The Anglo-Norman Alexander (Le roman de toute chevalerie): Volume II — Introduction, Notes and Glossary [2]

Citation preview

Ls

2

See ie

: :

.

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/anglonormanalexa0002unse

Ali chile¢ae

;

ie

4 Mg a

y

rvest>

:

mie

teens 1A

:

ee

;

“

i

-

'

!

:

y -

+

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

Anglo-Norman Text Society Nos. XXXI—XXXII (for 1974—75)

=

4

oe

oy ~\ =

ow i ~

—_

we

ag -_

a

Poa

.~

ip Sek

ese

|

T.~

VN AS

ile

at ia « ;rs

ey

._

;

Ps

=

5

79

OP

+

S24

(

$

ANGLO-NORMAN

TEXTS

THE ANGLO-NORMAN ALEXANDER (LE ROMAN DE TOUTE CHEVALERIE) BY THOMAS OF KENT

Edited by + BRIAN FOSTER With the assistance of IAN

SHORT

Volume II — Introduction, Notes and Glossary

LON DON Published and distributed by the ANGLO-NORMAN

TEXT

SOCIETY

from Westfield College, London NW3 7ST 1977

© Anglo-Norman Text Society 1977

ISBN 0 905474 03 1

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Anglo-Norman Text Society, Westfield College,

London NW3

7ST.

Set in IBM Baskerville and printed in Great Britain by

Express Litho Service (Oxford) and bound by Kemp Hall Bindery, Oxford.

647) ; . | CONTENTS

we

Preface

eo

vii

Introduction 1 General 2 Manuscripts A Description of manuscripts B The interpolations C Value of the MSS. for the establishment of the text

3 Language A Versification B Phonology I The phonological evidence of rhyme II Table of rhymes III Doublets IV Exceptional rhymes V Scribal usage VI Rhymes in the added passages C D E F

Morphology Syntax Vocabulary Style

1 1 3 3 14 18

24 24 29 29 34 37 ae, 41 45 46 49 57 58

4 The Legend of Alexander

61

A Outline of the story B The sources C Treatment of the theme

61 62 63

5 The author and his work

68

6 Date

73

76 78

7 Plan of this edition 8 Editorial treatment of the MSS. Abbreviated titles of texts and works consulted

83

Notes to the text

85

Glossary

115

Index of Proper Names

153

PREFACE

The sudden death of Brian Foster in February 1977 left this second volume of his edition of the Anglo-Norman Alexander in a partially revised but not definitive form, and it became my responsibility to complete it for publication. Apart from some minor abridgements and changes in the Introduction, the only modifications that have been introduced bear on strictly textual matters. The Notes to the Text have accordingly been amplified in a few places, and the Glossary recast and expanded. The bulk

of the volume,

however,

remains

more

or less exactly as

planned by Dr Foster and by the various members of the Society’s Editorial Board whose advice he sought over the many years that he devoted to the preparation of his edition. Professor R. C. Johnston kindly assisted in the revision of the Index of Proper Names, and Professor T. B. W. Reid in the correction of the proofs. LS.

vil

ik

Hy

sen

wiih=s eae ’

Jobrgele

oe”

ws ob):

< w2

2S

us

gihonss

a

72

salt:

ays et

woes

¢

wet a :

es

| *

roniqw

“ge baer

See

bus

a

sateg ee

edie re

PERT «

‘rou

4b.iv

IA

nade, Loge

‘ul

len D

il

oa % ately ail $9 . an

»

Ahad fer teal

ae

=

een =m ? ;

? #2"

ae)

Arnt

—vT

di eas

:

os i.

aes

of

Introduction LanG

Le Roman

de toute

ENE RiA IL

chevalerie

(RTCh)!

is an independent

Anglo-Norman life of Alexander the Great, attributed to Thomas of Kent. In common with most other medieval Alexander romances, including the well-known Continental Roman d’Alexandre in alexandrines, it represents a legendary tradition going back ultimately to pseudo-Callisthenes, an Alexandrian writer of the second or third century B.C. It is remarkable, as Professor

Ross

had

observed,

‘that

a work

of such excessive

mediocrity should survive in dozens of versions, and have found translators and adaptors from Java to France, while such essential sources for our knowledge of the Alexander of history as the day to day records of his campaigns kept by his secretary Eumenes of Cardia, and the eye-witness accounts of Ptolemy, survive for us only in the excerpts preserved by Arrian and other late writers.” The Anglo-Norman poem is based largely on the two ninthcentury Latin texts: the so-called ‘Zacher Epitome’ of the Res Gestae of Julius Valerius, and the Epzstola Alexandri Magni ad Aristotelem. It became in its turn the principal source of the Middle English Kyng Alisaunder. It has never been published hitherto, although editions were begun by Heinrich Schneegans of Wiirzburg, and more recently by Bateman Edwards of Princeton. Paul Meyer printed some extracts from the text in 1886.

The Anglo-Norman poem exists in five manuscripts, D, P, C, O, and L, the last two of which are mere fragments of 64 and

112 lines respectively. In its entirety the life of Alexander contained in these manuscripts (as it appears in the almost complete Paris manuscript, P) comprises over 12,000 lines of verse. But all these extant manuscripts represent an expanded version,

no. 37. 1 Cf. J. Vising, Anglo-Norman Language and Literature (Oxford, 1923),

2 Alex. Hist., p. 4 [for abbreviations, see p. 83 below].

1

Z

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

made very probably in the first half of the thirteenth century, into which two long extracts from Branch II and Branch IV of the Continental Roman d’Alexandre, in the vulgate text of the

redactor Alexandre de Paris (c. 1185), have been interpolated. The RTCh is based on Latin writings long current in England, which are largely identical with the sources of the Continental romance. Thomas of Kent also chose the same metre as Alexandre de Paris, dodecasyllabic lines grouped into rhymed stanzas,

or laisses, of unequal length. If he knew

of the rival

work, his aim may have been, as Paul Meyer suggested in his fundamental study of the medieval French Alexander romances,” to produce aless fanciful account of the Macedonian conqueror, adhering more closely to the Latin sources and less indebted to contemporary chivalric themes. The interpolated form of the text, the only one available to us in the French manuscripts, contains one very lengthy incident of this kind, the Fuerre de Gadres, borrowed from Branch

II of the Roman d’Alexandre (RAlex), and an expanded account of the death-bed of the hero and the lamentations of his vassals, from Branch IV. It is adorned with a magnificent cycle of over 300 miniatures, dating apparently from the second quarter of the thirteenth century and surviving in manuscripts P and C (the captions alone survive in D). The style of these iluminations, which may well go back to the milieu in which the interpolated form of the poem arose, might, though only indirectly, point to the school of St. Albans in the age of Matthew

Paris;*

the illustrator had before

him an illuminated

copy of the Continental romance, and drew upon it for the pictures accompanying the interpolation. Shorm of the borrowings from RAlex, there remains a work of just over 8,000 lines, similar in outline to the Kyng Alisaunder, which may well approximate to the original work of Thomas of Kent.® The title Le Roman de toute chevalerie does 3 P. Meyer, Alexandre le Grand dans la littérature frangaise du moyen age (Paris,

1886). * D. J. A. Ross, ‘A thirteenth-century Anglo-Norman

workshop illustrating secu-

lar literary manuscripts’ in Mélanges . . . Rita Lejeune (Gembloux, 1969), pp. 689— 94. * The erroneous opinion that the author’s name was Eustace of Kent was put into

circulation

by P. Meyer

and

adopted

by Schneegans.

The name

Eustache,

which

INTRODUCTION

3

not occur at the beginning of any of the manuscripts. The first rubric in D is Ceo sunt les chapeteres d’Alisandre le grant at the head of the list of captions, while in P, which has no such ‘table of contents’, the heading of the work is Cz commence le prologe en la geste de Alisandre. The colophon of P (f. 87a) reads Issi finist la [sic] romanz de tute chevalerie; similarly in C (£. 44c) Ci finist le romaunz de tute chivalerie. The last folios of D are badly mutilated, and the colophon is missing. There is no certainty that this colophon goes back to the author, and it may well derive from the interpolated form of the text; but it serves as a convenient title to distinguish our text from other works based on the life of Alexander. It should be noted however that C was described by M. R. James as the ‘Romance of Alexander’, and that it is still known as such at Trinity College Library, Cambridge. P was known to Godefroy who quotes it as the ‘Geste d’Alexandre de Thomas de Kent’.

De A

DESCRIPTION

NGA NOS

To GCICLE

OF MANUSCRIPTS

The extant manuscripts are: D Durham Cathedral Library, C.IV.27B; P Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, f.fr. 24364;

C Cambridge, Trinity College, 0.9.34 (1446); O Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat. misc. b.17, f.140 (one leaf only);

L London, British Museum, Add. 46701, ff. viii—ix (one leaf

only). and in These manuscripts were already described by Meyer, was which L of ion except the with more detail by Schneegans,° discovered only in 1971. author of the Fuerre de Gadres epioccurs in the manuscripts, is that of the original Paris. The correct name, Thomas of de re Alexand of that s underlie work whose sode, see Section 5 below. Kent, was restored by Johanna Weynand; Gest., 240-44. 6 Meyer, op. cit., II, 275—80; Schneegans, Hdschr.

4

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

D = Durham Cathedral Library C.IV.27B. Mid-fourteenth century on vellum, 25cm. X 14.5cm. Writing is in single columns, usually of 32 lines; there are no illustrations. The folios are numbered 1—201 in a recent hand in pencil; where leaves are roughly torn out (see below), the numerator has, in all cases, save after f. 174v, recorded the number of the leaf on the small

fragment remaining near the spine. The manuscript consists of (a) one quire of six folios, containing a numbered list of the 297 rubrics or ‘chapeteres’ occurring in the course of the work (these are not in fact chapterheadings, but captions, corresponding to those accompanying

the pictures in C and P); (b) 24 quires of eight folios, to the last but one of which a ninth folio has been added; and (c) a mutilated quire consisting of one complete folio and the remnants of four others. There are -catch-phrases at the foot of ff. 14r, 22r, 30r, 38r, 46r, 54r)- 620; 70r, 78rp 86r 947, 1021. shh,

Ll8r,

126r,

134r, 1421, Lb0r,'58r,

166r, 741 et Ores

LvOr: Folios 69 and 119—21 are roughly torn out; comparison with

P suggests that in the latter case about 179 lines are lost. After 174r three leaves were completely torn out from the succeeding quires (these do not figure in the modern numbering; the loss is clear from the catch-phrase on 174r, and from the change of rhyme); comparison with C suggests that about 178 lines are lost. On f. 186 the scribe appears to have made a false start, beginning a new laisse with a large initial and the words Ore est; realising his mistake, he continued with the correct text on f. 187, and later presumably tore out the spoiled f. 186, of which only a top corner

remains, and added a ninth leaf, f. 188, to

compensate for the loss. Each laisse begins with a coloured initial, these being alternately red and blue. The length of the laisses is very variable, from two lines to approximately fifty.? Some Latin parallels, from Orosius and Josephus, mainly in an anglicana hand, have been added in the margin or at the foot of some pages.® In the

7 On the extremely short laisse, see D. J. A. Ross in French Studies 1X (1955),

350, and Section 3, F below. Pai Ube Mra Whi 85r, 88r, 105v, 107r, 1137, 116v, 123v, 137v, 184v, 188v, 189r,

190r, 195r.

INTRODUCTION

5

text proper, there are ‘chapter headings’ corresponding to the picture captions of C and P. They are very unevenly distributed

throughout the MS.: thus the first 126 folios (7—132) contain only 83 numbered rubrics, while the following 66 folios (133— 196), devoted to the wonders of India, have 213 numbered rubrics.? There are none at all between ff. 30r and 51r, contain-

ing the early part of the Fuerre de Gadres episode. The contents of D, in its present state, are as follows (I indicate by an ASTERISK five passages found only in this MS., which are retained in this edition because of their unique character, although they do not appear to be the work of Thomas of Kent; within SQUARE BRACKETS, passages from RAlex

which are omitted in this edition; and in ITALICS,

ele-

ments of RTCh missing from D, which are here supplied from the other MSS.): ff. 7—27r (I. 2), 27r (1. 26)—27v: Early life of Alexander and struggle with Darius down to siege of Tyre (ll. 1—1247, 1271—1300); *ff, 27x (ll. 3—25): Jerusalem episode I (Il. 1248—70); ff. 27y -28r introduce the next section (Il. 1301-1317);

[ff. 28r—77v: the Fuerre de Gadres episode and the capture of Tyre]; ff. 77v—116v: the end of the struggle with Darius (II. 1318— Stat|S *ff, 116v—118: Jerusalem episode II (ll. 3778—3921); Loss of three folios (119-121): threatening message from King Porus; text supplied from P (P1—P178); ff. 122—148r:

Conflict with Porus, King of India; the marvels

of the East (Il. 39225540); *ff. 148r—149v: the Wonderstone episode (Il. 5541—5619); ff. 149v—174:

More marvels; Alexander consults the Sacred

Trees (Il. 5620—7178); Loss of three unnumbered folios: prophecy

of Alexander’s

death; text supplied from C (C1—C179); ff. 175—185, 187—188r: Further struggle with Porus; relations with Queen Candace; Alexander in Babylon; he is han-

ded the poisoned cup by the traitor Antipater (Il. 71 79-7916); ° See note to ll. 6082—3 for an error in the numbering.

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

6

ALEXANDER

[ff. 188r—194v: Alexander’s court: he takes the poison and distributes his fiefs to his vassals (extract from RAlex Branch IV, as far as laisse 29; see below)] ; The aforementioned borrowing is replaced in this edition by two laisses from C, in which Alexander drinks the poison (C180—C203);

*ff, 194v—195r: The Complaint of Alexander (ll. 7917—53); ff. 195r—197r: His death and burial (Il. 7954—8054), including

[Laisse 36 of RAlex Branch IV (after 7961)] and *The lamentations of the Philosophers (ll. 7984—8024); [ff. 197r—201v: remainder of extract from RAlex Branch IV; see below. | The last four leaves of the MS. are roughly torn out. RAlex Branch

IV, laisses 37, 39—40

and the first three lines of 50,

appear on f. 197, the last line of 197v being Caunus uns damotsels si pere fust remis [sic] (RAlex Branch IV, 1. 922); after that only fragments of laisses 50, 41, 48, 51—52, 35 and 38 are

visible. The last complete line on f. 20iv is: Ja quid jeo qe la mort est nostre soer gemele (Branch IV, |. 737), followed by traces of Il. 739—743. This MS., which now has a late-nineteenth century binding, has been at Durham since at least 1726, when it was described

in Thomas Rud’s catalogue, published a century later, Codicum MSS. Ecclesiae Cathedralis Dunelmensis Catalogus Classicus (Durham, 1825). The lines are numbered in pencil by fives in a nineteenth-century hand, but this numbering is seriously confused in many places. P = Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, f.fr. 24364. Late thirteenth

or early fourteenth century on vellum, 33.7 cm. X 23.1 cm. Writing is in two columns in a clear uncrowded hand, usually of 44 lines where there are no illustrations. The MS. consists of a first quire of six folios, followed by seven quires of twelve folios and a final quire of eight folios. There are 311 illustrations, but these vary greatly in quality of execution. In the early part of the text they are most carefully and richly coloured, the chief

INTRODUCTION

7

colours being red, blue and gold. This stage lasts until 8r where the illustration of a battle is followed, in the left-hand column,

by the beginning of the Fuerre de Gadres interpolation: Devant les murs de tyr la dedenz en la mer, and the first word of this line has an historiated initial. There are no more illustrations until 16r where a wide picture covers the full width of the lower part of the folio. This folio is still part of the FGa and illustrations immediately after this point are comparatively sparse, though elaborate and well executed. The interpolation ends on 31r: E la branche del forre ci prent deffinement, and the next line begins with an historiated capital (a man in a black habit reading a volume). From 51v the illustrations are less carefully coloured in the sense that large parts of the scenes depicted are left quite uncoloured. From 68v to 80r inclusive the pictures are uncoloured pen-drawings, and subsequently there are a further 21 drawings usually only partly colour-washed in red and blue. Marginal illustrations are rare, being almost wholly confined to the recto of the first folio (cf. 78r) where they are coloured and mostly depict ladies playing musical instruments, including a bagpipe. There are no catchphrases. Each laisse begins with a coloured initial, usually blue against a background of ornamental red lines. There are two historiated initials on the first folio but this is rare (cf. 8r, 3lr and 45r). Rubrics are in red and are unnumbered. The edges of the folios are gilded. The folios of the actual text are numbered 1—87 in a modern hand in ink, and the text ends on 87r which contains only 22 lines of the story, together with an illustration of the dead Alexander lying in state, the rubric Le doel sur la tombe Alisandre and a final rubric Issi finist la romanz de tute chevalerie. However the folio following 7 is left blank, apart from lines ruled horizontally on the recto and verso as guide-lines for the text that was

never

written

on it. This is also numbered

while the next folio is 8 and begins Ne dicoe qua mei apent, showing an abrupt 7v. P omits ll. 3375—3436. These 62 lines MS. but seem to have been left out quite because the incident described here, the

as 7,

voil qualtre ait blame change of rhyme from

are not torn out of the deliberately, doubtless theft of a golden cup

8

.

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

from his host by Alexander, was not considered edifying by the redactor. The omission is from that part of the story found on P 42d. Five folios precede the text itself, the first three of these being left wholly blank, while the recto of the fourth bears only coloured arms whose theme is eight blue cockleshells surrounding a red shield. The recto of the fifth folio bears the misleading title ROUMANS D’ALIXANDRE Composé par Alexandre de Paris & Lambert-li-Cort. A note in the top left-hand comer, written in the hand of Cangé according to Paul Meyer (loc. cit. 275), says “Ce MS estoit conservé dans la Bib. de Mons. de Caumartin Evesque de Blois, vendue a Paris en 1784’’. A note at the bottom of the page reads: “Il faut examiner si ce Roman qui n’a esté jusquicy attribué qu’a Alexandre de Paris et a Lambert li Cors, n’a pas des Branches composées par d’autres auteurs”. The verso bears the following: “Pour prouver que mon

doute

sur les Auteurs

du Roman

d’Alexandre

est fondé,

J’employ les autorités suivantes extraites de ce MS méme, on y lit La conclusion del Livre Alixandre & de M© Eustache qui translata l’Eivre. Et dans la Tirade qui suit ce Tiltre Thomas de Kent se declare auteur de ce Roman. D’un bon livre en latin fis cest translatement ... Qui mun non demande, Thomas ai non de Kent... Ne voil qu’atre [szc] ait blame de coe ka moi apent Si Clerc ou Chevaler de rime me reprent... Cil qui plus seit de moi en menor fait mesprent... I] s’estoit desja nommé precedament, les Vers qui sont au commencement de la 8© page ne laissent aucun lieu d’en doutter, le feuillet qui doit la preceder a esté malicieusement arraché, et c’est la seule imperfection de ce MS. A lesgard d’Eustache dont il est parlé dans le Tiltre je dois observer, qu’il est aussy nommeé dans beaucoup d’autres MSS. Je Yavois noté dans deux qui m’ont appartenu lesquels sont presentement a la Bibliotheque du Roy. Moult par fu grant la presse si com raconte ystace’’.

After this fifth unnumbered folio the text begins on the following

INTRODUCTION

9

folio (recto) and pagination begins. There are three blank folios following the ending of the text, while at the beginning and end of the MS. two further folios have been pasted to the brown calf binding. This latter is plain except for the horizontal title on the spine ROUMAN ...D’ALIXAN... This MS. is not mutilated, in spite of the note written on f.

5v. What the writer of that note may have meant to say was that the MS. from which the scribe of P was working had itself

lost a folio (“‘malicieusement arraché’’). Possibly the scribe left a folio blank in P (duplicate f. 7) in the hope of repairing the omission from another copy of the text at a later date. The contents ofP are arranged as follows: ff. la—7d: Early life of Alexander and beginning of the struggle with Darius (Il. 1—1192); Gap in the story of the siege of Tyre because duplicate f. 7 is blank (ll. 1193 ff.); [ff. 8a—30d: The Fuerre de Gadres interpolation and the capture of Tyre] ; omitted from this edition;

ff. 31a—44d: The end of the struggle with Darius (ll. 1324— 3777)3 ff. oe

Conflict

with

Porus; the marvels

of the East

(ll. 3922—7018); ff. 70a—72c: Alexander consults the Sacred Trees (Il. 7019— C98); Further war with Porus; relations with Queen Ee ane Candace; Alexander in Babylon; he is handed the poisoned cup by Antipater (ll. C99—7916); [ff. 79d—86c: interpolation from RAlex Branch IV — the dying Alexander distributes his fiefs to vassals]; omitted from this edition. The Compleint Alisander (ll. 7917—7953) is also an interpolation into D and does not appear in P. ff. 86c—87a: Death and burial of Alexander (Il. 7954—7983;

8025-8054). The interpolation found in D in Il. 7984—8024 is peculiar to that MS. and is not in P.

From the point of view of completeness the Paris MS. is by far the most satisfactory one, and it is most regrettable that its

'

10

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

‘revision’ by a Continental redactor makes it unsuitable for use as the basis of an edition.

C = Cambridge, Trinity College, 0.9.34 (1446). Mid-thirteenth

century on vellum, in a clear but rather crowded English bookhand, 28 cm. X 19 cm., in double columns. The folios are numbered 1—46, but the text ends on 44v, col. 1, the remainder

being left blank. There are 152 illustrations in fine outline, tinted mainly in green, occasionally also in vermilion and blue. The column contains 46 line-spaces, except where, as frequently happens, part of the column is occupied by an illustration. The MS. is now seriously incomplete; it must have consisted originally of 96 folios, in twelve quires of eight, and the last two quires still retained the numbering xj and xz at the end of the nineteenth century (see M. R. James’ description; these numbers are no longer visible). The amount of text missing suggests that five whole gatherings have been lost, the first three

(ll. 1—1317 and part of the Fuerre de Gadres episode) and the

seventh and eighth (Il. P70—P178, 39225852); thus we now have:

Quires iv

Vv vi ix xX

XI xi

complete

with third double sheet (third and sixth folios) missing complete last folio missing all missing except a double sheet and a loose leaf (third, sixth and seventh folios) complete central sheet missing

Folios 1—8

9—14 15—22 25—29

30—32 33—40 41—46

As in D and P the captions are in red, but they are unnumbered. Each laisse begins with an initial capital, alternately red with blue background and blue with red background. At top of f. 8r, col. 1 there is a capital ‘G’ (1. 1324) extending over twelve line-spaces, six lines of the text being divided into two to accommodate them in the remaining writing space; and simi-

larly at other major divisions of the story: ‘C’ on f. 22v col. 2

INTRODUCTION

11

(P45), ‘P’ at the foot of f. 29v col. 2 (I. 6667) and ‘V’ on f. 39v col. 2 (first line of extract from RAlex Branch IV). The contents of C can be reconstructed thus (lost passages in

italics): Quires 1-1: early life of Alexander down to the siege of Tyre (ll. 1—1317); part of the Fuerre de Gadres episode; Quires iv—vi: ff. 1—7d: end of the Fuerre de Gadres episode and capture of Tyre, beginning [Mez|nt poindre ben enpris les autres fet corocer (6 89, P93, RAlex V 49);

ff. 7d—10: the struggle with Darius (Il. 1318—1778); lost folio (ll. 1779-1921); ff. 11—12 (Il. 1922—2217); lost folio (Il. 2218—2356); ff. 13—22: final stages of the struggle with Darius (ll. 2357— 3777); added passage of 8 lines (see note to 1. 3777), preceded by a rubric attributing the work to maistre Eustace ki translate cest liwere; challenge of King Porus (= P1—P69); Quires vu—vit: conflict with King Porus; the marvels of the East (P70—P1 78; 3922—5852); Quires ix—x:

ff. 23-29 (Il. 5853-6672), Three lost folios (ll. 6673—6886); f. 30 (Il. 6887—7002); Two lost folios: Alexander consults the sacred trees (ll. 7003—7178); ff. 31—32: prophecy of Alexander’s death; the Seres (C1— C178; ll. 7179-99); Lost folio (ll. 7200—7285); Quires xi, XU: ff. 33—43: the slaying of Porus; relations with Queen Candace; the return to Babylon, and the poisoning, death and

burial of Alexander (Il. 7286—8054). On f. 39v col. 2, after the last line of RTCh: Por la mort Alisandre kil a tort murdrirent,

there

Alisandre,

follows and

then

the

rubric:

Ci comencent

the

extract

from

RAlex

les regrez Branch

IV,

‘

12

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

beginning Venuz est li termes ke Varbres eurent dit, and continuing as far as: ki il consillera ja nen serad mendifs (IV 974);

oe lost folios: RAlex Branch IV, laisses 50 (ll. 954—95, 955.1, 984-5), 41-49, 32, 51-52 and 35 (il. 621-682); f. 44: remainder of extract from RAlex Branch IV, beg. at 1. 583: A deus poinz se chopine e sa face engratine, ending Quant Tholomeu le redresce e soef le chastie, followed by the colophon: Ci finist le romaunz de tute chwvalerie.

The MS. was given to the library by Thomas Gale in 1738, and there is an English heading on f. 1: The History of Alexander y greate. As with most of the Gale MSS., the binding is quarter imitation vellum back, blue-grey paper-covered boards, with white paper pastedowns; for further description, with a catalogue of the surviving miniatures, see M. R. James, The Western

Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: A Descriptive Catalogue, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1900—1904), III, 482—91. O = Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. Misc. b.17, f.140. Mid-thirteenth century, on vellum, 19 cm. X 12.5 cm.; there

are no illustrations. The text begins Ainz me fust la corone de la teste tolue and ends MI’t iad riches ylies plusors reis mananz corresponding to ll. 4568—99, 4605—36 of the text; thus there appear to be 32 lines of writing on recto and verso alike. However (although this is not apparent from Meyer’s transcript, and the omission of 4600—4604 could be a scribal error) an inspection of the MS. reveals the upper parts of a missing line of letters; the gap may thus be due to excision of lines at the bottom of the recto and the top of the verso. Text in Meyer II, 278. In the right-hand margin of the recto two remarks in a modern hand are written vertically from bottom to top: “This fragment was used as a cover to Angel Dayls Engl. Secretorie, 1595” and “14th cent. fragment of the french Alexander by Thomas

of Kent,

—

mss.

at Paris, Durham,

Trin.

Coll.

Cam-

bridge.’ In his report of 1871 Paul Meyer described this folio as belonging to the Bodleian, although it was in fact on loan

INTRODUCTION

13

from Lord Robartes; it passed through the hands of Lord Clifden of Lanhydrock, and was purchased by the Bodleian at Sotheby’s on June 12th, 1963 (cf. N. R. Ker, Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings (Oxford, 1954), p. xvi). L = London, British Museum, Additional MS. 46701, ff. viii— ix. Thirteenth century, on vellum, 28.5 cm. X 19.8 cm.; there

are no illustrations. The text begins Elmes ont © aubercs. sunt fier combateur and ends La est tute lordeure ki est en ceste vie corresponding to ll. 6003—6114 of the text. The fragment is written in two columns on both sides of the leaf. The leaf has subsequently been folded to form a bifolium, and the order of the text is f. ixb left col., f. viiia left col., f. ixb right col., f. viiia right col., f. ixa left col., f. ixa right col.,

f. viiib left col., and f. viiib right col. A space has been left by the scribe between chapter clv and chapter clvi, presumably for a miniature.

The initials are blue with red scroll-work, or red

with green scroll-work. There are no rubrics. The leaf is bound

in at the end of Add. 46701, in which it

was originally used as a pastedown. Add. 46701 is the cartulary of the Cistercian nunnery of Stixwould, Co. Lincs., founded c. 1135 by Lucy, Countess of Chester; thirteenth century (temp. Hen. III), with additions down to the sixteenth century. Latin. The latest dated charter in the original hand is an agreement with Croyland Abbey in 1263. Binding, sixteenth century, of brown calf, gilt stamped with rectangular panels, and in the centre a Tudor rose within the Garter motto, surmounted by a crown, presumably with reference to the nunnery’s brief existence as a royal foundation of Premonstratensian nuns, 1537— 1539, after the suppression of the Cistercian house in 1536. The name ‘“Willm: Welcome”’ has been written in an italic (? seventeenth-century) hand on f. ixb. The volume belonged in the seventeenth century to John Coventry, second son of Thomas, first Baron Coventry, Lord Keeper (see Bodleian

Library MS. Dugdale 48 (SC.6536), f. 58b); sold at Sotheby’s,

25 Oct. 1948, lot 127, as the property of the Countess of Coventry and others, removed from Croome Court near Worcester.

The fragment was discovered and identified in May 1971 by

’

14

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

Mr T. A. J. Bumett, Assistant Keeper in the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum, to whom our thanks are due for the above note. B

THE

INTERPOLATIONS

The vulgate text of the Continental Roman d’Alexandre, from which

lines are borrowed

4,000

some

in the extant version of

RTCh, was made by Alexandre de Paris, who remodelled a large number of older poems. He used an older decasyllabic poem, remodelled in the dodecasyllabic form which came to be called ‘alexandrine’,

to

his Branch

form

the hero’s

I; this describes

early life and his struggles with Darius, down to the siege of Tyre. Branch IJ is an expansion of a chivalric epic, the ‘Foraging of Gaza’, or Fuerre

de Gadres, by a poet called Eustache, fol-

lowed by Alexandre’s capture

of Tyre,

own

based,

account according

of the renewed to D. J. A.

siege and

Ross,

on

Q.

Curtius, book IV. Branch III is essentially the poem of Lambert le Tort, the expedition

to India and the marvels

of the East;

Branch IV, describing the conqueror’s death by poison at the hands of a traitor, is likewise based on a pre-existent poem, La Mort Alexandre. The work in its many versions is edited and discussed in the seven volumes of the Princeton edition; for still

more recent information, and some controversial problems, see D. J. A. Ross, Alex. Hist., pp. 9-12 and notes 43—59 on pp. 86—88. Of the two passages borrowed by the interpolator of RTCh, the shorter one, from Branch IV, has been intensively studied. It was published in a skeleton form by Meyer in 1886, and again by Schneegans in 1906. Both these writers list the first lines of all the interpolated laisses, Meyer from P alone, Schneegans from P, D and C, and give page-and-line references to Michelant’s 1846 edition of the Roman d’Alexandre. Finally in the modern printed edition of the RAlex (VII, 24), Alfred Foulet, working independently of Schneegans from photostats of the three MSS., lists the interpolated laisses by citing the laisse-numbering of the text printed in vol. II, 322—347 of the same work: Branch

IV, laisses

5, 8—10, 31, 11—14,

16—17,

15, 18—21,

INTRODUCTION

15

23—26, 26:1 (cf. vol. VIL,.38), 27—29, 36—37, 39—40, 50, 41—49, 32, 51—52, 35, 38, 53. It is clear that this order corresponds, with only minor alterations, to that of the H group of MSS. (cf. MS. # itself, printed in Michelant, pp. 507-533, and RAlex VII, 7, 12). In this highly original rearrangement of the material, Alexander is shown assembling his court (5, 8) and drinking the poison (9, 10); this overlaps with the account already given in RTCA 7884—7916. Feeling his death approaching, he distributes his fiefs to his vassals (31, 11—28) and then swoons and dies while contemplating the crowns of all the kings he has conquered (29, 32); during his agony all the great vassals, and the entire people, begin their lamentations (36—50). He is embalmed and lies in state (51) while the lamentations continue (51 to end). In P the entire passage is interpolated after |. 7916; in D it is

interwoven with passages of RTCh and other passages peculiar to D itself. At the point where Alexander swoons (29), the scribe interweaves

the briefer account of the death, burial and

the lamentations

from

lamentation which concludes RTCh (7954—8054) with two passages of his own: the ‘complaint’ of the dying Alexander and the lamentations of the philosophers, and adds the first of mutilated,

but it seems

RAlex

(36). The rest of the MS. is

clear that the remainder

of the inter-

polation followed as in P (see RAlex VH, 24, and p. 9 above). In C the original text of RTCh is preserved intact, and the extract from RAlex is added as an appendix; there is a lacuna beginning in laisse 50 and ending in laisse 35; this can be accounted for by the loss of two leaves, an assumption which is confirmed by M. R. James’ description of the mutilated quire. It is clear that in substituting the elaborate account of Alexander’s death-bed and his lying-in-state, the interpolator has removed the brief account of Alexander’s drinking the poison in RTCh. This passage, lost from DP, is happily retained, owing to the peculiar arrangement

here

printed

from

that

MS.

of the material, in C, and is

(see C179—C202

in our

text

below). A similar problem arises with the interpolation from Branch

16

’

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

II, which was first studied by Schneegans in 1910;!° he presents two elaborate tables showing how some 140—160 laisses in D and P correspond to a similar number in the Michelant edition. The evidence was more compendiously presented by F. B. Agard (in RAlex V, 124), who lists separately the laisses of the interpolation, as it appears in CD and in P, in terms of the laissenumbering

of the a and £ texts of Branch II, published in the

same work (II, 74—123 and V, 1—96). The accompanying table once more presents this evidence, with an analysis of the content of this lengthy interpolation. It is at once apparent that the interpolation covers a great deal of ground, and that the textual relations are far more complex than in the case of the shorter borrowing from Branch IV (for details see RAlex V, 147-8). Here again the original borrowing is probably better preserved in P, and corresponds

approximately to 6B 1—149; section (d) (8 111—132) has been rejected by CD in favour of a much briefer passage in which the events leading to Alexander’s sudden return to Tyre are recounted mainly on the basis of « 75—79. The contents extend far beyond the Fuerre de Gadres episode from which the interpolation takes its name; they consist of: (i)

the ‘foray’ itself, based on the lost poem of Eustache,

which is limited to sections (a) and (b), a 1-67 = 8 1—98;

(ii)

a further episode which D. J. A. Ross attributes to a

(iii)

the final capture of Tyre sections (d) and (e), appa-

second writer, “Eustache II’, here section (c);

rently an independent

composition

of Alexandre

de

Paris, based on Q. Curtius, book IV." TABLE

The Interpolation from Branch II of the Roman

d’Alexandre

(a) Alexander, during the siege of Tyre, sends Emenidus with a party of 700 knights on a foraging raid in the valley of Josaphat; they are *° ‘Ueber die Interpolation

des Fuerre

de Gadres im altfr. Roman

des Eustache

von Kent’ in Festschrift Wilhelm Viétor (Marburg, 1910), 27—61, esp. 47—61. ! See D. J. A. Ross, ‘A new manuscript of the Latin Fuerre de Gadres and the

text of the Roman d’Alexandre Branch II’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XXII (1959), 211-253, and ‘The I? Historia de Preliis and the Fuerre de Gadres’, Classica et Mediaevalia XXII (1961), 205—221.

INTRODUCTION

17

intercepted by Betis of Gaza (Gadres) with 30,000 men; but all Emenidus’ followers refuse, for honour’s sake, to leave the field to take the news to Alexander; B 1-13, 16—17, 15, 18—19, 14, 21, 21.1,a@ 21,B 20, 22—25 (RAlex Il 74—85, V 1—3, 139—141).

(b) After

much

fighting

in which

the enemy

leader Gadifer plays a

heroic role, Aride consents to fetch help; Alexander returns with generals and drives off the men of Gaza, who make a brave retreat;

his

B 30, 33, 32,45, 28-29, 31, 3439, 48 (in P only), 40—44, 46, 49-60, 63, a 56, 56.1, B 66, 66.1, 68—72, 7498; here P adds a 71—72 after

8 75 and @ 74 after 8 76; CD omit 83, 98 and add 58.1 after 90 (RAlex V 3—53, 129, 142).

(c) Further attack on the wounded rescue by Alexander;

Emenidus near Bethany and fresh

6 99-101, 103, 102, 104—110; CD add a laisse after 102, and omit 107 (RAlex V 53—68).

(d) Alexander continues to drive back the men of Gaza and beleaguers them in their city; but hearing that duke Bales has broken out of Tyre, he returns to help the besiegers;

8 111-132 (RAlex V 68—95); CD omit this section, and combine 68 123—4 with three additional laisses, and a 75—79 (the transition to Tyre). (ec) Renewed siege of Tyre; Alexander leaps into the city from a siegetower and captures it; he also takes the city of Araine in Syria, and returns to beleaguer Gaza; 6 133—149 (RAlex II 115—123).

In making these massive additions to the poem, the interpolator may well have altered or destroyed parts of the original RTCh; indeed he must have eliminated the original and probably much briefer description of the capture of Tyre. This was the most notorious event in the early life of Alexander, and there seems to be no reason why Thomas of Kent should have himself omitted it. The interpolator, on the other hand, in substituting his more elaborate narrative, could easily have suppressed Thomas’ more succinct account of the fall of the city. In excising the borrowings from RAlex we do not therefore succeed in reproducing the original work in every respect; for at least one episode is irretrievably lost, and the interpolator may have made other changes less easy to detect. According to Paul Meyer, we should not be justified in abridging the extant text

18

‘THE

ANGLO-NORMAN

at all, for the interpolations

ALEXANDER

(he believed) went back to the

author himself, who, like the contemporary

Latin chroniclers,

regarded borrowing and compiling from existing sources as a normal practice. This view was questioned by Schneegans, who argued that the interpolated passages, with their interminable battle scenes, would have unbalanced the careful economy of the poem, that Thomas adhered closely to the Latin sources, and that in any case the authentic, shorter version of RTCh

survived in the M.E.

Kyng Alisaunder. In general Schneegans’ arguments against Meyer are sound: in excising the RAlex passages we come closer to the work of Thomas of Kent, even if we cannot claim to reproduce it exactly.

C

VALUE OF ISOS, MI SIRCIE

THE

MSS.

FOR

THE

ESTABLISHMENT

OF

C and D are very clearly Anglo-Norman in every respect, though in D a later hand has in some cases corrected the spelling e7 to ot, in the Continental fashion. It is often easy to make out the original e beneath the existing o, but this ‘improvement’ affects only a minority of words in ez. On the other hand, there is in P a conscious effort to adapt the whole style and vocabulary of the text to Continental standards. In one instance this logically leads to the adaptation of the actual material used, during an allusion to the stars forming the constellation of Ursa Major. D naines it from the English point of view, as follows: Ces sunt les esteilles qe nos Charle Wain nomon.

Char l’apellent Franceis .. . (f. 133v; 4674—5). But P adapts this for a French audience (C is missing here): Ces sont les set esteilles ke nus Char nomon, Char l’apelent Franceis ... (f. 50d).

It is no doubt significant that P is the only one of the MSS. to be located in France at the present day, though of course it may well have been copied and adapted in England. At the same time a great many A.-N. features have remained even in P, in spite of its Continental orientation, so that the superficial

INTRODUCTION

19

observer might mistake it for an ordinary example of insular French. The adaptor has been at pains to make sense of the text he was copying from, or at any rate to present his readers with a text offering a minimum of difficulties. Here again he has not been wholly successful, but the result is that while P often gives a better reading than any other MS., this is not so much proof of genuineness as of a desire to smooth away obscurities. It could from another point of view be urged that P frequently offers better readings and versification because it is supposedly a closer reproduction of the work of Thomas of Kent than are the other MSS., and assuming that Thomas wrote in the late twelfth century his usage would not be too far removed from that governed by Continental standards. As against this, it must be pointed out that while some of P’s remaining A.-N. features are certainly due to copyists rather than to Thomas of Kent, there is no doubt that its text tends to be ‘incorrect’ as compared with that of the other MSS. and so is textually further removed than them from the original RTCh. It is most unfortunate that the recently-discovered L consists of no more than a single leaf, as the quality of the text is better than that of the other MSS. It has good syllable-count and frequently allows correction of the base MS. where the others give no help (ll. 6007, 6009, 6011, 6023, 6044, 6045, 6047, 6048, 6051 to 6057, 6067, 6069, 6072, 6078, 6083, 6087, 6089). Items of vocabulary are likewise often peculiar to L which also in this respect tends to stand on its own as against CDP, for example in 1. 6004 with Chevals ont de Turkie kt sunt bon coreur as contrasted with the colourless Chevals bons e bels ge sunt bon coreur of D and the similar versions of CP. Other examples are in ll. 6008, 6009, 6019, 6027, 6028, 6032, 6044,

6045, 6065, 6070, 6072, 6078, 6096, 6104, 6110, 6112. In some of these cases there can be no doubt that the correct reading is that of L, as in 6110 with Que valt vostre prueise u ma chevalerie giving a better metric count than CDP’s nostre chevalerie.

The word-order of L is occasionally different from that of CDP, as in 6107 with Done parole Al’ ki la char ot hardie con-

trasting with CDP’s Donec parla Alisandre qui ot la char hardie, and possibly preserving an older type of construction which is

20

’

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

frequent, for example, in Horn. L is scrupulous in distinguishing between ki andke and never confuses their functions, unlike the other MSS. It also retains the early adverb of negation nen which scribal carelessness or adaptation tends to blur into n’ elsewhere. The syllable-count of Z is much better than that of the other MSS., and it constantly allows improvements to be made to the readings of the base MS. Thus in |. 6087 CDP have omitted two words retained by the correct reading of L, to take only one example. L is not copied from any of the existing MSS. since it offers a better text, nor are CDP copied from L whose copyist makes a mistake, for instance, in Il. 6074—5 which is not reproduced by the others. C is the MS. which L most closely resembles, but for the reasons touched on above it appears that L is closest of all to the original. In addition, it shows few A.-N. features. There is only one

example

of svarabhaktic

e, a case

of avera due to a

scribe in |. 6011, whereas in 6103 we find the original avra as against the svarabhaktic form of CDP. The general importance of L is that it shows how the poem must have appeared at a period when Anglo-Norman was not yet very far removed from the Continental form of the language. Examination of the texts soon shows that C and D have many features in common as against P. Thus in Il. 2501—50, C and D have 36 similar lines in common (disregarding minor differences of spelling), and 14 different lines. But D and P have 16 similar lines and 34 different ones, while C and P have 15 similar lines and 35 different. Because of their earlier dates, C

and P cannot be copied from D, nor can the single folio of O. P cannot be copied from O which is about half a century earlier, because certain gross errors of O are not reproduced in P. Thus Mes il n’est pas venuz uncore a grant destroit 4586 is missing from O but present in P and D (cf. Schneegans, Hdschr. Gest. p. 245). On account of the difference in dates it is not possible for O to have been copied from P, and further confirmation can be adduced from the texts themselves, since O is often inde-

pendent in its readings as against P, which from this point of view forms a group with D. (Unfortunately C is missing at the place where O is extant, so that no direct comparison of these two MSS. is possible).

INTRODUCTION

21

Let us consider the first line of O as compared with DP:

O: D:

Ainz me fust la corone de la teste tolue (f. 1r) Ainz me fust la corone de mon chef tollue (f. 132r; 4568) P : Ainz me fust la corone de mon chef tolue (f. 50a);

Or |. 4583 (wrongly quoted by Schneegans): O: Si Alisandre fu liez, seignurs, ce fu dreit (f. 1r) D: S’ilen fust lez, il en eust bone dreit (f. 132r) P : Silen fut liez, il en out bon dreit (f. 50a). Clearly, then, O is not copied from P.

Nor are C and D copied from P, since they have remained more typically A.-N. as against the Continental standards of P. Moreover P has omitted ll. 3375—3436 which are present in CD. There remains the theoretical possibility that D is copied from C, especially as the two are somewhat alike when all due allowance has been made for the difference in date of a century or so. However Schneegans (op. cit., p. 254) considers that D does not stem directly from C but from a common ancestor which he calls ‘2’. While this conclusion does not call for outright contradiction, it may be said that Schneegans puts forward insufficient evidence. His main point is that on occasion D gives a better metrical reading than C, and that since D is normally careless of metrical considerations, it can only be that these good readings are survivals from an earlier text and not improvements made by a scribe copying D from C. Schneegans gives five examples of this state of affairs, but in fact they are in themselves rather unconvincing, depending as they do on such minor contrasts as the presence or absence of /es and e, or the difference between l’orgoillos (DP) and le orgoillos (C). Particularly conclusive, according to Schneegans, are the two lines 5843—4, corresponding to ll. 2647—8 in the present edition. Here C’ has: Mes mut fet ses aveaus li reis curteisement

Ke ben les fet vestir e servir corteisement (f. 14d).'? Obviously the double use of the adverb is a scribal error. D has 12 Schneegans accidentally omits fet in 1. 2647 and prints aveaus as aneaus.

22,

\

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

ALEXANDER

bonement in the place of the repetition, while P reads franchement (f. 38c). But contrary to what Schneegans believed, the reading of D proves nothing beyond the fact that the scribe was either working from a copy other than C or had the wit to undo the faulty repetition of curteisement by means of a variant of his own devising. It is in fact by no means easy to prove whether or not C is an ancestor of D, especially as C is a rather careful text whereas D is guilty of omitting a number of lines. In no case are we able to point out an instance of C’s fusing two lines into one in a case where D would show the two original lines identically with P. Hence the reason for the paucity of evidence adduced by Schneegans, and because of this it is wise to accept with some caution his conclusion that C and D ultimately derive from a common ancestor ‘z’, for while this is highly likely, it is not impossible that D descends from C at one or two removes. Following the scholarly fashion current at the beginning of this century, Schneegans evolved an elaborate diagram purporting to show

the filiation of MSS.

C, D, O and P.'?

Since then

the situation has been further complicated by the discovery of the fragment of L, and editors are in general more wary of dogmatism on the subject of stemmata. In view of these considerations, and also because the reasons for using D as the base MS. are entirely practical, it is perhaps prudent to express the filiation in such simple terms as follow: A.-N. version by Thomas of Kent

| Expanded A.-N. version with interpolations from RAlex N

&

~~

Lees

’ P (revised in Continental French)

Judging by their language, the fragments L and O would appear to belong to versions figuring in the earlier stages of the manuscript tradition. 13 Hdschr. Gest., p. 255.

INTRODUCTION

23

The choice of the MS. to be used as a basis for the edition presents an unusually difficult task. From the point of view of language there is no doubt that C is by far the best text, since P has suffered

at the hands of an improver, while D is of late

date and shows irregular versification. C is a careful and reasonably early MS., but on the other hand it is so incomplete in comparison with P and D that we must with great reluctance dismiss it as the basis of a literary text, in company with Schneegans and F. B. Agard who says that “C could not, however, serve as a principal basis for study of the entire RTCh.”"4 Any student of the language of our text must nevertheless turn again and again to the evidence of C. As between D and P there is little to choose from the point of view of completeness; and P is of earlier date than D. In reality P is the least satisfactory of all because its language has been consciously reshaped (especially in the first half) and it is therefore more remote from the original than D or C.'° By a process of elimination we fall back on D, the most recent of the MSS.

To illustrate in a practical manner the differing aspects of the MSS., here is a sentence quoted as it appears in each one (the appropriate editorial adjustments have been carried out as regards capitalization, etc.):

C : Dient lui ke Darie ad fet grant ost mander De Ynde, de Ethyopie e d’Assyrie sur mer, E k’a force le veut des regnes geter (f. 21b). D:

Dient li ge Dayre ad fet grant ost mander De Inde, de Ethiope e d’Assire sur mer,

E k’a force le volt des regnés geter (f. 114; 3645—7). P : E dient que Darie ad fait ost mander D’Ynde, d’Ethyope, d’Assyre sur mer, E qu’a force le volt de sa terre geter (f. 44a). Here it is plain that P stands on its own, whereas D corresponds

more closely to C. In any table of textual variants very few comments are needed for C — assuming D to be our basic text — 14 Romanic Review XXXII (1942), 217.

15 Cf. P. Meyer, op. cit., I] 280: “. .. il est certain que le plus mauvais texte est celui de Paris.”

THE ANGLO-NORMAN

24

ALEXANDER

whereas P presents endless variations which it is not practical to show in their entirety. As can be seen from the specimen above, P is fond of changing vocabulary in accordance with some different canon of taste. Sometimes the standards adopted seem idiosyncratic, as in P’s consistent avoidance of occident (to which he usually prefers west), although that word was current in Continental French from as early as the twelfth century. On one occasion this use of west is not possible because of the exigencies of rhyme, so P substitutes orient:

C : Iln’en ad tant bele si ke en occident (f. 14d) D:

Iln’en ad tant bele decy k’en occident (f. 98r; 2646)

P : Iln’en ad si bele desi qu’en orient (f. 38c) From the purely editorial point of view, P often merely confuses the issue, and is so idiosyncratic that its apparently ‘good’ readings are just as likely to stem from the imagination of the redactor as from a manuscript tradition. The text of RTCh could most easily be reconstituted from C, if only this MS. were reasonably complete, by dropping the interpolated Fuerre de Gadres episode (or rather, the surviving fragment of it) from the beginning, and the extraneous material

from RAlex Branch IV from the end. But C is much too fragmentary to serve as a base MS., and we are compelled to work with D, which unfortunately happens to be the most recent of the MSS. and the one in which the fusion of the material from RAlex with the text of RTCh is most intimate. The editing of RTCh from this base poses technical problems which will be further discussed in this Introduction. In spite of the difficulties involved, it is believed that the method followed is the best

way of arriving at the text of this largely unknown and unstudied work which, in company with Johanna Weynand and others, we attribute to Thomas of Kent.

2 A

LAN

GUA

Gd

VERSIFICATION

Textual emendation depends primarily on the sense, syntax or

INTRODUCTION

25

rhyme, since A.-N. versification is notoriously fluid as compared with its Continental counterpart and so makes one wary of imposing a correction solely for the sake of obtaining a more regular kind of alexandrine. Yet if we know what is more or less in accord with the poet’s metric, it becomes possible to formulate his practice and to validate textual emendation as a consequence. In the present instance this involves the editing of the CD text of Thomas of Kent, or rather those parts of the extant CD text of the expanded version which may be thought to represent the work of Thomas of Kent, however inadequately. An examination of lines 1318—1342 shown in parallel tran-

scripts below (p. 28), shows that there are at least five types of hemistich used in the first part of the line, and that, allowing for the restriction imposed by the masculine or feminine rhyme of the laisse, these can also appear in the second part of the hemistich.!® The first hemistich can be: (a) of 6 syllables, ending on the tonic (1318, 1324, 13278, £333; 1336=7, 1341); (b) of 6 syllables with supernumerary feminine ending, the ‘epic caesura’ (1323, 1342; sometimes elidable before vowel as

1335); (c) of 5 syllables with feminine ending, making 6 in all, the ‘lyric caesura’ (1325, 1329, elidable in 1331, 1339—40); (d) hypometric, by Continental standards, with 5 syllables only (1322, 1330); or (e) hypermetric, by Continental standards, with 7 syllables G13. 2041332, 1338). The above analysis excludes 1319, 1321, 1326 and 1334 which raise textual problems; elsewhere there is agreement between C and D. The

same

situation

recurs

in the second hemistich; the two

laisses in question are both masculine, and hemistichs of five, six and seven syllables all occur: (a) six syllables (1323-7, 1330—1, 1334—6, 1339-41); 16 Certain

assumptions

have been made:

e.g. that oir C is dissyllabic like conter

D, in 1324; that ge a in D stands for k’a C in 1323; and that in the learned words in

1340 Orosie = Orose (as in Marsilie/Marsile in the Chanson de Roland) and Jeronime C = Jerome D, with metrical elision of the penultimate in the original proparoxytone form. Similar assumptions in the cases of estorie = estoire and Darie = Daire are made below.