornishness was most important; his status of king of England only worth a parenthetical mention. Indeed, after the early stage direction identifying ‘Britain’ as ‘Anglia’ the anglisc word never appears again; when Mordred usurps the throne, he is claiming the right to rule ‘Vretayn’ or ‘Bretayn Ver’. He is a usurper of the British – not English – throne. Much more work needs to be done on the Bewnans Ke, as it is an invaluable witness and source for our understanding of medieval Cornish language and culture – and the surviving witnesses are lamentably few – but just this cursory examination of its Arthurian section is illuminating for our purposes here. Independent, difficult, proud – such is the Cornwall of the Bewnans Ke and the Morte Darthur.

V Thus, as we’ve seen, from the earliest incarnations of the Arthurian legend in Geoffrey of Monmouth, to the Bewnans Ke and beyond, Cornwall has played an important role in terms of place, space, and geography. Not only is King Arthur half Cornish, but the legend of Tristan and Isolde – a story that at first anticipates, then parallels, then seems to comment upon the very similar story of Lancelot and Guenevere – has its origins in the southwest corner of Britain. This region, then, would seem to be in many ways the centre of the Arthurian story – in essence, its source. And importantly, as I’ve suggested already, it is a geographic place that is real – it has clear borders and a distinct historical past and cultural identity known to Malory and his readers, whereas the realm of the Cornish knight Sir Tristram – Lyones – as described within the text is more difficult to plot on a map. Perhaps contiguous with Cornwall, identical to it, or a specific region within it, ‘Lyones’ occupies a space more like to faerie than a specific duchy of Britain. Indeed, even if we try to make Cornwall part of England by identifying it as one of the many duchies within that nation, the far southwest of Britain is still marked by difference in that Cornwall is specifically the source of income for the heir to the throne.60 As more than one scholar has pointed out, one might be invested Prince of Wales, but one simply becomes Duke of Cornwall – either at birth, or upon the death of a relative that moves one into the specific status required to hold the title: only the 60

Although long considered the property of the throne, the first ‘true’ dukedom of Cornwall was created in 1337 by Edward III for Edward the Black Prince (it was also the first dukedom created in the peerage of England). In 1421 a charter specified that the duchy of Cornwall must always be held by the monarch’s eldest male child and heir apparent.

183



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

eldest, male, legitimate offspring of the monarch was and is entitled to be called Duke of Cornwall. And given the vagaries of succession, there might be long periods when there was no Duke of Cornwall and long periods when the Duke of Cornwall was an infant or in his minority.61 While these situations were certainly normal on occasion with regard to other duchies and earldoms, no region was perhaps so regularly marked by such exceptionalism as Cornwall was in the Middle Ages. In most versions of the Arthurian legend, Cornwall is ruled by King Mark, who seems in many instances to be a tributary king to Arthur. (Malory makes it explicitly clear that this is so.) Mark, it has often been noted, seems to function as a ‘dark double’ for Arthur; he is cowardly, conniving, jealous, corrupt and murderous. When his nephew, Sir Tristram, and his queen, Isolde, fall in love with one another and begin an affair, the attitude of both the characters within the narrative and the narrator seems to be that Mark has only got what he deserved; almost all sympathies lie with the adulterous couple. While the very similar relationship of Lancelot and Guenevere does come in for its share of condemnation, it seems that even in this, the Arthurian court is superior to the Cornish one: even the adultery is nobler. The Cornish court seems to value the same ideals as the Arthurian community; its knights seek to engage in the same sort of quests as Arthur’s Round Table agents, but again and again, they fall short of the Arthurian ideal. Indeed, on several occasions in the text, other characters scoff at the chivalric abilities of Cornish knights: ‘[H]it is seldom seyne … that ye Cornysshe knyghtes bene valyaunte men in armys’ (398.25–26); ‘[F]or as yet harde I never that evir good knyght com oute of Cornwayle’ (488. 12–13); ‘For I wyste nevir good knyght com oute of Cornwayle but yf hit were sir Trystram de Lyones’ (555.20–22); ‘[Y]e knyghtis of Cornwayle ar no men of worshyp as other knyghtes ar’ (581.28–29). As the character of Sir Lamorak notes, ‘The honor of the two courts be not like’ (443.33–34). Given the generally low opinion of Arthur’s knights as concerns Cornish chivalry, one might easily assume that the denizens of Cornwall are engaged in the act of mimicry, aspiring to be like the Arthurian realm of which they are seemingly a satellite or tributary, but that they are failing miserably. But if Cornwall is also the source of the Arthurian order, then who is imitating whom? Is there any ‘there’ there?

61

As happened, for example, when Edward the Black Prince predeceased his father in 1376; although Edward had an heir in his son Richard, Richard was not Duke of Cornwall because even though he was the heir to Edward III, he was the latter’s grandson, not son. Similarly, although Queen Elizabeth II was her father’s heir apparent, as the daughter of the monarch she did not qualify for the dukedom. Because of this, the current Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles, did not in fact become duke until his mother’s accession to the throne – until the moment when he was both heir to the throne and the son of the reigning monarch, although arguably he had been destined for that position from the moment of his birth.

184



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

In his article, Anderson has focused on Cornwall as the means by which the strengths and weaknesses of Arthur’s court may be tested, and argues further that Cornwall does not pursue ‘the same chivalric project of Camelot’62 but rather, is engaged in its own, different, chivalric venture. Anderson has also noted the importance of Cornwall’s geographic location: ‘situated at the edge of Arthur’s empire, Cornwall occupies the geographical as well as the political margin. It exists in a liminal space on the edge of the “known” British world; its distance from the political center provides it with the ability to criticize Camelot.’63 But Cornwall does not serve simply to criticize Camelot – it also makes Camelot possible: as its source, as a community against which Arthur’s court can define itself, and on a structural level, the Cornish material makes the Morte Darthur. When he created his massive text, Malory arguably did so through a series of colonizing moves – extracting raw materials from various sources and using them together to produce something new. Malory was the first individual who set out to tell the story of King Arthur in truly comprehensive, coherent fashion from the very beginning to the very end, and to do this he drew from a variety of texts – mostly French – that told parts of the story, or the whole in much abbreviated form. He was able to pick and choose, and his choices of particular sources and the specific way in which he combined them make of the Morte Darthur a whole that is larger than the sum of its parts. For example, we know that when it came to the telling of the story of the Quest for the Holy Grail, he had at least two versions of this story before him. One was an account that was very similar in tone and focus to the story as he had told it thus far; the other was quite different – it was the French Queste del Saint Graal, a work much more spiritually and theologically oriented, and describing an emphatically allegorical landscape, unlike that through which Arthur and his knights had travelled for most of the narrative to that point.64 Malory chose the second as his source, and when he did this, the effect created within the narrative as a whole was, I think, deliberately jarring; the contrast between this adventure and the others the knights have hitherto experienced shocks the reader into reconsidering the values of the community that have dominated up until this moment in the narrative. Indeed, many of Malory’s sources have sharply divergent tones or even generic moods – the account of Arthur’s Roman War, adapted from the fourteenth-century Alliterative Morte Arthure, a text closer to chronicle than romance and excessively martial, is another such example. When

62 63 64

Anderson, ‘Cornish Resistance’, p. 42. Anderson, ‘Cornish Resistance’, p. 46. See Ralph Norris’ discussion of the Grail Quest in Malory’s Library; also Vinaver’s discussion in the notes to the Grail Quest in the three-volume Works.

185



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

he put all these pieces together, Malory created an Arthurian world that is infinitely more complex than that depicted in any one of the selfcontained narratives he joined together; thus, while the text as a whole identifies itself as telling a story of Arthur that is comprehensive, coherent and consistent on the surface, within the narrative the different sources Malory has fused create a constant tension of alterity that allows the text to produce a more multifaceted picture of Arthur and his realm than any of the individual sources. And at the centre of this structuring of the text is Cornwall. When Malory needed to provide his massive opus with a centre, he looked to material that was not a part of the French Vulgate and Post-Vulgate, that huge body of Arthurian material from which he primarily drew. Rather, he looked outside the Vulgate cycle and chose as his source the French Prose Tristan. While Arthurian concerns figure somewhat in the Prose Tristan, home is not Camelot, but the court of Cornwall as ruled over by King Mark. Arthur’s knights of the Round Table make appearances, but the focus is primarily on the title figure, the nephew of the treasonous King Mark. In the first 200 pages or so of the Morte Darthur, we learn of Arthur’s birth, rise to power, establishment of the Round Table, and conquest of Rome; we follow Sir Gareth, Sir Lancelot, and several other knights as they perform the values of the Arthurian community and the power of Arthur’s rule and reputation through many adventures. And then we arrive in Cornwall – essentially back where the story began, at the source. But the experience of the reader is not one of coming home, but rather travelling to a foreign land – full of characters and episodes that are similar to those encountered thus far, but yet, are not quite the same. And we stay in that land for more than a third of the narrative. In fact, it is telling that very often when Malory is taught in college courses, instructors skip the ‘Tristram’ section entirely, as if the middle of the text is unimportant to the story as a whole. It is different from the rest of the text, and because the borders of that difference are so clearly marked, it is relatively easy to lift simply lift the ‘Tristram’ material out of the text and still comprehend the general shape and progression of the narrative. What is lost, however, is the depth that is unique to Malory’s text. This middle section is critical precisely because it is at once centred on the geographic source of the Arthurian legend while simultaneously seeming so alien to the rest of the text. Like the status of the geographic place of Cornwall within the Arthurian narrative, the inclusion of the French Prose Tristan at the centre of the structure of Malory’s text repeats the pattern of an alterity that really is not one. And as jarring as it may seem placed between what scholars usually call ‘The Tale of Sir Gareth’ and ‘The Quest for the Holy Grail’, the ‘Tristram’ gives the Morte as a whole a meaning that would otherwise be missing. Thomas Rumble put it best nearly fifty years ago when he said: 186



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

To portray the real tragedy of the fall of Arthur’s realm, Malory had to make clearer than ever before the causes of that tragedy. It is just that sense of causality that is missing in the French cyclic Arthuriad, no matter in what combination we put together a Merlin, a Queste, and a Lancelot. And it is just this sense of causality that is underscored, though implicitly rather than explicitly, by the addition of the Tristram material.65

Key events in the ‘Tristram’ section set the stage for the final tragedy; here is where Sir Galahad is conceived, where the blood feud of Arthur’s nephews with the sons of King Pellinore will erupt, free of the ideals and structures that kept it in check at the court of Camelot. Arthur’s rule comes full circle as moments that occur in the geographic location of Cornwall – at the level of narrative – and in the Cornish-focused Tristan material – at the level of structure – drive the Morte Darthur toward its inevitable tragic conclusion.

VI More than 500 years after the composition of Malory’s text, Cornwall is still a space of conflicted identity. A 2007 article in The Economist discussed the movement to revive Cornish, a language that most scholars agree effectively died out in 1777, when the last native born speaker of this Celtic language passed away.66 However, a revival movement that began in the 1920s has produced a situation in which there are a few thousand people living today who self-identify as Cornish speakers. And handin-hand with their interest in reviving the language exists a movement for Cornish nationhood. Cornish activists feel that the United Kingdom should be considered as comprising five nations rather than four: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall. ‘As evidence they cite first their country’s remoteness: bounded by the sea and separated from the rest of England by the river Tamar. Then there is Cornwall’s cultural heritage, in particular the Cornish language … In 2002 the government recognised Cornish as one of Britain’s official minority languages, alongside Welsh, three varieties of Scottish, Irish Gaelic and Manx.’67 Now, the problem with reviving Cornish as a language – arguably the first step toward creating the region as a separate nation – is that depending on how one chooses to count, ‘there are either three or four

65

66 67

Thomas C. Rumble, ‘“The Tale of Tristram”: Development by Analogy’, in Malory’s Originality: A Critical Study of ‘Le Morte Darthur’, ed. R. M. Lumiansky (Baltimore, 1964), pp. 118–83 (p. 145). ‘Back from the Dead. Cornish: The Travails of Britain’s Latest Revived Language’, The Economist (18 October 2007), 77. ‘Back From the Dead’, 77.

187



DORSEY ARMSTRONG

distinct dialects [of Cornish] in use today’.68 After years of infighting, a compromise has been suggested by a group of experts seeking to create a single, official version of the language. Pieces of each dialect will be selected and combined. As The Economist article notes, ‘That was politically wise, since it avoided slighting advocates for any particular dialect. But … it means that until they have had time to learn the new words, none of the existing Cornish speakers will be fluent in their new tongue.’69 Thus, in a case of what we might call history repeating itself, and/or of geography producing history, the main source of Cornish identity today is arguably Othered from itself: the Cornish language has become both the source of a unified national identity while debates about which dialect is ‘real’ Cornish have simultaneously threatened to destroy that very unity. The solution – to produce an ‘official’ Cornish not fluently spoken by anyone – attempts reconciliation and recuperation while making it finally impossible to truly achieve such a goal. In seeking to distinguish Cornwall from its neighbour, England, today’s Cornish nationalists have emphasized the peninsula’s alterity, just as medieval mapmakers emphasized England’s exceptionalism in its position ‘on the edge of the world’. In fact, so determined is this emphasis on the exceptionalism of Cornwall that both its geographic space and its language have of late become what we might call a kind of locus of alterity. The Times Literary Supplement, in its review of Nothing Broken: Recent Poetry in Cornish notes the unusual nature of poems and their authors in this particular collection: One bears the surname Chaudri; another is American, author of probably the first gay love poem in Cornish. We have always favoured writers having real jobs, and these poets’ professions range from revenue officer for Penzance … to clergyman … to chemical engineer … There are long poems … love lyrics, political verse (‘Kows Kernewek … Na wra omblegya’ [Speak in Cornish … No surrender]) and many poems about the sea (mor) … [the editor] believes there is a significant group ‘who think and feel in Cornish. The language articulates their experience, gives voice to their national aspirations.’ (TLS 40, 21 August 2009)

The suggestion here seems to be that the ‘significant group who think and feel in Cornish’ do not necessarily themselves need to be originally from that southwest corner of Britain.70 Cornwall’s alterity and difference is

68 69 70

‘Back From the Dead’, 77. ‘Back From the Dead’, 77. The poetry collection itself is published by the self-proclaimed ‘world leaders in Cornish poetry publishing’, Francis Boutle. For the past ten years, this publishing house has filled the ‘microniche’ of the Cornish literary market. They are doing sufficiently well to have launched a series of publications in the ‘lesser used languages of Europe’. http://www.francisboutle.co.uk/ accessed 6 December 2010.

188



MAPPING MALORY’S MORTE: CORNWALL

such that it can embrace and be embraced by those who themselves feel that ‘their experience’ marks them as different, as marked by alterity.71 Malory’s text, written over five hundred years ago, expresses a similar contradictory dependence upon – and anxiety about – alterity. That this difference is such a key component of the logic of the Morte Darthur, at both the level of narrative and of structure, becomes most clear when we examine the text through the lens of Cornwall: geography and identity are deeply intertwined in the Morte Darthur, an interconnection that Malory himself well-understood, living as he did in an age when regional identities and loyalties were constantly being reshaped and pressured.

71

Interestingly, the fascination with things marginal was a recurring theme on the NB page of the Times Literary Supplement in 2009 and 2010; the columnist for that page, ‘J. C.’ has discussed poetry in the lesser-known/used languages of the British Isles, publishing examples in Cornish, Manx, Scots, Gaelic and Channel Islands Norman French, with examples of Shetlandic, Irish Gaelic, Welsh, Romany, and the dialect of Lincolnshire still to come (NB, 38); http:// entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/Subscriber_Archive/Other_ Categories_Archive/article7169297.ece, 26 November 2010; accessed 6 December 2010.

189

IX

THE FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION Bart Besamusca and Jessica Quinlan In 1980, Beate Schmolke-Hasselmann published her groundbreaking study Der arthurische Versroman von Chrétien bis Froissart.1 According to its subtitle, the monograph was devoted to the ‘Geschichte einer Gattung’ (the history of a genre) – an indication repeated in the main title of the splendid English translation of the work.2 Although The Evolution of Arthurian Romance suggests a broad treatment of Arthurian literature, Schmolke-Hasselmann’s discussion is in fact limited to French texts. This equation of Arthurian literature with French Arthurian literature has been, as is well known, a widespread phenomenon in international Arthurian scholarship until quite recently. Norris Lacy has termed this emphasis on French texts ‘scholarly “gallocentrism”’.3 The publications listed yearly in the Bibliographical Bulletin of the International Arthurian Society convey the impression that the concept of Arthurian literature awakens in the Arthurian community first and foremost associations with the corpus of French romances, and, to a lesser degree, with English and German texts.4 While the dominance of scholarship on French narratives is understandable in the light of the position of French literature at the beginning of the genre’s history and the sheer size of the corpus, the particular interest devoted to English and German texts over the years can in all * We would like to thank Frank Brandsma and Thea Summerfield for their comments and suggestions. 1 Beate Schmolke-Hasselmann, Der arthurische Versroman von Chrestien bis Froissart. Zur Geschichte einer Gattung, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 177 (Tübingen, 1980). 2 Beate Schmolke-Hasselmann, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance: The Verse Tradition from Chrétien to Froissart, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 35, trans. Margaret and Roger Middleton (Cambridge, 1998). 3 Norris J. Lacy, ‘Preface’, in Medieval Arthurian Literature: A Guide to Recent Research, ed. Norris J. Lacy (New York & London, 1996), pp. vii–xii (p. ix). 4 Cf. Bart Besamusca, ‘Introduction: the Pan-European Approach’, in Arthurian Literature 24 (2007), ix–xiv (ix–x).

191



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

probability be explained, at least in part, by the vast number of scholars involved. It is certainly true, however, that the inclusion of Arthurian texts written in the many other medieval languages is a prerequisite for a more balanced view on the evolution of Arthurian romance in Europe. In recent years, Arthurian scholarship has clearly moved in this direction. A case in point is the ‘Arthurian Archives’ series, which since 1998 has overseen the publication of authoritative editions of medieval texts with facing English translation. Alongside volumes presenting French and German texts, the series currently includes Dutch, Italian, Latin and Scandinavian romances, making a substantial number of texts originating from the lesser known literatures accessible to a wide readership.5 Further clear signs of the growing interest in Arthurian corpora other than French, English and German texts are issues 21 (2004) and 24 (2007) of Arthurian Literature, which are devoted to the Irish and Welsh literature and the European dimensions of Arthurian literature respectively. Finally, the latest publications in the ‘Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages’ series, which updates Loomis’s 1959 milestone, deserve mention.6 Following the four volumes on Welsh (I), English (II), German and Dutch (III) and French (IV) literature, two further volumes devoted to Latin (V) and Scandinavian and East Slavic (VI) literature were published in 2011.7 In line with this trend, the present article seeks to make a contribution towards highlighting the pan-European dimensions of medieval Arthurian literature by turning its gaze expressly to what we have labelled the fringes of Arthurian fiction.8 The ambiguity of the word ‘fringes’ is intended. We want to make clear, first, that the fringes of Arthurian fiction are occupied by those literatures which can be said to constitute the edges of the Arthurian tradition by virtue of the small number of romances they comprise. Secondly, ‘fringes’ indicates that the international Arthurian community has paid limited attention to these literatures (with the notable exception, of course, of the Welsh corpus). Thirdly, the use of the word ‘fringes’ hints at the fact that the corpora under discussion emanate from 5 6 7

8

See http://www.boydellandbrewer.com/store/listcategoriesandproducts.asp?idcategory=47. Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History, ed. Roger Sherman Loomis (Oxford, 1959). See The Arthur of Medieval Latin Literature: The Development and Dissemination of the Arthurian Legend in Medieval Latin, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages 5, ed. Siân Echard (Cardiff, 2011) and The Arthur of the North: The Arthurian Legend in the Norse and Rus’ Realms, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages 6, ed. Marianne E. Kalinke (Cardiff, 2011). The volume dedicated to medieval Italian Arthurian literature, edited by Gloria Allaire and Regina Psaki, is forthcoming. The findings outlined in this article emanate from research carried out within the project Arthurian Literature: A Pan-European Approach, funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and supervised by Bart Besamusca at Utrecht University from 2004–2008. The authors wish to acknowledge with gratitude their indebtedness to the contributions of Cora Dietl, Martine Meuwese and Sacha Voogd. The database which was developed in the course of this project is accessible at www.arthurianfiction.org.

192



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

literary traditions located on the edges of Europe in a geographical sense, which were in some cases subject to a less immediate permeation by the influence of the French courtly culture than the English and German. By using the word ‘fiction’ we mean that we have disregarded those texts which belong to the pseudo-historical tradition, originating with Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Britanniae. The present article does not aspire to present an exhaustive study, but seeks rather to trace the broad outlines of the development of central Arthurian elements on the outskirts of the tradition, examining the role of convention and innovation in responses to Arthurian fiction outside of French, German and English literature. In accordance with our comparative approach, the analysis of individual corpora as separate entities is avoided. Instead, we examine the further development of the well known trajectories of the core Arthurian heroes Erec, Yvain, Perceval, Gawain, Lancelot, Tristan, Arthur, as well as those of newcomers – protagonists exclusive to the fringe traditions – who have been allotted a section to themselves.9 The literary traditions involved consist of the Belarusian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Hebrew, Icelandic, Irish, Italian, Latin, Norse, Spanish, Swedish and Welsh corpora. Readers seeking information on the composition of the individual corpora may consult the appendix, where all texts discussed here are listed according to the language in which they were written.

Erec, Yvain and Perceval The narratives of Chrétien de Troyes enjoyed great popularity in the French-speaking cultural areas, as is shown by the substantial corpus of manuscripts in which his texts are transmitted and the massive influence of his oeuvre on later French authors.10 Furthermore, as in English and German literature, Chrétien’s Erec, Yvain and Perceval were translated in a number of fringe literatures.11 Outside of the Dutch tradition, in which just one of these narratives was adapted, the renditions of these texts appear in clusters: there is a group of Scandinavian texts and a set of Welsh

9

10

11

Merlin, Galehot and Galahad, who seldom appear in the role of primary hero, cannot be viewed as areas of primary interest in the fringe traditions. For this reason, these characters have been excluded from our study. See Keith Busby et al., The Manuscripts of Chrétien de Troyes, 2 vols., Faux titre 71–72 (Amsterdam & Atlanta, 1993); The Legacy of Chrétien de Troyes, ed. Norris J. Lacy, Douglas Kelly, Keith Busby, 2 vols., Faux titre 31, 37 (Amsterdam, 1987–88); Schmolke-Hasselmann, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance. For an overview of these translations, see Michelle Szkilnik, ‘Medieval Translations and Adaptations of Chrétien’s Works’, in A Companion to Chrétien de Troyes, Arthurian Studies 63, ed. Norris J. Lacy and Joan Tasker Grimbert (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 202–13.

193



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

tales.12 The existence of the first cluster can be explained by the ambitions of King Hákon Hákonarson of Norway (r. 1217–1263), who wanted to heighten the cultural prestige of his court by commissioning Norse translations of French texts, now known as the riddarasögur.13 The Welsh cluster lacks such an explanation; recently, critics have even doubted that the three texts were perceived as a group in the Middle Ages.14 What matters for our present purposes, however, is the fact that the portrayal of Erec, Yvain and Perceval in the various traditions frequently deviates from the French tradition. Erec The Welsh and Icelandic corpora preserve versions of Chrétien’s tale of Erec in the romances Geraint and Erex saga. Modern scholarship holds that Geraint was written in the second or third decade of the thirteenth century.15 The author of this Welsh prose text followed Chrétien’s Erec fairly closely.16 After the marriage of Geraint and Enid, however, the Welsh tale presents an alternative explanation for the hero’s attitude towards his wife. Geraint mistakenly suspects Enid of planning to be unfaithful to him when he wakes up as a result of her laments, and he explains that by journeying together he will show her that her intended infidelity will not be easy to carry out because of his valour.17 Due to this difference, Geraint is not portrayed here as a hero who has to find a balance between chivalry and love, like the French Erec, but as a jealous husband.18 Erex saga is an Icelandic prose version of Erec et Enide. Like Ívens saga, it may faithfully transmit a thirteenth-century Norwegian translation of Chrétien’s romance. However, it is more likely an Icelandic revision of this translation.19 Like Geraint, Erex saga presents a shortened version of the French tale, but the Scandinavian text is much more a rewriting of Chrétien than Geraint.20 The first meeting of Erex and Evida, for example, includes a noteworthy deviation from the French original. Unlike Erec, 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20

The Middle Dutch Perchevael is treated in the section devoted to Gawain. See Geraldine Barnes, ‘Scandinavian Versions of Arthurian Romance’, in A Companion to Arthurian Literature, ed. Helen Fulton (Malden, MA, & Oxford, 2009), pp. 189–201 (pp. 189–91). See Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, ‘Migrating Narratives: Peredur, Owain, and Geraint’, in A Companion to Arthurian Literature, ed. Fulton, pp. 128–41 (pp. 129–30). See Lloyd-Morgan, ‘Migrating Narratives’, p. 139. For an overview, see Ystorya Gereint uab Erbin, ed. Robert L. Thomson (Dublin, 1997), pp. xxv-lxiii. See Ystorya Gereint, ed. Thomson, ll. 707–30, and The Mabinogion, trans. Gwyn Jones and Thomas Jones, introduction Gwyn Jones, preface John Updike (New York & Toronto, 2000), p. 222. Cf. Ystorya Gereint, ed. Thomson, pp. lxvii–viii. See Norse Romances I: The Tristan Legend, Arthurian Archives 3, ed. Marianne E. Kalinke (Cambridge, 1999), p. viii. See Kalinke (ed.), The Arthur of the North, pp. 112–20 (by Claudia Bornholdt).

194



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

for whom Enide initially represents a means to engage in combat against Yder, Erex falls in love with the girl the moment he sees her, and ‘þá feldi hún allan sinn elskuhuga til hans’ (‘she fell very much in love with him’).21 With Evida’s consent the two are betrothed before dinner takes place.22 Erex saga emphasizes here the love between the protagonists. In addition, the prose version contains a number of episodes which are absent in the French source. Like Dietrich von Bern in Didreks saga, Erex fights a flying dragon in order to save the life of a duke, Plato. He also battles against seven evil knights who have captured a number of knights and maidens.23 This focus on chivalric action places Erex’s valour clearly at the centre of narrative interest. The conclusion of Erex saga relates, unlike Chrétien’s romance, that Erex and Evida ruled their kingdom in peace and had two sons, who became brave knights, an ending in accordance with narrative conventions of the sagas.24 Yvain Chrétien’s romance of Yvain gave rise to a Welsh prose tale, Owain, and two Scandinavian narratives: the Old Norse prose narrative Ívens saga and the Swedish verse text Ivan Lejonriddaren. Like Geraint, the Welsh text is believed to date from the second or third decade of the thirteenth century.25 Owain presents an abridged version of Chrétien’s text, including various deviations, the majority of which reveal a particular interest in the hero’s prowess as a knight.26 At the fountain, for example, Arthur grants Kei the chance to challenge the hero a second time after his initial failure, with the result that the seneschal is unseated twice by Owain.27 When everybody is defeated except Arthur and Gwalchmei (Gawain), the king’s nephew battles against Owain for three days, until Gwalchmei loses his helmet and is recognized by his opponent.28 The hero’s prowess is stressed again at the end of the Welsh tale, where, in contrast to Chrétien’s Yvain, the reconciliation of the couple is followed by a further episode – the equivalent of the ‘Pesme Aventure’ section of the French tale – in which Owain defeats Du Traws, the Black Oppressor.29 The concluding lines 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Norse Romances II: Knights of the Round Table, Arthurian Archives 4, ed. Marianne E. Kalinke (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 217–65 (pp. 226–27). Norse Romances II, ed. Kalinke, pp. 228–29. Norse Romances II, ed. Kalinke, pp. 246–50. For Didreks saga, see p. 219. Norse Romances II, ed. Kalinke, p. 258. See also Geraldine Barnes, ‘Arthurian Chivalry in Old Norse,’ Arthurian Literature 7 (1987), 50–102 (62). See Lloyd-Morgan, ‘Migrating Narratives’, p. 139. For an overview of the differences, see Owein or Chwedyl Iarlles y Ffynnawn, ed. R. L. Thomson (Dublin, 1968), pp. xxix–lvi. See Owein, ed. Thomson, ll. 499–510, and The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, p. 153. See Owein, ed. Thomson, ll. 513–47, and The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 153–54. See Owein, ed. Thomson, ll. 782–817, and The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 161–62.

195



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

relate that Owain was appointed commander (‘pennteulu’, l. 818) of Arthur’s war-band and state that he was always victorious when he had the three hundred swords of his grandfather Cenferchyn and his ravens (which also feature in Breuddwyd Rhonabwy) with him (ll. 819–21).30 The narrator ultimately seems intent on depicting Owain not as a hero who struggles to achieve a balance between chivalry and love, like Yvain (and Erec), but as a warrior of renown. Ívens saga also presents a shortened version of Chrétien’s Yvain. The Norse rendition, which according to the epilogue was commissioned by King Hákon, follows its French source closely.31 There are, nevertheless, additions discernable, some of which are significant for the portrayal of Íven.32 When the hero realizes that he has overstayed his leave, he laments his loss of joy, as does Yvain in Chrétien’s romance; unlike the French protagonist, however, Íven adds that he has also lost his reputation, his honour and his freedom.33 This statement shows him to be a hero whose portrayal is influenced by the indigenous Scandinavian literary tradition.34 Completed in 1303, the Swedish translation of Chrétien’s Yvain, Ivan Lejonriddaren (or Hærra Ivan) is a verse text commissioned by the wife of the Norwegian King Hákon V Magnússon (r. 1299–1319), Queen Eufemia (d. 1312), to celebrate the engagement of her daughter Ingebjörg to Erik Magnusson, a brother of the king of Sweden. While the translator made use of Ívens saga in addition to his French source, his text in rhymed couplets is closer in form, length and content to Yvain than Ívens saga.35 The Swedish narrative follows its French source without major changes, but repeatedly shifts the emphasis, showing more interest in chivalric activities than in the love theme.36 Furthermore, the Swedish narrator frequently stresses that Ivan acts under God’s protection.37 In the passage describing Ivan’s fight against the giant Fiælskarper (Harpin de la Montaigne), for instance, the hero is hit so hard that he almost falls from his horse. Here the narrator remarks: ‘þa halp Guþ hærra Ivan miok, at þæt hug eigh raþelika tok; þy at hafþe þæt skiællikæ takit han, þa vare døþ baþe ørs ok man’ (‘Then God helped Sir Ivan much, so that the blow did not strike so badly; if it had struck him properly, both man 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37

See The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 162–63. See Norse Romance II, ed. Kalinke, pp. 33–102 (p. 98). See also Kalinke (ed.), The Arthur of the North, pp. 107–12 (by Claudia Bornholdt). See Norse Romance II, ed. Kalinke, p. 38. See Norse Romance II, ed. Kalinke, pp. 74–75. See Kalinke (ed.), The Arthur of the North, p. 111. See Geraldine Barnes, ‘The Lion-Knight Legend in Old Norse Romance’, in Die Romane von dem Ritter mit dem Löwen, Chloe 20, ed. Xenja von Ertzdorff (Amsterdam & Atlanta, 1994), pp. 383–99 (p. 386, 392–94). See also Kalinke (ed.), The Arthur of the North, pp. 123–44, by William Layher (p. 139). See Tony Hunt, ‘Herr Ivan Lejonriddaren’, Mediaeval Scandinavia 8 (1975), 168–86 (170–71). Hunt, ‘Herr Ivan Lejonriddaren’, 182–84.

196



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

and horse would have been killed’).38 Similarly, the end of the narrative includes a blessing on the couple, uttered by Luneta: ‘A hærra Guþ i himirik mæþ sina sighnaþa naþæ gøme Iþer saman baþæ ok late Iþer hær liva sva þæt I maghin himirikis glæþi fa ok naþer for utan ænda þa Iþer skal døþin hænda!’ (‘Ah, may the Lord God in Heaven with His blessed grace preserve you two and let you ever live in such a way that you will enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven and grace without end, when death seeks you!’).39 Perceval Chrétien’s last romance is preserved in the Welsh prose text Peredur and the Norse prose romance Parcevals saga. The Welsh narrative has come down to us in a short version, which probably dates from the second quarter of the thirteenth century and concludes the tale with Peredur’s rule together with the empress of Constantinople, and a long version, which brings the narrative to a conclusion in the Castle of Wonders.40 Peredur differs significantly from Chrétien’s Perceval: whereas the French romance features a main character who develops into the Grail hero, the hero of the Welsh narrative is destined to be the avenger of his kinsmen. In the first series of Welsh episodes, from young Peredur’s stay in the wilderness up to his return to Arthur’s court, the hero visits the castles of two of his uncles: the first one, who is lame, advises Peredur never to ask questions, while at the court of the second one he sees a bleeding lance and a head upon a salver being carried in procession. He also meets the witches of Caer Loyw, who train him in horse-riding and knightly combat.41 The importance of this introduction of the kinsmen and the witches becomes clear towards the end of the Welsh text. The final sequence of adventures opens with the arrival of a loathly lady at Arthur’s court, contains a short episode in which Gwalchmei is the main character, and relates how Peredur kills an enormous stag and how he finally arrives at the Castle of Wonders.42 There, in the company of the lame uncle and Gwalchmei, it is revealed to Peredur that the witches are responsible for laming his uncle and killing his cousin, whose head

38 39 40 41 42

Marianne E. Kalinke (ed.), Norse Romance III: Hærra Ivan, Arthurian Archives 5, ed. and trans. Henrik Williams and Karin Palmgren (Cambridge, 1999), ll. 3457–60. Norse Romance III, ed. Kalinke, ll. 6414–20. See Lloyd–Morgan, ‘Migrating Narratives’, pp. 131–34, 138–39. See Historia Peredur vub Efrawc, ed. Glenys Witchard Goetinck (Cardiff, 1976), pp. 7–35, and The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 164–81. See Historia Peredur, ed. Goetinck, pp. 56–70, and The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 194–202.

197



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

was on the salver. By slaying the witches, Peredur avenges his relatives, fulfilling the prophecy.43 Unlike Chrétien’s Perceval, the Norse prose narrative Parcevals saga, in all probability written at the behest of King Hákon Hákonarson, consists of two parts. After Parceval’s visit to the hermit it is announced that his narrative has come to a conclusion: ‘Ok lýkr hér nú sögu Parceval riddara’ (‘And now here ends the story of Parceval the Knight’).44 The second part, Valvens Þáttr (‘Valven’s Tale’), opens with the statement that the narrative now begins for the second time and will recount the deeds of Gawain.45 This structural change is one of the many differences between the Norse text and its French source. The opening of Parcevals saga, for example, introduces the hero’s father, a farmer who had been a brave knight and trained his son in archery and swordplay.46 At the end of the first part, following the Good Friday episode, Parceval’s narrative thread is suddenly rounded off, and the narrator remarks that he lived ever after as a good Christian. He returned to Blankiflúr, married her, ruled over her kingdom and was always victorious in knightly encounters.47 Like the Welsh hero Peredur, Parceval is a protagonist whose development as a knight is complete at the end of his narrative. The adaptation and rewriting of Chrétien’s romances of Erec, Yvain and Perceval in the Welsh and Scandinavian corpora seem clearly to suggest an interest on the part of these traditions in preserving a body of Arthurian texts. While these heroes are never dissociated from the adventures which determine their trajectories in Chrétien’s writings, the openness of the Welsh and Scandinavian authors to innovation is indicative of an approach characterized to a certain extent by the wish to adapt the tales of early Arthurian heroes to the needs of indigenous tradition.

Gawain Arthur’s nephew Gawain appears in the French verse romances as the king’s right-hand man and a particular favourite with the ladies, noted and praised for his irreproachable courtesy and his infallible prowess in 43

44 45 46 47

Cf. also Ian Lovecy, ‘Historia Peredur ab Efrawg’, in The Arthur of the Welsh: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval Welsh Literature, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages 1, ed. Rachel Bromwich, A. O. H. Jarman, and Brynley F. Roberts (Cardiff, 1991), pp. 171–82, who discusses interpretative problems related to the vengeance theme (pp. 179–80). See Kalinke (ed.), Norse Romances II, ed. Kirsten Wolf, trans. Helen Maclean, pp. 103–216 (182–83). Norse Romances II, ed. Kalinke, p. 184. The second part breaks off when Gawain has reached the castle of the queens. Norse Romances II, ed. Kalinke, p. 108. Norse Romance II, ed. Kalinke, p. 182.

198



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

deeds of knightly combat. Initially, the role of primary hero is not open to Gawain in these texts, and although he displays fundamental shortcomings from time to time, his virtues are rarely seriously questioned; criticism on the part of the narrator tends to remain implicit or, at most, takes the form of gentle humour, ultimately underlining a quintessentially elusive streak in this figure.48 Far from the flower of chivalry we encounter in the verse romances, however, is the Gawain of the French prose tradition: here, the son of King Arthur’s sister emerges as an embittered, fiercely vengeful and murderous knight.49 In view of the spectrum of narrative possibilities associated with Gawain from the early years of the romance tradition, it is hardly surprising that he finds favour as a hero with the fringe traditions. Striking here is the particular interest in the development of his positive qualities. Gawain’s Emergence as an Arthurian Knight De ortu Waluuani (‘The Rise of Gawain’), possibly the earliest surviving romance with Gawain as its hero, is of uncertain dating and authorship. It may have been written as early as the mid-twelfth century, perhaps by Robert de Torigni, abbot of the Benedictine community at Mont SaintMichel.50 This prose text, which was heavily influenced by Geoffrey of Monmouth, recounts the birth, childhood and education of its hero, culminating in his integration at the Arthurian court.51 Unlike Geoffrey, however, De ortu Waluuani makes the hero the illegitimate son of Anna and Lot, a tradition also reflected in the Perlesvaus and the Enfances Gauvain. Each of these four texts recounts his upbringing in Rome, but while Geoffrey and the two French authors place him directly in the care of the pope, in De ortu Waluuani he is raised initially by the fisherman Viamundus and then by the emperor, who is informed of his identity and acts with the blessing of the pope. Gawain begins his career in this text as a Fair Unknown: as a child, he is the ‘Puer sine Nomine’ (p. 64, l. 2),

48

49

50

51

For an overview of the development of the Gawain figure, see Raymond H. Thompson and Keith Busby (ed.), Gawain: A Casebook (New York, 2006). On his role in the French tradition, see Keith Busby, Gauvain in Old French Literature (Amsterdam, 1980) and Stoyan Atanassov, L’Idole Inconnue: le personnage de Gauvain dans quelques romans du XIIIe siècle (Orléans, 2000). On the German and Dutch contexts, see Bernhard Anton Schmitz, Gauvain, Gawein, Walewein : die Emanzipation des ewig Verspäteten (Tübingen, 2008). See Fanni Bogdanow, ‘The Character of Gauvain in the Thirteenth–Century Prose Romances,’ in Gawain: A Casebook, ed. Thompson and Busby, pp. 173–81; Keith Busby, ‘The Character of Gauvain in the Prose Tristan’, in Gawain: A Casebook, ed. Thompson and Busby, pp. 183–207. De ortu Waluuani nepotis Arturi, ed. and trans. Mildred Leake Day, in Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans, M. L. Day, Arthurian Archives 11 (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 56–121. For an overview of research on the difficulties surrounding the date and authorship of this work, see Day’s introduction to her text edition in Latin Arthurian Literature, pp. 2–11. On the sources of De ortu Waluuani, see Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans. Day, pp. 12–18.

199



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

while subsequent to his knighting he becomes known as the ‘Miles cum tunica armature’ (‘Knight of the Surcoat’, p. 64, ll. 35–36), and it is by this name that he introduces himself when he arrives at the Arthurian court as an emissary of the emperor, entirely unaware of his relationship with the king.52 While Arthur for his part has been made privy to the fact that the outspoken new arrival is in fact the son of his sister, he awaits the accomplishment of some extraordinary exploit on the part of the hero before welcoming him as a member of his court (p. 112, ll. 34–38). Gawain’s opportunity to impress his uncle will emerge when word arrives of the plight of the lady of the Castle of Maidens, heralding the first Arthurian adventure to be fought by the hero. Gawain responds scathingly when all efforts undertaken by Arthur and his men to defend the lady fail, but on Arthur’s piqued invitation to join the battle, he quickly turns events with an extraordinary display of prowess.53 While the narrator elaborates at some length on the ferocity of the combat, he is careful to stress that this hero, in keeping with his image in verse romance, does not engage in violence without reason: ‘neminem quidem lesit nisi quem sibi fortuna resistentem obtulit’ (‘He injured no one except those who offered him resistance’, p. 116, ll. 25–26). In view of the particular devotion to damsels in distress for which Gawain will become famous in later texts, it is also noteworthy that, while the beleaguered lady’s beauty attracts the unwanted attention of the pagan king who besieges her, it is of little importance to the hero. The significance of this adventure seems to rest entirely on the reward which the delighted king bestows upon Gawain on successful completion: the public acknowledgement of his nephew and the collective initiation of the latter as a member of his court (p. 120, ll. 10–11). The question of how Gawain came to enjoy his position of particular privilege at the court of King Arthur is answered in a different way by the later Irish prose romance Eachtra an Mhadra Mhaoil (‘The Story of the Crop-Eared Dog’).54 The oldest manuscript of this text, whose indebtedness to the Irish tradition is unquestioned in scholarship, dates from 1517.55 While Gawain, known here as Balbhuaidh de Cordibus, is depicted 52

53 54

55

On the implications of Gawain as a Fair Unknown character in this romance, see Siân Echard, Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 36 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 131–58 (p. 135). See Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans. Day, pp. 116–18. Eachtra an Mhadra Mhaoil. Eachtra Mhacaoimh–an–Iolair / The Story of the Crop-Eared Dog. The Story of Eagle-Boy. Two Irish Arthurian Romances, ed. and trans. R. A. Stewart Macalister (London, 1998, originally 1908). William Gillies, ‘Arthur in Gaelic Tradition. Part II: Romances and Learned Lore’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 3 (1982), 41–75, and Joseph Falaky Nagy, ‘Arthur and the Irish’, in A Companion to Arthurian Literature, ed. Fulton, pp. 117–27, comment on this tendency as a general feature of Irish Arthurian romance. Bernadette Smelik, ‘Eachtra an Mhadra Mhaoil. Ein richtiger Artusroman?’ in Übersetzung, Adaptation und Akkulturation im insularen Mittelalter,

200



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

from the beginning of the romance as a member of the household of King Arthur, there would appear to be some uncertainty regarding the nature of his relationship to the king.56 In the text of the manuscript London, British Library, Egerton 128, dating from 1748, the king addresses the hero as his foster-son, whereas in the older manuscript, London, British Library, Egerton 1782, Gawain appears as Arthur’s nephew. In any case, the close relationship between the hero and King Arthur is clearly underlined from the opening episode. In the course of a hunt in the Dangerous Forest, all of the knights of Arthur’s court are enchanted and left fettered by the Knight of the Lantern, who promises to behead each and every one on his return. Gawain is at this point a young boy, not yet a knight – and by virtue of this very deficit the only one to have escaped challenge by the Knight of the Lantern and the only one now in a position to aid the king.57 Arthur refers to the young hero fondly as ‘an t-aon-dhuine is annsa liom d’fhearaibh an domhain’ (‘the one man dearest to me of the men of the world’, pp. 10–12, ll. 162–63), and in an emergency knighting ceremony, Gawain is equipped with the king’s own armour and accorded the title ‘Sir Gawain’(p. 12, ll. 171–73). With the aid of the crop-eared dog – a further victim of the Knight of the Lantern – the young hero indeed succeeds in saving the royal retinue, and subsequently embarks on a series of adventures which will lead to the downfall of the Knight of the Lantern and the return of the crop-eared dog to human form. Gawain’s primacy among the knights of the Arthurian court is finally confirmed by the narrator’s remark that he ultimately succeeds King Arthur himself as lord of the Fort of the Red Hall (p. 72, ll. 44–45). Gawain as Lover A number of texts in the fringe traditions reveal a clear intention to dispel the criticism suffered by Gawain in the Old French tradition on the grounds of his incorrigible philandering. A noteworthy example in this context is the Roman van Walewein by Penninc and Pieter Vostaert, an indigenous Middle Dutch verse romance dating from around 1250, which paints Walewein in an unequivocally positive light.58 This favourable view of Walewein appears all the more remarkable in the light of the elements in this romance borrowed from the Queste del Saint Graal,

56

57 58

ed. Erich Poppe and Hildegard L. C. Tristram (Münster, 1999), pp. 145–59, discusses the problem in detail with particular reference to this romance. Macalister’s translation of the hero’s name as Galahad is now accepted as erroneous. See Gillies, ‘Arthur in Gaelic Tradition’, 45, footnote 15, and further, for a discussion of possible sources of the form Bhalbhuaidh, 60–61. In the translated passages quoted here, Galahad has accordingly been replaced by Gawain. See Smelik, ‘Eachtra’, p. 149. Dutch Romances I: Roman van Walewein, Arthurian Archives 6, ed. and trans. David F. Johnson and Geert H. M. Claassens (Cambridge, 2000).

201



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

in which worldly knighthood is condemned and the Gawain figure slips into the role of vengeful and ignominious villain; the Walewein authors clearly reacted to the Queste by taking deliberate steps to undo this degradation of Arthur’s nephew, depicting him at once as an exemplary figure of knightly virtue in the worldly sense and as a decidedly Christian hero.59 Even if the hero does not shed every trace of imperfection which invites the mild criticism typical of his treatment in the Old French verse tradition, the narrative decision to do away with all doubt concerning his credibility as an irreproachable lover is unmistakable.60 Walewein and the young woman whom he has promised to fetch as a bride for King Amoraen fall hopelessly in love. The depth of Walewein’s feelings for Ysabele is accentuated by the fact that, when he voices them for the first time, it is in a prayer uttered aloud to God and the Blessed Virgin (ll. 7689–7733). In his love for the woman he was meant to win as a bride for another man, the hero of the Walewein also implicitly refers to the Tristan tradition, and here it is noteworthy that in his commitment to his beloved, Walewein outshines his famous counterpart.61 Instead of fleeing when the lovers are discovered in one another’s arms, as Tristan does, Walewein assures Ysabele that he would rather die with her than save himself and leave her, trusting that God will not abandon the lovers to such a fate (ll. 8118–19). The narrative ultimately spares Walewein from the consequences of the dilemma caused by his love for Ysabele and his responsibility towards Amoraen, for by the time the hero returns with the lady to surrender her as promised, the latter has passed away, leaving the two lovers to return to the court of King Arthur. It is surely with a wink to the Old French verse tradition that the narrator concludes by pleading ignorance on the question of whether ‘die ridder fier’ (‘that brave knight’, l. 11170) eventually marries his love or not. The Wrake van Ragisel, a Dutch verse adaptation of the French Vengeance Raguidel, was probably written in the early decades of the thirteenth century.62 It survives in a number of manuscripts in fragmentary form and is preserved in a complete, but abridged version in the Lancelot Compila-

59 60

61 62

See Bart Besamusca, ‘Walewein: A Middle Dutch Antidote to the Prose Lancelot’, BBIAS 47 (1995), 301–10. For a succinct outline of Gawain’s weaker moments in this romance, see Norris Lacy, ‘Convention and Innovation in the Middle Dutch Roman van Walewein’, Arthurian Literature 17 (1999), 47–62 (48–49). On the portrayal of Gawain as ideal lover in the Walewein, see Bart Besamusca, ‘Gauvain as Lover in the Middle Dutch Verse Romance Walewein’, in Gawain: A Casebook, ed. Thompson and Busby, pp. 231–37. See Walter Haug, ‘The Roman van Walewein as a Postclassical Literary Experiment’, Arthurian Literature 17 (1999), 17–28 (26–28). Die Wrake van Ragisel, in Dutch Romances III: Five Romances from the Lancelot Compilation, Arthurian Archives 10, ed. and trans. David F. Johnson and Geert H. M. Claassens (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 50–195. On the dating of the two surviving versions of this text, see the introduction of Johnson and Claassens, p. 9.

202



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

tion, a text collection of ten Middle Dutch Arthurian verse romances that came into being in Brabant around 1320.63 If the French original depicts a Gawain easily distracted and comically frivolous in love, the Dutch adaptation in the Compilation deviates from its source in a clear effort to put the criticism endured by Gawain in the French text in perspective. To that end, a new episode is inserted, in which the concerned lover Walewein, against the better judgement of all characters he consults en route, dedicates himself to a cause which seldom worried his French counterpart: that of understanding women. Far from portraying the amorous behaviour of women as the subject of a rare and difficult form of wisdom, however, the text disappoints Walewein by revealing the fair sex as inherently lecherous and faithless. This, in turn, has the effect of excusing any minor imperfections which the hero himself might display with regard to matters of love.64 In the cantare of the Ponzela Gaia, a verse text which survives in a fifteenth-century Venetian manuscript, the Italian tradition offers a portrayal of Gawain as a knight capable of remarkable commitment in affairs of the heart.65 The romance begins with what would appear to be an image of Galvano as the slightly comical figure and notoriously frivolous lover we know from the Old French verse tradition. Having bet his head with another knight that he will return from the hunt with the finer trophy, the hero sets out into the woods only to become entangled in a violent struggle with a hideous serpent. The fight does not end well for Galvano, who voluntarily dismounts from his horse to beg for death, while the serpent gently tells him to take heart and entreats him with a level of courtesy somewhat surprising in a monster to divulge whether he belongs to the company of the Round Table (stanza 6, ll. 6–8). Galvano answers in the affirmative, only to learn that the odious creature is in fact much impressed by the fight he put up – she calls him the flower of those she has fought to date (8, 8) – and even cautiously optimistic that he might be the man with whom she is in love. When the serpent asks him openly to identify himself – ‘O sire, in cortexia, / dime lo tuo nome e non me lo zelare’ (‘Oh Sir, in courtly grace, tell me your name and do not conceal it from me’, 10, 1–2) – we might expect Gawain, as is typical of 63 64

65

See the Lancelot section for a discussion of the Lancelot Compilation. See W. H. Jackson and S. A. Ranawake (ed.), The Arthur of the Germans. The Arthurian Legend in Medieval German and Dutch Literature, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages 3 (Cardiff, 2000), pp. 187–228 (207–8), (by Bart Besamusca). See Ponzela Gaia, ed. Roberta Manetti, in Cantari novellistici, dal Tre al Cinquencento, ed. Elisabetta Benucci, Roberta Manetti and Franco Zabagli (Roma, 2002), vol. 1, pp. 407–48. The English translations are our own. On the transmission and dating of this text, see Maria Bendinelli Predelli, ‘Monstrous Children of Lanval: the Cantare of Ponzela Gaia’ in Courtly Arts and the Art of Courtliness. Selected Papers from the Eleventh Triennial Congress of the International Courtly Literature Society. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 29 July–4 August 2004, ed. Keith Busby and Christopher Kleinhenz (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 543–51.

203



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

him in French texts, to respond with pride that he always utters his name without hesitation. Whether humiliated by his defeat or perhaps mindful of his reputation as a lady-killer and wary of becoming the object of the affections of this horrible beast, the hero, in this case, chooses to identify himself as Lancelot. When Galvano is finally reduced to admitting to his identity, it is with a most unusual reluctance that he does so – ‘molto umele e piano’ (‘very humbly and quietly’, 12, 2). In this variation of the fier baiser motif, it is the revelation of the hero’s name alone that brings about the transformation of the beast into a woman of overwhelming beauty, the fairy daughter of Morgan; Galvano is not required to kiss her until she stands before him as a ‘donzela dilicata’ (‘delicate damsel’, 13, 4). The theme of reputation and the loss and renewal of identity proves a leitmotiv in this text describing Gawain’s harsh apprenticeship in loyalty of the heart. In a sequence clearly reminiscent of the adventures of Lanval, Gawain wins the love of the fairy on the basis of his public image, only to lose it again by breaking his promise to her when he rises to the challenge of the spiteful Guinevere and brags at court of his new-found love, a misjudgement for which the Ponzela suffers when she must endure the punishment meted out by her mother.66 Like Yvain and Tristan before him, Galvano will spend years roaming in search of his beloved, isolating himself from courtly society by refusing to eat at table or cut his beard, and travelling incognito as the Poor Knight (‘lo povero cavaliero’, 82,1), in order to avoid the malice of all who have heard of the suffering he has caused the unfortunate Ponzela.67 When he tries to redress the damage to his reputation by claiming to be a friend who holds Galvano in high esteem, he is set upon by no less than one hundred knights (stanza 66–67). On finally locating the Ponzela Gaia, Galvano first attempts to enter her mother’s fortified city disguised as a merchant, but to no avail. It is not until he disguises himself as a woman, Morgan’s sister, that he succeeds in penetrating the stronghold, captures Morgan and can finally bring his beloved home to Arthur’s court (stanza 108). This text, therefore, ultimately describes the development of Galvano from the foolish young knight who risks his life in a quest for meaningless honour and proves unequal to the responsibilities associated with loving the Ponzela to the hero who fights relentlessly, even sacrificing his identity, to win back the love of the woman he lost. This, we sense at the end of the romance, is a Gawain figure capable of long-term commitment indeed.

66

67

On the analogies with Lanval and other texts, see Bendinelli Predelli, ‘Monstrous Children’, pp. 546–47, and Marie–José Heijkant, ‘The Transformation of the Figure of Gauvain in Italy’, in Gawain: A Casebook, ed. Thompson and Busby, pp. 239–53 (p. 245). On the damage to Gawain’s reputation and his suffering as a result, see Heijkant, ‘The Transformation’, p. 247.

204



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

Gawain as Exemplary Knight The hero’s behaviour as a lover is not the only object of narrative interest in texts seeking to extol Gawain’s virtues. The exemplary status associated with his aptitude for courtly conduct proves an equally productive element. The short Italian poem entitled simply Morale and dating in all probability from before 1410 depicts ‘il buon messer Chalvano’ (l. 2) in an adventure strikingly similar to his encounter with the imperious host described in the first episode of the thirteenth-century French verse romance Le Chevalier à l’épée.68 Chalvano finds himself stranded in a land where neither food nor drink is available and seeks the hospitality of a castellan who, as a ‘vilano’ explains, is well known for his kindness towards guests during their stay and the brutal beating to which he subjects them on their departure (ll. 8–13). While the text stresses that Chalvano (unlike his counterpart in the French text) attaches not the least significance to the concerns voiced by the ‘vilano’, it is interesting to note that he is not portrayed as a paragon of courage, but rather as a man of pragmatic concerns: the hero responds candidly that he is more than willing to endure severe bodily harm if he is first given the opportunity to eat his fill (ll. 14–16). At the castle, Chalvano is treated to an irreproachable courtly welcome and an equally exemplary send-off. Bewildered by the discrepancy between his own experience and the content of the warning uttered by the ‘vilano’, the hero finally returns to enquire of his host as to the reason for this unprecedented friendliness. The castellan responds that the beatings are the lot of those guests who seek to prevent him from being lord in his own hall – ‘mi vol singnioregiare’ (‘[everybody] seeks to lord it over me’, l. 58), he complains of his other guests – mentioning in particular the misdemeanours of trying to hinder or even outdo him in acts of courtliness. Chalvano is congratulated by his host on his particular ability to achieve balance in courtly behaviour, where all others have failed. In the thirteenth-century Middle Dutch verse romance Walewein ende Keye, preserved in the Lancelot Compilation, Walewein’s status as the ideal knight is unquestioned from the outset.69 The problems he must overcome here are difficulties associated with the burden of perfection, for the hero is faced with the task of defending himself against the jealousy of Keye, who falsely accuses him of arrogant boasting.70 The 68

69 70

For an edition of the poem, see Pio Rajna, ‘Intorno a due canzoni gemelle di materia cavalleresca’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 1 (1877), 381–87. The English translations are our own. Rajna discusses the question of dating on p. 382. Walewein ende Keye, in Dutch Romances III, ed. and trans. Johnson and Claassens, pp. 368–523. On arrogance and humility in knightly conduct in this romance, see Marjolein Hogenbirk, ‘Walewein ende Keye: hoogmoed ten val gebracht’, in De kunst van het zoeken: studies over ‘avontuur’ en ‘queeste’ in de middeleeuwse literatuur, ed. Bart Besamusca and Frank Brandsma (Amsterdam, Münster, 1996), pp. 89–111.

205



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

disturbance to Arthurian harmony, which functions as the catalyst to set the action in motion, issues in this romance, therefore, from within the court, prompting both knights to ride out in search of adventure. While Keye will heap disgrace upon himself in an ignominious and ill-fated bid to outdo Walewein, the latter succeeds in a series of adventures in the course of which he not only solves problems of various kinds, but also defeats knights whose arrogance is clearly reminiscent of that of Keye. Equally striking is the fact that while Walewein himself does not develop a love interest in this romance, he reconciles two broken couples.71 One of these concerns a variation on the action surrounding the Pucelle de Gautdestroit in the Vengeance Raguidel and in the Wrake van Ragisel. In the Raguidel romances, the lady harbours an erotic obsession with Gawain, prompting her to devise a sophisticated plan to assassinate him with a view to keeping him by her side forever, and as a result she refuses to accept the love of another knight. Gawain barely succeeds in escaping from her clutches. Walewein ende Keye features a lady who demands of her lover that he give her Gawain’s head in a reliquary. When Gawain defeats the knight and learns of his unfortunate promise, the hero is only too happy to oblige by placing his head for a moment in the reliquary and withdrawing it again (ll. 745–64). He masters the situation with a degree of poise unthinkable for the hero of the Raguidel texts and succeeds at the same time in drawing the two lovers together. The thirteenth-century Lanceloet en het hert met de witte voet (‘Lancelot and the Stag with the White Foot’), the shortest of the interpolated verse romances in the Middle Dutch Lancelot Compilation, offers Gawain the opportunity to excel in the role of the perfect friend, a function which seems to reflect the place as companion to the hero frequently occupied by Gawain in the French tradition.72 In this romance, which bears clear similarities to the Lai de Tyolet, the knight who brings back the white foot of a certain stag will win the hand of a young queen in marriage. It is Lanceloet who successfully sets out to win the foot, where all others – most notably, needless to say, Keye – have failed miserably (ll. 70–134). Unlike Tyolet, Lanceloet is not in a position to rejoice at this prize, for the prospect of marrying any queen but the one ‘die hi minde lude ende stille’ (‘whom he loved ever and always’, l. 830) is insufferable to him. The hero’s success in the quest surrounding the stag foot, therefore, opens up a serious problem, allowing Walewein to step into the breach. Arthur’s nephew shines on a number of counts in this text. Firstly, he rides out to retrieve the hero Lanceloet, who has been left for dead by a villainous 71

72

On the use of intertextuality in these scenes, see Marjolein Hogenbirk, ‘Gauvain, the Lady, and her Lover. The Middle Dutch Walewein ende Keye and Old French Romance’, BBIAS 48 (1996), 257–70. Lanceloet en het hert met de witte voet, in Dutch Romances III, ed. and trans. Johnson and Claassens, pp. 524–61.

206



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

knight who robbed him of the stag’s foot, seeking to pose as the successful knight and thereby win the hand of the lady. It is significant that Walewein finds Lanceloet without the aid of the dog that led Lanceloet to the stag; Walewein seems guided by none other than the will of God: ‘Hi sat doe op onvervaert / Maer hine wiste waer wart / Dat was dat hi varen soude. / Maer alset selve God woude / Reet hi onthier ende hi vernam / Dat hi vorden foreeste quam’ (‘He mounted valiantly but he did not know in which direction he should ride. But as God himself desired it he rode until he perceived that he stood before the forest’, ll. 493–8). Subsequently, he prevents the marriage of the queen to the impostor, exposes the latter and kills him in a duel. Most important, however, is the fact that, thanks to the diplomatic skills of Walewein, the potentially disastrous situation into which Lanceloet has manoeuvred himself by virtue, one could say, of excessively heroic behaviour, is ultimately salvaged. In this romance, it is undoubtedly Walewein who saves the day – and it is curious that he should do so by bringing mastery of the tasks allocated to the secondary hero to a new level of perfection.73 The Lancelot Compilation also preserves a Middle Dutch verse adaptation of Chrétien’s Grail romance, one in which King Arthur’s nephew is promoted from secondary to primary hero.74 In Perchevael, the childhood of Perceval and his visit to the Grail castle are omitted and the action, beginning with the arrival of the loathly lady at the court of King Arthur, concerns the adventures of Walewein, interlaced with episodes featuring other knights. In this romance, it is Walewein who visits the Grail castle, and he comes a good deal closer to success than Chrétien’s hero. Unlike Perceval, who remained silent at the crucial moment, Walewein seems to ask all the right questions here, and although he cannot reunite the pieces of the broken sword, the Grail King explicitly holds out hope that he might yet succeed: ‘Gine moges noch verdinen wel’ (‘You might well achieve it yet’, l. 4616). The romance ends with Walewein defending himself heroically against Ginganbrisiel and Dyandras simultaneously, who finally despair of defeating the hero and choose to avail themselves of Arthur’s offer to act as a mediator in settling the conflict, enabling Walewein to return to the Arthurian court in glory (ll. 5123–5449). It has been argued that the radical modifications to the Perceval plot in this romance should not be viewed exclusively in the light of the problems

73

74

Cf. Roel Zemel, ‘“Hoe Walewein Lanceloet bescudde ende enen camp vor hem vacht.” Over Lanceloet en het hert met de witte voet’, in De ongevalliche Lanceloet. Studies over de Lancelotcompilatie, ed. Bart Besamusca and Frank Brandsma (Hilversum, 1992), pp. 77–97. See Jackson and Ranawake (ed.), The Arthur of the Germans, pp. 205–06 (by Bart Besamusca). For an edition, see Soetje Ida Oppenhuis de Jong, De Middelnederlandse Perceval–traditie. Inleiding en editie van de bewaarde fragmenten van een Middelnederlandse vertaling van de Perceval of Conte du Graal van Chrétien de Troyes, en de Perchevael in de Lancelotcompilatie (Hilversum, 2003), pp. 66–101, 211–27 (edition). The English translations are our own.

207



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

which would have ensued if Perceval had been introduced as a Grail hero in this cycle, whose structure is determined by texts drawn from the tradition of the Prose Lancelot. The fascination with Walewein which dominates so many of the romances inserted in the Lancelot Compilation could represent an equally important factor in his choice as hero for this text.75 While the major appeal attached to King Arthur’s nephew in the French verse tradition can be argued to lie in the failings barely concealed behind a skin-deep façade of perfection, the fringe corpora, and in particular the Dutch tradition, show a distinct preference for a genuine exploration of Gawain’s exemplary qualities. His affinity for the amour flirt gives way to commitment and good sense, his suitability as a primary hero has become a foregone conclusion and the humour which so often surrounds him in the French verse tradition, if not abandoned completely, can hardly be said to occupy a central position in his depiction.

Lancelot There is no evidence that Chrétien’s Lancelot was translated into any other medieval language. Were patrons and authors outside France unaware of the existence of this narrative? Did they reject the story because they perceived its content as immoral? Although we cannot exclude the possibility that Chrétien’s Lancelot was neglected for these reasons, a third explanation seems far more likely: the romance was superseded by another text soon after its completion. This text, the early thirteenth-century Old French prose trilogy Lancelot-Queste-Mort Artu, not only incorporated Chrétien’s romance, it also provided the main character with a full biography, including his failure in the Grail quest. It is in the context of this narrative and of the Prose Tristan that Lancelot gained his great European popularity.76 He is the main character of a number of renditions of (parts of) the large French prose texts and of various short tales. While the north of Europe would appear to have favoured Chrétien’s heroes Erec, Yvain and Perceval, Lancelot attracted a great deal of attention in Spain, Portugal and the Low Countries. The Trilogy Tradition The case of the Iberian peninsula is striking because it is only here that we find renditions – at least in part – of both great Arthurian prose cycles, i.e. 75 76

De Middelnederlandse Perceval–traditie, ed. Oppenhuis de Jong, pp. 135–38. See Mathilda T. Bruckner, ‘Refining the Center: Verse and Prose Charrette’, in A Companion to the Lancelot–Grail Cycle, Arthurian Studies 54, ed. Carol Dover (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 96–105, and Glyn S. Burgess and Karen Pratt (ed.), The Arthur of the French: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval French and Occitan Literature, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages 4 (Cardiff, 2006), pp. 274–324 (by Elspeth Kennedy et al.).

208



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

the Old French Vulgate trilogy Lancelot-Queste-Mort Artu and the PostVulgate Roman du Graal.77 The Vulgate Lancelot, that is the Lancelot propre, was translated faithfully, most likely by a Galician-Portuguese author. Written around 1300, his text, the Lanzarote del Lago, survives in a fragmentary Castilian translation dated to 1414. The extant portion shows that the translator accentuated the hero’s prowess by adding, in addition to his Vulgate material, a number of episodes concerning Lancelot’s quest for Tristan.78 Critics assume that the French Post-Vulgate cycle, written before 1235–1240, was translated into Castilian by Brother Juan Vives (or Bivas) around 1313.79 As is well known, the French source is extant in fragments only and has been reconstructed with the aid of Hispanic texts. It is accepted today that the Post-Vulgate Roman du Graal was a tripartite cycle in which Lancelot’s role was strongly reduced in comparison to the Vulgate version. The first part of the Post-Vulgate (the Estoire del Saint Graal) and the second part (the Suite du Merlin section) were not followed by a version of the Vulgate Lancelot. The gap between the cycle’s second and third part (the Post-Vulgate Queste-Mort) was bridged by a number of episodes, some of which were of the author’s own invention, others derived from the last part of the Vulgate Lancelot and the (first version of the) Prose Tristan.80 Following the Roman du Graal, therefore, Vives omitted most of the Vulgate Lancelot. In the extant episodes featuring Lancelot, the sinful nature of his love for the queen is stressed and the terrible consequences of this illicit relationship are underlined.81 In the Low Countries, the popularity of the Vulgate trilogy LancelotQueste-Mort Artu gave rise to a number of independent Middle Dutch translations dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.82 Around 1260, an anonymous Flemish author penned Lantsloot vander Haghedochte (‘Lancelot of the Cave’), a verse adaptation of the Vulgate

77

78

79 80

81 82

For an overview, see Rafael M. Mérida Jiménez, ‘La “Materia de Bretaña” en las culturas hispánicas de la Edad Media y del Renacimiento: Textos, ediciones y estudios’, Revista de Literatura Medieval 22 (2010), 289–350 (292–300). See Lanzarote del Lago, ed. Antonio Contreras and Martín–Harvey Sharrer (Alcalá de Henares, 2006). Cf. William J. Entwistle, The Arthurian Legend in the Literatures of the Spanish Peninsula (London and Toronto, 1925; reprint New York, 1975), pp. 193–97, and The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, ed. Norris J. Lacy (New York and London, 1991), pp. 268–69, 426 (by Harvey L. Sharrer). Entwistle, The Arthurian Legend, pp. 172–81; Lacy (ed.), The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, p. 426 (by Sharrer). See Fanni Bogdanow, ‘The Post–Vulgate Roman du Graal’, in The Arthur of the French, ed. Burgess and Pratt, pp. 342–52, and Fanni Bogdanow, ‘The Vulgate Cycle and the Post-Vulgate Roman du Graal’, in A Companion to the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, ed. Dover, pp. 33–51. See Burgess and Pratt (ed.), The Arthur of the French, pp. 348–49 (by Bogdanow). See Frank Brandsma, ‘The Lancelots of the Lowlands’, in A Companion to the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, ed. Dover, pp. 205–18.

209



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

Lancelot, which is preserved in fragments.83 The text deviates from its French source in its intensified focus on courtly conduct.84 Even more than in the Vulgate Lancelot, Lancelot and his fellow-knights are presented as models of ideal behaviour. A further verse rendition, also written by a Flemish poet and dated to approximately 1280, was used by a compiler from Brabant around 1320 to form the core of a text collection consisting of ten Middle Dutch verse narratives.85 This Lancelot Compilation is preserved in a single manuscript, which, according to a note on the last page of the codex, was owned by the Brabantine author Lodewijk van Velthem (c. 1270–1330). The compilation depicts Lancelot in various lights. In Moriaen, for instance, Lancelot acts as the trustworthy companion of the young hero. However, in other texts, such as the Queeste vanden Grale, he is depicted in a less favourable light. The ambivalence towards Lancelot in the Compilation is resolved in Arturs doet, the translation of the Mort Artu. This text is preceded by a short religious treatise on the art of praying, which promotes the idea that prayer is of crucial importance for the eternal salvation of humankind.86 This view is confirmed by the last stage of Lancelot’s tale: the four years which he spends praying and fasting save his soul, which is carried to heaven, as in the Mort Artu.87 This parallel between the message of the treatise and Lancelot’s destiny contributes strongly to the finally positive characterization of Lancelot in the Lancelot Compilation. The Queste Tradition In two fringe traditions, the Welsh and the Irish, the middle part of the Old French prose trilogy Lancelot-Queste-Mort Artu was transmitted without the two accompanying romances. Near the end of the fourteenth century the Welsh Y Seint Greal was composed, in all probability at the behest of the noblemen Hopcyn ap Thomas, who is also thought to have been the patron of the Red Book of Hergest.88 The Welsh prose text is a rendition 83 84 85

86 87

88

Lantsloot vander Haghedochte: Fragmenten van een Middelnederlandse bewerking van de Lancelot en prose, ed. W. P. Gerritsen (Amsterdam, 1987). See F. P. van Oostrom, Lantsloot vander Haghedochte: Onderzoekingen over een Middelnederlandse bewerking van de Lancelot en prose (Amsterdam, 1981), pp. 127–59. Roman van Lancelot (XIIIe eeuw), ed. W. J. A. Jonckbloet, 2 vols. (’s-Gravenhage, 1846–49). For an overview of the Compilation, see Bart Besamusca, The Book of Lancelot: The Middle Dutch Lancelot Compilation and the Medieval Tradition of Narrative Cycles, Arthurian Studies 53, trans. Thea Summerfield (Cambridge, 2003). Roman van Lancelot (XIIIe eeuw), ed. W.J.A. Jonckbloet, vol. 2, pp. 187–89. See Bart Besamusca and Orlanda S. H. Lie, ‘The Prologue to Arturs doet, the Middle Dutch Translation of La Mort le Roi Artu in the Lancelot Compilation’, in Medieval Dutch Literature in its European Context, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 21, ed. Erik Kooper (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 96–112 (pp. 103–4). See Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, ‘Perceval in Wales: Late Medieval Welsh Grail Traditions’, in The Changing Face of Arthurian Romance. Essays on Arthurian Prose Romances in Memory of

210



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

of two Old French narratives whose contents seem mutually exclusive to the modern reader: the translation of the Queste, referred to as the first part of the Grail, is followed by a second part that is a translation of the Perlesvaus, which features Perceval – in spite of his death at the end of the Queste – instead of Galahad as the Grail hero and has a religious spirit that is far more militant than that of the Queste.89 The Welsh translator announces the second section as that of Gwalchmei, Gawain, and connects the two parts by stating at the end of the Queste rendition that the Grail was never seen on earth again except once by Gwalchmei.90 Since both Old French sources were translated fairly closely, Lancelot appears in Y Seint Greal’s first section as a sinner and a failure. In both parts he is unsuccessful in the Grail quest because of his love for the queen, but in the second section he is, more importantly, very positively portrayed as an outstanding servant of the New Law, i.e. as a Christian crusader, who fights the heathens and converts them to Christianity. In addition, Lancelot’s loyalty to Arthur never flags, even when the king mistreats him under the influence of the treacherous adviser Brien des Isles. Y Seint Greal, therefore, shows a mixed view of Lancelot: fairly negative in the first section, very positive in the second part. The Lorgaireacht an tSoidhigh Naomhtha (‘Quest of the Holy Grail’) dates from the middle of the fifteenth century. This text, the only long medieval Arthurian narrative in Irish, is a close translation of the Old French Queste, using an English rendition as its immediate source.91 The incomplete prose narrative lacks its beginning: the text starts with the introduction of Galahad, who is called Galafas, at Arthur’s court.92 Lamsaloit, as Lancelot is named, is portrayed in accordance with the French source, although the Irish text uses different wordings now and then. In the famous passage where the hero, unable to see the Grail, is condemned by a heavenly voice, Lamsaloit is despised, as in the Queste, for being ‘harder than stone’ and ‘barer than the fig-tree’. The third French disqualification, ‘bitterer than wood’, is replaced, however, by the significantly more graphic comparison ‘isat morccaigti na bethadach marb’ (‘you are fouler than a dead beast’).93

89 90 91 92 93

Cedric E. Pickford, Arthurian Studies 16, ed. Alison Adams et al. (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 78–91 (p. 80). See Y Seint Greal, being the adventures of King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, in the quest of the Holy Greal, and on other occasions, ed. and trans. Robert Williams (London, 1876). Y Seint Greal, ed. Williams, pp. 169–70. See Joseph Falaky Nagy, ‘Arthur and the Irish’, in A Companion to Arthurian Literature, ed. Fulton, pp. 117–27 (pp. 119–20). Lorgaireacht an tSoidhigh Naomhtha: An Early Modern Irish Translation of the Quest of the Holy Grail, ed. Sheila Falconer (Dublin, 1953). See La Queste del Saint Graal. Roman du XIIIe siècle, ed. Albert Pauphilet (Paris, 1949), p. 61, ll. 16–17, and Lorgaireacht an tSoidhigh Naomhtha, ed. Falconer, l. 1304 and p. 210. We would like to thank Peter Schrijver for helping us understand the Irish phrase.

211



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

The Mort Artu Tradition Like the Queste del Saint Graal, the Mort Artu was also transmitted in other languages without the two accompanying parts of the trilogy. The Chantari di Lancellotto, an Italian verse narrative dating from around 1400, presents a very condensed version of the events of the Mort Artu.94 The text consists of seven cantari, composed in the customary eightline stanzas (ottava rima), which show minor deviations from the French source details and in the order of events.95 The view of Lancelot we find in the Chantari di Lancellotto runs parallel with that in the Mort Artu, but in the Italian text he is, in addition, blamed by Camelot’s inhabitants for the unhappy events following Mordred’s treachery.96 That the subject of the Chantari di Lancellotto was not to everyone’s liking is indicated by the narrator of the Cantare dei Cantari (1380–1420), who states that he is willing to read, tell or sing of any subject, with a single exception: the recitation of the ‘conto’ concerning ‘la tavola distruger’ (‘the tale [about] the destruction of the Table’) displeases him as much as his audience.97 Melekh Artus (‘King Artus’) is a Hebrew prose narrative that came into being in 1279, according to its prologue.98 The text circulated among Italian Jews, who were in close contact with Christian culture and very interested in secular literature in the thirteenth century.99 The remaining fragment begins with a rendition of a part of the Vulgate Merlin, which was accessible to the translator in an Italian intermediate.100 This section, which relates Uther’s love for Igerne and the birth of Arthur, is followed by the Mort Artu part, which opens with the return of Bohort to Arthur’s court after the quest for the tamchuy, or dish – obviously the Grail is meant here, but the inherently Christian nature of this object is eliminated. The narrative breaks off in the middle of the Winchester tournament. Melekh Artus is a modern title; the narrator calls his tale at the beginning of his prologue ‘the book of the destruction of King Artus’ Round Table’.101 This sombre characterization of the Arthurian world is corroborated by the Jewish view of Lancelot, which was damning. At the beginning of the Mort Artu part, for example, the narrator comments as follows on the love of Lancelot and Guenevere: ‘this evil desire was the 94 95 96 97

98 99 100 101

Li Chantari di Lancellotto, ed. E.T. Griffiths (Oxford, 1924). See Edmund G. Gardner, The Arthurian Legend in Italian Literature (London, 1930), pp. 265–69. See Donald L. Hoffman, ‘Lancelot in Italy’, in A Companion to the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, ed. Dover, pp. 163–72 (p. 168). See Pio Rajna, ‘Il Cantare dei Cantari e il Sirventese del Maestro di tutte l’Arti’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 2 (1878), 220–54, 419–37 (434, stanza 47). See also Gardner, The Arthurian Legend in Italian Literature, pp. 270–72 (p. 272). See King Artus: A Hebrew Arthurian Romance of 1279, ed. and trans. Curt Leviant (Assen, 1969), pp. 8–9. See King Artus, ed. and trans. Leviant, pp. 53–55. See King Artus, ed. and trans. Leviant, pp. 5–6. King Artus, ed. and trans. Leviant, pp. 8–9.

212



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

cause of the destruction of the Table, the death of King Artus, and the ruin of the entire Kingdom, as you will see further on’.102 This statement will not have come as a surprise to Jewish readers, who were familiar with the Old Testament theme that a sin may be the cause of destruction on a grand scale.103 Short Tales of Lancelot A number of short tales, some of which are connected to the Vulgate tradition, feature Lancelot as the main character. The fifteenth-century Lanzarote y el ciervo del pie blanco (‘Lanzarote and the Stag with the White Foot’), also entitled Tres hijuelos habia el rey (‘The King had Three Sons’), contains the motif of the hunt for the white-footed stag that is also present in the Lai de Tyolet.104 The Spanish ballad is an enigmatic text: the opening lines, which describe a king who curses his three sons, are followed by an unrelated section concerning Lancelot which unexpectedly breaks off.105 In the extant segment, the hero goes in search of the white-footed stag at the request of the lady of Quintañones, who declares that she will marry him if he returns successfully, and is warned by a hermit that his life is in danger. The hermit’s words create the impression that the search for the stag is not set up as a test to select the best knight, as is the case in the Lai de Tyolet, but as a trap to kill Lancelot. In the fifteenth-century Spanish ballad Nunca fuera caballero de damas tan bien servido (‘Never Was a Knight so well Served by Ladies’), also entitled Lanzarote y el Orgulloso (‘Lancelot and the Proud Knight’), Lancelot’s wish to defend the queen’s honour triggers the action. She tells him that an arrogant knight claims that he will make love to her in spite of Lancelot. The hero reacts by fighting his self-appointed rival and decapitating him.106 The popularity of this text with Spanish audiences is confirmed by Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote. The hero quotes the beginning of the ballad, states that the text is well known and praised in Spain, and characterizes Lancelot’s ballad as ‘the sweet and gentle tale of his feats of love and of valor’ (Part I, Chapter XIII).107 Just a section of the Mort Artu narrative is the subject of one of the short prose tales which form the late thirteenth-century Italian collection that is now known as the Novellino or Cento novelle antiche (‘Hundred

102 103 104

105 106 107

King Artus, ed. and trans. Leviant, p. 29. See King Artus, ed. and trans. Leviant, p. 29, note 41. See Bart Besamusca, ‘Tyolet, Lanceloet and Lanzarote auf der Jagd nach dem Hirsch mit dem weißen Fuß’, in Vom Verstehen deutscher Texte des Mittelalters aus der europäischen Literatur. Hommage à Elisabeth Schmid, ed. Dorothea Klein (Würzburg, 2011), pp. 359–73. See Spanish ballads, ed. C. Colin Smith (Oxford, 1964), pp. 189–91 (number 58). Spanish ballads, ed. Colin Smith, pp. 188–99 (number 57). Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote, trans. Edith Grossman (New York, 2003), pp. 87–88.

213



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

Old Stories’).108 Number 82, entitled ‘Qui conta come la damigella di Scalot mori per amore di Lancialotto del Lac’, retells the story of the Maid of Ascalot in the Mort Artu. The damsel loves Lancelot ‘oltre misura’ (‘beyond measure’), and dies of grief when the object of her desire refuses her because of his love for the queen. In her letter, which is read aloud at Arthur’s court, she calls him ‘lo migliore cavaliere del mondo e [...] lo piu villano’ (‘the best knight of the world and the most villainous’). However, the measureless nature of the damsel’s love should warn us that she is incapable of objectivity in her judgement of the hero. Lancelot’s reputation is also the subject of two other tales which are included in the Novellino. Whereas in tale number 28, which refers to his ride in the cart of shame, Lancelot’s action is judged negatively, tale number 45 shows him in a different light. During a break in a duel, Lancelot and his opponent make themselves known to each other. When they continue their fight, the knight says that he fears Lancelot’s ‘nome’ (‘name’) more than his ‘prodezza’ (‘prowess’). In the tale’s last sentence, the narrator explains the knight’s statement: his knowledge of his opponent’s identity made him doubt his own ‘bontà’ (‘worth’). The Lancelot tradition as established by the French prose cycle can be seen to have played a central role in the continued production of Arthurian fiction in certain fringe traditions, while only a small number of corpora fail to preserve any trace of this fascination. The success of the prose cycle is the result perhaps not exclusively of adventures devoted solely to Lancelot, but also of the consequences of his actions for the Arthurian world. In spite of his association with the downfall of the Arthurian kingdom, Lancelot’s chivalric prowess, the absolute nature of his love and the humanity of his spiritual failing make him a multi-faceted and popular hero.

Tristan The earliest extant narratives which tell the story of Tristan and Isolde date from the second half of the twelfth century. In the wake of these texts, which were composed by Marie de France, Béroul, Thomas de Bretagne and Eilhart von Oberg, the growth of the legend of the famous love couple in medieval literature was immense. Tristan narratives were written in almost all European languages.109 This development is charac108

109

Il Novellino, ed. Guido Favati (Genova, 1970). With an English translation by Steven Wright accessible via http://scrineum.unipv.it/wight/novellino.htm. Cf. Gardner, The Arthurian Legend in Italian Literature, pp. 88–94. For an overview, see Joan T. Grimbert (ed.), Tristan and Isolde: A Casebook (New York and London, 1995); Peter K. Stein, Tristan–Studien, ed. Ingrid Bennewitz, Beatrix Koll and Ruth

214



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

terized by three tendencies. First, we see that the common and courtly versions of the legend, as represented by Béroul/Eilhart and Thomas respectively, are elaborated. Secondly, these versions were expanded in long adaptations, in which Tristan and Isolde were drawn completely into the Arthurian world. Thirdly, the opposing phenomenon is discernible: many authors did not present a (more or less) full account of the Tristan legend, but limited their short tales to one or more episodes. Common and Courtly Versions Brother Robert’s Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar, a Norse prose translation of Thomas’s narrative, was composed, according to its prologue, at the request of King Hákon Hákonarson in 1226.110 The text is thought to have been the first of the group of renditions of Old French verse texts which came into being in Norway during Hákon’s reign. Brother Robert’s version is characterized by the accentuation of story line at the expense of discursive passages, inner monologues and interventions of the narrator. This difference, which effects the portrayal of the lovers to the extent that the readers participate less in their thought processes than is the case in the French source, may be due to an intervention on the part of the Norwegian translator or an Icelandic redactor, as the text has come down to us only in late Icelandic copies.111 Noteworthy among the deviations of Tristrams saga from the French source is the Christianization of Isolde. Right before her death, she prays to God, asking him forgiveness for her sins (220–21). At some time in the fourteenth century, Tristrams saga was rewritten by an author who modified the original to the extent that the resulting Icelandic prose text is one of the most intriguing Tristan narratives. The Saga af Tristram ok Ísodd contains a remarkable number of enigmatic passages, like the description of the love affair of Tristan’s parents. What are we to think of their passion, which is so overwhelming that they isolate themselves in the bower for no less than three years?112 After the fight with the dragon, both Tristan and the wicked steward cut a piece from the animal’s tongue, but, contrary to what one might expect in terms of narrative logic, the hero does not need to show it to prove that he has slain the beast (272–3). In an equally puzzling turn, when Tristan returns from Ireland with Isolde, King Mórodd, as Mark is called, suggests that

110 111 112

Weichselbaumer (Stuttgart, 2001); Phillipa Hardman et al. (ed.), The Growth of the Tristan and Iseut Legend in Wales, England, France and Germany (Lewiston, NY, 2003). Kalinke (ed.), Norse Romance I: The Tristan Legend, ed. and trans. Peter Jorgensen (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 23–226 (pp. 28–29). See Kalinke (ed.), Norse Romance I, pp. viii–ix. Kalinke (ed.), Norse Romances I, ed. Peter Jorgensen, trans. Joyce M. Hill, pp. 241–92 (pp. 250–53).

215



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

Tristan should marry her, on account of her age (276–7). Finally, having observed Tristan’s footsteps in the flour, the king persists in believing in the hero’s innocence, stating: ‘Ekki aetla ek honum illt til ganga, þótt hann fari til rekkju hennar. Heldr mun hann vilja skemta henni [...] þá ek em á brottu’ (‘Even though he goes to her bed, I do not think he has any evil intention. He wishes rather to keep her amused [...] when I am absent’, 278–9). These curious passages have led to differing opinions on the tale. While some scholars dismiss the Icelandic narrative as a failure, others ascribe the changes to the author’s aim of producing a burlesque, and still others argue that the Saga should be interpreted in the context of serious Icelandic story-telling traditions.113 The last elaboration of the common and courtly versions of the Tristan legend to be discussed here is the Czech verse romance Tristram a Izalda, composed in the final quarter of the fourteenth century.114 The author based his translation on no less than three German versions of the Tristan legend. Three sections follow Eilhart von Oberg (nos. 1, 3, 5), while one is based on the version of Gottfried von Strassburg (no. 2) and two on that of his successor Heinrich von Freiburg (nos. 4 and 6). In the final episode of the tale, however, the Czech translator deviates visibly from the German tradition. On a religious note, Tristan dies on Palm Sunday (l. 8541) and is referred to as a God-fearing Christian (l. 8570).115 The pope himself later arrives to consecrate a newly-founded monastery (ll. 8894–8901). King Mark enters the monastery and leads a sober life there, which, according to the narrator, the kings of his own days did not usually do (ll. 8908–15). These Christian elements adequately neutralize the immoral implications of the love affair. The Prose Tristan Tradition The Old French Prose Tristan (1230–1235) expands the story of Tristan and Isolde into an enormous narrative in which the worlds of Tristan and Arthur merge completely: the hero has become a knight of the Round Table and participates in the quest for the Grail.116 In Italy, the Prose 113

114 115 116

See Geraldine Barnes, ‘Tristan in Late Medieval Norse Literature: Saga and Ballad’, in Tristan und Isolt im Spätmittelalter, Chloe 29, ed. Xenja von Ertzdorff and Rudolf Schulz (Amsterdam and Atlanta, 1999), pp. 373–96 (pp. 380–91); Stein, Tristan–Studien , pp. 242–45; The Growth of the Tristan and Iseut Legend, ed. Hardman et al., pp. 188–93 (by Françoise Le Saux); Kalinke (ed.), The Arthur of the North, pp. 145–46. Cf. Ludger Udolph, ‘Der alttschechische Roman von Tristram a Izalda’, in: Tristan und Isolt im Spätmittelalter, ed. Von Ertzdorff and Schulz, pp. 355–72. Das altčechische Tristan–Epos, unter Beifügung der mhd Paralleltexte, ed. and trans. Ulrich Bamborschke, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1968–69). See The Growth of the Tristan and Iseut Legend, ed. Hardman et al., pp. 55–92 (by Peter S. Noble), Emmanuèle Baumgartner, ‘The Prose Tristan’, in The Arthur of the French, ed. Burgess and Pratt, pp. 325–41.

216



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

Tristan enjoyed particular popularity: no less than six prose renditions of the Prose Tristan survive.117 The earliest translation is the Tuscan Tristano Riccardiano, which was composed between 1272 and 1300. The incomplete narrative opens with Mark murdering his brother Pernehan and breaks off right after a duel between Tristan and Perceval.118 At the expense of the love theme, the tale focuses on the development of Tristan into the world’s greatest knight. In contrast to the Cornish knights, who are repeatedly blamed for their cowardice, Tristan constantly excels in prowess. Highlights among his deeds include his fighting for the King of Brittany, the father of Isolde of the White Hands, against Count Agrippa (chapters 109–130) and his rescue of the enchanted King Arthur in the wilderness of Darnantes (chapters 192–200). Composed in the Tuscan area around 1330–1340, the Tavola Ritonda is doubtless the most original of the Italian Tristan prose romances.119 In addition to various indigenous episodes, the text is indebted to a series of Italian and French sources.120 The narrative glorifies Tristan’s chivalric excellence, which is compared to Lancelot’s throughout. No fewer than three times the pair are engaged in a duel beside a rock.121 Each time, however, the duel remains undecided. Judging them the two best knights of the world, the Lady of the Lake seeks to unite the two heroes with their respective queens. Using her magic she cares for both couples in an enchanted tent for fifteen days (chapters 106–7). Ultimately, it is Tristan who will emerge as the superior hero, both as a lover and as a knight.122 He surpasses his opponent as a lover, according to the narrator, because Tristan’s love for Isolde became only sinful after they had unwittingly drunk the love potion.123 In an astonishing episode, Lancelot is even portrayed as a knight who shamelessly lusts after Isolde. On meeting her in the company of Tristan, who is wearing a monk’s robe over his armour, Lancelot fails to recognize the couple, and tries in vain to abduct 117

118 119 120 121

122

123

For an overview, see Fabrizio Cigni, ‘Tristano e Isotta nelle letterature francese e italiana’, in Tristano e Isotta. La fortuna di un mito europeo, ed. Michael Dallapiazza (Triest, 2003), pp. 29–129 (pp. 102–15, 126–29). See Italian Literature II: Tristano Riccardiano, Arthurian Archives 12, ed. and trans. F. Regina Psaki (Cambridge, 2006). See F. Regina Psaki, ‘Chivalry and medieval Italian romance’, in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance, ed. Roberta L. Krueger (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 203–17 (pp. 213–15). For an overview, see Daniela Branca, I romanzi italiani di Tristano e la Tavola Rotonda (Florence, 1968), pp. 47–61. See La Tavola Ritonda, ed. Filippo–Luigi Polidori, revised Marie-José Heijkant (Milan, 1997; 1st edn. Bologna, 1864–65), chapters 49, 113 (Merlin’s rock), 126, and Tristan and the Round Table: A Translation of La Tavola Ritonda, trans. Anne Shaver (Binghamton, NY, 1983), pp. 114–16, 283–84, 314–15. See Joan Tasker Grimbert, ‘Changing the Equation: The Impact of Tristan-Love on Arthur’s Court’, in The Fortunes of King Arthur, Arthurian Studies 64, ed. Norris J. Lacy (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 104–15 (pp. 111–15). La Tavola Ritonda, ed. Polidori, chapter 13; Tristan and the Round Table, trans. Shaver, p. 33.

217



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

her, noting: ‘la coscienza mi reprende di farvi villania; ma troppo più mi costrigne l’animo d’avere cotesta bella dama’ (‘my conscience warns me against such villainy, but my will compels me to take this beautiful lady’).124 In contrast to the French Prose Tristan, Isolde does not die as a result of Tristan’s physical strength in the Tavola Ritonda. The Italian author retains the embrace which causes the death of the lovers in the French text, but here, they pass away from weakness and sorrow, feeling pleasure and delight at the same time. ‘E però, con verità, possiamo dire, che Isotta morì perchè vedeva morire Tristano suo drudo; e Tristano morì perchè sentì morta sua speranza Isotta’ (‘Therefore we can truthfully say that Isotta died because she saw Tristano her lover die, and Tristano died because he felt the death of his own hope, Isotta.’)125 This tragic outcome of the competition between Tristan and Mark is followed by the bizarre account of the king’s death, which marks an important deviation from the French tradition. There, Mark’s passing is only mentioned in two later adaptations of (parts of) the Prose Tristan: the Post-Vulgate relates that he is killed by a knight of Lancelot’s lineage after the destruction of Logres, while in Micheau Gonnot’s 1470 Arthurian compilation we read that he is tied to a tree and devoured by a bear.126 In the Tavola Ritonda Mark dies of forced gluttony: Arthur’s knights have him imprisoned in a tower in front of Tristan’s sepulchre and order that he be supplied with ‘tre maniere carne a grande abbondanza, e di fini vini et potenti, senza niuna acqua’ (‘three kinds of meat in great abundance and good strong wine with no water’).127 Another Italian version of the Prose Tristan survives in an intriguing context. Preserved in a unique manuscript, the early fourteenth-century Zibaldone da Canal (‘The da Canal Notebook’) is a collection of mercantile material. Amidst all kinds of practical information assembled by a member of the Venetian da Canal family, such as the descriptions of herbs, statements about taxes and mathematical exercises, we find a section devoted to Tristan, based on (an Italian version of) the Prose Tristan. It relates in very compressed form the disappearance of Tristan’s father Meliadus, the birth of the hero, the measures undertaken by Merlin to find both father and son, the stepmother’s attempt to poison Tristan, his plea before his father not to punish her, the murder of Meliadus and

124 125 126 127

La Tavola Ritonda, ed. Polidori, chapter 89; Tristan and the Round Table, trans. Shaver, pp. 219–22 (p. 221). La Tavola Ritonda, ed. Polidori, chapter 129; Tristan and the Round Table, trans. Shaver, p. 322. On the French tradition, see Burgess and Pratt (ed.), The Arthur of the French, pp. 343–44, 381 (by Fanny Bogdanow). La Tavola Ritonda, ed. Polidori, chapter 137; Tristan and the Round Table, trans. Shaver, p. 333.

218



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

the stepmother’s second effort to poison Tristan.128 This incorporation of Tristan episodes in a mercantile text collection surely testifies to the great popularity of the Tristan legend in the circles of the Venetian elite. A number of Italian Tristan narratives were the sources for the Belarusian Povest’ o Tryshchane (‘Romance of Tristan’). Extant in one manuscript which was copied around 1580, this prose narrative presents a somewhat idiosyncratic version of the Tristan legend, written by an unknown author for a high aristocratic audience.129 Approximately twothirds of the tale correspond closely to the Prose Tristan, with the exception of a single episode which usually features only in the verse tradition: the Belarusian text contains the famous orchard episode in which Mark climbs into a tree (an apple tree, according to the Povest’ o Tryshchane) in order to spy on the lovers.130 The final third of the narrative, however, deviates strongly from the Tristan versions that we know. It relates, for instance, that the jealous Guinevere, in reaction to Arthur’s court judging Isolde the most beautiful woman in the world, begs the knights of the Round Table to duel against Tristan. In the next section of the tale, Tristan abolishes the evil custom of a lady who will accept homage only from castrated men. As a result of these deviations, the Povest’ o Tryshchane is a tale which focuses on chivalric adventures and minimizes the love aspect of the Tristan legend. This is corroborated by the title preceding the prose romances in the codex, which announces that the stories will be about warriors, and by the marginal notes in the manuscript, which, with a single exception, alert the reader to battles between knights.131 Short Tales of Tristan The third tendency displayed by the fringe adaptations of the Tristan tradition is the isolation from the Tristan legend of one or more episodes. Some authors favoured a scene in which cunning is applied to arrange a secret meeting between the lovers; many others were more interested in knightly aspects; still others were attracted by memorable narrative elements present from the earliest texts of the tradition onwards, like the scene featuring Mark in the tree and the description of the death of the lovers. Whatever the focus of these tales, they are always short. 128 129 130

131

See Merchant Culture in Fourteenth-Century Venice: The Zibaldone da Canal, trans. John E. Dotson (Binghamton, NY, 1994), pp. 125–27. See Witold Kósny, ‘Der weissrussische Tristan’, in Tristan und Isolt im Spätmittelalter, ed. Von Ertzdorff and Schulz, pp. 473–99 (pp. 477–78). See Il Tristano biancorusso, ed. and trans. (in Italian) Emanuela Sgambati (Florence, 1983). For an English translation by Sonja Dekanić–Janoski, see Joyce Hill (ed.), The Tristan Legend: Texts from Northern and Eastern Europe in Modern English Translation (Leeds, 1977), pp. 47–143 (Orchard episode: pp. 110–12). See Kósny, ‘Der weissrussische Tristan’, 485. The exception reads: ‘The king’s dream’ (The Tristan Legend, ed. Hill, p. 112).

219



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

The majority of the short Tristan tales are concerned with knightly deeds. This is, for instance, the case in the Welsh prose and verse tale Ystorya Trystan (or Trystan ac Esyllt), probably composed sometime in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The forest where the lovers have taken refuge is surrounded by Arthur’s army, but no one dares to fight Tristan, due to the peculiarities ‘that whoever drew blood on him would die, and whoever he drew blood on would die’.132 It is Gwalchmai ‘dafud aur’ (‘golden-tongued’), who successfully negotiates with the seemingly invincible hero.133 A number of Italian cantari, which ultimately derive from the Prose Tristan, also concentrate on Tristan’s chivalric prowess. The fifteenthcentury Quando Tristano e Lancielotto conbatetero al petrone di Merlino (‘When Tristan and Lancelot Fought at Merlin’s Stone’), for example, describes the duel between Tristan, who mistakes his opponent for his rival Palamedes, and Lancelot at Merlin’s stone, where an inscription predicts that the two best knights in the world will fight there.134 Yet other short Tristan tales evoke certain memorable moments from the tradition. This is, for instance, the case in one of the Novellino stories: number 65 describes the orchard tryst.135 Here a gardener informs the king of the meeting of the lovers. Mark climbs up the pine tree, but is discovered by Isolde, who rebukes the amazed Tristan for being disloyal. In a Spanish text, the hero is reproached as well. The late fifteenth-century Carta enviada por Hiseo la Brunda a Tristán; Respuesta de Tristán (‘Letter Sent by Isolde the Blond to Tristan; Answer of Tristan’), included in a sixteenth-century miscellany, is an exchange of letters between the lovers. The highlight of the Tristan tradition that is evoked here is the hero’s marriage to Isolde of the White Hands. While Isolde of Ireland complains of Tristan’s departure and his marriage, Tristan defends his actions.136 In other tales the subject is the death of the lovers. The fourteenthcentury Italian verse text Morte di Tristano, for example, relates it in accordance with the Prose Tristan, but here the tragedy is intensified, for it is the hero himself who brings the poisoned lance with him. He leaves it outside Isolde’s chamber, where Mark finds it.137 In the fourteenth-century 132 133

134 135 136

137

See The Tristan Legend, ed. Hill, pp. 1–5 (p. 1) (trans. by R. L. Thomson). See Bromwich, Jarman, Roberts (ed.), The Arthur of the Welsh, pp. 216–19 (by Rachel Bromwich), and The Growth of the Tristan and Iseut Legend, ed. Hardman et al., pp. 18–29 (by Françoise H. M. Le Saux). See I Cantari di Carduino giuntovi quello di Tristano e Lancielotto quando combattettero al Petrone di Merlino, ed. Pio Rajna (Bologna, 1873), pp. 46–64. See Il Novellino, ed. Favati; English translation Steven Wright (http://scrineum.unipv.it/wight/ novellino.htm). See Fernando Gómez Redonda, ‘Carta de Iseo y respuesta de Tristán’, Dicenda. Cuadernos de Filología Hispánica 7 (1987), 327–56; and Harvey L. Sharrer, ‘Letters in the Hispanic Prose Tristan Text: Iseut’s Complaint and Tristan’s Reply’, Tristania 7 (1981–82), 3–20. See Cantari di Tristano, ed. Bertoni, pp. 44–67, and Gardner, The Arthurian Legend, pp. 262–63.

220



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

Icelandic ballad Tristrams Kvæði (‘Poem of Tristan’), the episode begins with the wounding of the hero and ends with the death of the lovers. Although Tristan’s jealous wife, called the dark Ísodd (‘svarta Ísodd’), buries them on either side of the church, two trees grow from their graves, joining together above the building.138 Whereas in one of the four versions of the poem the refrain with which each of the thirty stanzas ends reads rather light-heartedly ‘Og er sá sæll sem sofna náir hjá henna’ (‘happy is he who falls asleep beside her’), the original, gloomy refrain, found in the other three versions, reads ‘Þeim var ekki skapað nema skilja’ (‘they were destined only to part’).139 The fifteenth-century Spanish ballad Herido está don Tristán (‘Wounded is Sir Tristan’), extant in four versions, contains a remarkable variant of the account of the death of the lovers. It is told that when Isolde visits Tristan, who is lying on his deathbed, wounded by Mark’s lance, ‘una azucena’ (‘a lily’) sprouts from their tears. Isolde announces that any woman who eats/drinks from the lily will become pregnant. In two versions, Isolde is indeed impregnated, not from eating the lily, but from drinking tears that flow from the bed. It has been argued that this enigmatic text presents an image of the sexual union of the lovers in their last meeting.140 A different idiosyncratic ending is provided by some versions of the fifteenth-century Danish ballad Tistram og Jomfru Isolt.141 While the oldest of the five surviving texts (A) relates how Tristan wins the emperor’s daughter Isolde against the will of her mother and builds an unassailable castle for her, versions B and C add that the mother attempts to poison the lovers, but is forced to drink the brew herself. In the versions D and E, the lovers die. In these two texts, Tristan and Isolde are brother and sister. Disliked by her mother, Isolde is sent away, in reaction to the prediction that the children would be lovers. When they meet, fall in love and refuse to believe that they are siblings, Isolde’s stepmother, the empress of Rome, poisons them both. ‘Thett war ynnck att see der-paa / och hall mere harm: / thett wor iomfru Ísall, / døde y her Tysteroms arm’ (‘Pity it was to look thereon, and double so much pain. There was Maid Isall, she died in Sir Tysterom’s arms.’)142 The amalgamation of the narrative traditions surrounding Tristan and Isolde and the Arthurian world, as established by the Prose Tristan texts, was embraced by the fringe literatures, in tales highlighting Tristan’s chivalric excellence and often seeking to address and redress problems 138 139 140 141 142

See Kalinke (ed.), Norse Romances I, ed. and trans. Robert Cook, pp. 227–39. See Barnes, ‘Tristan in Late Medieval Norse Literature’, pp. 393–95. See Pedro F. Campa, ‘The Spanish Tristán Ballads’, Tristania 7 (1981–82), 60–69. See Danmarks gamle Folkeviser (Copenhagen, 1905–1919), vol. 8, pp. 37–46 (by Axel Olrik), and The Tristan Legend, ed. Hill, pp. 148–55 (trans. S. A. J. Bradley). Danmarks gamle Folkeviser, p. 45; The Tristan Legend, ed. Hill, p. 155.

221



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

caused by the moral implications of the adulterous relationship. Alongside this interest in the expansion of the Tristan tradition, we also observe the choice to magnify the paradox of the love between Tristan and Isolde by adapting single moments of action which encapsulate the tension surrounding their fate. Both approaches – expansion and reduction – visible in the staggering proliferation of Tristan narratives in medieval Europe, bear witness to the fascination exerted by the lovers throughout Europe.

Arthur While Arthur figures in the vast majority of medieval Arthurian narratives in the role of roi fainéant, things are different in the limited number of texts in which he features as the principal character, such as the Chevalier du Papegau, or in which the action takes place at Arthur’s court only and he is prominent among the courtiers, such as the Lai du Cor and the Mantel mautaillié.143 In the fringe traditions, two tendencies are discernible in the depiction of the king: some texts idealize Arthur, viewing him as a great warrior, a heroic leader and a moral authority, while others depict him in an ambivalent light. Arthur as Exemplary Leader The Welsh verse text Preiddeu Annwn (‘The Spoils of Annwn’) has survived in an early-fourteenth-century, incomplete manuscript, but was probably composed somewhere between ca. 800 and ca. 1150.144 The codex is known as the Book of Taliesin, because it collects poems which were supposedly composed by this legendary bard (although only one text is explicitly attributed to him).145 He is the unnamed narrator of Preiddeu Annwn, a text of some 60 lines evoking an expedition undertaken by Arthur and his companions to the Otherworld. Repeating no less than six times that only seven men returned from the perilous voyage in the ship Prydwen to obtain a magic cauldron, the narrator leaves us in no doubt as to the status of Arthur as a leading warrior of great valour.146 The Black Book of Carmarthen, compiled around the middle of the thirteenth century, preserves under number 31 the incomplete Welsh verse text Pa gur yv y porthaur?, named after its opening line (‘What Man is the Gatekeeper?’).147 It is a dialogue, which might date to before 1100, 143 144 145 146 147

See The Arthur of the French, ed. Burgess and Pratt, pp. 513–15 and 205–6. See The Arthur of the Welsh, ed. Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts, pp. 51–57 (p. 54). Marged Haycock, ‘Preuddeu Annwn and the Figure of Taliesin’, Studia Celtica 18–19 (1983– 84), 52–78 (53). See for an edition and translation Haycock, ‘Preuddeu Annwn’, pp. 60–78. ‘Rhai o Gerddi Ymddiddan Llyfr Du Caerfyrddin’, ed. Brynley F. Roberts, in Astudiaethau ar

222



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

between Arthur and the unwilling porter Glewlwyd Great Grasp.148 Arthur is in the company of Cai and a band of famous warriors, whose heroic deeds are recalled. Arthur’s position as a leader of heroes is reinforced by the allusions to his own heroic past: he has fought against a witch, he has pierced the ‘Pen Palach’ (‘Cudgel head’, an otherwise unknown opponent) and he has slain the ‘Cinbin’ (‘Dog-heads’), who ‘fell by the hundred’ (ll. 37–46).149 Both Preiddeu Annwn and Pa gur yv y porthaur? share episodes with Culhwch ac Olwen. This Welsh prose text, which in its extant form was written around 1100, features, firstly, a passage in which Arthur and his warriors capture a cauldron in Ireland to cook food for Culhwch and Olwen’s wedding feast, and secondly, two porter scenes, located at the gate of Arthur’s hall and that of the giant Wrnach.150 Culhwch ac Olwen starts off as the story of Culwhch’s efforts to win Olwen as his wife, a task rendered virtually impossible by the magnitude of the obstacles imposed by the bride’s father, the giant Ysbaddaden. The last third of the tale, however, shows Arthur and his men accomplishing the mission. This part of the narrative culminates in Arthur’s successful hunt of the boar Twrch Trwyth, who carries between his ears the comb, razor and scissors which are needed to cut and comb the giant’s hair, and Arthur’s killing of the Black Witch, whose blood is required to stiffen the giant’s beard for shaving.151 Moments before his death, Ysbaddaden begrudgingly stresses that it is none other than King Arthur himself who is solely responsible for facilitating the nuptials.152 Like Pa gur yv y porthaur?, the enigmatic Welsh verse text Ymddiddan Arthur a’r Eryr (‘Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle’), which may be dated as early as the twelfth century, is a dialogue.153 Arthur, who introduces

148

149

150

151

152 153

yr Hengerdd / Studies in Old Welsh poetry, ed. Rachel Bromwich and R. Brinley Jones (Cardiff, 1978), pp. 281–325 (pp. 296–309). For a discussion and translation of the text, see Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts (ed.), The Arthur of the Welsh, pp. 38–46 (by Patrick Sims-Williams). See also Rachel Bromwich, ‘Celtic Elements in Arthurian Romance: A General Survey’, in The Legend of Arthur in the Middle Ages, ed. P. B. Grout et al., pp. 41–55, 230–33 (pp. 45–46). It has been suggested that line 37 needs to be emended. In that case, it is not Arthur’s deeds which are recalled in ll. 37–46, but Cai’s. See The Arthur of the Welsh, ed. Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts, p. 42. See Culhwch and Olwen: an edition and study of the oldest Arthurian tale, ed. Rachel Bromwich and D. Simon Evans (Cardiff, 1992), ll. 1036–1056, 82–141, 769–787. See also The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 85–121 (pp. 115–16, 87–88, 108). See Culhwch and Olwen, ed. Bromwich and Evans, ll. 1057–1229; The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 116–20. For a discussion of the tale, see Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts (ed.), The Arthur of the Welsh, pp. 73–80 (by Brynley F. Roberts). See Culhwch and Olwen, ed. Bromwich and Evans, ll. 1236–1238; The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, p. 121. See Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts (ed.), The Arthur of the Welsh, pp. 57–58 (by Patrick Sims– Williams).

223



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

himself as a bard, a poet (stanza 1), is given religious instruction by an eagle, which reveals itself as his dead nephew Eliwlad.154 Arthur is presented here as a renowned warrior. The animal calls his apprentice ‘arth llu’ (‘bear of the host’, stanzas 2 and 4), ‘arth gwyr’ (‘bear of men’, stanza 8), ‘Arthur gledyfawc aruthyr, / ny seif dy alon rac dy ruthyr’ (‘Arthur of the terrible sword, your enemies stand not before your rush’, stanza 6) and ‘Arthu dihafarch ffossawt, / diarwyrein arllwybrawt’ (‘Arthur, undaunted of battle, path of the fallen’, stanza 10).155 The Welsh tradition also preserves a tale in which the heroic future of the young Arthur is heralded. The short prose text, known as The Birth of Arthur, was written in the fourteenth century at the latest and is preserved in fragmentary form, the opening section having been lost. Following the Prose Merlin, the romance relates the story of Arthur’s enfances.156 The text opens with the marriage of Uther and Eigyr, followed by Arthur’s birth, his fostering by Kynyr Varvoc, as Kai’s father is called in this text, the sword-in-the-stone episode and Arthur’s coronation.157 The concluding lines, referring to Geoffrey of Monmouth and mentioning the name of Arthur’s sword, announce Arthur’s future role as a great warrior and a wise king: ‘Ac odd yna yddaeth Arthur i ryvelu ac i lywio i dyrnas yny mod y treithir yn ystoria y Brytanieit ar cleddyf hwnnw a getwis Arthur gantho tra vu vyw a hwnnw a elwit Kaletvwlch. Ac velly y tervyna yr ystoria hon.’ (‘And hence Arthur went to do battle and to govern the kingdom as is set forth in the history of the Britons. And Arthur kept the sword while he lived, and it was called Kaletvwlch. So endeth this story.’)158 As is the case in these Welsh texts, the Catalan verse narrative La Faula (‘The Tale’) offers a positive portrayal of Arthur. This text, written in the mid-fourteenth century by the Majorcan author Guillem Torroella, does not, however, focus on the heroic deeds of the king, but on his moral authority. A first-person narrator, introducing himself as Guillem (l. 174), announces his intention to relate an adventure he experienced himself. According to his story, he was carried away on the back of a whale and

154 155

156 157

158

See Blodeugerdd Barddas o Ganu Crefyddol Cynnar, ed. and trans. Marged Haycock (Abertawe, 1994), pp. 297–312 (stanzas 6–9). For the translations, see Jon B. Coe and Simon Young, The Celtic Sources for the Arthurian Legend (Felinfach, 1995), pp. 103–7. We are grateful to Bernadette Smelik for providing us with a copy of these pages. See also Jenny Rowland, Early Welsh Saga Poetry: A Study and Edition of the Englynion (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 285–86. See Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts (ed.), The Arthur of the Welsh, pp. 194–95 (by Ceridwen Lloyd–Morgan). For an edition and translation, see J. H. Davies, ‘A Welsh Version of the Birth of Arthur’, Y Cymmrodor 24 (1913), 247–64. We are grateful to Gareth Griffith for providing us with a copy of this article. Davies, ‘A Welsh Version’, 258, 264. For the reference to Geoffrey, see The Arthur of the Welsh, ed. Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts, p. 195.

224



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

reached the ‘Isl’ Enxantea’ (‘Enchanted Island’, l. 179), where a Frenchspeaking serpent informed him that he had arrived at the dwelling of ‘Morgan la fea and mesire le roy Artus’ (ll. 180–81).159 There he found Arthur, who explained that Morgan had brought him to the island after the battle of Salisbury, and that he was nourished by the ‘Sans Gresaus’ (‘Holy Grail’, l. 1083), which kept him alive and young. He then described his sadness over the fact that wicked kings prosper in the world while the valorous remain powerless (ll. 1158–81). Arthur’s command that Guillem make his views known finally underlines the king’s importance in the dissemination of an urgent moral message to humankind. Critical Views of Arthur In a number of texts originating from the fringe traditions, Arthur is shown in an unfavourable light. This is, for instance, the case in Breudwyt Rhonabwy (‘Dream of Rhonabwy’), in which, as in La Faula, the world of Arthur does not coincide with the world of the main character. Dating from the end of the thirteenth or the early fourteenth century, the Welsh prose text features a new hero, Rhonabwy, but his role is limited to that of a spectator.160 In his dream, he is led to Arthur’s encampment on the eve of the battle of Badon by his guide Iddawg Cordd Prydain, Iddawg ‘the Embroiler of Britain’. The latter explains that he is so called as a result of the rude manner in which he, as a young, belligerent man, deliberately addressed Medraut on behalf of Arthur, which started off the battle of Camlan more than seven years previously.161 The order of the two battles is unexpected, since, according to the chronicle tradition, the battle of Badon precedes Arthur’s last battle against Mordred. This reversal alerts the audience to the possibility that Breudwyt Rhonabwy is playing with Arthurian conventions. Written in a satiric vein, the tale’s treatment of Arthur is characterized by non-heroic elements.162 Soon after Rhonabwy has met him, for example, Arthur and his counsellors are drenched, due to a rider who spurs his horse into a ford. Iddawg reacts, preposterously, by declaring this rider the wisest man of the kingdom.163 The critical portrayal of Arthur culminates in the description of the board game that he plays against Owain.164 While the two men should be preparing for the battle against their opponent, they are, at the behest of Arthur, engaged 159 160 161 162 163 164

Guillem de Torroella, La Faula, ed. Pere Bohigas and Jaume Vidal Alcover (Tarragona, 1984). Breudwyt Ronabwy, ed. Melville Richards (Cardiff, 1948), and The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 122–35. Breudwyt Ronabwy, ed. Richards, pp. 4–5; The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, p. 124. See Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts (ed.), The Arthur of the Welsh, pp. 183–93 (p. 185) (by Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan). Breudwyt Ronabwy, ed. Richards, pp. 7–8; The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 126–27. Breudwyt Ronabwy, ed. Richards, pp. 11–18, and The Mabinogion, trans. Jones and Jones, pp. 129–33.

225



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

in one game after the other. Three squires subsequently warn Owain that Arthur’s men are slaying his ravens. After Arthur’s third stubborn refusal to call off his men, Owain permits his ravens to go into battle. As a result, three squires subsequently report that Arthur’s men are being killed by the ravens. Now it is Owain’s turn to persist in refusing to end the conflict. ‘Ac yna y gwasgwys Arthur y werin eur a oed ar y clawr yny oedynt yn dwst oll’ (‘And then Arthur crushed the golden pieces that were on the board till they were all dust.’)165 By doing so, Arthur admits his defeat, and the senseless killing stops. In Breudwyt Rhonabwy, Arthur is not a heroic leader, but a foolish one. A critical view of Arthur also emerges clearly in Arthur and Gorlagon, a Latin prose text which was probably written by a Welsh author at the end of the twelfth century.166 Like Gawain in the Middle Dutch Wrake van Ragisel, the king leaves the court in order to investigate ‘artem et ingenium mentemque femineam’ (‘the wiles, and nature, and mind of women’).167 The reason for his quest is his impulsive behaviour at the beginning of the narrative: in a cheerful mood he hugs and kisses Guinevere in public. In reaction to her embarrassed reply that he does not understand women, he vows that he will not eat until he has learned about them. Both his inappropriate action and his clearly untenable oath indicate the narrative’s intention of poking fun at the king – an expectation neatly fulfilled by the remainder of the tale.168 At Gorlagon’s court, Arthur refuses steadfastly to dismount and eat before his host has finished his story about his transformation into a wolf, caused by his wicked wife in an effort to get rid of him in favour of a pagan lover. Time and again, Gorlagon interrupts his story: ‘Arture, descende et comede. Magnum est quod queris, et pauci sunt qui illud agnoscunt, et cum tibi retulero parum inde doctior habeberis’ (‘Arthur, dismount and eat. For weighty is your question and few there are who know the answer, and when I have told you all, you will be but little wiser’).169 The comedy of these persistent invitations is clearly at the cost of the frustrated Arthur.170 Returning home, Arthur, ‘super hiis que audiuerat ualde miratus’ (‘marvelling greatly over what he had heard’), is indeed but little the wiser, as Gorlagon had announced.171 Möttuls saga (‘The Saga of the Mantle’), a thirteenth-century Norse prose rendition of the Mantel mautaillié, written, according to the prologue, at the request of King Hákon Hákonarson, depicts Arthur as a singularly 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

Breudwyt Ronabwy, 18, ll. 13–15, and The Mabinogion, p. 133. For the proposed date and provenance, see Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans. Day, pp. 41–43. Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans. Day, pp. 208–35 (pp. 210–11). On parody in this text, see Echard, Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition, pp. 204–14. Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans. Day, pp. 218–19, ll. 17–19. Cf. Amanda Hopkins, ‘Why Arthur at all? The Dubious Arthuricity of Arthur and Gorlagon’, Arthurian Literature 26 (2009), 77–95 (p. 79). Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans. Day, pp. 234–35, ll. 11–12.

226



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

apathetic king.172 The text opens with an elaborate portrait of Arthur, who is praised for being the world’s most valiant, generous, gentle, clever and benevolent man (6–7). However, since these qualities are, with the exception of generosity, strikingly absent further on in the tale, one may wonder whether this description is intended to provide an ironic contrast with the events which follow.173 The Arthurian values are ridiculed by means of a magic mantle which tests the fidelity of the women at court: all ladies but one are exposed as unfaithful. Arthur reacts to this outcome with indifference. He does not comment on Guinevere’s failure (14–17) and is irritated by the women’s reluctance to be tested, because he wants dinner to start (22–23). Whereas the courtiers are depressed by the shame that has come over them, Arthur ‘lét veita hirð sinni með svá miklum kostnaði at hvergi hefir verit önnur þvílík veizla veitt né þegin’ (‘let his court be entertained at such great cost that never had there been such entertainment either offered or enjoyed’, 28–29). The implicit criticism is aimed at Arthur’s failure to show the slightest dismay over the shortcomings of his court. The prominence of the Welsh tradition among fringe literatures which depict King Arthur in the role of hero – be it in the light of glorious leader or stubborn monarch – is unmistakable. Before the backdrop of these indigenous Welsh texts, Arthur’s absence from the ranks of Arthurian heroes elsewhere, outside of texts belonging to the Mort Artu tradition, seems to come all the more clearly to the fore. The majority of the fringe corpora seem to continue the patterns set by the French.

New Heroes Not only do the fringe literatures further develop the traditions surrounding heroes familiar from French romance, the Arthurian world is also expanded by the introduction of new heroes in indigenous romances peculiar to the these traditions. Unsurprisingly, the narrative techniques involved in bringing about an encounter between the Arthurian world and a figure previously unknown to it often re-use strategies already at work in the introduction of new heroes in the French tradition. Notwithstanding, the fringe literatures occasionally bring forth heroes so strongly influenced by an older indigenous literary tradition that they cause unprecedented developments in the Arthurian world as we know it.

172 173

See Norse Romance II, ed. Kalinke. pp. 1–31 (pp. 6–7). See Geraldine Barnes, ‘Scandinavian Versions of Arthurian Romance’, in A Companion to Arthurian Literature, ed. Fulton, pp. 189–201 (pp. 193–94).

227



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

Kinsmen of the Round Table The practice of presenting a new hero on the basis of credentials defined by ties of kinship is established by romances as early as Bliocadran, Le Bel Inconnu, Beaudous, Lanzelet and Wigalois in the French and German traditions, and embraced later by the fringe literatures which developed in their wake. The Lancelot Compilation preserves the Middle Dutch romance of Moriaen, which is believed to be a modified version of a lost thirteenthcentury Flemish original.174 The family ties which justify the presence of this hero among the more illustrious members of the Round Table are remarkable for a number of reasons. Firstly, the prologue to Moriaen in the Lancelot Compilation mentions that there is some uncertainty as to whether the hero’s father is in fact Perchevael or his brother: ‘Som die boeke doen ons weten / Dat hi Perchevals sone was, / Ende som boke secgen oec das, / Dat hi was Acglavaels soene, / Perchevaels broder was die goene’ (‘Some books inform us that he was Perchevael’s son, while others say that he was the son of Acglavael, who was Perchevael’s brother’, ll. 4–8). Clearly mindful of the imperatives imposed by the context of the Compilation, the narrator defends the decision to rule out Perchevael as the father of this hero, stressing that he, like Galahad, remained a virgin for the sake of the Grail (ll. 14–17). In addition to the doubt as to the identity of Moriaen’s father implied by the prologue, certain incongruities in the text provide strong evidence in support of the hypothesis that the lost Flemish original must have featured Moriaen as the son of Perchevael, while the inclusion of the romance in the Compilation necessitated some intervention on the part of the compiler.175 More important for our present purposes, perhaps, is the point that even though the compiler could not depict Perchevael in the role of Moriaen’s father, he still chose to retain the blood relationship between them, which invites us to draw a comparison between the adventures of the young Moriaen and the history of Perchevael. In this light, Moriaen’s quest for justice for his mother, who finds herself bereft of her rights to her lands when abandoned by the father of her child (ll. 707–13), is revealed as a correction of the sin committed by Perceval in Chrétien’s Conte du Graal when he decided against turning back to tend to his ailing mother. Moriaen distinguishes himself further from his older relative when he decides against the spiritual path, favouring the sphere of worldly knighthood under the tutelage, needless to say, of none other than Walewein.176 174

175 176

See Jackson and Ranawake (ed.), The Arthur of the Germans, p. 217 (by Bart Besamusca). For an edition of the text, see Moriaen, ed. H. Paardekooper-van Buuren and M. Gysseling (Zutphen, 1971). See Besamusca, The Book of Lancelot, pp. 84–87. See Roel Zemel, ‘Moriaen en Perceval in “Waste Land”’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal – en Letterkunde 112 (1996), 297–319, and Besamusca, The Book of Lancelot, p. 79.

228



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

The hero of the Italian romance Gismirante, a cantare by Antonio Pucci (d. 1388), is identified as the son of a knight of the Round Table who is known simply as ‘il cavalier Cortese’ (stanza 2, 2), ‘the courtly knight’.177 Of the father we learn only that he left the realm of King Arthur in order to make his way to Rome and remained there until his death. On his deathbed, he urged his son to seek out the Arthurian court, commending him to messer Tristano, Lancelotto and messer Calvano (3, 7–8). So it is that Gismirante’s arrival is eased by the high regard in which all of the knights held his father: ‘per amore del suo padre’ (5, 1), ‘for the love of his father’. While a newcomer to Arthurian romance, this hero – as the son of a virtually anonymous and singularly uninteresting veteran of the Round Table – seems neither a true outsider nor a true insider at the court of King Arthur. It is precisely his status as a half-outsider, however, a certain affinity for communication with the world outside of Arthur’s court, that proves Gismirante’s value within the court. The hero begins by spending seven years here, at the end of which the implosion of the Arthurian world due to sheer lack of action seems imminent: the court undertakes to refrain from eating until some news is heard from an external source, and when the fast enters its second day, Gismirante finally demands that Arthur make him a knight, in order that he might set out to put an end to the severe discomfort occasioned by the unhappy ‘usanza’ (6,3). It is not until day three that Gismirante encounters the fairy who furnishes him with the material of a fine adventure, and when he returns to liberate the court from its self-imposed misery, he is greeted by a picture of ultimate lethargy: all have gone to bed (stanza 13).178 The only knight in a position to reflect on a possible solution to the problem at hand, and the only one willing to leave the court in quest of adventure, this new hero Gismirante stands out among the Arthurian personnel of this romance as the only figure capable of generating action. Genealogical bonds are also used as a means to explain the presence of Samson at the Arthurian court in the Icelandic prose romance Samsons saga fagra, although his place among European Arthurian heroes is an enigmatic one.179 In this fourteenth-century tale, the hero is introduced as the son of King Arthur. This Norse Arthur may be the king of England, and significant parts of the action are centred in Brittany, but there is little 177

178

179

Gismirante, ed. Franco Zabagli, in Cantari novellistici dal Tre al Cinquecento, ed. Elisabetta Benucci, Roberta Manetti and Franco Zabagli (Roma, 2002), vol. 1, pp. 129–64. The English translations are our own. For a summary in English, see Gardner, The Arthurian Legend, pp. 247–50. On humour in the opening episode of Gismirante, see Christopher Kleinhenz, ‘The Quest Motif in Medieval Italian Literature’, in Conjunctures: Medieval Studies in Honor of Douglas Kelly, Faux titre 83, ed. Keith Busby and Norris J. Lacy (Amsterdam, 1994), pp. 235–51 (p. 248). See Samsons saga fagra, ed. John Wilson (Copenhagen, 1953). The text has not been translated into English. For a German translation, see Die Saga vom Mantel und die Saga vom schönen Samson. Möttuls saga und Samsons saga fagra, trans. Rudolf Simek (Wien, 1982).

229



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

about this tale to remind us of Arthurian tradition as it existed in Continental Europe. Arthur is married here to a certain Filipa, the daughter of the King of Hungary, and his son Samson becomes engaged in a lengthy quest to win the daughter of the King of Ireland. The chastity-testing mantle, known to Norse audiences from the Möttuls saga, is the only motif of Arthurian origin here.180 This romance includes a description of the origins of the mantle, which is finally used to prove the virtue of Valentina, the hero’s bride.181 In view of the fact that a good part of the secondary plot concerning the mantle has been shown to be immersed in Scandinavian tradition, the bonds of kinship which link the hero to King Arthur seem less to fulfil the function of justifying the fair Samson’s place beside Lancelot and Perceval in the Arthurian hall of fame than to offer the Arthurian subject-matter a point of entry into Scandinavian tradition.182 Outsiders to the Arthurian World If the expansion of family circles found favour as a means of providing a new Arthurian figure with an incontrovertible right to membership of the Round Table, underlining the outsider status of a newcomer in the world of Arthurian romance allowed authors to problematize the expansion of the Arthurian world in terms of an encounter with the unknown. The thirteenth-century Middle Dutch verse romance Ridder metter mouwen (‘The Knight with the Sleeve’) revolves around a nameless young squire who comes to King Arthur in the hope of being made a knight.183 The opening episode depicts the court in the city of Kardoelet in a state of disintegration. Whitsunday festivities are interrupted by the arrival of a messenger who comes to announce the deaths of Tristan and Isolde (ll. 52–75), upon which Arthur and his knights make arrangements to depart promptly in order to attend the double funeral. The newcomer has no choice but to await the return of the king. In addition to this unfortunate neglect of Arthurian hospitality, the court is left virtually unmanned. With almost all of the knights absent, Kardeloet is vulnerable to uncourtly forces and becomes the scene of an appalling crime against an innocent damsel. While the outsider status of the nameless visitor means that he was not invited to attend the prestigious funeral, he becomes by that same

180 181 182 183

See The Arthur of the North, ed. Kalinke, pp. 145–67 (pp. 160–61). Samsons saga fagra, ed. Wilson, p. 45; Die Saga vom Mantel, trans. Simek, p. 129. On the Scandinavian influence in the second part of the text, see Die Saga vom Mantel, trans. Simek, pp. 23–27. Dutch Romances III, ed. Johnson and Claassens, pp. 196–367. The romance was incorporated in the Lancelot Compilation, but in a shortened form: a fragment surviving independently of the Compilation reveals that the original romance was more elaborate. See Jackson and Ranawake (ed.), The Arthur of the Germans, pp. 218–19 (by Bart Besamusca).

230



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

token the only man on hand at Kardeloet to uphold that central principle of the Arthurian court, the protection of the helpless. The place of the hero at court, therefore, is justified purely by chivalric merit, displayed in the course of adventures which reveal a conscious effort on the part of the author to highlight qualities the hero holds in common with Tristan, Perceval, Lancelot and Yvain.184 It is noteworthy, however, that family relations ultimately play a significant role in his final integration at the Arthurian court. Firstly, new bonds of alliance are created when the hero marries Walewein’s niece Clarette (ll. 2225–36) – so that he marries into the family of Walewein and, therefore, of King Arthur himself. Secondly, it is simultaneously with his installation as a knight at the Arthurian court that the hero becomes aware of his own family background: in the course of the festivities to mark his success in the tournament in which he won the hand of Clarette (ll. 2126–219), he makes the acquaintance of his mother and learns his name, Miraudijs. Finally, the hero embarks on a quest to find his imprisoned father, and the romance ends with the marriage of his parents (ll. 3631–55). The Arthurian genealogy, therefore, is ultimately extended to create a niche for Miraudijs, whose suitability as an Arthurian hero seems confirmed by his ability to replace his initial anonymity by a plethora of kinship bonds. The Middle Dutch verse romance Torec survives solely in the Lancelot Compilation, but is thought to have originally existed independently as a text written by Jacob van Maerlant around 1262.185 Torec’s adventures are driven by the quest to regain possession of a golden circlet of which his grandmother was unjustly deprived, a search which will lead him via Arthur to his bride. In this text, however, the Arthurian court is hardly the centre of courtly values and chivalric prowess which attracts Fair Unknowns from far and wide: Torec makes his way here, rather, in order to seek retribution for a damsel who was wrongly deprived of thirty castles as a result of a verdict pronounced by the Round Table (ll. 1925–58). It is significant that all of Arthur’s knights stubbornly uphold the clearly wrongful ruling except Walewein, who can deny any association with this injustice on the grounds that he was not present when the decision was taken (ll. 1959–64). The friendship that emerges between Arthur’s nephew and the newcomer draws clear ethical lines within the Arthurian court; in offering the hero accommodation and even supplying him with the additional items of armour which he requires in order to take part in

184 185

See Besamusca, The Book of Lancelot, pp. 108–14. Dutch Romances III, ed. Johnson and Claassens, pp. 562–727. Maerlant probably based his work on another lost text: the French Torrez, le Chevalier au cercle d’or. While the innovative features of Torec cannot, therefore, be viewed exclusively as a product of the Dutch tradition, scholarship assumes that Maerlant introduced important changes to his source and notes that further adaptation on the part of the compiler cannot be ruled out. On the source text, see Dutch Romances III, ed. Johnson and Claassens, pp. 38–44 (pp. 39–42).

231



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

the duel against Ywain (ll. 1989–97), Walewein shows overt solidarity with this new arrival who will initially politely decline the offer of a place among the Arthurian knights. When the conditions for achieving lasting happiness with Miraude are revealed, Torec faces a further encounter with the Arthurian court: Miraude will marry only the suitor who succeeds in unhorsing all of Arthur’s knights. In a moment of realism extraordinary in Arthurian narrative, the author passes up the chance to depict Torec in the role of the superhuman hero, choosing instead to highlight a remarkable act of courtesy on the part of Walewein towards the knight who as yet remains an outsider to the Arthurian circle. Clearly eager to facilitate Torec’s effort to win the hand of Miraude, Arthur’s nephew urges his fellow knights to cut their saddle-girths, so that the hero will indeed achieve what otherwise appears an utterly impossible task (ll. 3286–94, 3620–27). The myth of the hero capable of unhorsing an entire army of knights is at once undone by means of this singularly charming narrative twist. It is undoubtedly significant that Torec subsequently chooses to leave the court to repair with his new wife to her country, but it is equally significant that, in times of turmoil, such as when the land he inherits from his father is invaded, the Dutch narrator insists that Torec will continue to rely on the help of the Round Table (ll. 3799–826). In the twelfth-century Latin prose tale Historia Meriadoci, the arrival of the hero at Arthur’s court is the result not of his own wish to join the Round Table, but of an abduction carried out by Kaius (Kay).186 Meriadoc, whose father Caradoc, the king of Cambria, was murdered by his own brother, is rescued along with his twin sister Orwen and raised in the wilderness by loving foster-parents. Because of their radiant beauty, the two youngsters draw upon themselves the attention of Kay and King Urien of Scotland. Orwen is taken captive against her will and packed off to Scotland, where she later becomes the wife of King Urien, while Kay seizes Meriadoc with great delight to abduct him to Arthur’s court. While the abductees later seem pleased enough with their respective lots – both become honoured members of the royal courts to which they are initially taken as prisoners – we are left in no doubt as to the terrible grief which the disappearance of the twins causes the virtuous couple who raised them (p. 138, ll. 33–38). Such is the nature of the first shadow to be cast over the court of King Arthur in this romance. However, together with Urien, Arthur will subsequently wage war on Griffin, the murderer of Meriadoc’s father, in order to avenge that wrong, after which Meriadoc is crowned king of Cambria. It is noteworthy that, at this point, Meriadoc goes to some lengths to evade the pitfall famously associated with Erec: ‘domi residens desidia torpescere’ (‘[to] reside at home and become slug-

186

Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans. Day, pp. 122–207. On problems of authorship and dating, see pp. 2–11 and 25–27.

232



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

gish with inactivity’, p. 148, ll. 4–5), committing the kingdom of Cambria to the care of King Urien in order to devote his own time to knightly exercises. Similarly, the hero is determined not to live out his existence at the court of King Arthur, viewing it as an interim solution of which he will avail only until he has decided on his next move (p. 148, ll. 10–12). The lack of personal solidarity with King Arthur becomes even more obvious when Meriadoc agrees to defend the king against the Knight of the Black Forest, who announces that he has been wrongfully deprived by Arthur of the land from which – as he points out himself – his very name is taken (p. 148, ll. 30–31). The Black Knight succeeds in unhorsing thirty-seven of Arthur’s men, and is finally defeated by Meriadoc, who immediately returns to upbraid the king for having forced his knights to involve themselves in this case and demands as his reward for the defeat of the Black Knight the restitution of the forest to its rightful owner. Arthur protests – further proof of his capacity for unjust behaviour – and it takes the concerted efforts of the lords and princes of his realm to persuade him to grant this boon (p. 158, ll. 15–21).187 The dubious dealings of the king take on a comical aspect when, after this remarkable comment on Arthurian justice, two more knights emerge to contest the ownership of two further forests: the Knights of the Red and of the White Forests respectively.188 After seeing to it that justice is done by restoring their lands to them, Meriadoc – having had enough, it would seem, of life as an Arthurian hero – now moves on to confront further unjust rulers, his encounter with the Arthurian world a closed chapter. Eachtra Mhacaoimh-an-Iolair (‘The Story of Eagle-Boy’), an Irish prose romance of uncertain dating which appears to have been written by one Brian Ó Corcráin, tells the story of another youth deprived, like Meriadoc, of his right to his father’s throne by a scheming uncle.189 The hero is carried off by an eagle shortly after his birth and dropped into the lap of King Arthur, who receives ‘an aitheasc beag sin’ (‘that little gift’, p. 118, l. 19) with delight, immediately declaring the child his rightful heir (p. 120, ll. 28–29) and naming him Macaomh-an-Iolair (p. 120, ll. 47–48). Arthur, here called ‘an ríogh Artuir mic Iubhair mic Ambrois mic Constaintin mic Ughdhaire Fionndraguin’ (‘King Arthur, son of Iubhar, son of Ambrose, son of Constantine, son of Uther Pendragon’, p. 118, ll. 5–6), is on the Plain of Wonders when the eagle comes upon 187

188 189

On the legal implications of Arthur’s behaviour towards the Black Knight, see Echard, Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition, pp. 159–92 (pp. 171–77), and Echard (ed.), The Arthur of Medieval Latin Literature, pp. 132–45 (pp. 137–38) (by Elizabeth Archibald). On comic effect in this episode, see Echard, Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition, pp. 184–86. See Two Irish Arthurian Romances, ed. and trans. Macalister. On the problem of dating, see William Gillies, ‘Arthur in Gaelic Tradition. Part II: Romances and Learned Lore’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 3 (1982), 41–75 (46), and A Companion to Arthurian Literature ed. Fulton, pp. 117–27 (pp. 123–24) (by Joseph Falaky Nagy).

233



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

him, in the hope of discovering some wonder which might permit him to break the geis preventing his court from feasting. Eagle-Boy’s status as Arthur’s foster-son is reminiscent of the relationship depicted between Gawain and the king in one version of the Eachtra an Mhadra Mhaoil; unlike Gawain in that romance, however, this hero will not remain at the Round Table as Arthur’s heir, but succeeds alone in winning back his father’s kingdom. Eagle-Boy’s contribution to the Arthurian court consists of winning a wife for the king, the Girl of the Grey Palfrey, whom he frees from her evil husband, the Knight of Music. Since Arthur is now provided with a spouse and thereby, presumably, with the means to produce a new heir, it is hardly problematic that the hero should finally part company with the Arthurian world, when he departs in order to rule over the kingdom of his father with his own new-found wife. The most innovative of the heroes added by the fringe traditions must surely be the protagonist of the Irish prose text Céilithe Iosgaide Léithe (‘The Visit of Grey Thigh’), which is preserved in later manuscripts, but dates in all probability from the fifteenth century.190 Initially, the text follows what appears to be a conventional plot, surrounding a young knight known as the Knight of the Hunt who sets out to prove his mettle at the court of King Arthur. The focus changes, however, with the intrusion of a supernatural female figure upon the narrative: ‘Grey Leg’ or ‘Grey Thigh’ makes her first appearance as a deer during a hunt, and is eventually invited to Arthur’s court, where the origins of her ugly nick-name are made public: behind her knee grows a tuft of grey hair so unflattering that it inspires hatred in all who see it.191 From this point on, it is the female figures – primarily Grey Thigh – who will determine the course of the action. When the wives of the Round Table observe that their husbands no longer desire them as a result of the great beauty of the new arrival, these ‘evil-intentioned women’ set out to expose their rival.192 Grey Thigh is called upon to raise her skirts and reveal the offending hair, but shows off a leg of such beauty that all who behold it are overcome

190

191 192

The original text is edited in Dhá sgéal Artúraíochta: mar atá Eachtra Mhelóra agus Orlando agus Céilidhe Iosgaide Léithe, ed. Máire Mhac an tSaoi (Dublin, 1946), pp. 42–70. For an English translation, see Connor P. Hartnett, Irish Arthurian Literature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1973, vol. 2, pp. 337–80. (A two-volume print–out was produced by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1978). On the question of dating and for a brief summary of the plot, see Gillies, ‘Arthur in Gaelic Tradition. Part II’, 43–44, and A Companion to Arthurian Literature, ed. Fulton, pp. 117–27 (pp. 121–22) (by Joseph Falaky Nagy). Dhá sgéal Artúraíochta, ed. Mhac an tSaoi, pp. 50–51, ll. 1712–18; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 351, par. 35. Dhá sgéal Artúraíochta, ed. Mhac an tSaoi, p. 52, l. 1758; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 353, par. 46.

234



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

with love for her.193 It is now the knights’ wives who suddenly find themselves afflicted with tufts of hair behind their knees and covered with the shame they had intended to heap upon the stranger. Grey Thigh condemns all of the wives of the court to live out their existence without husbands, inviting the knights to follow her to the Otherworld, where, as she promises, she will replace their cantankerous spouses. Initially, however, a nasty surprise awaits the menfolk of Arthur’s court: the knights are attacked by diabolical animals, leaving only Gawain and the king alive. Grey Thigh announces that this is the manner in which she proposes to avenge the shame she endured at Arthur’s court, before explaining that the animals are in fact the new wives of the knights. The dead are then reawakened to life, their animal aggressors take on human form, and the Arthurian company is despatched back home to live happily ever after.194 This intrusion of the Irish tradition in the form of Grey Thigh on the world of Arthurian fiction may lead to the disintegration of conventional Arthurian narrative structures and threaten to shatter the stability of King Arthur’s court, but in its briefly narrated happy ending, this text is ultimately content to leave the Arthurian world largely in the intact state in which it was found.195 Lookalikes A further stratagem which proved productive for the introduction of new heroes involved the attribution of key traits of a well-known Arthurian hero to a new character, who is in turn immediately recognizable as a reflection on his model, sometimes in parodical guise. Within the French tradition, Perceval returns as the peasant hero of Guillaume le Clerc’s Fergus, who subsequently finds his way into the Dutch tradition as Ferguut.196 Outside of France, Perceval inspired – at least to some extent – two further heroes: the Great Fool in the Irish Eachtra an Amadáin Mhóir (‘Story of the Great Fool’) and Carduino in the Italian cantare of the same name. The Great Fool is the hero of a later prose romance of uncertain dating which is preserved in three eighteenth-century manuscripts and shows 193 194 195

196

Dhá sgéal Artúraíochta, ed. Mhac an tSaoi, p. 53, ll. 1798–1802; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 355, par. 53. Dhá sgéal Artúraíochta, ed. Mhac an tSaoi Mhac, p. 70, ll. 2336; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 379, par. 119. The Irish connection behind the figure of Grey Thigh and the collective humiliation of the ladies at Arthur’s court are discussed by Nagy (A Companion to Arthurian Literature, ed. Fulton, pp. 122–23). On Fergus, see Burgess and Pratt (ed.), The Arthur of the French, pp. 426–29 (by D.D.R. Owen), and Roel Zemel, The Quest for Galiene. A Study of Guillaume le Clerc’s Arthurian Romance ‘Fergus’ (Amsterdam and Münster, 2006); on Ferguut, see R. M. T. Zemel, Op zoek naar Galiene. Over de Oudfranse Fergus en de Middelnederlandse Ferguut (Amsterdam, 1991), and Jackson and Ranawake (ed.), The Arthur of the Germans, pp. 211–14 (by Bart Besamusca).

235



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

important connections to Chrétien’s Perceval.197 The hero, a nephew of King Arthur, is deliberately removed from the civilised world in order to be raised as a ‘senseless and complete fool’ in the forest.198 As is the case in the French text, the strategy is conceived with a view to protecting the lad, but the risk posed by knighthood is of a different order: the hero’s parents fear that he might one day take it upon himself to avenge his three older brothers who found their deaths while attempting to kill the King of the World, as Arthur is often called in Irish texts, in order to see their father seated on his throne.199 The family of the Great Fool, therefore, is no victim of unjustly waged war, but suffers on account of its own corrupt aspirations. Just as inevitably as Perceval, the young hero comes into contact with chivalric civilization, but when he finds himself at the court of King Arthur, it is by chance, and he moreover immediately sets his sights not on the knightly accoutrements he sees there, but on the apparel of the court fool, demanding to know whether he himself can become an even greater fool than the other if he can come by the appropriate clothing.200 After his first taste of life at court, the Great Fool does not move on to a chivalric education but significantly returns to his mother and nurse to be kitted out. The deer-skin garb in which he is clad before departing once more for Arthur’s court is not, as in the case of Perceval, the result of a subversive measure taken by a scheming mother-figure, but exactly the clothing the hero has ordered. No less unmistakably out of kilter with the continental tradition is the behaviour of the Arthurian court: here, it is not Cay, but – remarkably – Gawain who slaps the young girl for laughing at the visitor, while Arthur’s bone of contention with a knight in coloured armour is depicted as the result solely of his own failure to keep to the terms of an agreement.201 The Great Fool now sets out with the intention of travelling the world to make fools of everyone 197

198 199 200 201

For an edition of this romance, see ‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. T. Ó Rabhartaigh and Douglas Hyde, Lia Fáil 2 (1927), 191–228; for an English translation, see Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, vol. 2, pp. 445–516. On the relationship between this text and Chrétien’s Perceval, see Linda Gowans, ‘The Eachtra an Amadáin Mhóir as a Response to the Perceval of Chrétien de Troyes’, Arthurian Literature 19 (2003), 199–230. On the complex text tradition of this material, which is also preserved in Scottish and Irish folktales, see William Gillies, ‘Arthur in Gaelic Tradition. Part I: Folktales and Ballads’, in Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 2 (1981), 47–72 (51–53), and ‘Arthur in Gaelic Tradition. Part II, 47–49, and further Gowans, ‘The Eachtra an Amadáin Mhóir’, pp. 199–200, who also offers a brief guide to further literature on the subject. ‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. Ó Rabhartaigh and Hyde, p. 196; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 448. ‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. Ó Rabhartaigh and Hyde, p. 196; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 448. ‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. Ó Rabhartaigh and Hyde, p. 198; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 453. ‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. Ó Rabhartaigh and Hyde, pp. 199–200; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, pp. 456–57. On the irony associated with the encounter between the Great Fool and the Arthurian court, see Gowans, ‘The Eachtra an Amadáin Mhóir’, 205–7.

236



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

he meets. Male opponents are quickly subdued and subsequently become friends and even companions, while amorous encounters with women prove a more lengthy enterprise as a result of the enjoyment they entail.202 The meeting with the mentor-figure in this tale serves to enlighten the Great Fool as regards the ridicule attached to the epithet by which he identifies himself, which prompts the hero to demand of King Arthur an explanation for this deliberate humiliation. When Arthur, however, not realising the ties of kinship which link him to the Fool, offers the Great Fool his kingdom, the hero declines the opportunity to relinquish the fool status which has stood him thus far in good stead.203 Details of the hero’s family background are provided in this narrative by a strange one-eyed cat who can also assume human form, but the Fool does not return to seek out his relatives.204 Moving on, he encounters a young woman mourning her husband and her abductor, whose bodies she holds in her arms and who lost their lives in a duel for her love. This lady, who bears a parodic resemblance to Perceval’s cousin, is neither a blood relation of the Fool nor the dispenser of genealogical information. Impressed by, of all things, his account of the well-placed family to which he belongs, she remains with him as something akin to a wife.205 In its humorous approach to niceté as a guiding principal, this text deliberately explores an alternative both to the Perceval’s trajectory as aspiring Grail hero and to conventional Arthurian notions of chivalric success. The hero of the fourteenth-century Italian verse text Cantari di Carduino is related to two heroes of the French verse tradition. In his upbringing and in his primary encounter with King Arthur, Carduino closely resembles Perceval, while the adventures in quest of which he rides forth from Arthur’s court are unmistakably reminiscent of the Bel Inconnu in the romance of that name by Renaut de Beaujeu.206 Carduino is the son of Dondinello, who was a knight at the court of King Arthur and a particular favourite of the king. Dondinello was treacherously murdered by a brother of Calvano – a crime which the hero will later avenge, albeit unknowingly.207 Carduino is aged nine months when his father is killed

202 203 204 205 206

207

‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. Ó Rabhartaigh and Hyde, p. 210; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 478. ‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. Ó Rabhartaigh and Hyde, p. 208; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 473. ‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. Ó Rabhartaigh and Hyde, p. 213; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, p. 485. ‘An t-Amadán Mór’, ed. Ó Rabhartaigh and Hyde, p. 221; Irish Arthurian Literature, trans. Hartnett, pp. 503–4. See Cantari di Carduino, in Cantari fiabeschi arturiani, ed. Daniela Delcorno Branca (Milano, Trento, 1999), pp. 39–64. For a summary in English, see Gardner, The Arthurian Legend, pp. 253–57. On Carduino as a Perceval romance, see Claude Luttrell, ‘The upbringing of Perceval heroes’, Arthurian Literature 16 (1998), 131–69.

237



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

and is removed by his mother to a forest, where he grows up not just in ignorance of chivalry, but in the belief that no other people exist save his mother and himself (cantare I, stanza 10, ll. 5–8). The intrusion of the outside world upon the protected maternal sphere takes place in this romance in two stages. First, the boy comes upon hunting spears which were left behind in the forest after a hunt, and it is to his mother that he poses his questions, which gives rise to the fallacy that they are a gift from God (I, 3, ll. 6–8). Some time later, a royal hunt passes close to the cabin where Carduino lives with his mother, and he ventures out to investigate the clamour. Here, however, it is not the youth who exhibits the greater fascination, but the hunters, who believe Carduino to be a wild man and attempt without success to catch him (I, 18, ll. 1–3). Carduino, understanding now that there are more people like himself in the world, twice accuses his mother of wilful deception and resolves to leave the forest. In this text, his mother leaves the forest with him, leading her son back to civilization, taking up residence in a city and acquiring a horse and armour for him, and finally giving him her full blessing to seek out the court of King Arthur. The adventures which ensue seem to be drawn from the narrative tradition of the Bel Inconnu. The hero is chosen by Arthur to accompany a damsel and her dwarf who have come to the royal court in order to request assistance for the damsel’s sister, whose realm languishes in the mercy of an evil enchanter intent on forcing her to marry him (II, 4–5). Like the hero of the French romance, Carduino will spend the night at the residence of an attractive female enchantress. In spite of the explicit invitation she issues to the hero, she avoids sleeping with him: on entering her room, Carduino finds himself at the mercy of four giants, who – such is, we are told, the custom of this place – hang him by the arms over a swollen and raging river (II, 16–19). If the hero is not left afire with love for his supernatural hostess, he is at least spared the quandary which plagues his French counterpart following the dragon kiss. For when Carduino subsequently banishes the enchantment of the ‘città incantata’ by kissing the wretched serpent, which he does with some reluctance, he does not stir from the side of the beautiful Beatrice, who in turn declares him ‘l’amor mio fino’ (II, 65, l. 8). The romance closes with the final stage of the integration of the hero at the Arthurian court: Carduino’s relationship with Dondinello becomes known, and Calvano and his brothers beg forgiveness. The addition of new heroes to the Arthurian world most often involves the fabrication of new material according to existing patterns. Alternatively, it can reveal a readiness to almost completely reshape existing frameworks in order to recast Arthurian tradition in structures emanating from the indigenous literary tradition. In every case, the productivity associated with the introduction of home-grown Arthurian heroes marks a moment of conscious encounter with the Arthurian tradition. 238



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

Conclusion Viewing the literatures which we have designated as the fringes of the Arthurian tradition as a whole, we can observe a marked diversity not only in terms of geography and language, but also in the dating of texts, in the size of the individual corpora and in the forms and lengths of the texts involved. The fringe literatures cover a vast time-span. While the older texts of the Welsh and Latin corpora are tentatively dated to the beginning and middle of the twelfth century respectively, a substantial number of Italian, Spanish and Irish texts are believed to have been composed as late as the fifteenth century. The fringe corpora range in quantity from those consisting of a single Arthurian narrative, as in the case of the Belarusian and Hebrew traditions, to the magnitude of the Italian group, which, comprising some thirty texts, is hardly smaller than the English and German corpora. Certain corpora, such as the Welsh, Iberian, Scandinavian and Irish, show a marked preference for prose, while the Dutch Arthurian texts are almost exclusively in verse – a distinction connected in all likelihood to the influence of indigenous norms. Alongside vast romances in prose, the fringe traditions include short tales in prose, such as those incorporated in the Italian Novellino, and in verse, such as the Spanish ballads and a number of Italian cantari. Against the backdrop of this variety, one might expect the treatment of Arthurian material in the fringe traditions to show a similar degree of diversity. And indeed, the spectrum of fringe texts covers faithful translations, free adaptations, radical rewritings and indigenous romances alongside texts in which the Arthurian world as we know it seems modified almost beyond recognition. This is the case in the Irish and Scandinavian traditions, in which the depiction of the Arthurian world is heavily colored by the influence of native literary culture. The Eachtra an Mhadra Mhaoil (‘The Story of the Crop-Eared Dog’) and Céilithe Iosgaide Léithe (‘The Visit of Grey Thigh’) both confront the Arthurian court with characters and situations formed by Irish tradition. The process of acculturation appears even more marked in the Icelandic Samsons saga fagra, in which the Arthurian court seems reduced to the name of its king and the motif of the mantle test. A special place is occupied by Welsh texts such as Preiddeu Annwn (‘The Spoils of Annwn’), Pa gur yv y porthaur? (‘What Man is the Gatekeeper?’) and Culhwch ac Olwen. If they have little in common with continental Arthurian fiction, this is, as is well known, by virtue of their early date. In the overwhelming majority of the fringe texts, however, a clear tendency is discernible both to repeat and develop narrative structures – plots, characters, themes and motifs – which play a constitutive role in the French tradition. That this holds true for the many translations, adaptations and rewritings which are based directly or indirectly on a 239



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

French source is obvious. In the case of the indigenous fringe tales, however, the same phenomenon can be observed. Perceval adventures are reshaped in the Eachtra an Amadáin Mhóir (‘Story of the Great Fool’) and the Cantari di Carduino. The Roman van Walewein and the Cantare di Ponzela Gaia recast Gawain as a knight thoroughly committed to the woman he loves. La Faula places Arthur at the centre of the action even after his last battle. These examples are characteristic of the strategies by which indigenous texts make productive use of familiar Arthurian structures. It is noteworthy that also in the case of those Latin texts which are thought by some to predate French romance, narrative features known to us from the French tradition abound. In the Historia Meriadoci, the hero’s fear of the recreantise so similar to the lapse suffered by Erec offers a striking example. In Herido está don Tristán (‘Wounded is Sir Tristan’), a lily sprouts from the tears shed by Tristan and Isolde immediately before the death of the hero. Combining the well-known scene of the lovers’ last meeting with the highly original element of the flower, this text powerfully demonstrates the joint mechanisms of convention and innovation, eloquently reflecting the quintessence of the response to the Arthurian tradition in the fringe literatures.

Appendix This appendix lists all the fringe texts which are discussed in our article. They are ordered according to the language in which they were written. Belarusian literature Povest’ o Tryshchane (before 1580) Czech literature Tristram a Izalda (late 14th century) Danish literature Tistram og Jomfru Isolt (15th century) Dutch literature Arturs doet (c. 1280) Lanceloet en het hert met de witte voet (13th century) Lancelot Compilation (c. 1320) Lantsloot vander Haghedochte (c. 1260) Moriaen (13th century) Penninc and Pieter Vostaert, Roman van Walewein (c. 1250) Perchevael (c. 1320) 240



FRINGES OF ARTHURIAN FICTION

Queeste vanden Grale (c. 1280) Ridder metter mouwen (13th century) Torec (c. 1262) Walewein ende Keye (13th century) Wrake van Ragisel (early 13th century) Hebrew literature Melekh Artus (1279) Icelandic literature Saga af Tristram ok Ísodd (14th century) Samsons saga fagra (14th century) Tristrams Kvæði (14th century) Irish literature Céilithe Iosgaide Léithe (15th century) Eachtra an Amadáin Mhóir (16th century?) Eachtra an Mhadra Mhaoil (after 1517) Eachtra Mhacaoimh-an-Iolair (15th century?) Lorgaireacht an tSoidhigh Naomhtha (mid-15th century) Italian literature Cantare dei Cantari (1380–1420) Cantari di Carduino (14th century) Chantari di Lancellotto (c. 1400) Morale (before 1410) Morte di Tristano (14th century) Novellino (or Cento novelle antiche), nos. 28, 45, 65, 82 (late 13th century) Ponzela Gaia (mid-14th–15th centuries) Antonio Pucci, Gismirante (late 14th century) Quando Tristano e Lancielotto conbatetero al petrone di Merlino (15th century) Tavola Ritonda (1330–1340) Tristano Riccardiano (1272–1300) Zibaldone da Canal (early 14th century) Latin literature Arthur and Gorlagon (late 12th century) De ortu Waluuani (mid-12th century?) Historia Meriadoci (12th century) Norse-Icelandic literature 208 Brother Robert, Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar (1226)

208

This corpus includes Norse texts which are extant in Icelandic redactions.

241



BESAMUSCA AND QUINLAN

Erex saga (after 13th century) Ívens saga (13th century) Möttuls saga (13th century) Parcevals saga, including Valvens Þáttr (13th century) Spanish literature Brother Juan Vives, Spanish Post-Vulgate (c. 1313) Carta enviada por Hiseo la Brunda a Tristán; Respuesta de Tristán (late 15th century) Guillem Torroella, La Faula (mid-14th century) Herido está don Tristán (15th century) Lanzarote del Lago (c. 1300) Lanzarote y el ciervo del pie blanco, or Tres hijuelos habia el rey (15th century) Nunca fuera caballero de damas tan bien servido, or Lanzarote y el Orgulloso (15th century) Swedish literature Ivan Lejonriddaren, or Hærra Ivan (1303) Welsh literature The Birth of Arthur (14th century?) Breudwyt Rhonabwy (c. 1300) Culhwch ac Olwen (c. 1100) Geraint (c. 1210–1230) Owain (c. 1210–1230) Pa gur yv y porthaur? (before 1100) Peredur (c. 1225–1250) Preiddeu Annwn (c. 800–c. 1150) Ymddiddan Arthur a’r Eryr (12th century) Y Seint Greal (late 14th century) Ystorya Trystan, or Trystan ac Esyllt (13th–14th centuries)

242



CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS VOLUMES

Details of earlier titles are available from the publishers XVII  (1999) Bart Besamusca and Erik Kooper Walter Haug Douglas Kelly Norris J. Lacy Matthias Meyer Ad Putter Felicity Riddy Thea Summerfield Jane H. M. Taylor Bart Veldhoen Norbert Voorwinden Lori J. Walters

The Study of the Roman van Walewein The Roman van Walewein as a Postclassical Literary Experiment The Pledge Motif in the Roman van Walewein: Original Variant and Rewritten Quest Convention and Innovation in the Middle Dutch Roman van Walewein It’s Hard to Be Me, or Walewein/Gawan as Hero Walewein in the Otherworld and the Land of Prester John Giving and Receiving: Exchange in the Roman van Walewein and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Reading a Motion Picture: Why Steven Spielberg Should Read the Roman van Walewein The Roman van Walewein: Man into Fox, Fox into Man The Roman van Walewein Laced with Castles Fight Description in the Roman van Walewein and in Two Middle High German Romances. A Comparison Making Bread from Stone: The Roman van Walewein and the Transformation of Old French Romance

XVIII  (2001) † Richard N. Illingworth Jane H. M. Taylor Carleton W. Carroll and Maria Colombo Timelli Raluca Radulescu

Julia Marvin Norris J. Lacy and Raymond H. Thompson

The Composition of the Tristran of Beroul The Lure of the Hybrid: Tristan de Nanteuil, chanson de Geste Arthurien? L’Extrait du Roman d’Erec et Enide de La Curne de SaintePalaye ‘Talkyng of cronycles of kinges and of other polycyez’: Fifteenth-Century Miscellanies, the Brut and the Readership of Le Morte Darthur Albine and Isabelle: Regicidal Queens and the Historical Imagination of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicles Arthurian Literature, Art, and Film, 1995–1999

XIX  (2002) Elizabeth Archibald Christine Ferlampin-Acher Angelica Rieger Norris J. Lacy Peter S. Noble Karen Pratt Bénédicte Milland-Bove Frank Brandsma Marilyn Lawrence

Comedy and Tragedy in Some Arthurian Recognition Scenes Merveilleux et comique dans les romans arthuriens français (XIIe–Xve siècles) La bande dessinée virtuelle du lion d’Yvain: sur le sens de l’humour de Chrétien de Troyes Convention, Comedy and the Form of La Vengeance Raguideli Le comique dans Les Merveilles de Rigomer et Hunbaut Humour in the Roman de Silence La pratique de la ‘disconvenance’ comique dans le Lancelot en prose: les mésaventures amoureuses de Guerrehet Lancelot Part 3 Comic Functions of the Parrot as Minstrel in Le Chevalier du Papegau

Francesco Zambon Marjolein Hogenbirk Donald L. Hoffman Elizabeth S. Sklar Linda Gowans

Dinadan en Italie A Comical Villain: Arthur’s Seneschal in a Section of the Middle Dutch Lancelot Compilation Malory and the English Comic Tradition ‘Laughyng and Smylyng’: Comic Modalities in Malory’s Tale of Sir Launcelot du Lake The Eachtra an Amadáin Mhóir as a Response to the Perceval of Chrétien de Troyes

XX  (2003) Gerald Seaman Monica L. Wright Jane Dewhurst Richard Barber and Cyril Edwards Krista Sue-Lo Twu Dinah Hazell Edward Donald Kennedy Tamar Drukker Janina P. Traxler

Reassessing Chrétien’s Elusive Vanz Their Clothing Becomes Them: the Narrative Function of Clothing in Chrétien de Troyes Generic Hybridity in Hartmann von Aue’s Der arme Heinrich The Grail Temple in Der jüngere Titurel The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyne: Reliquary for Romance The Blinding of Gwennere: Thomas Chestre as Social Critic Malory’s Morte Darthur: A Politically Neutral English Adaptation of the Arthurian Story King, Crusader, Knight: the Composite Arthur of the Middle English Prose Brut Pendragon, Merlin and Logos: the Undoing of Babel in That Hideous Strength

XXI  (2004) Ann Dooley Sioned Davies Helen A. Roberts Erich Poppe Mary-Ann Constantine Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan

Arthur of the Irish: A Viable Concept? Performing Culwch ac Olwen Court and Cyuoeth: Chrétien de Troyes’ Erec et Enide and the Middle Welsh Gereint Owein, Ystorya Bown, and the Problem of ‘Relative Distance’. Some Methodological Considerations and Speculations Neith Flesh nor Fowl: Merlin as Bird-man in Breton Folk Tradition Narratices and Non-narratives: Aspects of Welsh Arthurian Tradition

XXII  (2005) Benn Ramm

Annette Völfing Helen Fulton Julia Marvin Norris J. Lacy and Raymond H. Thompson

Locating Narrative Authority in Perlesvaus : Le Haut Livre du Graal Micheau Gonnot’s Arthuriad Preserved in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, fr. 112 and its Place in the Evolution of Arthurian Romance Albricht’s Jüngerer Titurel: Translating the Grail Arthurian Prophecy and the Deposition of Richard II Arthur Authorized: The Prophecies of the Prose Brut Chronicle The Arthurian Legend in Literature, Popular Culture and the Performing Arts, 1999–2004

Andrew Lynch P. J. C. Field

Beyond Shame: Chivalric Cowardice and Arthurian Narrative Malory’s Forty Knights

Fanni Bogdanow

XXIII  (2006)

Joyce Coleman D. Thomas Hanks Jr Raluca L. Radulescu Margaret Robson Martin Connolly Norris J. Lacy Fanni Bogdanow Tony Grand Robert Gossedge

Fooling with Language: Sir Dinadan in Malory’s Morte Darthur William Caxton, Wynkyn de Worde and the Editing of Malory’s Morte Darthur Ballad and Popular Romance in the Percy Folio Local Hero: Gawain and the Politics of Arthurianism Promise-postponement Device in The Awntyrs off Arthure: a Possible Narrative Model L’Atre perilleux and the Erasure of Identity The Theme of the Handsome Coward in the Post-Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal A Time of Gifts? Jean de Nesle, William A. Nitze and the Perlesvaus Thomas Love Peacock’s The Misfortunes of Elphin and the Romantic Arthur

XXIV  (2007) Norris J. Lacy Lori J. Walters Cora Dietl Stefano Mula Marjolein Hogenbirk Sarah Gordon Linda Gowans Joseph M. Sullivan

Frank Brandsma Susanne Kramarz-Bein

Martine Meuwese

Perceval on the Margins: a Pan-European Perspective More Bread from Stone: Gauvain as a Figure of Plenitude in the French, Dutch and English Traditions Artus – ein Fremdkörper in der Tristantradition? Dinadan Abroad: Tradition and Innovation for a Counter-Hero Gringalet as an Epic Character Consumption and the Construction of Identity in Medieval European Arthurian Romance Lamenting or just Grumbling? Arthur’s Nephew Expresses his Discontent Youth and Older Age in the Dire Adventure of Chrétien’s Yvain, the Old Swedish Hærra Ivan, Hartmann’s Iwein and the Middle English Ywain and Gawain Degrees of Perceptibility: the Narrator in the French Prose Lancelot, and in its German and Dutch Translations Die altnorwegische Parcevals saga im Spannungsfeld ihrer Quelle und der mittelhochdeutschen und mittelenglischen Parzival-überlieferung Crossing Borders: Text and Image in Arthurian Manuscripts

XXV  (2009) Nikolai Tolstoy Carolyne Larrington Michael twomey Ralica L. Radulescu Martine Meuwese Stewart Mottram

Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Merlin Legend The Enchantress, the Knight and the Cleric: Authorial Surrogate in Arthurian Romance ‘Morgan le Fay, Empress of the Wilderness’: A Newly Recovered Arthurian Text in London, BL Royal 12.C.ix Malory’s Lancelot and the Key to Salvation Chrétien in Ivory ‘An Empire of Itself’: Arthur as Icon of an English Empire, 1509–1547

XXVI  (2009) Derek S. Brewer Jonathan Passaro Amanda Hopkins

Introduction to the Morte Darthur, Parts 7 and 8 Malory’s Text of the Suite du Merlin Why Arthur at all? The Dubious Arthuricity of Arthur and Gorlagon

Thomas Hinton Siân Echard Norris J. Lacy Ronald Hutton Raymond Thompson and Norris J. Lacy

The Aesthetics of Communication: Sterility and Fertility in the Conte del Graal Cycle ‘Whyche thyng semeth not to agree with other histories …’: Rome in Geoffrey of Monmouth and his early modern readers Arthurian Texts in their Historical and Social Context The Post-Christian Arthur Supplement: The Arthurian Legend in Literature, Popular Culture, and the Performing Arts, 2004-2008

XXVII  (2010) Emma Campbell

Commemoration in La Mort le roi Artu

Andrew Lynch

‘… “if indeed I go”’: Arthur’s Uncertain End in Malory and Tennyson The Intruder at the Feast: Negotiating Boundaries in Medieval Insular Romance What Women Really Want: The Genesis of Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale Monstrous Appetite and Belly Laughs: A Reconsideration of the Humour in The Weddyng of Syr Gawen and Dame Ragnell Speaking (of) Treason in Malory’s Morte Darthur Lancelot of the Laik: A Scottish Mirror for Princes

Aisling Byrne P. J. C. Field Sue Niebrzydowski Megan G. Leitch Karen D. Robinson Kenneth Hodges

Prince Arthur’s Archers: Innovative Nostalgia in Early Modern Popular Chivalry

Christine Francis Megan G. Leitch

Reading Malory’s Bloody Bedrooms [Dis]Figuring Transgressive Desire: Blood, Sex, and Stained Sheets in Malory’s Morte Darthur Bewmaynes: The Threat from the Kitchen Sibling Relations in Malory’s Morte Darthur ‘Traytoures’ and ‘Treson’: the Language of Treason in the Works of Sir Thomas Malory ‘The Vengeaunce of My Brethirne’: Blood Ties in Malory’s Morte Darthur Malory and the Scots Blood, Faith and Saracens in ‘The Book of Sir Tristram’ Barriers Unbroken: Sir Palomydes the Saracen in ‘The Book of Sir Tristram’ Virginity, Sexuality, Repression and Return in the ‘Tale of the Sankgreal’ Launcelot in Compromising Positions: Fabliau in Malory’s ‘Tale of Sir Launcelot du Lake’

XXVIII (2011)

Helen Phillips Carolyne Larrington Lydia A. Fletcher Kate McClune Sally Mapstone Caitlyn Schwartz Maria Sachiko Cecire Anna Caughey Catherine LaFarge

Arthurian Literature XXIX_Arthurian Literature XXIX 18/06/2012 11:46 Page 1

Archibald and Johnson (eds)

Cover: King Arthur’s vision of Fortune’s wheel, from La Mort le Roi Artus, c.1316, BL MS Add. 10294, f. 89 (© British Library Board).

ARTHURIAN LITERATURE XXIX

THE INFLUENCE and significance of the legend of Arthur are fully demonstrated by the subject matter and time-span of articles here, ranging from a mid twelfth-century Latin vita of the Welsh saint Dyfrig to the early modern Arthur of the Dutch. Topics addressed include the reasons for Edward III’s abandonment of the Order of the Round Table; the 1368 relocation of Arthur’s tomb at Glastonbury Abbey; the evidence for our knowledge of the French manuscript sources for Malory’s first tale, in particular the Suite du Merlin; and the central role played by Cornwall in Malory's literary worldview. Meanwhile, a survey of the pan-European aspects of medieval Arthurian literature, considering key characters in both familiar and less familiar languages such as Old Norse and Hebrew, further outlines its popularity and impact.

ARTHURIAN LITERATURE XXIX

an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge IP12 3DF (GB) and 668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY14620-2731 (US) www.boydellandbrewer.com

Edited by Elizabeth Archibald and David F. Johnson