The Bristol Merlin: Revealing the Secrets of a Medieval Fragment (Medieval Media and Culture) [New ed.] 9781641894142, 9781641894159, 1641894148

Citation preview

MEDIEVAL MEDIA AND CULTURE Acquisitions Editor Anna Henderson Further Information and Publications www.arc-humanities.org/our-series/arc/mmc/

THE BRISTOL MERLIN REVEALING THE SECRETS OF A MEDIEVAL FRAGMENT

by

LEAH TETHER, LAURA CHUHAN CAMPBELL, and BENJAMIN POHL with the assistance of Michael Richardson

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. © 2021, Arc Humanities Press, Leeds

The authors assert their moral right to be identified as the authors of their part of this work.

Permission to use brief excerpts from this work in scholarly and educational works is hereby granted provided that the source is acknowledged. Any use of material in this work that is an exception or limitation covered by Article 5 of the European Union’s Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) or would be determined to be “fair use” under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act September 2010 Page 2 or that satisfies the conditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copy­ right Act (17 USC §108, as revised by P.L. 94-553) does not require the Publisher’s permission.

ISBN (Hardback): 9781641894142 e-ISBN (PDF): 9781641894159 www.arc-humanities.org

Printed and bound in the UK (by CPI Group [UK] Ltd), USA (by Bookmasters), and elsewhere using print-on-demand technology.

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SECTION 1. CONTEXT

Chapter 1. Codico­logical and Palaeo­graphic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Chapter 2. Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Chapter 3. Provenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Chapter 4. Redaction, Language, and Localization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

SECTION 2. TEXT

1. Principles of Edition and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2. Edition and Translation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Plates: Images of Fragments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Biblio­graphy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures Figure 1: Idiosyncratic differences between Scribes A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 2: Junctures between Scribes A and B (Bra, ll. 33–42, Cvb, ll. 8–16 and Gva, ll. 43–53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 3: Reconstruction of the fragments’ history of transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 4: Book clasps of 90/SR39 (front) and 92/SR39 (rear) and clasp damage to Ar and Br . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 5: The binder’s use of a “half-stamp” lattice ornament on the front cover of 88/SR39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 6: Inscription of Cornelius Bee warranting the books complete; rear flyleaf of 88/SR39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 7: Bookseller’s price code inscribed by Cornelius Bee on the title page of 88/SR39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 8: Fifteenth-/sixteenth-century reader inscriptions on fragment Dr . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 9: Fourteenth-century English reader inscription on fragment Gr . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 10: Example of damaged text before and after multi-spectral imaging and processing (detail from fragment Crb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figs 1 and 3 © Benjamin Pohl, 2019; Figs 2, 4–9 © Don Hooper 2019, photographed by kind permission of Bristol Central Library; Fig. 10 © Andrew Beeby, Team Pigment, 2019

viii

List of Illustrations

Plates Plate 1: Fragment Ar, Volume III, rear flyleaf recto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Plate 2: Fragment Av, Volume III, rear flyleaf verso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Plate 3: Fragment Br, Volume II, front flyleaf recto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Plate 4: Fragment Bv, Volume II, front flyleaf verso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Plate 5: Fragment Cr, Volume I, rear flyleaf verso (turned 180°) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Plate 6: Fragment Cv, Volume I, rear flyleaf recto (turned 180°) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Plate 7: Fragment Dr, Volume I, front flyleaf recto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Plate 8: Fragment Dv, Volume I, front flyleaf verso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Plate 9: Fragment Er, Volume II, rear flyleaf recto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Plate 10: Fragment Ev, Volume II, rear flyleaf verso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Plate 11: Fragment Fr, Volume III, front flyleaf recto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Plate 12: Fragment Fv, Volume III, front flyleaf verso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Plate 13: Fragment Gr, Volume IV, rear flyleaf recto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Plate 14: Fragment Gv, Volume IV, rear flyleaf verso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Plates 1–14 © Don Hooper 2019, photographed by kind permission of Bristol Central Library

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Michael Richardson (Special Collections, University of Bristol) for his assistance throughout this project, from initially spotting the fragments and alerting Leah Tether to undertaking provenance research, and even reading and commenting on the final manu­script. Jane Bradley (Local Studies Librarian) and all the staff at the Bristol Central Library made sure that the team’s frequent trips to consult the fragments ran smoothly, including providing space for press photo­graphs and lending us their basement stationery cupboard for multi-spectrally imaging the fragments. For this last, we must also thank Andrew Beeby and Team Pigment (Durham University) for bringing their mobile imaging equipment to Bristol and being generous and patient enough to help us acquire the images we needed to produce the edition. Other Durham University staff also helped us with various provenance enquiries related to the host volumes’ bindings, and particular thanks in this regard must go to Richard Gameson, Sheila Hingley, Jonathan Bush, and all the special collections staff at Ushaw College and Durham University Libraries. Indeed, thanks to generous Fellowships at the new Residential Research Library at Durham University held by Leah Tether and Benjamin Pohl, the three authors were able to spend important time fleshing out the project while together in the same city. Leah Tether’s work on the project was also assisted through a Visiting Scholarship at the Newberry Library, Chicago in April/May 2019, which offered the time and workspace to research and transcribe the fragments. A variety of brilliant, kind scholars responded generously to our ad hoc requests for help with puzzling out knotty problems. Thanks especially to Roger Middleton for latenight exchanges about provenance and annotations; Nicola Morato for his pointers on readings about Old French dialects; Keith Busby for tips on edition and transcription; Richard Trachsler for supplying a copy of the relevant section of his forthcoming edition; Anne Salamon for her meticulous, extensive help with philo­logical questions; Patrick Moran and Jane H. M. Taylor for reading and checking the draft edition; Linda Gowans for insights into different redactions and manu­scripts; Samu Niskanen for expert advice on the meaning and dating of the Latin annotations. Jeff Katterhorn at the British Library also supplied very helpful images of Cornelius Bee-related manu­script entries, to save a needless trip to London, and award-winning photo­grapher Don Hooper kindly took the high-quality images presented in this book as figures and plates. Finally, our thanks go to two people in particular for helping us to get news of the Bristol Merlin out to the wider world in the first place: Richard Cottle in the University of Bristol’s Press Office, who shaped the press release and directed enquiries to the project team, and Sean Chuhan, who took such excellent photos to accompany the press release that they would eventually be reproduced all over the world. This project truly was a team effort and could not possibly have been completed without every last hand on deck. The authors would also like to thank the Vinaver Trust for kindly supporting the publication costs of this book.

INTRODUCTION In January 2019, the convenor of a “History of the Book” module on the University

of Bristol’s new MA Medi­eval Studies programme discussed with Bristol’s Special Collections Librarian, Michael Richardson, the provision of medi­eval manu­scripts for teaching timetabled to take place in Special Collections. Reasoning that the programme would be well served by adding unknown manu­script fragments to existing inventories of medi­eval codices and fragments, Richardson asked Jane Bradley, Local Studies Librarian at Bristol Central Library, the city’s historic municipal library, about the prevalence of manu­script pastedowns in its rare book collection. Richardson arranged to view a selection of the relevant volumes and recruited his wife, Vassiliki Frangeskou, to assist in photo­graphing them for later consultation. Richardson was especially intrigued by two folios bound as flyleaves in the front and rear of the first tome of a four-volume edition of the complete works of the medi­eval French reformer, Jean Gerson (1363–1429). These were exceptional in being written in French, rather than in Latin, as is more common for manu­script fragments recycled into bindings. His attention was drawn by the emergence of proper names from Arthurian literary texts. He sent some photo­graphs to Leah Tether, a University of Bristol academic working on French Arthuriana, who identified the passage represented in the two fragments as extracts from the continuation of the Estoire de Merlin that forms part of the Vulgate Cycle (more often referred to nowadays as the Lancelot-Grail Cycle). This continuation is known as the Suite Vulgate du Merlin,1 usually thought to have been composed ca. 1220–1225,2 and not to be confused with the Suite du Merlin, which is the continuation of the Merlin story contained in the Post-Vulgate Cycle. Tether confirmed this identification with Laura Chuhan Campbell, a specialist of Old French and Italian Merlin narratives at Durham University. As excitement grew, Tether convened a meeting at the Central Library with Campbell, Richardson, and Benjamin Pohl, a medi­ eval book historian and palaeo­grapher from Bristol’s Department of History. It soon transpired that there were in fact more than just the two fragments originally identified; in both the front and rear of each of the remaining three volumes of Gerson’s Opera was a further folio from the same manu­script bound as a flyleaf (except the fourth tome, where there was no front flyleaf).3 In total, therefore, there were seven fragments of the 1  The only modern editions of the text currently available are those by Poirion and Freire-Nunes (published under the title of “Les premiers faits du roi Arthur,” in Le livre du Graal I, 807–1662) and Sommer (published in The Vulgate Version II, 88–466). Trachsler is currently preparing a new edition of the Suite Vulgate and has published a study setting out the editorial principles for it: Trachsler, “Pour une nouvelle edition,” 128–48. The text is also available in an English translation by Pickens in Lancelot-Grail II, 98–495. 2  Middleton, “The Manu­scripts,” 50; Kennedy et al., “Lancelot with and without the Grail,” 277.

3  The first three host volumes are incunables under the title of Prima/Secunda/Tercia pars operum Johannis Gerson (Strasbourg [Argentina]: Martin Flach [Simus Martinus], 1494), which is listed in Hain, Repertorium biblio­graphicum, 1:462–63 as item *7625 (ISTC ig00189000; USTC 745208).

2

Introduction

narrative. These fragments, though no longer in the correct order, contained an unbroken, consecutive section of the narrative, albeit one perhaps unfamiliar to most readers since it did not align perfectly with the version of the narrative present in any modern edition. The discovery of medi­eval book fragments inside early printed volumes (or other newer books) is, of course, not unusual. The value of parchment, a robust and durable material, remained high throughout the late-medi­eval and early-modern periods, and medi­eval manu­scripts deemed no longer of use or out-of-date were often broken down into quires and recycled into bindings for the purposes of economy.4 The books subjected to this destructive practice, though, were more typically liturgical and/or working books (such as registers or accounts volumes), precisely because they had a kind of “shelf-life”;5 it is far rarer to find manu­scripts containing medi­eval vernacular narratives re-used in the bindings of newer books. Still, the practice is not entirely unknown. For instance, two fragments from a single folio of Chrétien de Troyes’s Perceval (privately owned, known as the “Brussels fragments,” formerly “de Lannoy”) were discovered in the guise of flyleaves in a sixteenth-century priest’s register,6 while fragments of twenty-six folios (known as the “Annonay fragments,” privately owned) of Chrétien’s works (all except Lancelot) served as wrappers for eighteenth-century registers belonging to a notary in Champagne.7 Fragments of the Vulgate Estoire de Merlin and the Suite Vulgate, too, have been found in not dissimilar circumstances. For instance, among the many manu­script fragments found as binding materials in administrative registers held in the State Archives of Belgium were the fragments of four folios from a manu­script containing precisely these texts, which had served as support wrappers for an otherwise unbound sixteenth-century accounting register from Namur (two of these contain excerpts from the Estoire de Merlin, and the other two have sections from the Suite Vulgate).8 Similarly, a fragment of the Estoire de Merlin now kept at Amsterdam UniverBristol Central Library’s copies of these three volumes are held under the shelfmark 88–90/ SR39. The fourth volume, with a similar but slightly different frontispiece (attributed to Albrecht Dürer), has the title Quarta pars operum Johannis Gerson prius non impressa (Strasbourg [Argeñ.]: Martin Flach the younger for Matthias Schürer [ex officina Martini flacci iunior. exactissima Mathie schurer], 1502) (USTC 689050), and is described in Hain under item *7622 (1:460–61), which is the entry for the 1488 edition of the first three volumes of Gerson’s Opera omnia printed by Johann Grüninger in Strasbourg (ISTC ig00186000). Bristol Central Library’s copy of this volume is under the shelfmark of 91/SR39.

4  See, as just two examples of studies on the pervasiveness of the practice, Pickwoad, “The Use of Fragments”; Ker, Fragments of Medi­eval Manu­scripts. See also the new journal (as of 2018) Fragmento­logy. 5  Pickwoad, “The Use of Fragments,” 1; Duba and Flüeler, “Fragments and Fragmento­logy,” 1; Ker, Fragments of Medi­eval Manu­scripts, 230–47.

6  See Nixon, “Catalogue of Manu­scripts,” 46–47; see also Jodogne, “Fragments d’un manu­script inconnu,” 1039. 7  See Nixon, “Catalogue of Manu­scripts,” 20–22; see also Pauphilet, Chrétien de Troyes, vii.

8  Giannini, Nieus, and Palumbo, “Un nouveau fragment de Merlin.”



Introduction

3

sity Library once functioned as a sixteenth-century archive folder binding.9 However, despite finds of this nature not being unprecedented in mainland Europe, the discovery in Bristol of fragments of a French Arthurian text in books apparently bound in England (see below) is far more unusual.10 These fragments therefore promise to offer precious testimony of the evolution of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, the circulation of Arthurian manu­ scripts in the later Middle Ages and early-modern era in France and England, and also the provenance of rare books belonging to Bristol Central Library. What follows is a comprehensive study of what we are calling the “Bristol Merlin.” Rather than just concentrating on the fragments themselves, we propose a more holistic approach that takes account of both text and context, and makes full use of the broad, interdisciplinary skillset of the project team, which includes book history, biblio­ graphy, palaeo­graphy and codico­logy, history, literary studies, philo­logy, and translation studies. In doing so, we hope to offer an attractive model for the future study of manu­script fragments and similar finds. This book is divided into two main sections: “Context” and “Text.” The first, “Context,” is comprised of four chapters and a conclusion. The first chapter offers a full palaeo­graphic and codico­logical analysis of the fragments themselves and explores the possible nature of the source manu­script from which they came. This chapter also traces the journey of the fragments within the bindings of their current host volumes. The second chapter then considers the evidence of the books’ bindings, before the third chapter discusses the likely provenance of the host volumes. Together, Chapters 2 and 3 thus explore how the fragments may have found their way to Bristol, providing important new insights into the Suite Vulgate’s circulation in medi­eval and early-modern England. The fourth chapter contains a discussion of both the particular textual redaction present in the fragments (including remarks on any significant differences in content) and, based on their linguistic features, the possible localization/ origin of the source manu­script. The “Context” section closes with a short overall conclusion that summarizes the key findings and identifies future avenues for research. The second section, entitled “Text,” presents a facing edition and translation of the Merlin text found in the fragments, prefixed by a brief introduction setting out the key editorial and translation principles.

9  This is evidenced by a note on fol. 3 noting a date of 1585 and reading: “aultres ventes et transport.” The fragment’s current shelfmark is Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS 450 (formerly I A 24q). See Chotzen, “Notice sur quelques fragments,” 87–89, and Clark and Field, “The Amsterdam University Fragment.”

10  In Ker’s Fragments of Medi­eval Manu­scripts, 230–47, there are no Arthurian manu­script fragments and only a handful of French-language fragments listed as having been found in Oxford bindings. Pearson, in his supplement to Ker’s work on Oxford pastedowns, adds just one set of two fourteenth-century folios of La Mort le roi Artu found in a copy of M. Ficino’s Epistolae (Venice, 1495) that was bound by the Thomas Bedford/Dragon Binder group, and which is now kept in the library of Corpus Christi College, Oxford (the fragments are now MS 491, nos. 15, 16); Pearson, Oxford Bookbinding, 149.

Section 1

CONTEXT

Chapter 1

CODICO­LOGICAL AND PALAEO­GRAPHIC ANALYSIS As noted in the Introduction, the seven fragments contain an uninterrupted section

of the narrative of the Suite Vulgate du Merlin, covering (for the most part) the Battle of Trebes episode of the story. A full concordance of the section of text present in the fragments with their parallel passages in modern editions of the text is to be found in this book’s Appendix. According to Stones’s enumeration of all Lancelot-Grail manu­ scripts,1 there are thirty-two extant manu­scripts containing the Suite Vulgate du Merlin. According to Trachsler’s list, however, there are thirty-one.2 While these lists do mostly tally, there are more discrepancies between them than just the one item suggested by this numerical difference. Specifically, Trachsler’s list includes St. Petersburg, National Library, MS fr.F.pap.xv.3 and Vatican City, Vatican Library, MS Reg. 1687 where Stones’s does not, while Stones’s list contains Brussels, Bibliothèque royale, MS 9246, London, British Library, MS Add. 32125, and Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, MS L.iii.12, which are not listed in Trachsler’s article. In all of the manu­scripts listed by Stones as containing the Suite Vulgate, it is always preceded by the Estoire de Merlin, perhaps unsurprisingly since, as a “seamless” continuation of that very text, and one whose opening lines are never explicitly stated in any manu­script as commencing a new text,3 the Suite Vulgate would make little sense if copied in isolation.4 Additionally, in twenty-eight of the thirty-two manu­scripts that Stones lists, the Estoire del saint Graal precedes the Estoire de Merlin. A varied combination of the Queste del saint Graal, La Mort le roi Artu, and the Lancelot en prose (in two cases the Lancelot is announced but not present) is found in just thirteen of the thirtytwo and, in any case, the earliest manu­script to have any of these texts in addition to the Estoire del saint Graal and the Estoire de Merlin is Bonn, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 526, dated (by its scribe) to 1286. Given the likely dating of the Bristol Merlin fragments to ca. 1250–1275 (see below), therefore, the most plausible scenario is that the original manu­script that contained the fragments comprised of the Estoire del saint Graal, the Estoire de Merlin, and the Suite Vulgate.5 This said, the text of our fragments seems most closely (though far from perfectly) to match the version contained in Paris, Bibliothèque 1  Stones, “The Lancelot-Grail Project.”

2  Trachsler, “Pour une nouvelle edition,” 145–46.

3  Though some manu­scripts do mark the moment with a miniature, an initial, or a text break: Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin,” 154. 4  In short, it is highly improbable that the original manu­script would have contained this text alone, even if this is impossible to prove beyond doubt.

5  We return to this as the most probable combination of contents in the context of other LancelotGraal manu­scripts known to have been in England in Chapter 3.

8

Chapter 1

nationale de France, MSS fr. 344 (ca. 1290–1300) and (albeit slightly less so) fr. 98 (ca. 1425–1450), and both additionally contain the Queste, the Mort Artu, and the Lancelot (see Chapter 4). If our source manu­script did contain these last three, this would make it the earliest known manu­script to contain all of the texts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle. The seven extant fragments (A–G) are written in a French gothic script (to adopt a traditional if slightly imprecise term) in dark ink, and were ruled uniformly in lead to accommodate sixty-five lines in two columns, but two of them (B and C) now exhibit fewer lines due to their having been subsequently cropped (the cropping has led to the loss of Br–v, ll. 1–3 and Cr–v, ll. 1–2). The pages measure approximately 305 × 200 mm on average, though their width varies between 190–205 mm depending on the level of cropping. Blank spaces have been left for a total of at least twenty-nine decorated initials (Ar: 3; Av: 3; Br: 2; Bv; 1; Cr: 2; Cv: 2; Dr: 1; Dv: 2; Er: 3; Ev: 1; Fr: 3; Fv: 2; Gv: 4), their guide letters still visible in the margins of some of the fragments (such as on Br, Cv, and Fr–v), but none of them has been executed. Unlike in a significant number of extant thirteenthto fifteenth-century copies of the same text, there are no spaces for miniatures in any of our fragments.6 Apart from a handful of minor pauses that are marked by a punctus simplex, the main text exhibits no punctuation.7 Abbreviations, too, are kept to a minimum throughout. There is a total of four annotations, all but one (Gva, ll. 24–26) of which appear on the same fragment (Dva, ll. 41, 42, and 46–48), and none of which is contemporary with the date of the main text. The potential significance of these annotations and their possible ramifications for our knowledge of the fragments’ history of transmission will be discussed further in Chapter 3. 6  The number of miniatures (completed, partly executed, and/or prepared) found in illuminated copies of the section of the text corresponding to that in A–G ranges from three to eight, with an average of six. For the final quarter of the thirteenth century, these include, in chrono­logical order: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 178, fols. 286r–297v (seven images; made in Bo­logna or Venice ca. 1270–1300); Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 770, fols. 221r–231v (six images; made in Douai ca. 1285); Tours, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 951, fols. 307v–320r (seven images, two of which completed; made in Acre, Cyprus or Italy in 1290); and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 344, fols. 155r–162r (eight images; made in Metz or Verdun ca. 1290–1300— the manu­script whose text is closest to that in our fragments); for the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there are Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 9123, fols. 216v–226v (six images; made in Paris ca. 1320–1330); Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 105, fols. 251v–262v (three images; made in Paris ca. 1320–1330); Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 3482, fols. 198–215 (five images; made in Paris ca. 1350); and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 91, fols. 172v–187r (four images, none of which completed; possibly made in Bourges ca. 1480–1482). Generally speaking, it is true that the manu­scripts containing the Suite Vulgate made prior to the fifteenth century all have miniatures (and/or spaces for miniatures), and most of them can in fact be classed as heavily illustrated (cf. the numbers of miniatures set out for all LancelotGrail manu­scripts in Stones, “The Lancelot-Grail Project.”) While prima facie this might make our fragments seem like outliers, possibly strengthening our earlier hypothesis that their source manu­script might have served as an exemplar, we must bear in mind that Lancelot-Grail manu­ scripts circulating in England (whether imported or produced there) generally tend to have been less lavishly decorated than their Continental/French counterparts (see discussion in Chapter 3). 7  On punctuation, see Parkes, Pause and Effect, passim.



Codico­logical and Palaeo­graphic Analysis

9

The fragments are the products of two contemporary scribes working together in intervals, rather than simultaneously. The main scribe (Scribe A) was responsible for the larger part of the copying process, with the second scribe (Scribe B) taking over sporadically to copy shorter sections of text, though never more than about half a page/ one column at a time. Most of the scribal junctures are clearly discernible, yet in a few instances the distinction is made rather more difficult due to accidental damage to the text (particularly with regard to the pages formerly glued down as pastedowns) and/or by the fact that the two scribes appear to have made a conscious effort to blur and conceal some of these junctures by mimicking (or “aping”) each other’s handwriting when taking over from one another. This is less the case with Scribe B than it is with Scribe A, who on multiple occasions (e.g., Brb, ll. 25–26 and Cvb, ll. 11–12) adapted his handwriting, with varying degrees of success, to achieve a smooth(er) transition from the directly preceding work of Scribe B. This could suggest that Scribe A might have been a junior (or at least less experienced) scribe following his master’s lead, an impression which is supported by the palaeo­graphic analysis of the two hands (see below). Beginning with the first two fragments—that is, in terms of their textual sequence, not in the order of their occurrence in the four Gerson volumes (henceforth referred to by their shelfmarks 88–91/SR39)—, Scribe A copied the entirety of Ara–vb plus the opening of Bra (ll. 4–37; ll. 1–3 are cropped), at which point Scribe B took over by copying about one column’s worth of text (Bra, l. 38–Brb, l. 25) before he handed the sheet back to Scribe A (Brb, l. 25–Bvb). Scribe B also copied the beginning of Cra (ll. 3–39; ll. 1–2 are cropped), followed by a fairly substantial section by Scribe A (Cra, l. 40–Cva, l. 57; ll. 58–65 are lost completely due to the folio’s large diagonal tear, though it is possible that they, too, were copied by Scribe A). Scribe B then briefly continued at the top of Cvb (ll. 3–11) before handing over once more to Scribe A for the remainder of this folio (Cvb, ll. 11–65) and the entirety of the next two and a half folios (Dra–Frb), which is the longest continuous passage copied by either of the two scribes across the surviving fragments. Scribe A also copied the opening of Fva (ll. 1–21) and all of Fvb, intersected by a medium-length passage by Scribe B (Fva, ll. 21–65). Gra continues the work of Scribe A, but Scribe B interjected briefly at the beginning of Grb (ll. 1–33) before Scribe A completed the remainder of the sheet (Grb, ll. 41–65; the text on ll. 31–40 has been damaged to such a degree that the precise moment of transition can no longer be established with certainty). The last surviving fragment, Gva–b, is almost entirely the work of Scribe A, barring a final interjection by Scribe B of a mere three and a half lines (Gva, ll. 48–51). Taken together, Scribe A thus copied a total of around 729 lines of text (~ 80%), whereas the work of Scribe B adds up to no more than about 181 lines (~ 20%) across the seven fragments. The hands of Scribe A and Scribe B can both be dated confidently to the second half of the thirteenth century, most likely the third quarter (ca. 1250–1275). Both scribes consistently write the first line of text below the top ruled line, and their respective scripts are in line with those found in large numbers of French vernacular manu­scripts produced in the period post-1250.8 Round d is used invariably in all positions (initial, medial, and final), and round s appears recurrently at the beginning, middle, and end 8  Cf. the good summary of dating elements provided in Nixon, “Catalogue of Manu­scripts,” 5–12.

10

Chapter 1

of words. Round r after o (from the Latin abbreviation for “-orum”) is used consistently throughout, but not yet in regular conjunction with other bowed letters such as p or b, which again suggests a date prior to ca. 1275–1300. Closed g is firmly in place, but a remains open, rather than having its top stroke dropped to form the “double loop” a characteristic of many late-thirteenth-century scripts.9 Round d followed by e consistently takes the form of a ligature, and minuscule i is ticked unfailingly when part of a sequence of two or more minims, except when directly preceded/followed by long l/s. There is no evidence of long-stemmed r anywhere in the text. The feet on minims firmly point to the right (including letters with multiple minims such as m, n, and u) and fusion (or “biting”) between adjacent curved/rounded letters is a frequent phenomenon.10 Hairline strokes are used habitually to embellish a variety of letter forms (most frequently e, t, and z in final position—the last of these consistently takes the form of the Arabic numeral 3—, but also v), usually in the approach and/or finishing strokes.11 The Tironian note for “et” (resembling the Arabic numeral 7) is crossed without exception. Taken together, these various features point most strongly to the quarter century ca. 1250–1275, given that several of the developments that come to characterize latethirteenth- and early-fourteenth-century scripts are already in place, whereas others are yet to develop fully or are absent altogether. While the hands of Scribe A and Scribe B share virtually all of the features listed above—which is hardly surprising, of course, given their contemporaneity and the fact that the two scribes were working together as a team—, there are also some idiosyncrasies that set them apart. To list just a few of the most significant differences, Scribe A approaches the crossed Tironian note with a curved backwards stroke (or “hook”) that sets off mid-height just above/below the horizontal cross stroke. This curved stroke is then repeated/mirrored by a second one at the very bottom/foot of the same letter. In a number of instances, this habit is taken to the extreme by launching the curved approach stroke as far down as the base line, thereby making it run across the full height of the letter (Fig. 1a). Scribe B reveals no such habit, but instead writes his Tironian notes with a straight horizontal top stroke (Fig. 1b). Similarly, the execution of “double curves” such as in 3-shaped z and round r after o differs notably between the two scribes. In the case of Scribe A, the degree of angularity in these curved strokes is so pronounced/exaggerated as to make them appear like combinations of squares/rectangles and hairlines (Fig. 1c and e), whereas Scribe B generally maintains a curvier, wavier, and altogether more calli­graphic effect when constructing these letter forms (Fig. 1d and f). This said, there are a few instances where the handwriting of Scribe A shows a stronger tendency towards curvature than does that of Scribe B. A good example of this is the top stroke of q, which invariably takes the shape of a straight horizontal line when written by Scribe B (Fig. 1h) but mostly resembles a concave (or “dipped”) curve when penned by Scribe A 9  Nixon, “Catalogue of Manu­scripts,” 8.

10  Cf. Kwakkel, “Kissing, Biting and the Treatment of Feet,” 206–8. See also Derolez, The Palaeo­ graphy of Gothic Manu­script Books, 52–53, 108–9.

11  On approach/finishing strokes and some of the other terms used in this discussion, see glossary provided in Parkes, Their Hands Before Our Eyes, 149–55.



Codico­logical and Palaeo­graphic Analysis

11

Figure 1: Idiosyncratic differences between Scribes A and B

(Fig. 1g). Likewise, the short diagonal stroke that forms the “roof” of e is usually concave in the script of Scribe A (Fig. 1i) but straight/convex in that of Scribe B (Fig. 1j). All in all, Scribe B writes a rounder, fuller, and slightly larger script than does Scribe A. Wherever his hand appears across the seven fragments, it is marked by greater clarity and regularity than that of Scribe A, and in their direct juxtaposition on the page the ductus of Scribe B appears more confident—and in some regards more competent— than that of his collaborator (Fig. 2a–c). At the same time, the handwriting of Scribe B has a rather conservative, and perhaps slightly anachronistic, aspect, and in some of its characteristic features it seems to be lagging behind the trends of the period.12 While far from conclusive proof, these impressions might further support the possibility raised earlier in this section, namely that Scribe B was the more senior and/or experienced of the two scribes, whose sporadic yet authoritative interference in the copying process was intended to provide a practical example and guide for the work of Scribe A. This notion might also find support in the fact that Scribe A makes some “amateurish” transcription errors (perhaps even comprehension errors), such as mistakenly referring, on occasion, to the character of Poince Antoine as two people (“Poince et Antoine”), which is corrected, in some instances, by a reader who may be Scribe B (see Section 2, Chapter 2). As is shown in the table of concordance provided in the Appendix, the seven fragments together form a continuous textual sequence (A–B–C–D–E–F–G) whose order is different from their current arrangement as flyleaves in 88–91/SR39 (D–C–B–E–F–A– †–G). The fourth volume (91/SR39) today is missing its front flyleaf (†), but it does seem likely that it once had one. Originally, therefore, there were probably eight fragments, of which one was lost at some point after the books had been bound in 1502 × 1520 (see

12  Once again, cf. the numerous representative examples (incl. plates) gathered in Busby et al., Les Manuscrits de Chrétien de Troyes, passim.

12

Chapter 1

Figure 2: Junctures between Scribes A and B (Bra, ll. 33–42, Cvb, ll. 8–16 and Gva, ll. 43–53)



Codico­logical and Palaeo­graphic Analysis

13

Chapter 2). Given what we know about the working practices of later-fifteenth- and earlysixteenth-century bookbinders, it seems probable that the fragments in our four books not only all came from the same thirteenth-century manu­script, but also from a single quire. As pointed out in the Introduction, re-using discarded medi­eval manu­scripts (or parts thereof) as binding material was a common practice, and these manu­scripts usually would have been unbound in the binder’s workshop and broken up into individual quires (or loose sheets) so that the parchment was ready to hand. In the case of our fragments, we can be certain that they were initially employed not as flyleaves, but as pastedowns. The glue surviving on one side of each fragment, often obscuring and/or damaging the text, is clear evidence of their former attachment to the inside of the book boards, as are the dark brown stains of the boards’ leather wrappings still visible along the edges of the fragments, particularly on the non-glued sides. With eight pastedowns required for the four volumes of 88–91/SR39, a regular quire of eight sheets/four bifolia would seem the most plausible source. Assuming that this was indeed the case, and considering that the textual sequence across the seven sheets forming A–G is still intact, the eighth sheet that provided the lost fragment/pastedown (†) originally would have had to sit either after G or before A—henceforth referred to as Version 1 and Version 2, respectively (Fig. 3; Step 1)—, making it either the first (Version 2) or the final page (Version 1) of the quire. When the leaves were turned into pastedowns (Fig. 3; Step 2), the fragments’ original order and textual sequence seem to have been abandoned by the early-modern book binder. We can no longer know which fragment was pasted into which volume of 88–91/ SR39, but what can be established is a) which fragments became front pastedowns and which rear pastedowns, b) whether or not they were facing the right way up, and c) that their orientation and location changed when these pastedowns were lifted and turned into flyleaves at a later point. As regards the pastedowns’ initial location, the two main clues are provided by, on the one hand, the abovementioned glue residue and wrapping stains, which together tell us precisely which side of a given fragment was once glued down; on the other hand, all but one of the fragments exhibit a pair of small circular holes caused by the books’ metal clasps. Attached to the front/back board along the fore-edge side, each of these clasps has been fixed with two small nails. The nails securing the front clasps are always aligned vertically (Fig. 4a), whereas those holding the rear clasps in place sit next to each other horizontally (Fig. 4b). The corresponding sets of small holes in the fragments (see examples in Figs 4c and 4d) reveal that three of them (A, D, and G) were definitely front pastedowns, whereas another three (B, E, and F) must have been rear pastedowns. In the case of A, the location of the holes on the page further reveals that this fragment was flipped along its horizontal axis and pasted onto the board upside down, while B, G, and—in Version 2—D were flipped along their vertical axis and inserted back to front, with their recto facing the board. The orientation and location of C can no longer be determined with certainty as the clasp holes would have been located on the part of the page that has been torn off, meaning that this fragment could have been either a front pastedown (glued in the right way up) or a rear pastedown (turned 180° and inserted upside down). The same is true of the lost fragment (†), though here it seems reasonable to suspect that its disappearance might have to do with the loss of the original rear board of 88/SR39, in

14

Chapter 1

Figure 3: Reconstruction of the fragments’ history of transmission



Codico­logical and Palaeo­graphic Analysis

a

15

b

c

d Figure 4: Book clasps of 90/SR39 (front) and 92/SR39 (rear) and clasp damage to Ar and Br

place of which today stands a late-sixteenth-century substitute (see Chapters 2 and 3). If the two had once formed a codico­logical unit, then this might explain why † vanished together with the board to which it had been attached, which consequently would have made it a rear pastedown (the fourth one alongside B, E, and F). If this version of events is correct, then C must initially have been a front pastedown together with A, D, and G. Though impossible to prove, this remains the most plausible reconstruction in light of the surviving evidence. When the pastedowns were lifted and turned into flyleaves (Fig. 3; Step 3), probably on the occasion of the books’ conservation (which included replacing the spines) seemingly undertaken by the Bristol Library in the nineteenth century,13 the fragments’

13  Based on the style of the new spines and the new pastedowns, the latter of which appear to be of modern paper. This may have been ordered by Norris Mathews, the city librarian (1893–1918)

16

Chapter 1

respective orientation and location changed yet again. Made into a rear flyleaf for 88/ SR39, fragment C was turned 180° and inserted upside down, provided it had indeed been a front pastedown facing the right way up to begin with. Fragment A, which we know had been facing the wrong way up as a pastedown (Step 2), was also turned 180° when converted into a rear flyleaf for 90/SR39, now facing the right way up. In fact, at least some of the fragments must have been shuffled between the four volumes during Steps 2 and 3, given that 89/SR39 today contains what previously had been two rear pastedowns (B and E). Likewise, the two flyleaves of 88/SR39 are both former front pastedowns (D and C—always assuming, of course, that the latter was a front pastedown in the first place). One fragment that seems to have maintained its original orientation and location throughout is D, which, as we saw earlier, had initially been a front pastedown and today still features as a front flyleaf in 88/SR39. As we will remember, this is also the fragment that carries three of the four extant annotations on its verso (the recto having been glued onto the book board as a pastedown). Considering that 88–91/SR39 form a four-volume set of the full works of Jean Gerson and, as far as we know, were always treated and transmitted as such, presumably the most logical, intuitive and, indeed, common place for an annotator would have been the inside (verso) of the pastedown marking the opening of the first volume. In sum, therefore, we can be relatively certain that the source manu­script for our fragments was made in France during the second half, probably the third quarter, of the thirteenth century—a conclusion that is supported further by the linguistic evidence (see Chapter 4). The almost complete lack of punctuation, abbreviation, and annotation, the indicated but unexecuted decoration and, not least, the absence of illumination make it something of an outlier when compared to the other copies of the same text produced during this period (and subsequently). On the basis of these observations, it is just possible—if unprovable—that the manu­script from which the fragments derive had been intended, or at least was used, as an exemplar for the production of further copies. If this was the case, then there is a possibility that this source manu­script might never have been bound in the first place, but continued to be kept in individual quires (or gatherings) until such time as it became a waste product and was re-used, either partly or in full, by an early-modern book binder.14 The fact that the surviving fragments form a textual and codico­logical sequence might speak in favour of such a possibility. While at this point these remain no more than suggestions, they may gain (or lose) support from Chapter 2 and 3’s exploration of the books’ provenance and the history of their transmission.

who in 1899 compiled the catalogue of early printed books and manu­scripts in the library, and who in that catalogue repeatedly notes the preservation of bindings and manu­script fragments being “secured” inside bindings, suggesting that perhaps he had arranged or overseen both: Mathews, Early Printed Books. 14  This was common practice for exemplars, as it facilitated the copying of the text. See, for example, Purdie, “Manu­scripts and Manu­script Culture,” 45.

Chapter 2

BINDINGS All four Gerson volumes (88–91/SR39) that today play host to the Merlin fragments were printed in folio in Strasbourg, though only the first three (88–90/SR39) were produced by the same printer in the same year—1494.1 As indicated in Chapter 1, though, the four certainly seem to have been intended to form a set. The printer of the first three volumes, Martin Flach, died in 1500, after which his son, also called Martin Flach, took over his printing business. Flach the younger’s mother then married another printer in 1501, Johann Knobloch, who took on the press, but who appears to have maintained a good relationship with his stepson. Using borrowed equipment from Knobloch, Flach the younger set up a second press nearby.2 The fourth volume of Gerson’s Opera omnia (91/SR39) was printed on this second press (for his cousin Matthias Schürer) in 1502, suggesting that Flach the younger may have taken it upon himself to complete, or at least add to, his father’s work on Gerson’s Opera omnia.3 Indeed, it is common to find the four volumes kept together as a set,4 and certainly it would appear that the first owner of the Bristol copies, who probably had them shipped unbound from Strasbourg,5 purchased the four volumes with precisely this intention, due to his/her having them bound in matching covers shortly following the final tome’s publication. The bindings of the four volumes, except for the rear board of 88/SR39 (more about which below), are made of mid-brown calfskin over wooden boards and are typical of early sixteenth-century bindings of both Oxford and Cambridge, including a patch repair to the rear board of 90/SR39. The bindings as a whole are fairly robust, given that a later repairer, in an effort to conserve them, replaced their spines entirely, and took what remained of the leather covers and mounted them onto new ones (see below for more 1  See Introduction, n. 3 above for full biblio­graphic data. 2  Walker, “The Cover Design,” 90.

3  See Introduction, n. 3 above for full biblio­graphic data.

4  The fourth volume can also often be found accompanying the 1488 edition of the first three volumes of the same text printed by Grüninger (see Introduction, n. 3 above for full biblio­graphic data). The frequent combination of the 1502 fourth volume with either the 1488 or the 1494 editions of the first three volumes is explained in both the WorldCat entry for the 1502 edition of the fourth volume (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1001544203) and the British Library’s ISTC entry for the 1488 edition of the first three volumes (https://data.cerl.org/istc/ig00186000).

5  Books were conventionally shipped unbound for the sake of economy (the books would have been lighter and thus cheaper to transport); see Coates, “The Latin Trade,” 53 and Barker, “The Importation of Books,” 257. Pollard notes, indeed, that a similar scenario seems to have occurred with a book bound by the so-called Half-Stamp Binder, which had originally been printed in Strasbourg in 1499, but which was only bound once in Oxford; Pollard, “The Names,” 196. See also the package of unbound books for presentation to Princess Elizabeth and King Edward VI sent by Johannes Sturm in Strasbourg to Martin Bucer in Cambridge, upon the expectation that they would be bound locally prior to their presentation: Pohl and Tether, “Books Fit for a King,” 20–21.

18

Chapter 2

Figure 5: The binder’s use of a “half-stamp” lattice ornament on the front cover of 88/SR39

on these repairs). However, there had clearly already been heavy wear to the original leather covers, such that the blind-stamped impressions are not as clear as they must once have been; worse still, the mounted remnants of the original covers are now heavily cracked and flaking off in places, with some sections missing entirely. As a result of this and the loss of the original spines, it is extremely difficult to identify the books’ binder with confidence. The design consists of an intersecting rectangular roll frame enclosed by double fillets which extend to the edges of the boards. The central rectangle is divided by diagonal double fillets, thus creating lozenge- and triangle-shaped compartments into which lozenge-shaped lattice ornaments (some of them half-stamps) are impressed (Fig. 5). This layout is classified by David Pearson as a “Type A1 roll binding.”6 The rolled pattern used for the frame itself does not intersect at the corners. The designs of the lattice ornament and the roll used on the Gerson bindings are both common types, but they do bear particular resemblances to the work of two known binders, one operating in Cambridge and the other in Oxford, both around the turn of the sixteenth century, making them roughly contemporary with the books’ publication. The first is the Lattice Binder of Cambridge, active ca. 1485–1511, who typically used a Type A1 layout, often featuring a lattice ornament with a characteristic thirteen perforations at the centre.7 Some of the lattice impressions still visible on the Gerson bindings look very similar to this ornament, even if they do not quite provide a perfect match (the Gerson volumes’ ornament is, for once thing, a little larger than the Lattice Binder’s, and some of the flourishes at the tips of the foliage do not seem to correspond perfectly). In combination with this lattice tool, the Lattice Binder sometimes used a stamp (rather than a roll) for the frames of his bindings, the design of which features a diaper pattern of quatrefoils inside lozenges very close in appearance to that used on the Gerson bind6  Pearson, Oxford Bookbinding, 6.

7  Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 18.



Bindings

19

ings.8 Importantly, though, the patterns inside the frames on the Gerson bindings, while heavily worn, mostly appear to have been formed by a diaper roll rather than a stamp. What further prevents the identification of our bindings as the work of the Lattice Binder is the absence of other tell-tale signs of his craftsmanship. These include, most notably, the use of pink pigment to cover the entire binding, a practice almost exclusive to Cambridge binders,9 but which is particularly pronounced in the work of the Lattice Binder, who usually applied a very thick coat.10 In addition, the Lattice Binder had a habit of making his stamped frame patterns intersect and, frequently, extend to the board edges.11 The frame pattern on the Gerson volumes, by contrast, ends before it meets at the corners of the frame, and does not continue inside the extended double fillets to reach the very edges of the book boards. In summary, even though the combination of tools used on the covers of the Gerson volumes appear similar to those used by the Lattice Binder (perhaps the closest match available), the damage to the bindings and the absence of several of his characteristic practices conspire to prevent a confident attribution. The other binder whose work bears close parallels with the Gerson volumes is the so-called Half-Stamp Binder of Oxford, who bound books with publication dates between 1491 and 1511.12 His name derives from his use of a distinctive lattice ornament formed by the impression of triangular “half stamps” next to each other on a horizontal split to create a lozenge-shaped motif. The Half-Stamp Binder impressed this ornament into the lozenge-shaped compartments of a Type A1 layout (see above), while using a half-stamp lattice ornament on either a horizontal or vertical split for the triangular compartments at the edges of the central rectangle.13 His work thus also corresponds closely with the 8  For images of the Lattice Binder’s tools, see Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, Plate xi. The lattice ornament in question is numbered on this Plate as 81 (and classified by Oldham as H. 13 (a) 994 on Plate lviii), while the frame stamp is numbered 84. Incidentally, there is one volume of the Flach’s 1494 edition of Gerson possibly bound by the Lattice Binder that was acquired by the British Library, and which may also use frame stamp 84, but the binding is so worn that identifying either the tool or the binder has so far proven impossible; Marks, “English Bookbindings,” 99.

9  Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 14. It is worth noting here that the Lattice Binder’s lattice tool appears to have been passed to another Cambridge binder, Garrett Godfrey, who seems to have started using it in around 1511–1512; Oldham, Shrewsbury School Library Bindings, 8–9. Godfrey, by contrast, did not use a pink pigment on his bindings (Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 15), but nonetheless can be dismissed fairly confidently since he does not appear to have used any frame rolls or layouts that correspond with those on the Gerson covers.

10  Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 18; given the poor repair of our bindings, it might be possible to attribute the absence of pink pigment to their heavy wear, but the Lattice Binder’s particular penchant for a very thick layer means one might expect to see at least some traces within the impressions. 11  Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 14.

12  Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 29; Plate xxiv; Pollard, “The Names,” 213–14. With thanks to Sheila Hingley at Durham University Library for her assistance with this.

13  The impressions—as with the Lattice Binder—are not perfect matches for any catalogued lattice ornament half-stamps, but they seem most closely to correspond to Oldham’s tools 306 and 307 (for the horizontal split) and 309 and 310 (for the vertical split); Oldham, English BlindStamped Bindings, Plates xxiv, xxv, and lix.

20

Chapter 2

design and layout of the Gerson bindings and even his lattice half-stamps bear a striking resemblance to those used by the Gerson binder, some (though not all) of which do seem to have a horizontal split (assuming, of course, these are not just cracks caused by heavy wear). The diaper roll of quatrefoils inside lozenges that provides the frame for the central panel cannot be identified with tools known to have been used by the Half-Stamp Binder, but it is a design found frequently on Oxford bindings of the period.14 Like the Gerson bindings, there are several examples of the Half-Stamp Binder’s work in which he does not allow the frame design to intersect at the corners and/or to extend to the edges of the boards.15 The lack of decoration in the spaces outside of the frame on the Gerson volumes is likewise not unknown in the Half-Stamp Binder’s work.16 While the Half-Stamp Binder’s exact dates of activity are impossible to pinpoint, he was unlikely to be working later than about 1520,17 meaning that his work on 88–91/SR39 might be tentatively dated to between 1502 (the date of publication of the fourth Gerson volume) and 1520 (the latest date of the binder’s likely activity), assuming it is indeed his work and not that of the Lattice Binder or someone else. If the bindings were made by the Lattice Binder, then this window would narrow to 1502–1511, the latter being the date when the characteristic lattice stamp apparently passed to Garrett Godfrey (cf. note 9 above). Thanks to the fact that the tools employed on the bindings of 88–91/SR39 impress common motifs into an equally common layout type, coupled with the issue that heavy wear on the bindings means none of the tools can be said for certain to provide a perfect match with classified rolls or ornaments, the identity of the binder of the Gerson volumes ultimately must remain open to debate. Since both of the candidates favour a Type A1 layout and use a lattice ornament half-stamp practically indistinguishable one from the other, even the question as to whether these bindings started life in Oxford or Cambridge is hard to answer beyond any doubt. If the books were bound in Cambridge, their immediate afterlife is impossible to trace given the lack of any evidence within the books themselves. If they were bound in Oxford, however, they might have arrived in Bristol Central Library by the same means, and via the same route, as several other books in the collection whose provenance is better documented. Indeed, there was a particular donor of books who, while very likely also to have owned volumes in Cambridge bindings, is known to have possessed an especially large collection of Oxford-bound books: Tobias Matthew (sometimes Tobie Mathew, 1546–1628). It is Matthew’s possible involvement that leads us into the next part of our study, that concerning provenance. 14  See the various examples in Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 44 and Plate xxxix.

15  Such as, but not exclusively, on the covers of Durham, Ushaw College, xvii.E.4.3–5, more about which below.

16  Oldham initially thought that the Half-Stamp Binder always decorated these spaces with stamps due to the first nine examples he saw (Oldham, Shrewsbury School Library Bindings, 37), but had to revise this upon later seeing other volumes bound by him (Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 30).

17  Only one extant volume bound by him has a publication date later than 1506, hence Oldham’s conservative estimate for his dates of activity; Oldham, Blind Panels of English Binders, 23.

Chapter 3

PROVENANCE Educated first at Wells Cathedral School and then at University College and Christ Church College, Oxford, Tobias Matthew was successively Dean (1583–1595) and Bishop (1595–1606) of Durham and, finally, Archbishop of York (1606–1628). The people from whom he procured many of his Oxford-bound books belonged to a community that gave regular custom to both the Half-Stamp Binder and other Oxford-based binders. In fact, of the “23 plus” books counted by Graham Pollard as bound by the Half-Stamp Binder,1 as many as thirteen (and quite possibly more) have annotations and/or ownership inscriptions suggesting that they were specifically made for monks of Durham Cathedral Priory studying at Durham (now Trinity) College, Oxford.2 Among them was one John Tutyng (sometimes Towten or Tuting), a monk and later canon of Durham Cathedral Priory from ca. 1527 until being deprived of his post in 1559–1560.3 Tutyng had been a student at Durham College, Oxford (1530–1538), after which he graduated as a Bachelor of Divinity.4 Among Tutyng’s books bound by the Half-Stamp Binder was the three-volume copy of Pierre Bersuire’s Prima pars Dictionarij (Nuremberg: Anton Koburger, 1499) now held at Ushaw College, Durham (xvii.E.4.3–5), whose bindings are rather similar to those of the Gerson volumes. Several of Tutyng’s books were later owned by Adam Holiday (sometimes Haliday), who became canon in 1561 and remained in Durham until his death in 1591.5 Thanks to his extant ownership inscriptions, we know that Holiday acquired a wide variety of books bought by Durham monks in Oxford, including other books bound by the Half-Stamp Binder, such as the copy of Guillelmus Duranti’s Rationale Divinorum officiorum (Strasbourg: Georg Husner, 1493) that is now in Durham Cathedral Library (ChapterLib Inc. 63). The number 23

1  Pollard, “The Names,” 213. Oldham suggested twenty-two originally (Oldham, English BlindStamped Bindings, 29), and later revised this to twenty-five (Oldham, Blind Panels of English Binders, 23).

2  The ones possible to identify with certainty, according to Oldham, are: (i–iii) Durham, Ushaw College, xvii.E.4.3–5 (Nuremburg, 1499); (iv–x) Durham, Ushaw College, xviii.B.3.5–11 (Basel, 1498); (xi) Durham, Ushaw College, xviii.A.5.4 (Paris, 1505); (xii) Durham, Ushaw College, xvii.E.4.1 (Basel, 1495); (xiii) Durham, Durham Cathedral Library, ChapterLib Inc. 63 (Strasbourg, 1493; formerly Canterbury Cathedral Library, Mendham 24). These identifications were facilitated by cross-referencing Oldham’s listings of the Half-Stamp Binder’s books (Oldham, English BlindStamped Bindings, 29; Oldham, Blind Panels of English Binders, 23) with the entries for Durham Cathedral Priory books on both the “Durham Priory Library Recreated” and “Medi­eval Libraries of Great Britain” databases.

3  Tutyng’s tenure at Durham is not documented in the Durham Liber Vitae (London, British Library, MS Cotton Domitian A VII), but is set out from other evidence in Rollason and Rollason, The Durham Liber Vitae, 3:430–31 (prosopo­graphical entry C1364). 4  Doyle, “The Printed Books,” 216.

5  Doyle, “The Printed Books,” 216.

22

Chapter 3

written in ink across the book’s fore-edge may link it to an inventory of books belonging to the aforementioned Tobias Matthew, which in turn includes a notice of an analogous book received from Holiday.6 As alluded to above, this is far from the only book of Holiday’s, or indeed of the Durham monks’ more generally, that later ended up in Matthew’s possession.7 Having made a habit of purchasing volumes from the estates of deceased colleagues from Durham’s Cathedral Chapter during his tenure as Dean and later Bishop,8 Matthew’s many acquisitions included several books belonging to Tutyng, though it is possible that Holiday acted as a middleman for some or all of these.9 Even though his ecclesiastical career took him to the north of England, Matthew had in fact been born at Bristol Bridge in February 1546,10 and his personal connection with the city of Bristol never seems to have faded. In 1613, Matthew co-founded with Robert Redwood (d. 1630) a public library that would eventually become Bristol Central Library, and promised to donate books from his collection to its establishment.11 In the minutes of the Council held on December 6, 1613, it is recorded that “for the furtherance of Learninge […] such bookes as shal be given to the Cytie by the reverende father in God the Lord Archibishop of Yorke […] shal be thankefully accepted and preserved in the place aforesayed.”12 This “place aforesayed,” according to the City Annals of 1614, was located in Redwood’s lodge adjoining the town wall, which Redwood had donated to the project, and which became known as the “Library in the Marsh.”13 The library stayed on this site on King Street (the building was rebuilt in 1738–1740, and that building still stands today) until 1906, when it moved to its current premises on College Green. In 1615, Matthew duly sent the promised books,14 and apparently continued to send books to Bristol until his death in 1628, with some even arriving posthumously, presumably thanks to his widow, Frances (see below).15 However, the record of precisely which books he sent has not survived,16 though it is believed that the books he chose for Bristol 6  See the entry for this book in the online Durham University Library Catalogue. The inventory is to be found in York, Borthwick Institute of Archives, Chancery Probate Records, “Inventory of the goods of Archbishop Tobie Matthew,” April 10, 1968. 7  Doyle notes that there are at least eighteen books owned by Holiday that eventually became the property of Matthew; Doyle, “The Printed Books,” 217. 8  Sheils, “Matthew, Tobie.”

9  Doyle, “The Printed Books,” 218.

10  Gavin, “Elizabethan Bishop of Durham.”

11  Mathews, Early Printed Books, vii.

12  Reproduced in Tovey, A Free Library for Bristol, section entitled “The Bristol City Library,” 1–2.

13  Bristol, Bristol Archives, Mayor’s Register Book, fol. 70; see also Tovey, “The Bristol City Library,” 5.

14  See the St Leonard’s Vestry Minutes for 1615: Bristol, Bristol Archives, 40365/V/1/(a). See also Newley, “A Life,” 43.

15  Oates, “Tobie Matthew and the Minster Benefaction.” Tovey, “The Bristol City Library,” 6, 11–12. 16  A list was apparently made at the time by entering the names of the books in the library’s register upon receipt, and this was “in the Custody of Richard Williams vicar of St. Leonard’s.” Bristol, Bristol Archives, 40365/V/1/(a). Unfortunately, this register appears not to have survived.



Provenance

23

were duplicates of others in his collection.17 Norris Mathews, who compiled the catalogue of early printed books and manu­scripts in Bristol’s library, states ‘[i]t is […] safe to conclude that the Books and MSS. now catalogued, were mostly given by Dr. Tobias Mathew’.18 On the face of it, this provides a potential route to Bristol for the four Gerson volumes containing the Merlin fragments, in that one of their two possible binders worked for the monks of Durham studying in Oxford, and there is good evidence that the libraries of these monks frequently ended up in Matthew’s hands, who in turn donated a selection of them to the foundation of the current Bristol Central Library, where they are still to be found. Even if the books’ bindings were products of Cambridge, this does not necessarily exclude them from having found their way via an unknown route into Matthew’s vast library (see below), and thence to Bristol. However plausible a route to Bristol via Matthew might seem, there are no signs of ownership to place the Gerson volumes firmly in the hands of either Matthew or any of the monk-agents party to his usual book acquisition practices (see above). There is, however, a possible analogue in a copy of John Duns Scotus’s commentary on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, which was printed in Venice in 1506 in five volumes under the title Primus (–quartus) scripti super sententias, Questiones quodlibetales, and which is kept today, bound in three volumes, in Bristol Central Library (shelfmark SR64). These volumes are widely accepted as having taken the Oxford–Durham–Bristol route described above.19 They were bound by the Fruit and Flower Binder of Oxford (operating 1491–1509) using a lozenge-shaped ornament design (with a pineapple motif) with a stamped floral frame very similar in layout and style to that of the Gerson volumes,20 and they belonged to John Tutyng, who paid thirteen shillings for them, as is evidenced by inscriptions on several of the flyleaves.21 There are, though, no inscriptions in the volumes that provide a perfect match with the hand of Matthew. However, given the number of Tutyng’s books that apparently ended up in Matthew’s hands, the hypothesis that the Bristol Duns Scotus volumes were indeed a donation from Matthew seems highly probable, if ultimately not provable. Even if this is so, however, a shared similarity in binding does not necessarily indicate a shared history between the Duns Scotus and the Gerson volumes. Still, in the absence of 17  Sheils, “Matthew, Tobie.”

18  Mathews, Early Printed Books, viii. It is worth keeping in mind that Norris Mathews claimed descent from Tobias Matthew, so he may have had a vested interest in augmenting his presumed ancestor’s profile by exaggerating the extent of his legacy; see Newley, “A Life,” 4.

19  Besides Mathews’s general comment that he believes most of the books in his catalogue were previously Tobias Matthew’s (Mathews, Early Printed Books, viii), see also Doyle, “The Printed Books,” 217, who goes so far as to state they “must have” arrived by these means, as well as the entry for SR64 in the “Durham Priory Library Recreated” database. 20  Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 23 and Plate xviii, tools 187 (pineapple stamp; ornament B. (6) 974) and 182 (floral frame stamp); see also Ker, Fragments of Medi­eval Manu­ scripts, 3 (entry 27).

21  Some images of the inscriptions can be viewed on the “Medi­eval Libraries of Great Britain” database; the leaves with the relevant inscriptions are vol. I, rear flyleaf verso; vol. II, front flyleaf verso, vol. III, fol. ivv (in all three he describes himself as a monk); vol. III, rear flyleaf verso; vol. V, rear flyleaf (no mention of status in either); vol. IV, fol. 1r (mentions status of canon).

24

Chapter 3

other testimony, it is not an unreasonable assumption that the latter arrived in Bristol by similar means. There is, in fact, some additional circumstantial evidence that may support the hypothesis. The rest of Tobias Matthew’s immense library of around three thousand volumes, which originally had been intended for his son (Sir Tobie Matthew, 1577–1655) until he was disinherited for converting to Catholicism, passed to his wife, Frances Matthew (1550–1629), along with his entire estate.22 Frances Matthew was no stranger to books, having been previously married to Matthew Parker (the son of the Matthew Parker (1504–1575) who was Archbishop of Canterbury and founder of the great library at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge that now bears his name). Almost immediately following the death of her husband, Frances—who did not long outlive her husband— bequeathed Tobias’s entire library to York Minster.23 The books that went to York seem, on the whole, to be more easily identifiable as having belonged to Matthew than do the many volumes that he may have donated to Bristol (just seven volumes are noted in Mathews’s Early Printed Books as specifically containing Matthew’s auto­graph and/or marginal annotations). More of the York books, for instance, see Matthew inscribing his name (usually “Tobias Mathew,” “Tobias Dunelm,” or “Tobias Eboracum”) and motto (“Vita Mihi Christus, Mors Lucrum,” or variations thereof), or adding copious annotation to the margins.24 The fact that Matthew’s books destined for Bristol were “duplicates” from his collection might well explain why their ownership can be harder to ascertain. Perhaps these were copies that Matthew tended not to use, and therefore did not mark up as extensively. Bearing this in mind, one factor in favour of Matthew’s having donated the Gerson Opera omnia to Bristol is the fact that York Minster Library holds a copy of the same work, albeit in a later edition (Prima (-quarta) pars (operum) Joannis Gersonis (Paris: P. Gromorsus, 1520–1521)), and this book-set is known to have been part of the Matthew bequest.25 Similarly, York holds a copy of Iohannis duns Scoti ordinis minorum doctoris [...] scriptum super primo Sententiarum incipit (Nuremberg: Anton Kopinger, 1481) which, while not firmly attributable as having belonged to Matthew, does contain an ownership mark belonging to Thomas Castell, another monk of Durham who spent time in Oxford, indicating it might indeed have arrived in York via Matthew.26 There are also another three works of Duns Scotus at York Minster Library that are documented 22  Oates, “Tobie Matthew and the Minster Benefaction”; for Tobias Matthew’s will, see York, Borthwick Institute for Archives, Probate Register 40, fol. 195r.

23  Cross, “Frances Matthew and the Re-Foundation of York Minster Library.” For Frances Matthew’s will, see York, Borthwick Institute for Archives, Probate Register 40, fols. 397r–398v. 24  Raine, A Catalogue of the Printed Books, vii.

25  See the York Minster Library online catalogue (shelfmark xv.A.2). See also Raine, A Catalogue of the Printed Books, 188. This item also appears in the library’s historic catalogues of 1638 (Catalogus librorum (MS), fol. 47r) and 1687 (Thomas Comber, Catalogus librorum in Bibliotheca Ecclesia Cathedralis & Metropoliticae B: Petri Ebor (MS), fol. 62r). 26  York Minster Library online catalogue (shelfmark Inc. 6–5(1)). See also Raine, A Catalogue of the Printed Books, 146. This item also appears in the library’s historic catalogues of 1638 (fol. 62r) and 1687 (fol. 125r).



Provenance

25

as having been part of the Matthew bequest.27 It is perhaps notable that several of these York volumes post-date the publication dates of their possible counterparts in Bristol. This would, of course, be completely in line with practices of the time, according to which, and conversely to how modern librarians typically operate, once a newer copy arrived, it was the older copy that was regarded as the duplicate. It would therefore make sense that Matthew, in selecting “duplicates,” would have chosen the older editions for Bristol.28 Bristol’s own historical catalogues do not, unfortunately, provide any further information, though the Gerson volumes are present in all catalogues still extant. The earliest surviving catalogue, compiled by Charles Tovey in 1853, oddly implies that the first volume of the Gerson books was missing, while also suggesting the same of volumes three and five of the Duns Scotus books.29 Norris Mathews corrected these errors in his 1899 catalogue, but added to the Gerson entry—as was his custom for all other early printed books containing recycled pastedowns—the notice: “Some pages of ancient MS., probably used by the first binder, are secured inside the covers. The original binding is preserved.”30 This is the only reference to acknowledge the existence of the Bristol Merlin fragments anywhere prior to 2019, but Mathews does not go so far as to identify them, or even note the language in which they are written. As we will recall, Ker does not include the Bristol Gerson volumes in his catalogue of manu­script pastedowns in Oxford bindings, though it is not impossible that he may have encountered the same difficulties as set out here in attributing them firmly to Oxford rather than Cambridge.31 Ker, though, certainly examined the books, presumably when compiling material for his Medi­eval Libraries of Great Britain project, which included preliminary investigations for his later book on pastedowns. The evidence that Ker inspected the Gerson books is provided by Bristol Central Library’s desk copy of Norris Mathews’ 1899 catalogue. Tucked inside the front cover of the catalogue is a small, typed 27  Shelfmarks Inc. 1–6(1) (Venice, 1499), xiv.L.11 (Venice, 1588) and Inc. 2–7(2) (Venice, 1503).

28  Raine explains the issue particularly vividly when discussing the sale of “duplicates” by Thomas Comber (the librarian) from Matthew’s collection at York in ca. 1685–1686 (see also below): “Any one fond of letters will see at once what mischief could by [sic] done by selling these pieces as duplicates. In this way the Bodleian, and many other libraries have been greatly injured, and, no doubt, that of York suffered as well. If that library had possessed a large Shakespearean collection, and in it a copy of the fourth folio, Dr. Comber, to carry out his principle, would have sold as dupli­ cates the three earlier folios and all the single plays!” (Raine, A Catalogue of the Printed Books, xiv). 29  In the section of Tovey, The Free Library of Bristol entitled “Catalogue of the Books, &c. in the City Library belonging to the Corporation,” the entries read: “I. de Gersonis Opera (tom. 2, 3, 4), fol. Argent. 1502 Inventorium eorum quæ in Operibus Gersonis continent, fol.” (4) and “Duns Scotus (tom. 1, 2, 4), fol. Venet. 1506” (2). The reason for the error in the Gerson entry may have to do with confusion created as a result of the books’ “Inventorium” being bound into the front of the first volume, with the first visible title page referring to that, rather than the Prima pars. The Prima pars (and its title page) is in the first volume, but only commences after the end of the inventory. 30  Mathews, Early Printed Books, 7.

31  In a review of Pearson’s Oxford Bookbinding, Hurst alludes precisely to the fact that Ker’s interest was trained far less on the bindings (they were “incidental”), than on the books’ medi­eval contents; Hurst, “Book Review: Pearson, David. Oxford Bookbinding, 1500–1640,” 534.

26

Chapter 3

Figure 6: Inscription of Cornelius Bee warranting the books complete; rear flyleaf of 88/SR39

notelet reading: “Notes supplied by Neil Ker, Esq., BLitt., M.A. 25 June, 1946.” Meanwhile, an identically-sized typed notelet headed “Gerson” and slipped in next to the catalogue entry for the Gerson books (p. 7; there is also an identical copy of this notelet stuck inside the front cover of 88/SR39) transcribes one of the younger inscriptions found on the books’ flyleaves: “At the end of the prima pars is ‘A warrant this booke and three vollomes more of Gerson perfect perme Cornelius Bee.’” The original inscription that is here transcribed by Ker is found on the rear flyleaf (that which immediately precedes Merlin fragment C) of 88/SR39 (Fig. 6). Cornelius Bee was a bookseller and sometime printer/publisher operating ca. 1636–1677 at the “Kings Armes” in the early-modern bookselling hotspot in London known as Little Britain.32 Bee was considered to be a savvy businessman who had experience of several trades,33 and who is also known to have acquired formidable libraries for bargain prices, such as that of the noted scholar John Hale for a mere seven hundred pounds.34 However, Bee also claimed, along with his partners, to have lost stock in books worth at least thirteen thousand pounds. The books in question had been stored in Sion 32  Bee’s bookselling business is often held to have been more substantial than his printing business, and this may be so, but he certainly was far from a “small-time” printer, for he published a number of significant works, including (with Laurence Sadler) the Atlas Major of 1637 and a ninevolume Critici Sacri in 1660 (about which more below): Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers, 19. There is also evidence of Bee paying people (such as Cambridge scholars John and William Retchford) to undertake transcription work from manu­scripts held in Benet (now Corpus Christi) College, Cambridge, presumably for the purpose of their (consideration for) publication in print: see the notes of money received by the Retchfords from Bee for various transcriptions between 1656 and 1664 in London, British Library, MS Harley 438, fol. 2r. For more on Bee’s publishing activity, see Lucas, “William Retchford,” 350–53.

33  An Italian/English note by Richard Symonds on “The beginning of the Cornelius Bee, the great bookseller,” dated 1658 (now in London, British Library, MS Harley 991, fol. 31r) states that Bee had successively been a lawmaker, lumberman, and broker who had built up a considerable stock of books, and made significant gains in business, all of which led him eventually to turn to the “practice of bookselling.” 34  Plomer, A Dictionary, 19.



Provenance

27

College, which was destroyed by the Great Fire of London.35 A large part of the lost stock had been thirteen hundred copies of Bee’s 1660 edition of Critici Sacri in nine volumes. Before Bee had a chance to reprint, another printer, Matthew Poole, opted to produce an abridged version, but still used many of the same critics. In response, Bee launched a well-documented legal suit founded on the fact that he had entered the work into the Stationers’ Register for seven pounds and thus believed it to be protected. Despite the fact this case is often thought of as an early example of an attempt to establish copyright (the Copyright Act of 1710 eventually followed), the court actually found against Bee.36 Bee’s inscription in the Gerson volumes has a slight peculiarity, in that he writes the warrant in a secretary script, but signs his name in a Humanist italic script; despite this, several features—including the similarity of the ink, the form of the lobe of p, the shape of miniscule e and r, as well as the majuscule G of “Gerson”—match the letter forms present in the italic script of Bee’s adjacent signature, meaning that we can be assured that the entire notice was written by Bee.37 Furthermore, it is not uncommon for writers to have more than one hand in their repertoire for use in different scenarios.38 On the top right of the title page of 88/SR39, there is a further note in Bee’s recognizable hand, which looks like a mathematical formula followed by four straight lines, one on top of the other (Fig. 7). This is almost certainly a bookseller’s price code,39 but its precise meaning is impossible to discern, since these codes were typically created for the bookseller’s own, personal use.40 It is straight-forward enough to assume that the four straight lines indicate that whatever the formula says pertains to all four volumes in the set. The formula itself, by contrast, could just as easily be a reminder of the price paid for 35  Forsyth, Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker, 185.

36  Bee and Poole both produced various pamphlets defending their respective sides, such as Bee’s The Case of Cornelius Bee and his Partners, Richard Royston, William Samuel Thompson, Thomas Robinson, and William Morden, Booksellers (1666/67), while well-known figures of the era, such as Samuel Pepys, made mention of the case in their writings. Two letters about the case by an anonymous author were even published in a pamphlet: The Case Betwixt Mr. Pool and Mr. C. Bee Considered and Decided (1667). For more on the case, see Harley, Matthew Poole, 68–69. 37  That this is indeed Bee’s hand is evidenced by a favourable comparison with that in a receipt from Bee to John Selden for fifty-two books, dated November 1, 1649 and now in London, Lambeth Palace Library, Fairhurst Papers, MS 3513, fols. 21r–v.

38  Leedham-Green states: “Many writers used more than one hand, according not only to the need for haste, but also for the formality of the document. They might, if good humanists, use italic in public, but secretary hand for private documents.” She offers Edmund Spenser as a case in point; Leedham-Green, “Early Modern Handwriting.”

39  For an explanation of such price codes and their typical formats, see Pearson, Provenance Research, 58–61.

40  Attempts have been made to “crack” such codes—perhaps the most successful being the hundred or so examples given by Jackson in his The Price Codes of the Book-Trade. However, without other examples or a crib sheet belonging to Bee, it is impossible to be sure what is meant here. As there are three letters—g, p, and r, it could be an example of the common abcdefghjklmnopqrst = 1–19 code (see Jackson, Price Codes, 7), thus possibly meaning £7 16s 18d, but this seems rather higher than the going rate for books at the time (see Feather, “The British Book Market,” 244), and is nothing more than speculation.

28

Chapter 3

Figure 7: Bookseller’s price code inscribed by Cornelius Bee on the title page of 88/SR39

the item(s) by Bee, as it could be the price at which Bee hoped to sell them, or even just an estimated value of their worth. A question arises, therefore: what are the warrant and price code of a known London bookseller who operated after 1636 doing in these Gerson volumes if indeed these books were sent, as we suspect, to Bristol by Tobias Matthew at some point between 1615 and 1628 (or slightly after)? Unfortunately, there is no evidence for the new Bristol Library having made book purchases of this order, nor of Cornelius Bee having sold items to anyone other than individuals.41 Should we assume that a warrant of the books being complete and an “uncrackable” price code are to be taken as indicators that Bee intended to sell the book, or are they merely signs of formal appraisal? A further clue that might provide some evidence of Bee’s interaction with the Gerson volumes lies in the book board of a later date spliced in at the rear of 88/SR39 at an unknown point in time. Using a darker brown leather than the other boards, this panel is also not in good repair, perhaps even worse than the others. However, inside its double-concentric roll frame, it is possible to make out very clearly, thanks to its uniqueness, a motif (“golden fleece and falcon”) that matches Oldham’s classified roll HE. f (1) 766,42 attributed to the somewhat mysterious Blank Book Binder of London, operating in the mid- to late-sixteenth century and named for his (or his workshop’s) tendency to bind blank notebooks.43 Such notebooks often became account books or registers that were later discarded, as evidenced by their leaves’ frequent use as paste­ downs in newer books. If our replacement board had originally been attached to such a notebook, it may well have been on a binder’s waste pile for use in the repair of other bindings. The board’s rough date of creation and its London origin take us a little closer to the parameters of Bee’s known activity, though of course the board does not have to 41  As evidenced by the abovementioned 1649 receipt from Bee to Selden in Lambeth Palace Library, MS 3513, fols. 21r–v.

42  Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, Plates xlvi and xxx.

43  Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, 33–34.



Provenance

29

have been added at a moment close to that time. It might have simply been an available “best-match” that was used to replace the board that had presumably been damaged,44 and this could have happened at any point in the books’ history, including during the apparent nineteenth-century conservation of the bindings of all four volumes. Indeed, the blind-stamped pineapple motif of the abovementioned patch used to repair the rear board of 90/SR39, while heavily worn and thus difficult to attribute to a particular binder, seems to have been taken from a binding of a roughly contemporaneous date as the rest of the boards (the rear board of 88/SR39 excepted, of course).45 If the two repairs occurred at the same time, then this provides clear testimony as to why the date of the replacements’ creation cannot be assumed as corresponding with the date of repair. Nonetheless, it remains a possibility that Bee arranged for the repair(s) of the binding and warranted the books ready for onward sale (either to Bristol Library or to an owner who subsequently donated the books to Bristol Library), a scenario that would, however, place the route Oxford–Durham–Bristol (or even Cambridge–Durham– Bristol) via Matthew into some doubt.46 Alternatively, since the book trade in Bristol was undeveloped at the time,47 Bristol Library might well have had cause to outsource repair and valuation work to someone like Bee, a London-based specialist who could arrange a quality repair and then appraise the books professionally. Unfortunately, solving the tantalizing riddle of Bee’s involvement one way or other may well elude us forever. 44  From the look of the stains on the adjacent pages, the culprit of this damage was likely water or another liquid.

45  The pineapple ornament on the patch, now much degraded, most closely corresponds to Oldham’s classified ornaments A. (9) 967, A. (8) 966, and A. (2) 960 (Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings, Plate lvii), meaning it most likely came from a London or—less likely—a Cambridge binding.

46  Unless, that is, the books travelled via this route as far as Matthew, but then came into Bee’s hands by alternative means, before eventually making their way to Bristol. It is, for instance, known from the additions made by Thomas Wilson to his transcript of Matthew’s diary (now York, York Minster Library, MS Add. 18) that when Matthew’s library went to York, it was first stored in a “Chamber over the Chanter’s School” (see Mathew and Calthrop, The Life of Sir Tobie Matthew, 287). Eventually, in 1685, the librarian Thomas Comber took to organizing and cataloguing the books, and was ordered by the dean and chapter to sell “duplicates” from Matthew’s collection, as alluded to earlier, to raise funds for new shelving upon which to house Matthew’s library (Newley, “A Life,” 44; Raine, A Catalogue of Printed Books, xiii). We already know that the Duns Scotus and Gerson volumes have counterparts in York but, unfortunately, a sale in 1685 is rather too late chrono­logically for Bee, since he died in 1672. It is not impossible, though, that a similar, but undocumented “clear-out” might have happened at an earlier date. 47  While there is some scant evidence of a temporary press in Bristol for a brief period between 1643 and 1645, no permanent press is documented as having been established until the end of the seventeenth century: Hyett, “Notes on The First Bristol and Gloucestershire Printers,” 39–40. Winters confirms that there are no surviving inventories to evidence the existence of booksellers in Bristol in the sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries: Winters, The English Provincial Book Trade, 1:20. However, Barry maintains that it is unlikely there were none at all: Barry, “Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century Bristol,” 66. Indeed, one lone bookbinder is listed in John Smythe’s ca. 1550 list of “such as be marchauntes and hath the sporonge of marchauntes I thincke not to be denyed to be of the mystery,” reproduced as Table 11 in Sacks, The Widening Gate, 98.

30

Chapter 3

The only remaining evidence to be explored, then, is that of later protagonists other than Bee who, as noted earlier, inscribe brief notes on the fragments themselves, as well as those of readers who annotate other pages of the books. First, there is a pencil inscription in an italic hand of the number 197 on the recto of fragment F (now at the front of 90/SR39). The same hand inscribes 352 in the same place on the recto of the front manu­script flyleaf and on two rear paper flyleaves of the first volume of the Bristol Duns Scotus, while 353 appears on the recto of the opening manu­script flyleaf of the second volume. This might suggest a principle of organization for these items. Unfortunately, no clear evidence exists to enable an identification as to which shelving system may be implicated. It may not, however, be a coincidence that, in a 1956 catalogue of the library, where the early printed books are listed alphabetically by author and numbered accordingly, the number for the Duns Scotus entry is given as “(353).”48 Unfortunately the same coincidence does not occur for the Gerson books, with the catalogue giving the number “(292)” for 88–90/SR39 and “(293)” for 91/SR39, meaning that these pencil numbers cannot be a reference to this modern catalogue, and numbers such as these are not given in Tovey or Mathews’s nineteenth-century enterprises either. The inscribing hand is difficult to date on the basis of its numerals alone, but since the numbers do not correspond to any of the extant catalogues, it is at least possible, and perhaps probable, that it is of a pre-nineteenth-century date. Given that the numerals are inscribed in ­graphite pencil, though, it seems unlikely that they date back as far as the seventeenth century, when Tobias Mathew sent his bequest and the associated books were entered into the now-lost register. If, however, the numerals inscribed did correspond to that register, even if added at a later date, that might serve to strengthen the notion that the books arrived in the same batch as the rest that came from Matthew. Another inscription that apparently relates to the shelving of the Gerson volumes, but which is not replicated anywhere in the Duns Scotus books, are the inscriptions (this time in ink) on the opening title page of each volume, reading 12.17, 12.18, 12.19, and 12.20, respectively. While the hand of these numbers, once again, proves difficult to date with precision, it certainly appears to be far earlier than the pencil inscriptions, and could even be from the sixteenth century. Assuming these are indicators of a former library home, the lack of equivalents in the Duns Scotus books could well indicate that the two sets did, after all, arrive via different routes. Unfortunately, the generic nature of these probable pressmarks mean it is impossible to identify through which, if any, library they travelled. The printed books themselves do not show signs of heavy use. There are sporadic annotations made in pencil and ink throughout, but these are not especially frequent and are usually restricted to a single letter in the margin, a bracket or other undatable marks of emphasis. Other than an unidentifiable “John” (a John Doe, so to speak) who writes his name twice, alongside the word “Uno” or “Unv,” in what looks to be an eighteenth-century hand on the third leaf of the unnumbered quire between sigs. kk and ll in 89/SR39, there are very few substantial inscriptions in the printed books. Indeed, there are just four in total, which all appear in the first volume, and which read “primus adventus Christi ad pascha” (sig. c4), “Adventus eius secundum pascha,” and “secundum 48  A Catalogue of Books in the Bristol Reference Library, n.p.



Provenance

31

Figure 8: Fifteenth-/sixteenth-century reader inscriptions on fragment Dr

pascha” (both sig. d4)—all in the same hand—, as well as, in a different hand, “quid de formellis igitur” (sig. bb4). These all have the look (and date) of the annotations commonly seen in the printed books of the monks of Durham Cathedral Priory;49 they might also speak to a common interest in liturgical matters. However, they are not identifiable with any of the better-known hands of Durham monks, such as those of John Tutyng or Adam Holiday (or even Tobias Matthew), and so do not allow us to strengthen the possibility of a route via Oxford and/or Durham any further. The majority of other reader inscriptions all appear, as is so commonly the case, on the front flyleaf of the first volume (88/SR39; Dr; Fig. 8). The three inscriptions, despite appearing closely together on the folio, are likely to be the product of different hands. Since all three of them seem to date from within a maximum period of fifty or so years either side of 1500, determining whether or not they pre- or post-date the binding is particularly challenging. Since they appear in the middle of the side of the folio that would have been visible when the fragments were pastedowns, it is impossible to exclude the notion that they were added by later readers who happened to glance at the manu­script fragments when they opened the Gerson volumes. Equally, though, they might be the marks of late-medi­eval readers who had access to the manu­script before it was broken up. Once again, however, none of the inscriptions tallies with the known hands of any of the key protagonists mentioned so far in the possible history of the volumes (Tutyng, Holiday, Matthew, Bee). The first inscription, reading “recensere parati” (Dva, l. 41; literally translating as “prepared/ready (pl.) to be mustered/reviewed”) and written in what would appear to be a fifteenth-century pre-Bastard Secretary hand,50 occurs about two thirds down the left-hand column. Returning to our previous hypothesis introduced at the end of 49  See the various plates in Doyle, “The Printed Books,” as well as the entries for the monks in “Durham Priory Library Recreated”; from these sources, we can be sure that the hand also does not match other frequent Durham monk-annotators, such as Thomas Swalwell (at Durham 1483–1539), Peter Lee (at Durham ca. 1504–1534), and Robert Ridley (at Durham 1530–1534).

50  The presence of an Anglicana a alongside its Secretary analogue in “parati,” as well as the upright ascender of long s and the 2-shaped r are the key characteristics giving rise to this identification; see Parkes, English Cursive Book Hands, Plate 14.

32

Chapter 3

Chapter 1, namely that the fragments might have started life as an exemplar of sorts, this phrase, though otherwise unattested, could point towards the kind of editorial preparation one might expect of either a professional scriptorium or, more likely, a printer’s workshop. Indeed, in possible support of this are some small markings in a lighter ink than the main text, which appear on more than one of the fragments, and which seem to indicate possible section breaks. These look very much like the sorts of marks, sometimes referred to as paraphs, commonly found in printers’ copies, and which provide instructions for setting type by formes.51 These paraph-like markings can be found in the following locations: Dvb, l. 19; Cvb, l. 5; Bra, l. 12; Erb, l. 53; Eva, l. 46; Fvb, l. 13; Ara, l. 3; Gvb, l. 27. While far from conclusive evidence, these markings suggest that we should not rule out the possibility that the Merlin fragments once formed part of a manu­script that was already in the book trade before becoming waste material suitable for a binder. The second inscription, reading “my god” (Dv, l. 42, between columns a and b), seems to be written in a form of Bastard Anglicana dating to ca. 1500. This is evidenced by the two compartment g with long neck, the round d, and the reverse loop on the descender of y.52 From the look of the ink and nib employed, this inscription could conceivably be in the same hand as “recensere parati,” but with no common letter forms between the two, it is impossible to be sure. It is also far from clear if the statement of “my god” is meant to serve as a reaction to the text itself, or whether it is just pen practice. Almost certainly it is not meant to be an exclamation in the sense in which the phrase might be used today; typically, “my god” would have formed part of a longer sentence, often as an interjected form of direct address.53 Its isolation here, therefore, is unusual and difficult to decipher. One possible but perhaps overoptimistic interpretation, based on the possibilities for the types of former homes of the original manu­script and/or host books, is discussed below. The third and final inscription on this fragment, written in a Humanist hand, reads “Singula quid refera[m]” (“why bother listing every little thing?”) (Dv, ll. 46–48, between columns a and b). The hand itself is extremely difficult to date since Humanist/italic hands change little between 1500 and 1650.54 However, on the basis that earlier English italic letter forms tend to stick more closely to their Italian Humanist forebears,55 the presence of two-compartment g with a long neck, the flourish on the descender of q, single compartment a, and upright d together might suggest a date closer to the first half of the sixteenth century. This said, the looped ascender of f is a peculiar anomaly 51  See Stoddard, Marks in Books, 1–2, and Moore, Primary Materials, 11.

52  See Parkes, English Cursive Book Hands, Plate 8.

53  The Middle English Dictionary (MED) has “O, god” or “A, god” as exclamations that might be similar to the modern form of “my god,” but crucially not “my god” itself. The phrase “my god” is, though, documented in various MED entries as existing well before 1500, but only as part of a longer sentence, or as an interjected form of address, such as in the Towneley Plays of ca. 1500: “My god, my god, wherfor and why has thou forsakyn me?” We would like to express our thanks to Ad Putter for his help with the possible applications of this phrase in a historical perspective. 54  Zurcher, “Dating and Describing Hands.”

55  Leedham-Green, “Early-Modern Handwriting.”



Provenance

33

for a Humanist hand, regardless of date.56 The phrase itself is a well-known rhetorical expression that derives from Ovid’s Amores (book 1.5) and various other Classical and medi­eval texts. In Ovid’s text, it appears after a list of all the attributes that make a girl (Corinna) attractive. It is thus sometimes referred to, in this Ovidian context, as a paralipsis—a figure of speech in which the speaker attempts to ignore or suppress something by referring to it—, even if a paralipsis usually denotes a rather more oblique reference to the very things the speaker is pretending to ignore, rather than an utterance that follows a full enumeration of those things.57 Booth has suggested, however, that it serves more as an “Alexandrian footnote,” referring to the existence of a literary precedent; Booth thus argues that the phrase might be better translated as “what is the point of re-presenting all the individual features?”58 Given the proliferation of instances where this phrase appears in various texts, it seems unlikely that its inscription here is a direct citation of Ovid; rather it probably functions more as a kind of tag or known idiom. However, and once again, ascertaining whether this paratextual inscription on Dv is a reaction to the adjacent text (and thus a peritext) or relates to something else entirely (thus an epitext) is difficult. Certainly, the battle scenes described at some length in the main text adjacent to it might well strike some readers as repetitive and in need of streamlining. Combined with the various indicators (material preparation, “recensere parati,” paraph marks, etc.) that, as suggested above, might place the manu­script in a bookmaker’s or printer’s workshop, the phrase “Singula quid refera[m]” could be understood as an editor’s or typesetter’s query as to whether the entire scene found in the exemplar should be replicated in a copy. Of course, if the inscription post-dates the binding, it may be entirely unrelated to the Merlin text. One final reader inscription appears in the fragments, and it is the earliest. It is to be found on Gr, reading “sa seig[neur]ie” and “lions” (Fig. 9). These annotations supply the words of the main text that have been obfuscated, respectively, by an ink splodge and a parchment tear in the main text.59 This side of the fragment would have been the uncovered (non-glued) side of the pastedown, but damage caused when the folded-over leather of the binding (the turn-in) was removed from the edge of the fragment means we can be sure that the inscription had been at least partly obscured when the fragment was a pastedown. Therefore, the inscription must pre-date the binding. The script, a version of Anglicana formata, seems to confirm this: the use of the two-compartment a with the upper lobe extending above the other letters, the cursive short s based on the majuscule form, the two-compartment g, the long s with the stem descending well below the line, the cursive e, and the 2-shaped r in the abbreviation, come together to suggest a date of 1300 × 1350.60 Even though the manu­script was almost certainly produced in France, this English hand would appear to place the manu­script in England at a date not 56  See Menna, “Humanistic Script.”

57  See Cuddon, The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, 679–80. 58  Booth, “Negotiating with the Epigram,” 54.

59  With thanks to Roger Middleton for helping to decipher the inscription. 60  See Parkes, English Cursive Book Hands, xiv–xvii, Plates 1 and 4.

34

Chapter 3

Figure 9: Fourteenth-century English reader inscription on fragment Gr

long after its composition (assuming, of course, it is not a case of an English writer reading and annotating the manu­script while in France). This fits with the wider context in which other manu­scripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle are known to have circulated in England. Middleton, based on an extensive survey covering extant manu­scripts both made in and imported into England during the Middle Ages, shows that all Lancelot-Grail manu­scripts circulating in England were “relatively early [in date]. The characteristic period for their production is the late thirteenth to early fourteenth century.”61 This, he suggests, probably reflects not only a change of tastes, but also a change of languages, due to the rise of English/Welsh adaptations of the Arthurian legend in the later fourteenth century.62 The Bristol fragments also provide a match for other general characteristics that Middleton shows to be typical of Lancelot-Grail manu­scripts in England. For instance, notwithstanding the fact that all pre-fifteenthcentury Suite Vulgate manu­scripts are illuminated (see Chapter 1), Lancelot-Grail manu­ scripts circulating in England “are severely utilitarian in appearance,” sometimes being “a hotch-potch of scribal hands” and/or “in a poor state of repair,” leading Middleton to argue that these manu­scripts saw heavy use, evidenced particularly by inscriptions in languages other than French until as late as the sixteenth century.63 Indeed, Middleton’s reference to just such a sixteenth-century note on a Lancelot-Grail manu­script now held at Cambridge University Library (MS Add. 7071) that refers to a printed edition of Malory picks up on something important.64 The chrono­logy established above suggests that the Bristol Merlin manu­script probably became a waste product at a time when printed versions of Arthurian legends were becoming available for the first time—there was not only Caxton’s Malory of 1485 (and Wynkyn de Worde’s of 1498), but also Jean le Bourgeois and Jean Dupré’s and Antoine Vérard’s successive editions of Lancelot du Lac (respectively Rouen, 1488 and Paris, 1494), and Vérard’s Livre de Merlin (Paris, 1498)—, 61  Middleton, “Manu­scripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle,” 233.

62  Middleton, “Manu­scripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle,” 233–34. 63  Middleton, “Manu­scripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle,” 234–35. 64  Middleton, “Manu­scripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle,” 234.



Provenance

35

which may present one possible reason as to why this manu­script became so outdated as to be disposable. The question is, therefore: who might have owned and then discarded such a manu­script? Ker’s work on pastedowns in Oxford bindings records that manu­script pastedowns more frequently seem to be products of bookbinding practices in Oxford and Cambridge, than they do of those in London.65 This, he postulates, is likely because of the presence of overcrowded Oxbridge college libraries that needed to make space for new material, and evidence from the fragments themselves does appear to support this hypothesis.66 This is not to say that binders in these cities did not have other sources of unwanted manu­scripts, of course, but rather that college libraries seem to have supplied a steady stream. Can we really, though, be sure that an Arthurian manu­script constitutes the kind of material that would have found a home in a college library? As noted above, evidence of fragments of French vernacular literature (particularly Arthuriana), at least in Oxford bindings, is limited at best, and there is, to our knowledge, no record of any Oxford (or Cambridge) college library having housed a French Arthurian manu­script in the relevant period; this said, extant library catalogues of several monastic houses not altogether far from Oxford do show that copies were on the shelves of those libraries, though these may have been donations kept only to honour their donors.67 We know, too, from wills and inventories that such items were certainly in fairly frequent private ownership, both male and female.68 At the very least, it seems likely that the original manu­script was kept in the vicinity of the city in which its binder worked: as Pollard points out, “[w]aste paper or vellum can seldom have strayed from the place where it was first considered to be waste; and only at that place is it likely to have been used in a binding.”69 If, as we suppose, the manu­script became disposable due to the arrival of a printed Arthurian text of some description, can any such printed texts be found in Oxbridge college libraries that have been there since publication, and thus not only suggest an original home for the manu­script, but also a likely city of binding? Unfortunately not—the only copy at Oxford is Vérard’s 1494 Lancelot, and this is known to have arrived via Francis Douce in the nineteenth century,70 while the only copy at Cambridge is Vérard’s 1498 Livre de Merlin, which was donated by Walter Francis Scott, Duke of Buccleuch in 1894.71 To summarize, it seems most likely that the manu­script that once contained the Merlin fragments came from France to England at a relatively early date following its composition in the third quarter of the thirteenth century. This manu­script is extremely likely to have been in or near the city in which it eventually became waste and was bound 65  Ker, Fragments of Medi­eval Manu­scripts, vii.

66  Ker, Fragments of Medi­eval Manu­scripts, x.

67  For details, see Middleton, “Manu­scripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle,” 220.

68  Such as Bordesley and Evesham (both in Worcestershire): Middleton, “Manu­scripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle,” 220–21; Meale, “‘all the bokes that I haue’,” 139. 69  Pollard, “The Names,” 196.

70  See Oxford’s SOLO (Search Oxford Libraries Online) catalogue entry. 71  See the Cambridge University Library catalogue entry.

36

Chapter 3

into the Gerson volumes. Based on the evidence presented, this city might have been Oxford, but it is not entirely possible to exclude Cambridge either. Given the nature of books known to have been housed in Oxbridge college libraries during the medi­eval and early-modern periods, and the lack of evidence for Arthurian volumes having been among them, it seems unlikely that the manu­script would have been a university book. Perhaps a more likely repository would have been a nearby religious community, since several Lancelot-Grail manu­scripts are known to have been kept in monastic book collections. The inscription of “my god” on one fragment might even give us pause to consider whether the annotator was perhaps a monk or churchman. Some of the other inscriptions and markings on the fragments hint at a possible, but ultimately not provable, book trade history for the source manu­script. Its physical features mean we can entertain the notion that it might once have been an exemplar in a scriptorium and/or, later, in a printer’s workshop. Indeed, this latter is, if anything, more likely than the former due to, for example, the faint paraphs, which would only have been used in the print trade. If one or both are true, there is a chance that the source manu­script actually never left the book trade until it became waste and its leaves used by a binder in the current host volumes. Binders are certainly documented as having collected waste materials for pastedowns from other book trade professionals.72 This said, an obvious caveat for this scenario is the lack of a Merlin text printed in England that could have been based on this manu­script. However, it would not be the first time that manu­scripts marked up in this way are without printed counterparts, whether because of the printed book’s subsequent loss or the abandonment of a proposed printing project before it was completed (or even properly started).73 As ever, absence of evidence does not always equate to evidence of absence. Whatever the means by which the fragments ended up on a binder’s waste pile (in either Oxford or Cambridge), the identity of their first owner once bound into the Gerson volumes remains a mystery. If bound in Oxford, this owner might have been a monk of Durham studying there, and who later took the books back to Durham, from where it may have passed by some means to Tobias Matthew. Equally, if bound in Cambridge, it might have found an alternative route into Matthew’s possession. Given Matthew’s donation of duplicate books to his Bristol Library foundation, the presence of an equivalent set of slightly newer Gerson volumes in his personal library (now held in York ­Minster Library) seems to lend weight to the idea that 88–91/SR39 were just such duplicate copies, and thus among the items in the bequest. But then again, there is no concrete evidence that places these books in Matthew’s possession at any point, meaning that this scenario, too, must remain informed conjecture. Matthew’s involvement, indeed, is placed into doubt by the inscription in the hand of the London bookseller, Cornelius Bee. Bee’s role (and potential agency) in the history of the Gerson volumes is unclear, as is the meaning of the price code he included on the title page of 88/SR39. If Bee simply oversaw a repair and appraisal or valuation, this would not prevent Matthew having played the role just described. If, however, Bee’s price code does indicate that 72  Pearson, Oxford Bookbinding, 139–42.

73  See the various cases in Tether, “The ‘Un-publication’ of Floris and Blancheflour.”



Provenance

37

these items were sold, either to him, by him, or both, then the books are unlikely to have been part of Matthew’s benefaction. The fact that there is no evidence for Bristol Library having bought books of this order might suggest that if Bee did sell the books, it would have been to an individual who may later have donated them to the Library. Intriguing though these questions are, they cannot, at present, be answered conclusively, and will therefore be consigned to future research.

Chapter 4

REDACTION, LANGUAGE, AND LOCALIZATION

Redaction Ever since Alexandre Micha published his classification of the manu­scripts of the Merlin en prose in 1958,1 it has been broadly accepted that there exist two discrete redactions of the Merlin narrative in Lancelot-Grail manu­scripts, even if the reason for the existence of two separate redactions and which of the two is the older remain subjects for debate. Micha referred to these two redactions as alpha (α) and beta (β), and each of them he set out as being made up of several families.2 At the risk of generalizing, and notwithstanding continuing scholarly debate, there is broad consensus that α may be rather closer than β to Robert de Boron’s original Merlin (that which formed part of the probable trilogy of texts attributed to him, sometimes referred to as the Livre du Graal). This conclusion is based in large part on the difference in the order by which the Grail hero must achieve the adventures of the Perilous Seat at the Round Table and the Grail Table. In α, the Grail Table comes before the Round Table while, in β, the reverse is true.3 In short, this modification, alongside various others, are believed to demonstrate that α works more obviously to complete Robert de Boron’s trilogy, where β introduces modifications and—importantly—abridgements that are designed precisely to allow the narrative to transition towards the Queste and Mort Artu, which are the concluding chapters in the Lancelot-Grail Cycle.4 Even if β was designed for the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, though, there are actually more extant Lancelot-Grail manu­scripts that contain α, which might raise questions as to when β first entered circulation and how warmly it was received.5 While Micha’s identification of two redactions for Merlin seems secure enough, he pays only fleeting attention to the often-present Suite Vulgate suffix and its associated 1  Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin”; Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite).” It is worth noting, too, that Freymond had noticed major textual discrepancies between manu­scripts of Merlin long before this, and while he published on the matter, he did not go so far as to classify the manu­scripts (and neither did Sommer when undertaking his subsequent edition): Freymond, “Artus’ Kampf mit dem Katzenungetüm”; see also Paris, “Compte rendu de Freymond 1899.” 2  Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite).”

3  Trachsler, “Pour une nouvelle edition,” 132; Bogdanow, “Review: Alexandre Micha,” 323.

4  Trachsler, “Pour une nouvelle edition,” 132; Giannini et al., “Un nouveau fragment.” 690; Bogdanow, “Review: Alexandre Micha,” 323; see also Micha, “La Table Ronde chez Robert de Boron” and Robert de Boron, Merlin, xxi–xxxiii. Codico­logical evidence also seems to support this, as α manu­scripts more frequently contain a decorative element or text break at the transitionary moment between the Merlin and the Suite Vulgate than do β manu­scripts; Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite),” 154. 5  Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite),” 174; Bogdanow, “Review: Alexandre Micha,” 323.

40

Chapter 4

redactions. As Trachsler also notes, Micha’s only real reference to variance in the Suite Vulgate is in a footnote, where he states: “Il n’y a pas deux Suite-Vulgate différentes, mais, semble-t-il, le texte de nos manuscrits α n’est pas identique à celui des manuscrits β.”6 On the one hand, then, Micha does not believe that a similar classification of α versus β is appropriate for the Suite Vulgate, but does note, on the other, that the level of textual difference in the Suite Vulgate between the two families of manu­scripts is marked. Trachsler’s analysis picks up from this apparent contradiction. Employing extensive textual and editorial examples, he argues firmly and convincingly that we should, after all, classify the manu­scripts containing the Suite Vulgate according to the same stemmatic system as that suggested by Micha for Merlin, including into which various sub-families and sub-groups the manu­scripts fall.7 Additionally, one of several key features that Trachsler argues as serving to distinguish Suite α from Suite β—just as is also true for Merlin—is length. Even though the broad narrative arc remains more or less the same, Trachsler suggests, α is on average sixteen percent longer overall (and some passages are as much as forty-one percent longer).8 Micha’s (and to some extent also Trachsler’s) analysis provides an enumeration of key passages which aim to help with distinguishing the manu­scripts’ classification into either the α or β redaction, and further into their various sub-families. Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of the Bristol Merlin leaves means that none of the relevant passages is present and thus cannot be cross-referenced. However, as noted above (Section 1, Chapter 1), the closest extant manu­script to the fragments—in textual terms, at least—appears to be the thirteenth-century Metz-made manu­script Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 344 (manu­script “g” in Micha’s list, hereafter MS fr. 344); it is also similar, though less so, to another Metz manu­script, but this time a fifteenthcentury example: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 98 (manu­script “L” in Micha’s list, hereafter MS fr. 98).9 Both of these, according to Micha’s classification, contain the α redaction.10 The Bristol Merlin fragments’ textual proximity to MSS fr. 344 and fr. 98 means we can thus firmly classify them as also hosting the α redaction of the Suite Vulgate; indeed, it is highly likely that it will have been the α redaction of the Merlin proper that once preceded it before the manu­script was broken up. Furthermore, as noted above, Micha designated several “families” for each of his two redactions. In the case of α, the three families identified are called x, y, and z, and each of these has several sub-groups. It is very difficult to be certain to which of these families/sub-groups the Bristol Merlin may belong owing to the absence of the key distinguishing passages that can be used to set the various groups apart.11 Nonetheless, MS fr. 344 is classified by 6  Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite),” 145n5.

7  Trachsler, “Pour une nouvelle edition,” 132–35. 8  Trachsler, “Pour une nouvelle edition,” 134.

9  For more detail on the Bristol Merlin’s textual similarities to other manu­scripts, see Section 2, Chapter 1. 10  Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite),” 174, Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin,” 80–81.

11  Even with all of the narrative present, the editor’s task of manu­script classification is fraught with difficulties, as Baumgartner confirms: Baumgartner, “Review: Merlin,” 539.



Redaction, Language, and Localization

41

Micha as belonging to z3, along with Rennes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 255 and Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale San Marco, App. Cod. XXIX, neither of which, however, contain the Suite Vulgate.12 The z family, Micha considered, was “considérablement remanié,” and so he discarded this group from the corpus of manu­scripts that he would use as the basis for his edition of Merlin.13 MS fr. 98, by contrast, is classified by Micha as belonging to family y and group y1, but it is the only manu­script in that group to contain the Suite Vulgate. Added to this, Micha acknowledges contamination in both groups z3 and y1.14 In light of this complexity, and without the presence of the key passages in the fragments, a firm designation for our fragments is almost impossible to achieve. However, since MS fr. 344 does seem to be the closest of the Bristol Merlin’s extant textual siblings—at least in the passage present in the fragments—, we could consider adding the Bristol Merlin, very tentatively, to Micha’s z3 group. Unfortunately, and despite its apparent anteriority, the α redaction of the Suite Vulgate has never been edited in its own right, with editors typically preferring the β redaction for its narrative congruity with other Lancelot-Grail texts. Even Trachsler’s forthcoming edition of the Suite will be based on β. It is important here, therefore, to note some of the key textual differences between the passage from α present in the Bristol Merlin fragments, and its counterpart in β. While the events of the narrative in this passage do not differ from the β redaction, α manu­scripts tend to offer a more extended version of the story. If indeed the β redaction is an abbreviation of α, as Trachsler suggests,15 then the additional material that belongs to the α redaction perhaps represents passages that the editor(s) responsible for the shorter version considered to be extraneous to the main storyline. For example, the β redaction omits a passage of direct speech in which Merlin explains to Leonce and his commanders how to divide up their battalions, presumably because they are subsequently shown carrying out those instructions, making the dialogue unnecessary.16 Similarly, a long passage that describes the army enjoying the beauty of their surroundings as they ride through the Loire Valley is reduced.17 Elsewhere, a digression on Claudas’ future pursuit of Lancelot and his cousins, as well as his death at the hand of Bohort, is cut from the β redaction—presumably because this story will appear in full later in the Cycle.18 There is, however, no real consistency or pattern in relation to the content of what is abbreviated, other than sentences that are not essential to events of the storyline. The following passage provides a typical comparison (the text that has been omitted from the β redaction is italicized): 12  Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite),” 174.

13  Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite),” 164. 14  Micha, “Les manuscrits du Merlin (suite),” 172. 15  Trachsler, “Pour une nouvelle edition,” 133.

16  Ara; Trachsler’s forthcoming edition of the Suite Vulgate (SV), para. 256.

17  Arb; Trachsler, SV, para. 257. 18  Drb, Trachsler, SV, para. 272.

42

Chapter 4

α: Si s’en parti Poinces Antoines, li conselz de Rome, et Froiles li dus d’Alemaigne, et Randol le seneschal de Gaunes, et Claudas li sires de la Deserte, si mal atornez qu’a poines pooit chevauchier; ne li autre ne restoient pas del tout sein, car il n’i a celui qui n’ait plaie grant et parfonde et perilleuse, et qu’il ne coviegne bon mire se garir en velt. Et quant il voient le domage si grant qu’il ont receu, si sont si dolent que par un petit qu’il n’enragent.19

β: Si s’en parti Ponce Antoine et Froillés d’Alemaigne et Randol, le senescal de Gaule et li rois Claudas, qui fu si mal atornés c’a paines pot il chevalchier, ne li autres n’estoient mie tot sain. Et quant il voient la perte et le damage qu’il ont eu, si en sont moult dolant c’a poi qu’il n’esragent [...]20

The Bristol Merlin also contains a passage that is otherwise only present in MS fr. 98 and MS fr. 344; found at the end of fragment Ara (ll. 37–47), it describes the army preparing to leave, and explains that the nights were short because it was the month of June. Additionally, an episode towards the end of the fragment describes a spell used by Merlin’s lover, Viviane, to prevent Merlin from having sex with her; in most other manu­scripts of the α and β redaction, this spell consists of three names that are written on her groin, which have the power to prevent any man from sleeping with her. The two α manu­scripts with which the Bristol Merlin has the closest similarities, however—MS fr. 344 and MS fr. 98—contain small verbal alterations that are also present in our fragments, albeit in different configurations in each. These changes, which have the effect of playing down the sexual implications of the passage, or omitting any suggestion of Merlin’s unchaste intentions towards Viviane, can be seen here in comparison with the same passage in MS fr. 344: MS fr. 344

Et ce li aprist .iii. nons qu’elle escrivoit en agnes totes les foiz que il devoit a lui parler qui estoient plains de si grant force que jai tant com il i fussent ne poist nus a li gehir. (fol. 161v)

[And he taught her three names, which she inscribed on her groin every time that she had to speak to him. These words were so powerful that when they were there, they prevented anyone from speaking with her.]

Bristol Merlin

Et si li aprist iii nons qu’elles escrivoit en un anel toutes les foiz qu’elle devoit a lui parler, qui estoient plein de si grant force que ja tant come il fussent sor lie enpeint ne peüst nus a lui parler. (Gva, ll. 20–24)

19  Frb, ll. 42–51

20  Trachsler, SV, para. 283.



Redaction, Language, and Localization

43

[And he taught her three names, which she inscribed on a ring every time that she had to speak to him. These words were so powerful that when they were imprinted on her, they prevented anyone from speaking to her.]

The reference to the ring is also found in MS fr. 98, where Viviane writes the names on both a ring and her leg (fol. 209r), but other than that, this specific configuration of details, in which references to both Viviane’s groin and the notion of sleeping with her are both expunged, appears to be peculiar to the Bristol Merlin and/or its exemplar.

Language and Localization

The language of the fragment is on the whole consistent with the features of the central region, generally known as Francien. It is relatively unmarked by other dialectal features, with the exception of a few fairly isolated examples of spellings and phonetic changes that are more characteristic of northern and eastern dialects: – ans for ens: “tans” (Bva, l. 60; Dra, l. 29; Era, ll. 8, 36, 47; Gva, l. 43). Gossen and Pope have attributed this feature to western and northeastern dialects, but according to De Jong, it was also found in Francien in the thirteenth century.21 This is used alongside one instance of “tens” (Brb, l. 8) which is more common in Francien;

– iaus for els/aus/eaus: “oisiax,” “isniax,” “arbroisiax” (Arb, ll. 12, 24, 26); “toriaus” (Fvb, l. 51); “tropiaus” (Fvb, ll. 59–60);22 “biaus” (Cva, l. 27; Cvb, l. 45; Dva, l. 52; Frb, l. 52), used alongside the Francien “bel” (Ava, l. 61; Dra, l. 31). As Giannini et al. confirm, this form was most commonly used in the northern and northeastern regions, without being wholly exclusive to them;23 – ei for e: “meirveilleus” (Bra, l. 9);24 – k for q: “kieux” (Gva, l. 3);25

– liu for lieu: “liu” (Arb, ll. 22, 35, 41, 43; Dra, l. 19; Drb, l. 49) is a northeastern form, according to Herbin and Pope;26 – g for c: in one instance, seconde is spelled “segonde” (Arb, l. 38); this spelling, conversely, is characteristic of southern influence,27 but its occurrence is not significant enough to indicate the presence of this dialect;

21  Gossen, Petite grammaire de l’ancien picard, 50; De Jong, “Parasite Consonants,” 18; Pope, From Latin to Modern French, 502.

22  See Herbin, “Les formes régionales du Merlin,” 34; A Critical Edition of the 13th and 14th Cen­ turies Old French Poem Versions of the Vie de St Alexis, 6. 23  Giannini et al., “Un nouveau fragment,” 684.

24  Giannini et al., “Un nouveau fragment,” 684; Pope, From Latin to Modern French, 491. 25  The Old French Lays of Ignaure, Oiselet and Amours, 11.

26  Herbin, “Les formes régionales du Merlin,” 35. See also Pope, From Latin to Modern French, 488. 27  Pfister, “L’Area Galloromanza,” 52; Herbin, “Les formes régionales du Merlin,” 37.

44

Chapter 4

– transitional consonants: the absence of transitional consonants (or glide) in future tenses is characteristic of northern and eastern dialects.28 In this manu­ script, the future tense of venir is used both with and without transitional consonants: “venra” (Bvb, l. 8); “venriez” (Dvb, l. 61) “venront” (Era, ll. 13–14) compared with “convendrait” (Grb, l. 9); “vendra” (Gva, ll. 36, 37).

These dialectal features seem to be spread more or less equally across the work of both scribes. Given that they appear in limited instances, and are often found alongside Francien equivalents, the exact localization of the manu­script remains unclear; the presence of features belonging to different dialects may well be attributed to the permeability between northern and central varieties of the langue d’oïl, and is very possibly related to the fact that most French Arthurian romances of this period—including those written for French speakers in England—were composed in a koiné of different dialects, mostly consisting of Francien and Picard.29 It would not be unreasonable to suggest the presence of the eastern region somewhere in the transmission history of this particular version of the α redaction, given that the manu­script’s closest textual relatives, MSS fr. 344 and fr. 98, are thought to have been produced in Metz, as noted above. Nevertheless, the presence of potentially Lotharingian features is quite limited. Although ortho­graphy generally represents pronunciation, determining the phono­ logy of a prose text like the Bristol Merlin is much less straightforward than would be the case for poetry. The following is not an exhaustive list, but sets out the spelling and apparent phonetic features of the Bristol Merlin’s ­graphic system that appear in significant proportions: – variation between ai and e: “fait” and “fet” are used in equal measure, while “mes” is predominantly favoured over “meis” (one instance, Bra, l. 4). In addition to this, the manu­script also displays some unusual ortho­graphical variations between ai and e when representing a stressed syllable: “treons” (Dra, l. 35); “venré” (Gvb, l. 4); “plé” (Evb, l. 50) (ai > e) “airbergeries” (Ava, l. 45) (e > ai);30

– levelling of diphthong (ai over oi): there are two instances of verbs in the thirdperson plural conjugation of the imperfect tense being spelled with -aient instead of -oient: “suivaient” (Dra, l. 1) and “fuiaient” (Evb, l. 17), which suggests a shift towards the pronunciation of oi as [ɛ] had taken place by the time of the manu­ script’s composition. Pierre Fouché identifies this shift as taking place around the second half of the thirteenth century, which is consistent with our dating of the Bristol Merlin;31 28  Pfister, “L’Area Galloromanza,” 23; The Old French Lays of Ignaure, Oiselet and Amours, 10; Herbin, “Les formes régionales du Merlin,” 38; A Critical Edition of the 13th and 14th Centuries Old French Poem Versions of the Vie de St Alexis, 12. 29  Schmolke-Hasselmann, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance, 277.

30  The last example also indicates that the “h” in “herbergeries” was unpronounced. 31  Fouché, Phonétique Historique du français, 2:274–75.



Redaction, Language, and Localization

– variation in ain and ein spellings: “meint,” “mein,” “Romein,” and “demein” appear alongside several instances of “maint”;

– e for a, i, and o: there are several instances in which the scribe represents a variety of vowel sounds with e; this includes words that are usually spelled with a (such as “esserir” (Ara, l. 40), “perra” (Era, l. 55) and “abeteï�z” (Erb, l. 42)), and words that are usually spelled with o (“debenereté” (Cvb, l. 32) and “Jehen” (Ara, l. 45)); “paregal” (Dvb, l. 10) also appears alongside “parigal” (Drb, l. 42). In at least one instance, a is conversely used for a sound that is usually represented by e: “henir” is spelled “hanir” (Ava, l. 8);

– vocalization of al to au dipthong: “chevau” (Erb, l. 3) appears alongside the more regular “cheval”;32

– eï, eü, oï, and aï: there is no linguistic evidence to suggest the absence of hiatus. Given that the reduction of the hiatus is broadly thought to have only begun in the final third of the thirteenth century, and even then, only in Picard at first,33 we have applied the tréma in all relevant instances, since our manu­script is dated to ca. 1250–1275 and contains no evidence that it should be expunged; – variation between -els and -euls: the spelling “cels” and “els” are most commonly attested throughout the fragment, but there are also some instances of “ceuls” (Cvb, ll. 24, 36; Dra, l. 11; Dva, ll. 11, 28, 56; Erb, l. 24) and “euls” (Cvb, l. 42; Dvb, l. 24; Erb, l. 10; Eva, l. 13). Also attested are the forms “entredeuls” (Evb, l. 39) and “vermeulz” (Brb, l. 16; Cvb, l. 19). This may indicate identical pronunciation; – i is occasionally used over il following an elision with “que”: “qu’i” (Bvb, l. 64; Dva, l. 56);

– o favoured over ou and eu: “lor” and “leur” are used alongside each other, with the former being more dominant; likewise, “por” is used throughout the text, while there is only one instance of “pour” (Dva, l. 52); – variation between oo and eo: “vooir” (e.g., Ara, l. 14) appears alongside “veoir” (e.g., Cvb, l. 7). The duplication of the o might suggest that that the first syllable of “veoir” and “vooir” could both have been pronounced as œ;34

– nb, np, ns: there are no nasal bars in the manu­script, and “n” spellings are used throughout: e.g., “conpaignie” (Ara, l. 30); “reflanboier” (Arb, l. 31); “tenple” (Brb, l. 57); “chans” (Drb, ll. 27, 31); “menbres” (Dva, ll. 19; Era, ll. 51, 54);

– double -s represented by single -s: “s’esjoï�sent” (Ara, ll. 63–64); “veï�siez” (Arb, ll. 29, 53); “eüsiez” (Cvb, l. 34); “fusent” (e.g., Dva, l. 38). In one such instance, “rescousse” is spelled with an -x, which would ordinarily represent a single -s: 32  See Pope, From Latin to Modern French, 154–55.

33  Marchello-Nizia, La langue française aux XIVe et XVe siècles, 4–5. 34  See Fouché, Phonétique historique du Français, 2:523.

45

46

Chapter 4

“rescouxe” (Brb, l. 24). This is by no means consistent, however; these unusual forms appear alongside more regular spellings such as “veï�ssiez” (Ara, l. 22; Arb, l. 23; Cra, l. 57) and “fussent” (Avb, l. 9; Bra, ll. 36, 48; Crb, l. 35);

– omission of internal -s before a consonant in some instances: “deleauté” (Drb, l. 9); “duques” (Fra, l. 51), “meï�mes” (Gva, l. 25); “feï�mes” (Era, ll. 17–18);

– omission of -s at the end of some syllables when the following word begins with a consonant: such omissions provide evidence that pronunciation of -s at the end of all syllables followed by a consonant had ceased by the time of this manu­ script’s creation; for example, “le” for “les” (edited as “lé”: Eva, l. 21; Gvb, l. 36) and “foi” for “fois” (Eva, l. 7; Grb, l. 3).

In addition to these recurring patterns, the fragments contain a number of isolated g­ raphical idiosyncrasies; for example: – the absence of the nasal consonant in “juig” (Ara, l. 46);

– the absence of r before the consonant in “abroisiax” (Arb, l. 12); – the contraction of “illuecques” to “iques” (Gvb, l. 54); – gu > g in “geule” (Erb, l. 30);

– c > qu in “quernevax” (Cvb, l. 7) and “quoarz” (Era, l. 8); – o > oi in “poirront” [Era, l. 31); – ie > e in “melz” (Drb, l. 64).

There are also some unusual forms when it comes to verb morpho­logies, for example: – “suisent” (Ava, l. 22) for the present subjunctive of “suivre” and “midrent” (Dva, l. 59; Gvb, l. 50) for the preterite of “metre,” both conjugated in the third person plural, as well as “chaoiz” (Brb, l. 34) as past participle of “chaoir.”

Grammatically, there are some lapses in agreement of various kinds, which may simply come down to a habitual error, for example: – non-observance of the case system in “dit li conte” (Ara, l. 45);

– errors of agreement with a preceding direct object in “les avez guerpiz et lessié” (Era, ll. 15–16) and “li mieudres reperes que nos aions, et li plus procheine [edited as procheins]” (Frb, ll. 54–55).

CONCLUSION Our study of the Bristol Merlin has yielded several conclusions that have each been presented in the preceding chapters, but which are worthwhile reiterating briefly here. The manu­script that once contained our fragments was likely composed in northern (possibly northeastern) France ca. 1250–1275, and is likely to have also contained other Lancelot-Grail Cycle texts—almost certainly at least the Estoire del saint Graal and the Estoire de Merlin. That manu­script carried the α redaction of the Suite Vulgate, indicating that the Estoire de Merlin that would have accompanied it would also have been α. The fragments attest a version of the α redaction that does not differ substantially from that in other α manu­scripts (the closest textual sibling being MS fr. 344), except in one respect. Sexual connotations in the exchange between Merlin and Viviane appear to have been toned down, being even more family-friendly in the Bristol Merlin than in the other manu­scripts that are very close textual siblings. A reader annotation suggests that the Bristol Merlin manu­script was probably in England by the early fourteenth century. The location of the manu­script’s medi­eval “home” in England remains uncertain, but seems likely to have been with a private owner, who might have subsequently donated it to a religious house, probably in the vicinity of either Oxford or Cambridge. Alternatively, and owing to some of its less than lavish characteristics and its unexecuted decoration, the book might have served, from its earliest days, as an exemplar in the (English) book trade. Wherever it was once housed, by the late-fifteenth to early-sixteenth century its owner had discarded the book for unknown reasons, possibly for a nominal sum, to a bookbinder in either Oxford or Cambridge for recycling into new bindings. Assuming it was not due to a more arbitrary matter, the timing might suggest two possible reasons for this disposal: the recent availability of printed copies of (French) Arthurian texts and/or the likelihood that Arthurian texts in Old French (especially in England) were becoming “outdated” after, and perhaps as a result of, the composition and circulation of Malory’s Morte Darthur. The receiving binder then broke the manu­script down into quires and used some of its leaves for pastedowns in the bindings he made for a set of four volumes containing the complete works of Jean Gerson, which had probably been imported unbound from Strasbourg by one of his customers. The first owner of the four volumes, for whom the presence of Old French manu­script fragments as pastedowns probably held little or no significance, remains anonymous, but might have been a monk studying in Oxford at Durham College, or at least someone in Oxford or Cambridge who became connected to one of the religious houses to which Tobias Matthew, the cofounder of Bristol Central Library, was later attached, such as York or Durham. In the absence of other evidence, the most likely means by which the books entered Bristol Central Library is through Tobias Matthew’s donation of duplicate books from his collection to the founding of the Bristol Library. This conclusion, however, is somewhat complicated by the extant inscription of the seventeenth-century bookseller, Cornelius Bee, whose interaction with the books is almost impossible to determine. If he did acquire the books for sale in the seventeenth century, then they are far less likely to have

48

Conclusion

been part of the Matthew bequest. The evidence of rebinding, conservation, and damage both before and since the books’ entry into Bristol Central Library strongly suggests that the current placement in the bindings of each fragment is not identical with the original system of compilation employed by the sixteenth-century binder, both in terms of the more straightforward fact that they were lifted to become flyleaves, where originally they had been pastedowns, but also in respect of the order and orientation in which they are now bound into the volumes. Two major constraints hampered more concrete conclusions on the origin and provenance of the Bristol Merlin, as well as the process of editing. First, there is little in the way of acquisitions information or systematic provenance research on the rich book collections of the Bristol Central Library. A future project exploring the provenance of all the books in the library’s special collections might well lead to a significant connection that could help to identify with greater certainty how the Bristol Merlin’s host volumes came to be housed there. Second, editing the fragments was made rather more difficult by the fact that the α redaction of the Suite Vulgate is neglected in scholarship, with no modern editions taking full account of its significant variance from the better-known β redaction. Given the sheer number of manu­scripts containing the α redaction and, indeed, the additional detail it provides, a full edition of α to complement that of β now forthcoming by Trachsler emerges as an important desideratum, especially if more detailed research is to be undertaken on this most important of Vulgate narratives. Besides these conclusions, one thing that undertaking this study, edition, and translation of the Bristol Merlin has revealed is the value of interdisciplinary and trans-institutional collaboration, which has forged a holistic, comprehensive model for studying fragments that we hope will inform and encourage future work in the field.

Section 2

TEXT

1. PRINCIPLES OF EDITION AND TRANSLATION

Multi-Spectral Imaging for the Edition The damage to the fragments described above—which is mostly a result of the glue used when the fragments were pastedowns and the consequent ripping caused when the fragments were lifted and turned into flyleaves—means that large sections of the fragments have been rendered illegible. In an attempt to salvage some of the damaged text for this edition, the project team brought Professor Andrew Beeby (Department of Chemistry, Durham University) to Bristol Central Library to carry out multi-spectral imaging of the Bristol Merlin leaves.1 He has developed a mobile spectrometer for manu­script imaging as part of his work for Team Pigment (Durham University). This project team is systematically analysing pigments used in medi­eval manu­scripts held in British libraries and special collections using (Raman) spectroscopy.2 The multi-spectral images of the Bristol Merlin were recorded using a Canon EOS60D camera, modified for operation across the full spectrum, and equipped with an apochromatic lens, f = 60 mm (Jenoptik). Spectral images were recorded through a set of bandpass filters centred at 365, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750, and 850 nm with a bandpass of 20 nm (Edmund scientific), with the sample illuminated by a bank of LEDs selected to give full coverage of the filter packs. The images were processed using Adobe Photoshop, with adjustments to blacks, whites, contrast, sharpness, and exposure to bring out any ink residues left in damaged areas.3 While large sections of the text remained unreadable even after the images were processed, certain areas became more legible—or at least legible enough to fill in some of the lacunae with reasonable certainty (see Fig. 10 for an example). The various different filters proved both more and less effective depending on the type of damage present. For example, ultra-violet and infra-red filters worked more effectively on sections of parchment where glue had pulled off a relatively thin layer of the surface, meaning that enough ink residue had seeped through to the layer below so as still to be detectable. Areas of text from which the glue had ripped off a thicker layer of the parchment proved irretrievable, since all ink residue had been torn away with the writing surface. Where glue or staining was (still) present on the parchment and was covering the text, the other filters typically worked better to allow the reader to “see through” these patches to the ink beneath. Finally, since the ink used by the manu­script’s scribes shows up as black rather than white under infra-red light, it seems likely to be a carbon-based ink (made from soot or lampblack, and often referred to simply as “lampblack”), rather than an iron-gall ink (made from gallnuts). Iron-gall ink is slightly corrosive; if it is poorly 1  For an overview of the practice and its applications, see Weiskott, “Multispectral Imaging.”

2  For more on this project, see https://www.dur.ac.uk/imems/research/strands/teampigment/. 3  With thanks to Andrew Beeby for this copy.

52

Chapter 4

Figure 10: Example of damaged text before and after multi-spectral imaging and processing (detail from fragment Crb)

made, it can even be damaging to the point of eating through parchment. Well-made iron-gall ink, though, seeps in and bonds more strongly with the page than does lampblack, which conversely tends to flake off over time. This durability made iron-gall ink a preferred medium for many scribes.4 The probable use of lampblack over iron-gall ink in the Merlin fragments is difficult to explain since it had become an unusual choice by the thirteenth century, though it might have had to do with either economy or the availability of ink-making ingredients near the scribes’ workshop. Whatever the motive for lampblack’s employment, its likely use provides a plausible reason as to why so little ink residue seeped through the parchment, rendering the most heavily damaged sections practically impossible to retrieve, even through multi-spectral imaging.

Editorial Principles

The text has been edited in line with the principles of a conservative edition, with the aim of producing a readable text that preserves as many of the manu­script’s characteristics as possible. As has already been mentioned, large parts of the Bristol Merlin’s redaction have been irretrievably lost due to glue damage, tears, and cropping. Text that is clearly legible is given in roman type. Words and letters that are no longer visible enough to offer a definitive reading, but which can be supplied with relative certainty using multispectral images and/or other manu­script versions, have been indicated in roman type with square brackets. In cases where the text is completely irretrievable, we have inserted the corresponding text from MS fr. 344 in italics inside square brackets. While the dialectal difference between the Bristol Merlin and MS fr. 344 can seem jarring (MS fr. 344 is written in a fairly marked Lotharingian dialect), the text of MS fr. 344 is the 4  McFarling, “Making Ink from Oak-Galls.”



1. Principles of Edition and Translation

53

closest to that of the Bristol Merlin, and can, in most instances, be inserted seamlessly. This is not universally the case, however; sometimes the wording of a partially visible sentence indicates verbal differences from MS fr. 344 that complicate insertion, while in other cases the length of a missing section does not correspond to the length of the equivalent sentence in MS fr. 344. In such instances, two control manu­scripts have been used to supply additional text: BnF, MSS fr. 98 and fr. 9123. While these manu­scripts belong to different families (Micha’s y1 and y3 respectively) than the Bristol Merlin and MS fr. 344, they often overlap closely with the z3 family, and in a very small number of instances they offer readings that appear closer than MS fr. 344. Text from the two control manu­scripts has—as for MS fr. 344—been inserted in italics in square brackets, but is additionally indicated in footnotes. In places where no extant text appears to offer the same reading, a lacuna has been signalled with an ellipsis, usually with an explanatory footnote. In heavily damaged sections, as many isolated visible letters as possible have been indicated, though occasionally their placement has been approximated where the syntax of MS fr. 344 appears to differ slightly from the Bristol Merlin’s. Editorial interventions in the text have generally been kept to a minimum in order to preserve as many idiosyncrasies of the fragments as possible. The edition follows the same para­graph breaks as the manu­script. Variable spelling has, as per convention, been retained (for example, come/conme, preudomes/preudeshomes). To facilitate reading, however, standard editing/transcription practices have been followed with regards to punctuation and accents. Modern capitalization and punctuation have been added, and accents have been used to distinguish between tonic e and atonal e (for example, palés). Accents have also been added to indicate vowels in hiatus in the case of ie, eu, ei, and ai (see Section 1, Chapter 4). On occasion, the scribes write “le” instead of “les.” While monosyllabic words would not usually receive an accent, for clarity this has been edited as “lé.” Soft c has been indicated with a cedilla. For the transcription of u/v and i/j, we have followed the usual conventions employed by the editors of Romance texts,5 meaning also that g has not been transcribed as j when it is used as the affricate /dʒ/ (for example, ge). Abbreviations have been written out according to the dominant spelling present in the manu­script with the exception of x for us because of the presence of terms such as senechaux and loiaux, which indicates that x is no longer a mere abbreviation for the scribes of this manu­script. While abbreviation is generally rare in this manu­script (see above), molt/moult is consistently abbreviated throughout. Since there are no instances of this word being written out in full, it is unclear how the abbreviation should be expanded; the manu­script generally hesitates between tout/tot, por/pour, and tournoiement/tornoiement. We have opted for the spelling “molt” due to the higher prevalence of the o spelling (especially for sovent, tornoiement, and por). Real errors (which mostly consist of the accidental repetition of words) have been corrected and signalled in the footnotes. Unusual spellings and grammatical constructions that may represent either idiosyncrasy or error have been left untouched, but are indicated in footnotes. Roman numerals have been transcribed in small-capital letters with superscript for multipliers in order to respect the system of writing numbers used in the manu­script. 5  Bourgain and Viellard, Conseils pour l’édition des textes médiévaux.

54

Chapter 4

Translation Principles The translation that we have provided is not intended as a literary equivalent of the Bristol Merlin, but rather as a tool for accessing the Old French text itself. As a result, our principle aim is to offer a translation that conveys the stylistic qualities and verbal texture of the Old French in an English that is readable and coherent. This strategy goes some way towards producing what Lawrence Venuti calls a “foreignizing” translation; that is, one that refrains from erasing the otherness of the source text by subsuming it into linguistic norms of the target language. In general, this creates “[d]iscontinuities at the level of syntax, diction, or discourse”6 that intrude upon the target language and allow readers less familiar with Old French prose to access its linguistic patterns and turns of phrase. This does not amount to a purely literal rendering, but rather, an integration of various conventions of Old French syntax and expressions into English prose that is otherwise natural and idiomatic, even when these elements go against the norms of English style. These include following the Old French convention of habitually beginning sentences with “and” or “but,” as well as using long sentences with multiple subclauses. Another stylistic pattern that has been retained in translation is the very typical use of adjectival and verbal tauto­logy (for example, “Et la terre estoit douce et soef”; “the land was pleasant and charming”). The frequent shift in tense between the preterite and historic present, which is highly characteristic of Old French prose, has also been preserved, even though this may occasionally feel jarring for anglophone readers. Historical offices and titles (for example, vassal, seneschal) have been left as they are, but less common terms have been clarified by footnotes. Although the retention of these stylistic and lexical forms provide access to the literary qualities of Old French, this has to be balanced against the need for clarity and accessibility for anglophone readers. As a result, some more extensive linguistic interventions have been necessary. Sentences that are extremely long and complicated have been abbreviated and/or re-worded for ease of comprehension, and some more difficult phrases have been subjected to exegetical translations in order to clarify their meaning. In cases where a leap of interpretation has been necessary to make sense of an extremely opaque sentence, a footnote has been added to explain the difficulty. The repetition of a limited number of adjectives and adverbs (for example, grant, molt, merveilleus, tout) has been subjected to some variation in English in order to account for different meanings in different contexts; for example, merveilleus translates as “marvellous” or “wondrous” when used in relation to the magic spell cast by Merlin, but is more accurately rendered as “exceptional” when used to describe a knight’s fighting skills. Character names have been added in cases where the subject of a sentence is not immediately clear from the Old French personal pronouns. We have aimed to maintain a neutral register for the translation overall, but there are cases in which phrases that may range towards the more formal or more colloquial end of the spectrum in English have been selected for their capacity to most accurately convey the meaning, which has been our fundamental priority. Informal contractions (e.g., don’t, I’ll, won’t, etc.) have 6  Venuti, “Translation as Cultural Politics,” 75.



1. Principles of Edition and Translation

55

been used in the dialogue to convey a more natural-sounding speech in contrast to the more formal narration. The spelling of the names—which varies wildly in the Old French—has been kept in French but standardized to their most common spelling (for example, Gauvain, Froille, Poince Antoine). Dialogue is set out in line with the usual English-language conventions for narrative prose (i.e., a new, indented line for a new speaker). To distinguish dialoguerelated indented line breaks from those which mirror new “para­graphs” in the manu­ script itself, we have emboldened the opening initial letter for each instance of the latter.

2. EDITION AND TRANSLATION [Ara] “[...] et tes genz? Ne saras venir a la bataille que tu n’i truises le roi Artu et le roi Bans, et li rois Bohorz a tout grant gent qu’il ont amenez del roiaume de Logres.” [Q]uant Leonces entent celui qui si a parlé a lui, si le regarde et voit que ce est Merlin. Si le conout et li vet, les braz tenduz, et l’acole et enbrace, et li fet merveilleuse feste et li dist que bien soit il venuz, et autresi fait Phariens. Et quant il orent assez conjoï�, si lor demandent noveles de lor seigneur, et il leur dit que par tans les porroient vooir come del plus preudomes del monde,1 “et chevauchent a grant efforz. Et vous alez, si devisez vos genz en quatre parties, et ait en chascune vm homes. Et vos metez au chemin demein a soir, si que vos soiez au siege a l’ajornee. Et sachiez que vos i troveroiz une des greignors batailles que vos oncques veï�ssiez.” “Sire,” fet Leonces, “a qui volez vos que je les baille a conduire?” “A vos iiii qui ci estes” fait il “qui estes sires et mestres. Si ait Antiaume la premiere, et Grassiens l’autre, et Phariens la tierce, et vos aiez la quarte. Et je vos conduirai jusqu’en l’ost.” “Sire,” fet Leonces, “vostre merci! Or sai ge bien que nos ne ferons se bien non puisque nos serons en vostre conpaignie.” Atant s’en vont li iiii et devisent lor genz en quatre parties: si en prent li seneschaux vm et les sevre a une part, et Grassiens vm et se met de l’autre part, et Fariens vm autresi, et Leonces remest en la piece de terre et fist sa gent molt bien apareiller et molt bien armer, qui bien furent vm et plus. Et li iautre2 se logierent a une part chascun par soi a toute lor gent, et sejornerent cel soir et l’andemein jusc’a l’esserir qu’il se mistrent au chemin tuit armé sor les chevaus et chevauchierent toute la nuit sans noise fere. Si ala Merlin tout devant, qui les conduisoit. Et ce fu le mardi devant la Seint Jehen, ce dit li conte, que les nuiz sont cortes come en esté el mois de juig, le grant mes. Or se test li contes de Merlin et de Leonces et de Farien et d’Antiaume et de Grassien, et retorne a parler del roi Artu. [O]r dit li contes que, a l’eure que Merlin se fu partiz del roi Artu, qu’il firent monter lor gent et movoir l’une eschiele aprés l’autre, einsi come eles estoient devisees. Si chevaucha Bleoberis en l’eschiele monseigneur Gauvein touz premiers, come cil qui touz savoit les passages et mielz que nus hom. Iluec peüst en vooir meint riche garnement et meinte enseigne d’or et de soie qui au vent venteloient. Et la terre estoit douce et soef et li paï�s delitables, car molt i avoit forez et praieries ou cil oiselion chantoient en meint langage, dont s’esjoï�sent cil damoisel de prime barbe qui, por pris et por hennor conquerre, ont lessiees lor

1  Although the wording here does not make it entirely clear, it is more evident in other manu­ scripts that Merlin’s direct speech resumes from this point. 2  This is an unusual spelling, and possibly represents an error for “li autre.”

Translation

57

[Ara] “[...] and your men? As soon as [you] arrive at the battle, you’ll find King Arthur, King Ban, and King Bohort, with a huge army that they have brought from the kingdom of Logres.” When Leonce hears the man who has spoken to him, he looks at him and sees that it is Merlin. Recognizing him, he goes with open arms to hug and embrace him; he celebrates his arrival and tells him he is very welcome, and Pharien does the same. And when they have finished rejoicing, Leonce asks Merlin for news of their lord, and he tells them that they will see him—one of the worthiest men in the world—before long, “and he is riding with a great army. And you will go and divide your men into four divisions, with five thousand men in each. And you will set off tomorrow evening, so that you will reach the siege by dawn. And you should know that you will find there one of the greatest battles that you have ever seen.” “My lord,” says Leonce, “who should I assign to lead the divisions?” “To you four, who are present here,” says Merlin “and who are all lords and masters. May Antiaume have the first division, Grascien the other, Pharien the third, and you have the fourth. And I will lead you to the army.” “Thank you, my lord!” says Leonce. “Now I know that we will succeed, because we will have you in our company.” Then the four of them go to split their soldiers into four divisions. The seneschal takes five thousand men and sets them to one side, and Grascien separates off another five thousand, and Pharien also takes five thousand, and Leonce stays where he is, preparing and arming his men, who were at least five thousand strong, if not more. And the others each set up camp with their men in their own area, and they rested that night and all of the following day until the evening, at which point they set off on their horses, in full armour, and rode all night without making a sound. Merlin rode ahead, leading the way. And according to the story, this was the Tuesday before the feast of St. John, when the nights are short as they are in summer, in the month of June—the long month.1 Now the story falls silent about Merlin, Leonce, Pharien, Antiaume, and Grascien, and returns to King Arthur. Now, the story tells us that when Merlin left King Arthur, the king commanded his knights to mount up and start moving one battalion after the other, in the divisions to which they had been assigned. Blioberis, who knew the routes better than anyone else, rode at the head of Gauvain’s battalion. Here, you could see a great deal of splendid armour, and many banners of gold and silk fluttering in the wind. And the land was pleasant and charming, and the countryside delightful, because there were many forests and meadows where little birds were singing in a multitude of languages.2 The men in the first flush of youth3 who, for honour and self-distinction, had left their 1  This is an approximate translation of the French “le grant mes,” which itself is a translation of the Latin term mensis magnus (the great month). June was called “the great month” because it contains the longest days. See Hampson, Medii Aevi Kalendarium, 270.

2  It was conventional in Old French to describe bird song as a foreign language, often Latin (as is the case in Chrétien de Troyes’s Conte du Graal, ll. 71–72), because it was distinct from vernacular language by not being the language in common use; see Zink, Les troubadours, Section 8. 3  The French expression is “cil damoisel de prime barbe,” literally “the young men with their first beards”; we have offered an approximate translation.

58 Edition

[Arb] [terres et lor païs et lor amors douces et novelles, que li oissellons chantent a douce alainne qui lor aman]toivent et font souvenir des [anvoiseüres qu’il] soloient avoir et mener. Si en soupirent des cuers des ventres sovent et menu. Et ont tant chevauchié la premiere nuit qu’il ne sorent onques, ainz fu hauz jorz et clers. Et quant il se regarderent, il ne sorent onques dont il estoient oissu, car molt avoient atendu a penser a ce qu’il lor plesoit, que tuit s’estoient entroublié. Lors sont venu en une molt bele lande qui tote estoit florie et pleine d’abroisiax sor la riviere de Loire, qui estoit pleine d’erbe verdaiant, et ja i estoit si grant que li cheval estoient enz jusc’au ventres. Iluec se reposerent les genz au roi Artu tote jor, ajornee tresc’au vespre. Si mengierent et burent tuit cil qui mestier en orent, et dormirent a aise, car molt lor fu li leus delitables et plesanz. Quant vint le mardi entre none et vespres, si s’armerent tuit, et petit et grant, et monterent en lor chevaus, car il n’avoit jusc’a l’ost Claudas que vii liues a chevauchier. La veï�ssiez meint bon vassal armez sor les chevaus forz et isniax et coverz molt richement de dras de soie entailliez a losenges et a dames et a chevaliers et a bestes et a oisiax de diverses colors, qui sont estendues sor les armeüres de fer dont li cheval et li chevalier estoient covert. Et i veï�siez meinte lance grosse et poignal a fer trenchant de fresne, et meint hiaume luisant et meint escu reflanboier. Et chevauchent si serré, quant il se furent rengié l’une eschiele aprés l’autre, que3 qui gestast un hiaume desus les armez, il ne cheï�st a terre. Ainz eüst en demie liue alé. Si chevauche Blioberis li premiers en l’eschiele monseigneur Gauvein, et li rois Bans en la segonde a tout xm fer armez. Et chevauchent estroit et serré, les escus au cos, entalentez de bien fere, de lor cors vengier et de l’autrui asaillir. Et chevauchent loins de la premiere eschiele qui devant s’en aloit, demie liue entiere. Et quant les freres li rois Bohorz vit qu’il furent loing de l’ost encore demie liue, si se remet au chemin, il et ses genz, qu’il ot de molt bons chevaliers et de hardiz vassaus. Et bien i parut le jor de la bataille devant le chastel de Trebes, et il les sot molt bien mener, come cil qui bien s’en savoit aidier et endurer meslee. Quant li rois Bohorz se fu partiz et sevrez, si remaint li rois Artus et ses genz. Quant il se furent conraé, la veï�siez meint riche garnement et meint vassal hardi et preuz, qui ne faudront au roi Artu jusc’a la mort. Si porte Keuz4 la grant enseigne au dragon que Merlin li ot donee, et chevauchent estroit le petit pas, loing del conroi le roi Bohort demie luie de terre. [A]insi chevauchent les iiii eschieles l’une aprés l’autre, toute la nuit entiere, tant que il vinrent un pou devant le jor fors de la forest de Briosque. Et chevauchent tot le lonc de la riviere de Loire, par les prez, tout selonc l’oraille del bois, par

3  The word “que” is repeated here, which is presumed to be an error and has been corrected. It is just possible, however, that “que que qui” might be included here so as to mean “que quiconque.” 4  The verb “porte” is repeated after the subject (“Si porte Keuz porte la grant enseigne”); this is a supposed error and has been edited accordingly.

Translation

59

[Arb] lands and their countries and their sweet, new love affairs, delight in listening to the singing of the little birds with their sweet breath; it reminded them of the pleasures that they should have been enjoying. They sighed frequently from the bottom of their hearts. And they rode so far the first night that, before they knew it, it was bright daylight. And when they looked around, they had no idea where they had come from, because they had been so distracted by their delightful thoughts that they had completely forgotten themselves. Now they have arrived at a beautiful woodland on the Loire river, which was blooming with flowers and trees, and flourishing grass that grew so high that the horses were up to their waists in it. King Arthur’s army rested there the whole day, from dawn until dusk.4 They ate and drank as much as they needed and slept peacefully, because the place was so lovely and pleasant. When Tuesday between None and Vespers5 came around, everyone—large and small—armed themselves and mounted their horses, because Claudas’s army was only a seven-league ride away. You would have seen many good knights there, on strong and fast war horses that were lavishly clothed in silk cloths embroidered with lozenges, and ladies and knights, and animals and birds of different colours, all draped over the iron armour worn by the knights and horses. And you would have seen many long, sharp lances, made of ash and cutting iron, and many gleaming helmets, and many glistening shields. And they ride so closely together that if someone threw a helmet into the air above them when they were arranged in their battalions, it would not hit the ground. They ride like this for half a league. Bleoberis is riding at the head of Sir Gauvain’s battalion, and King Ban is in the second battalion with ten thousand armed soldiers. And they are riding tightly together, their shields strapped around their necks, eager to prove themselves by vanquishing and attacking the enemy. And King Ban’s battalion rides a whole half-league behind the first battalion, which was riding ahead. And when King Ban’s brother, King Bohort, sees that the second battalion had gone ahead by another half league, he sets off with his men, all of whom he knew to be able knights and brave vassals. And then came the day of the battle outside the Castle of Trebes. And King Bohort was an experienced general, who knew well how to fight and withstand battle. When King Bohort had separated off his battalion and departed, King Arthur stays behind with his men. When they had equipped themselves for battle, you would have seen much lavish armour and many brave and worthy vassals, who will die before they fail King Arthur. Keux is carrying the great dragon banner that Merlin had given him, and they ride closely together at a walking pace, half a league behind Bohort’s troops. The four battalions ride this way, one after the other, all night until they reached the forest of Briosque around daybreak. And they ride the length of the Loire river alongside the fields, following the edge of the forest beneath

4  Literally, “until Vespers,” which according to the Liturgy of the Hours is Evening Prayer and takes place at about 6pm. 5  Between Mid-Afternoon Prayer (ca. 3pm) and Evening Prayer (ca. 6pm).

60 Edition

[Ava] [desus les oleviers ou il s’arresterent tant que il veïssent l’ansangne, que Merlin lor avoit dite, de la brandonnee de feu qui devoit corre per l’air, et qu’il oïssent] le cor corner. Et aprochierent si pres de l’ost qu’il n’i avoit mie plus de iii arbaletres. Et virent qu’en l’ost avoit molt grant clarté de luminiere et molt grant plenté de gent, et oï�rent ces chevaus hanir et ces muls brandoner sovent et menu. Et quant cil de la chevauchiee aprochierent, si entroï�rent les frois et le bruit des genz qui en l’ost estoient. [En]voierent espie[r]5 a cheval quel bruit il avoient oï�, et cil i alerent et choisirent les armes. Si retornerent a l’ost et lor distrent qu’il avoient trové une molt grant gent. Et cil corent as armes; si se prene[nt a] armer, et issent hors des loges et se rengent [tout] contreval les prez, chascune6 a sa baniere. Et les [fait] savoir l’un ost a l’au[tre] que ne sai que[l] gent so[nt] venu sor els a grant chevalerie.7 [Et Poi]nces et Antoine,8 qui molt sot de gue[rre, issit hors d]es [loges] touz armez et se mist en l’oraille de la forest de Briosque, [et com]manda ses homes qu’il le suisent. Et cil se f[on]t [si tost] come il estoient armé, et s’e[n issoi]ent d[es] log[es a es]peron que li uns n’i atendoit l’au[tre]. [E]t Fraille[s], sire d’Alemaigne, s’en oissi et refist sa [batail]l[l]e desus une petite riviere qui avoit non Artaise. Et Rendoles, li seneschaux au roi de Gaule, s’en oisi par dever[s] [les] jardins et les gaaignages. Et Claudas, li rois de l[a Des]erte, se remist par devers la chauciee par devers les marés. Et s’en oisirent molt esforciemen[t] des log[e]s et des paveillons par trop[iaz, s’an aloient a lor] banieres. [E]ntretandis que il atend[oient a elz apaireillier et conreer],9 vint Merlin [hors de son ambucheman]t, qui bien savoit tout [lor] erreme[nt]. [E lors prist] un cor et le sona si durem[ent] que t[ote la reviere] [re]tentist et sonne, que touz li bo[scaig]es en [retan] ti[st]. Et aprés geta un enchan[tem]ent tr[op fiers] et [trop] merveill[eus], car il f[ist aparo]ir [an haut an l’air] un grant br[andon] d[e fe]u, [et plus vermel] q[ue] nule foudre, [et cor]re [per desuz saz de] l’os[t e per] desus lor loge[s]. [Quant la gent] au roi Artu oï�rent le cor corner [et]10 le dragon corre parmi l’air, si se saign[ent]. 5  The bracketed letters were identified by multi-spectral imaging, but even then they were only partially visible. The syntax, however, does not work perfectly without “si” to open the clause (as is present in other manu­scripts, e.g., MS fr. 344, fol. 155v), but we have not corrected this since the meaning remains clear.

6  Although typical readings have the masculine form “chascuns,” multi-spectral imaging reveals beyond reasonable doubt that the final letter here is “e.” This may well be an error, but there is also a chance that it could refer to the feminine noun “eschiele.” 7  Other manu­scripts typically read “chevachiee” (MS fr. 344, fol. 155v).

8  Scribe A frequently, though not always, inserts “et” into the name “Poinces Antoine,” perhaps suggesting an assumption that they were two different characters (see discussion in Section 1, Chapter 1); this has been left in to preserve the idiosyncrasy of the manu­script. Occasionally, the “et” has been deliberately erased by a later reader (possibly Scribe B), though the surrounding subject-verb agreements are left untouched. Such instances will be indicated by bracketed roman type with accompanying footnotes. 9  The manu­script appears to read “comer,” which we have been unable to reconcile with any form of the typical reading of “conreer.” The latter has been supplied from MS fr. 344, fol. 155v.

10  There is evidently a missing word (most likely a verb) between “corner et” and “li dragon,” but it is completely illegible, and no equivalent appears in MS fr. 344.

Translation

61

[Ava] the olive trees, where they stopped and waited until they saw the sign that Merlin had told them about—that of the flame shooting into the air—and heard the sound of the horn. And they came so close to the other army that there was no more than three lengths of a crossbow shot between them. And they saw that among the army there was much light from fires and torches,6 and masses of people, and they could hear a great deal of whinnying and braying from the mules and horses. And when the mounted army approached, those from the other army noticed the commotion and the noise that the soldiers were making. They sent spies on horseback to find out where the sound was coming from, and they went out and identified the approaching army by their armour. The spies came back and reported that they had found a large group of troops. And the soldiers run to fetch their armour and weapons; they begin to arm themselves, and they leave their encampment and arrange themselves in their ranks right the way down the field, each under his own banner. And they told one another that some great army of unknown knights on horseback had come to attack them. And Poinces Antoine, who was well versed in warfare, leaves the encampment fully armed and positions himself at the edge of the forest of Briosque, commanding his men to follow him. And they did this as soon as they were armed, spurring their horses out of the camp without waiting for one another. And Froille, the lord of Germany, came out and arranged his battalion by a small river which was called the Artaise. And Randol, seneschal to the king of Gaulle, went out towards the gardens and orchards. And Claudas, king of the Wasteland, set out on the road that runs towards the marshes. And they came out in strength from their tents and pavillions in their troops, rallying to their banners. While they were equipping themselves and getting ready, Merlin—who knew everything that they were doing—emerged from his hiding place. And then he took a horn and blew it so hard that the sound rang out around the whole river, and resounded throughout the wood. After this, he cast a powerful and marvellous spell that made a great flame appear in the air that was redder than any lightning, and he made it fly over the army and their encampment. When Arthur’s army heard the horn sound and saw the dragon shoot through the air, they made the sign of the cross.

6  The term luminiere is used here to refer to artificial light, as opposed to natural light.

62 Edition

[Et] avint [c]hose que monseigneur Gauvein se feri parmi les airbergeries au roi Fraille, et li rois Bans de Benoï�c les tentes au roi Claudas de la Deserte, et li rois Bohorz de Gaunes parmi les genz Poinçon Antoine, et li rois Artu parmi les trés Randol, le seneschal de Gaunes. Iluec ot molt grant abat[eïs de tantes et de] [pa]veillons d’une par[t] [et d’au]tre, si [lieve la noise et li] criz si granz de toutes [pars et la huee si grans que toz an fremissent li cuers a] li plus hardiz. Iluec pe[rdirent molt cil de l’ost] qui logié estoient, car n’estoient mie encore garni de lor armes. Si en ocidrent molt et mehai[gner]ent, si braient et crient li navré qui par[mi] [ces] [t]ent[es] s’en outraillent por la mort qui les d[e]strein[t]. [Et] lors fu granz jorz, et le sol[eil] [c]om[ans]oit a l[ev]er, li comença a [ferir sor] les hiaumes et les hauberz, et com[anso]it a [liure] et reflambloier contre le soleil levant, et furent si bel a esgarder. [Et qua]nt Claudas, et Poinces et Antoines, et Randol et Frailles voien[t] le domage et la perte qu’il ont fait, [si leur em poise]11 [mol]t, car bien sevent que plus de xxm [home]s sont perduz que uns que autres. Et quant li dus [Avb] [Frailles, qui plus i avoit perdut que tuit li atres fors Randolle, et il vit lou damaige et la mortali]té que cil li font, qui sont meü de lor enbuschement, si est tant iriez qu’a pou qu’il ne forsenne. Si revient arieres au tentes que il avoit lessiees por ses genz fere conraer environ lui. Si velt12 en tel maniere ovrer, lui et li autre qui par le conseil Poinçon et Antoine avoient einsi ovré, par le mien escient il ne fussent pas eschapé. [Q]uant mesire Gauvein voit Froile venir, si li vet a l’encontre molt hardiement. Et il i avoit en sa conpaignie de merveilleus chevaliers, tuit juenes bachelers et hardi durement. Et Froilles avoit encor bien xvim homes touz armez, et iiiim en avoit perdu, qui tuit estoient ocis et detrenchié. Et quant il aprochierent les uns des autres, si s’entrevienent si tost come cheval lor pueent randoner. A l’asanbler des genz si fu Ag[re]more[s]13 tout premier. Et Froilles, qui molt es[toit corresi]ez, li vint a l’encontre, et estoit grant [chevaliers, et jones] et forz, de merveilleuse force. Si s’en[trefierent permi les escus, et il] et Sagremors, si [videmant14 qu’il s’antrabaiten]t a terre, les che[vax sor lor cors. Mais tost refurent] [resail]li en piez, car [a merveille estoient prous et] hardi et viste. Et l’e[pee traient nue]15 fors des fuerres, et [traient les escus avant, et s’an retornerent sus] et comen[sent une baitaille antr’az douz molt fellenessemant et molt cruouse]. 11  This clause is missing in MS fr. 344, so the words lost to damage here have instead been supplied from MS fr. 9123, fol. 217v. Partially visible letters indicate that the Bristol Merlin most likely offers a similar reading. 12  MS fr. 344, fol. 155v has “n’eüst” instead of “si velt,” which may suggest a mistake by the Bristol Merlin scribe here, but since there is some coherence, it has been left unchanged.

13  This word is only partially visible, but it appears to be “Sagremores” without the initial “S.” The context and comparison with other α manu­scripts confirms that the subject of the verb should be Sagremore. 14  MS fr. 344 often uses the word “videmant” in phrases where the Bristol Merlin typically has “roidement”; indeed “videmant” seems to be entirely idiosyncratic to MS fr. 344. There are several possible explanations: “videment” could be a misreading of “roidement” in the exemplar, or it could derive from the adjective “vide” (empty), whose adjectival form can be interpreted as “enfeebling,” although this is uncommon.

15  This reading has been suggested based on the equivalent line in MS fr. 344 (“traient les espees nues,” fol. 155v). The first two letters of the word “l’epee” are visible at the beginning of the line, which suggests that there is no inversion of the noun and verb in this version.

Translation

63

And then Sir Gauvain charged into King Froille’s camp, and King Ban of Benoic into the tents of King Claudas of the Wasteland, and King Bohort of Gaunes attacked Poince Antoine’s soldiers, and King Arthur struck the camp of Randol, the seneschal of Gaunes. They destroyed tents and pavillions all around. The noise of the cries and screams is so loud, and the clamour so great, that it would strike fear into the heart of even the bravest person. Many soldiers were lost here in their tents, because they were not yet armed. They killed and maimed; the wounded wailed and cried out as death overcame them in the camp. And now it was broad daylight, as the sun was starting to rise; its rays struck the helmets and the hauberks which began to sparkle and shimmer in the light of the rising sun, which was so beautiful to see. And when Claudas and Poince Antoine and Randol and Froille saw the damage and the loss that had been inflicted upon them, they were devastated, because they knew well that they had lost more than twenty thousand men between them. And when Duke [Avb] Froille (who had lost more than all the others, except Randol) saw the damage and death that Arthur’s ambush had wrought, he was so enraged that he nearly lost his mind. He went back to the tents that he had left as a place to regroup his men around him. If he had not done this, following the advice that Poince Antoine had given to him and the others, I do believe they would not have been able to escape. When Sir Gauvain sees Froille coming to attack, he bravely goes to confront him. And his company was made up of exceptional knights, all of whom were young men and fiercely bold. And Froille also had sixteen thousand fully armed men, and he had lost four thousand of them, who had all been killed and cut to pieces. And when the two sides approached each other, they launch into an attack at a full gallop. As they clashed together, Sagremor was leading the charge. And Froille, who was completely enraged, came to meet him head on; and he was a tall, young, and powerful knight, with fantastic strength. He and Sagremor struck each other on the shield so forcefully7 that they knocked each other to the ground, with their horses falling on top of them. But they immediately leapt to their feet, because they were exceptionally brave, and valiant, and skillful. And they draw their naked swords from their scabbards and hold up their shields, and they turn to each other and begin fighting a cruel and pitiless battle between the two of them.

7  In the edition, this is text supplied by MS fr. 344, and the term here is “videmant,” the meaning of which in this context is not entirely clear. As explained in the edition, the Bristol Merlin would usually use “roidement” in this kind of phrase and so our translation choice here attempts to reflect a balance between that and the other, less common possible senses of “videmant.” Cf. note 14 in the edition.

64 Edition

Et s’entre[donnent les merveillous coz, lai ou il s’]at[ingnent. Si n’i ot celui d’az dous ki ne f]ussent en [grant peril de mort avant que il eüst ce]cors, car a mer[vei]lle[s estoient boin chevaliers, et les espees estoi]ent si bo[nnes] q[ue nulles meillors ne covenoit avoir]. S[i ce combaitirent une grant piese ava]n[t qu’il] fuss[ent desevrez. Quant messires Gauvains et li compaignons voient Sagremor a terre, si point] a l[a res] cousse, [il et Urfins, qui l’ansangne portoit], et tuit li c[ompaignons. Et cil de lai poignoient por lou d]uc Froille [delivrer. Si s’antrefierent des lances permi] les esc[uz; si s’antrabaitent et ossient li uns les] au[tres. Et] co[manse la baitaille si grans que ele ne faisoit s’anfor]cier non. [Iqui firent] mer[veilles li che]valier novel do[nt il avoit xvii, et xl compaignons qui] avoc els es[toient acompaigniez. Mais nequeda]nt onques [puez que meïdis fut passez, nus biens faires que nus i] feï�st [ne pot prandre a bienfaire monsig]neur [Gauvain. Icil faisoit merveilles, car il] abatoit [et ossioit homes] et chev[ax per cop de lance] et [d’espee. Si lou refaisoit bi]en [messire Yvains, li fiz] au roi Uri[ens, et Yvains li Avoutres, et Galachins, li fiz a roi Neutre. S’i provait muez que tuit li autres, fo]rs mon[signor Gauvain. Et d’autre] part si re[fist bien Agrevains et Saigre]mo[rs], et tuit li autres [compaignons com]unement. [De l’]autre part [se combait molt duremant li rois Ba]ns [a genz lo roi Claudes. Iqui ot grant bataille et grant briseïs de la]nces, [si s’antr]ab[aitent des chevax a la ter]re dure. [Entre lou roi Claudes] et [lou roi Ban] s’entrecon[trerent anmi les ranz, qui molt es]toient gra[ns et peril]leus. [Ici to]st come il s’entrevirent, [Bra] [si s’antrecorrurent sus, les espees traïtes, car lor lances estoient brisies a premier de la baitaille. Et Claudés estoit molt boin chevaliers et molt seürs] et granz et fors, meis traï�tes estoit tout jors et envï�eus seur ceux qui estoient au desus de lui. Si feri si durement le roi Ban parmi le hiaume que les estanceles en fait voler contremont vers le ciel, si l’estone si durement que tout le fet encliner sor le col de son cheval. Mes par grant aï�r se releva li rois Bans et li amaine un meirveilleus cop de coroceuse16 parmi le hiaume, si que un grant cartier en abat, et se l’espee ne tornast, tout l’eüst porfendu juc’a l’acoree. Mes l’espee glaça contreval l’escu, car quant cil senti le cop amener si grant, si tira son frein ariere a reculer, qu’il fist, si descendi le cop sor l’arçon de la sele sor le col del cheval, si le coupa d’outre en outre en travers. Si chaï� tout en un mont, et quant li rois Bans le voit verser, si li cort sus a cheval, car molt le haoit durement. Et quant Claudas se voit verser, si ot molt grant poor, car il sot bien que cil ne le haoit fors de la teste couper se il en venoit au desus. Si se haste molt de relever et saut en piez, et enbrace l’escu et l’espee el poing destre. Et quant il voit le roi Ban venir, si li gauchist et fiert son cheval en trespassant par[mi] [le]s flans en boutant, qu’il li abati mort entre les cuises. Et cil resaut sus molt vistement, mes ainçois qu’il fust relevé, li dona Claudas ti[eux] iii cops parmi le hiaume qu’a par un pou qu’il ne le fist chaoir a paumes. Mes li rois Bans fu de molt grant force; si ne chaï� mie, et giete l’escu desus sa teste et s’en vint vers Claudas molt iriez, et le fiert si durement sor son hiaume et sus son escu si qu’il li fist une grant plaie en la teste, et saine molt durement. 16  This is an unusual—and possibly erroneous—grammatical construction which does not appear in other manu­scripts. The most common formulation resembles that of MS fr. 9123: “li amena trop grant cop parmi le hyaume” (fol. 218r), while the closest comparator manu­scripts have slightly differing formulations: “li amoine un merveilleuz cop permi son hiaume” (MS fr. 344, fol. 156r); “ung travers cop permy le hyaulme” (MS fr. 98, fol. 203r).

Translation

65

They dealt each other great blows as they fought. They were both in great danger of being killed unless someone came to help them, because they were both exceptional knights, and their swords were so good that there was no need for a better one. They fought for a long time before they were driven apart. When Sir Gauvain and his companions see Sagremor on the ground, he and Ulfin (who was carrying the standard), and all the companions rush to the rescue. And Duke Froille’s soldiers were racing over to save him. They struck each other on the shields with their lances; they exchange blows and kill one another. And they began a battle between them that was so vicious that it could only get worse. The recently-dubbed knights fought marvellously; there were seventeen of them, and they were accompanied by forty companions. But nevertheless, by the time midday had passed, none of them could outperform Sir Gauvain. He was performing extraordinary feats, cutting down and killing men and horses with his lance and sword. Sir Yvain, the son of King Urien, and Yvain the Bastard, and Galachin, the son of King Neutre, were also fighting well. Galachin was proving himself to be better than all the others, with the exception of Sir Gauvain. And elsewhere, Agravain and Sagremor and all of the other companions were fighting similarly well. Elsewhere, King Ban was fiercely attacking King Claudas’s army. There was a great battle and clashing of lances taking place here. They strike each other from their horses onto the hard ground. King Claudas and King Ban met each other amid the vast, deadly ranks. As soon as they saw one another, [Bra] they ran to attack each other with their swords drawn, because they had broken their lances in the initial clash. And Claudas was a skilled and fearless knight, and he was big and strong; however, he was consistently treacherous, and envious of anyone who was above him. He struck King Ban so hard across his helmet that it makes sparks fly up towards the sky, stunning him so badly that he falls forward onto the neck of his horse. But King Ban picked himself up energetically, and deals Claudas an angry blow to the helmet, which hacks off a piece of it. And if his sword had not turned, it would have cut him right the way through; however, the sword glanced off Claudas’s shield, because when he felt such a great blow coming, he pulled his horse backwards. This directed the blow down towards the front of his saddle and onto his horse’s neck, chopping right through from one end to the other. Both horse and rider collapsed together in a heap, and when King Ban saw Claudas fall, he gallops back to attack him, because he hated him enormously. And when Claudas realizes he is falling, he is very afraid, because he knew that Ban hated him so much that he would cut off his head if he could overpower him. He hurries to get back on his feet, and holds up his shield and his sword in his right hand. And when he sees King Ban approaching, Claudas swerves around and hits the side of his horse, cutting through its flanks and striking it dead between his thighs. And King Ban jumped back up rapidly, but before he could fully stand Claudas struck him three times across his helmet, so hard that he nearly passed out. But King Ban was incredibly strong, and he did not fall down. He throws his shield over his head and came at Claudas full of rage, and he hits him so hard on his helmet and on his shield that he gave him a huge head wound with blood pouring out of it.

66 Edition

Et se un petit se fussent aresté, ja en fust finee la guerre a tot jorz mes. Mes si home le secorent molt esforcieement, dont il avoit plus la moitié que li rois Bans. Si en furent molt chargié les genz au roi Ban, que il n’estoient que xm, et cil estoient encor xviiim, et nequedent il se combatirent tant d’une part et d’autre que andui furent remonté. Et lors conmença li chaples molt dolereus et molt mortieux. Mes totes voies reconvint il a reüser les genz au roi Ban, et se ne fust il ses cors, tuit fussent desconfit et chacié del champ. Mes il ses cors sostenoit si tote la mellee que nus nes pot torner del champ ne reüser, ne plus que l’en feï�st un donjon. Si se contienent en tel maniere molt longuement tant que midis fu passee. [D]e l’autre part se conbat li rois Bohorz as genz Poinçon Antoine es tentes et es pavoillons. Si i perdirent molt cil qui estoient remés, car il i perdirent les vies. Et quant Poinces Antoines voit le grant domage qui lor estoit venuz si sodainement, si en fu a merveilles dolenz et corrociez. Et quant il ot ses homes conraez lez la forest ou il se fu arestez, si s’en repere vers les tentes ou cil fesoient l’ocision de ceux qu’il avoient trovez. Et quant li rois Bohorz le voit venir, si li ala a l’an-[Brb]-[contre molt herdiemant toz li premiers, l’acut a col, la lance el poing, del gros fraine plainnee a fer tranchant et aceré. Et quant Poin]ces Anto[nes lou voit venir, si ce lance an]mi le champ encontre lui et fiert le cheval des esperons tant conme il en puet traire, conme cil qui ja n’i cuide venir a tens. Si se fierent sor lors escuz des granz aleüres des chevals de toutes lors forces, si qu’il les font et fraindre et percier. Si avint que Poinces Antoines brisa son glaive, et li rois Bohorz l’a feru si roidement qu’il li serre l’escu au braz et au cors, et li conduit le fer de son espié par selonc la renge de l’espee, si qu’il li fist une grant plaie el costé enz el flanc, si qu’il en cort li sanc chauz et vermeulz contreval le braï�er a fil jusqu’au talon. Si l’empaint si durement qu’il le porte a terre tot estendu si roidement que toute la terre en resone. Et jut une grant piece a terre que il ne sot onques se il fu jorz ou nuiz. Et quant si home voient qu’il est versez, si ont poor molt grant qu’il ne fust morz. Si poignent a la rescouxe li grant et li petit, et les genz au roi Bohort lors viennent a l’encontre et le reçoivent as fers trenchanz et acerez. Iluec ot engoissos tournoiement et mortel tornoiement, qu’il n’estoient que xm d’une part et de l’autre part estoient xixm. Si fu rescous Poinces [et]17 Antoines molt viguereusement et monté a cheval. Et troverent si home qu’il estoit un poi navrez el flanc senestre, mes il n’a plaie qui perilleuse fust ne tant ne quant. Si fu molt dolenz et molt honteus de ce qu’il fu chaoiz que de la plaie, car onques mes ne vuida les arçons por le cors d’un seul chevalier. Si vengeroit volentiers sa honte se en lieu en pooit venir. Lors mist la mein a l’espee et se fiert el tornoiement la ou la presse estoit plus grant. Si comencent la bataille qui molt longuement dura. Et lors avint que Poinces [et]18 Antoines encontrerent le roi Bohort el grant [tournoiem]ent [ou il] fesoit merveilles [de soi]. Et tantost come il le voit, si li sovint de ce qu’il [l’ot] abatu et nav[r]é. [Se li cort] sus, l’espee el poing, et le fiert parmi le hiaume par derrieres si grant cop que tot li enbarre et ploï�e jusqu’as mailles de la coife desouz. Si l’a si chargié del cop que tout le fet encliner sor l’arçon de la sele derrieres. 17  Deliberate erasure.

18  Deliberate erasure.

Translation

67

And if they had stayed fighting for a moment longer, the war would have been ended forever there and then. But Claudas’s men come in large numbers to rescue him. King Ban only had half as many men with him, and they were overwhelmed because there were only ten thousand of them, and Claudas still had eighteen thousand. And in spite of this, both sides fought so hard that both kings were able to be remounted. And then they began a painful and deadly combat. But nevertheless, Ban’s army were forced to fall back, and if it had not been for Ban himself, they would have been defeated and driven from the battlefield. But he kept the battle going, and no one could chase him from the field, any more than if he had been a fortress. They hold their ground in this way until after midday. Elsewhere, King Bohort is fighting Poince Antoine’s army by the tents and pavillions. Those who had stayed behind had lost a great deal there, because they had lost their lives. And when Poince Antoine sees the great damage that had been wrought on them so suddenly, he was dismayed and furious in the extreme. And when he had arranged his men alongside the forest where they had stopped to regroup, he returned to the tents where the army was slaughtering the people they had found there. And when King Bohort sees him approaching, he bravely goes [Brb] to be the first one to confront him head on, with his shield strapped around his neck, and gripping his lance, which was made from thick, planed ash with a sharp steel tip. And when Poince Antoine sees him coming, he races towards him through the field, spurring his horse to gallop as fast as possible, as if he thought he would never get there in time. They strike each other on the shield with the power of their horses running at a full gallop, causing the shields to shatter and break apart. Poince Antoine broke his lance, and King Bohort has hit him so forcibly that he crushed his shield against his arm and his body; and King Bohort drives the tip of his lance over his sword-belt and opened up a great wound in his side that causes hot, red blood to run from his waist down to his ankles. The force of the blow knocks Poince Antoine flat on the ground, and he lands with an earth-shaking crash. And he lay there for a long time, not knowing whether it was day or night. And when his men see that he has fallen, they are very afraid that he might be dead. They rush to rescue him, the large and the small, and King Bohort’s men come to meet them, receiving them with sharp and cutting blades. This was an agonizing conflict and a deadly one, because there were only ten thousand on one side and nineteen thousand on the other. Poince Antoine was rescued forcefully and remounted on a horse. His men found that he was slightly injured on his left side, but the wound was not at all life-threatening. He was more dismayed and ashamed about being unhorsed than he was than he was about the injury, because he had never been forced out of his saddle by a single knight before. He would avenge this humiliation if he had the chance. Then he put his hand to his sword and charged into the battle where the press was thickest. They began a battle that lasted a long time. And then Poince Antoine came upon King Bohort among the fighting, who was performing extraordinary feats of arms. And as soon as he sees him, he remembers that Bohort had beaten and wounded him. He runs to attack him, sword in hand, and strikes with such a huge blow on the back of his helmet that he staves it in and dints it right through to the mail coif underneath. He dealt him such a blow that King Bohort falls backwards in his saddle.8 8  This sentence has been adapted slightly for the sake of legibility, as it literally reads “he made him fall backwards over the front of his saddle” (“le fet encliner sor l’arçon de la sele derrieres”).

68 Edition

Et quant il cuide recovre por fer, et le roi Bohort19 hurte le cheval des esperons et se fiert en l’estor, et retorne a la resne del cheval, et li revient l’espee el poing. Et cil li revient l’espee treite a l’encontre, qui molt voirement le haoit. Si s’entrefierent molt durement, qu’il n’i a celui qui touz ne soit estonez. Mes au ferir ne furent mie li cop egal, car li rois Bohorz feri parmi le hiaume Poinçon [et]20 Antoine si grant cop que tot le fist encliner avant selonc la senestre tenple, qu’il li fist le sanc voler parmi le nés a granz randons. Si l’estona si durement qu’il le porte del cheval touz estordiz a la terre, si qu’il ne sot onques o il fu. Et li vet par desus li cors a cheval tant de foiz que tout le debrise, et cil se pasme de l’engoisse qu’il a. Et li rois Bohorz a talent qu’il descende por lui couper la teste, mes il ne l’a mie del tot sa volenté. [Q]uant li Romein voient Poinçon Antoine lor seignor si foler as piez del cheval celui qui point [Bva] [ne l’ainme, si poignent celle part a la rescouce. Si ce fierent permi la genz a roi Bohort si fieremant, tuit mellee, que il les font sortir et reüser arrieres plus d’une bone aboulestree, car trop i avoit grant foison de gent. Iqui fu remont]ez Poinces Antoine molt fierement, mes molt fu dolenz et debatuz. Mes il fu de si grant cuer que onques n’en fist senblant, ainz se garni des armes et se [refiert] a la m[elee qui] molt estoit fiere et felenesse, et donc fu li es[tors renouvelez]. Si furent les genz au roi Bohort [molt a me]chief. [Si ne duressent mies longuemant ce ne fust] la proesce au roi Bohort qui [les soustint molt, et confortait a toz meschiés]. S[i i s]o[sfrit] molt [poine et travail, car trop estoient cil] enc[on]tre [lui grant fais] de gent. [Si maintindrent ansi l’estor] tant [que] midiz [fut passez]. De l’[atre par]t se combat li rois [Artus as gen]z [Randol lou seneschal molt fieremant, car il troverent a pauvillon]21 le roi de Gaunes [plus de vii mile que tuit fu]re[nt ossiz et mahaigniez et navrez trop duremant que onques puez lou roi ne lor forfirent]. Et quant [Randol voit lou damaige et la perde de la ge]nt, si en [fut molt doulans]. Et lor vint [a l’ancontre a tot xiiim d’]armes qu[i l]or [estoient r]em[ez, qui molt estoient prou]z et hardi[z], et enc[oraigé] de [vangier la mort de] lor [a]mis et de lor [parans que il virent a] lor [iaus detranchier et ossis. Si lor viennent iriez et fel et antalantez de mal faire, les glaives souz les esselles]; et cil [lor vont] a l’enc[ontre qui furent de guerre dur et orent boin conduisor. Si les prisent or molt petit, car il vire]nt bien [que il estoient bien autant comme eulz. Si les]22 [re]cu[llere]nt a fers des [lances molt videmant. Si an lais]sent des mors et des [navrez a grant foison]. Iluec fu li estors fors, [et amers. Iqui ot maint] vasal mort et [navrez, dont il fu grans duez] et grant d[a]mage[s] [a lor] amis. [Iqui firent cil] de la Table Roonde merveilles [d’armes desor toz a veüe. 19  This sentence is difficult to resolve grammatically; “fer” may be an error for “ferir” (as confirmed by the same line in other manu­scripts), and the case of the subject in the coordinate clause should be nominative as opposed to oblique (le roi Bohort). We have not corrected it in order to preserve this idiosyncrasy of the manu­script. 20  Deliberate erasure.

21  This insertion from MS fr. 344, fol. 156v is slightly longer than the available space in the Bristol Merlin. 22  This insertion is from MS fr. 9123, fol. 218v, as there is an error of syntax in the equivalent line in MS fr. 344.

Translation

69

And when Poinces Antoine prepared to strike again, King Bohort spurred his horse forward into the fray, reined it back around, and returned with his sword in his hand. And Poince Antoine, who genuinely hated him, came to meet him with his sword drawn. They struck each other so hard that they completely stunned each other. But the blows they gave each other were not of equal force, because Bohort struck Poinces Antoine so hard on the helmet, hitting his left temple, that he collapsed forward and blood spurted from his nose in great gushes. He stunned him so badly that he fell from his horse and landed sprawled on the ground, not knowing where he was. And King Bohort trampled him with his horse so many times that he was completely broken, and he passed out from the pain. And King Bohort planned to dismount and cut off his head, but he did not get his way. When the Romans see their lord, Poince Antoine, being trampled by the horse of a man who has no [Bva] love for him, they rush over to rescue him. They charged on Bohort’s men and fought among them so fiercely that the Romans forced Bohort’s army to retreat and fall back by more than the distance of a good crossbow shot, due to the sheer number of them. The Romans helped Poince Antoine bravely remount his horse, although he was badly beaten and in much pain. However, he had such strong courage that he did not let it show, and instead armed himself and returned to the violent and deadly battle, and so the fighting began again. King Bohort’s soldiers were in great peril. They would not have resisted for very long had it not been for the bravery of King Bohort himself, who supported them and gave them strength whenever they were in trouble. He experienced a great deal of difficulty and strife, because there were so many fighting against him. They kept the battle going until after midday had passed. Elsewhere, King Arthur was fiercely fighting Randol the Seneschal and his men, because they had found at the king of Gaulle’s9 pavilion more than seven thousand who were dead and injured, and so badly maimed that they would never be able to be of use ever again.10 And when Randol sees the damage and people that are lost, he was stricken with grief. He goes to confront them with his remaining thirteen thousand soldiers, all of whom were brave and worthy, and set on avenging the deaths of their friends and relations that they saw killed and cut to pieces before their eyes. They came at them full of rage and fury, bent on doing harm, their blades tucked under their arms; and Arthur’s men, who were hardened by battle and fortunate in their leader, went to confront them. They held them in little regard, because they saw clearly that they were just as good as them. They received them violently with the sharp ends of their lances. They left scores of dead and injured in their wake. Here, the battle was bitter and fierce. Here, many vassals were killed and wounded, which caused their friends great suffering and loss. Here, the knights of the Round Table performed extraordinary feats of arms for all to see, more so than anyone else. 9  The manu­script confuses “Gaunes” and “Gaules” here, which has been corrected in the translation.

10  It is difficult to make sense of this sentence as it appears in MS fr. 344: “et navrez trop duremant que onques puez lou roi ne lor forfirent.” The presence of “le roi” as an object in the sentence is not entirely comprehensible, and it is possible that it is a misreading for “rien,” which corresponds to the way in which this sentence appears in MS fr. 98 (fol. 205v): “que onques pues rien ne leur forfirent.” The translation has followed the line as it appears in MS fr. 98.

70 Edition

Sil ossistrent et] ab[aitirent homes] et [chevax. Avoc as] fut [li rois Artus, qui molt bi]en [s’i aidait. Icil faisoient les rans esclaroier tot] par tout [ou il s’ambaitoient. Si ont tant fait per lor proesse que] touz les [ont rompuz et getez de la plaise a fine force. Si les resortissent dou champ, ou il vuellent ou nom, c’onques n’i arresterent jusque sor les gens Poinson Antone, ki molt grevoient lou roi Bohort et ces genz. Et quant il pervindrent, si ot molt foll]eï�z de gent, [et si grant duel et si grant noise] que l’en n’i [oïst nes pas Deu tonant. Si font lever] une si grant poud[riere que li selois, qui clers estoit], anu[bli toz. Et Keux li senechaus lou porsuit, lou dragon an la main, que Merlin li baillait a porter. Et il randoit de foies an autres permi la goule si grant brandon de feu qu’il s’an montoit lasus an l’air], si gran[s et si anpoantable que tuit an tr]enbl[oient lor cuers de poor a souz qui lou veoient, qui atres fois] ne l’[avoient veüt], et dis[oient bien li uns as a]tres [qu’il cuidoi]ent [bien que finem]onz de[üst venir cel jor meïmes]. Et li dragons [avoit molt grant cenefiance], car il senefioit le roi [Artu et sa puissance, car la] flambe qu’il getoit [permi] la goule [hors cenefioit lou grant martire de gent et la] grant ocision de gen-[...]23 qui fu au tans le roi Artu. Et la ceue, [qui si grans estoit], toute [torsie], senefioit la traï�son de [sa gent, par] qui il fu puis traï�z, qu’il releverent encontre lui par Mordret, son fil qu’il engendra en sa sereur, la fame au roi Loth, quant il passa mer por conbatre a l’enp[ere]ur [Bvb] [de Rome et por panre la terre de Gaunes et de Benoïc et de Galles et de la Deserte por lou couroz de l’atre24 qu’il avoit laissiet, por lou matalant qui fut antr’aus dous per sa feme la roïne Guenievre], dont il fu tant acointés, einsi come li contes vus devisera ça avant. Mes atant se test li contes de ces choses raconter que plus n’en parole a ceste voie, tant que [lieux] et tans [ven]ra. Or dit li contes que molt fu la bataille grant [par]mi la praierie devant le chastel de Tre[bes] [de la ge]nt le roi Artu et de la gent Randol, le seneschal de Gaule, qui le champ avoit guerpi et lessié. Et se furent tuit feru pelle [et melle]25 parmi les genz Poinçon Antoine, qui molt tenoit le roi Bohorz cort, et ses gen[z] [avoit molt gra]nt mestier de secor. Et [quant Poinces Antoines] voit les fuianz venir, [si lor vient a l’ancontre et] escrie s’enseigne, et [laisse corre] as genz le roi Bohort touz li premiers. Et [quant] cil le voient, si se [ralient et] serrent [et laissent corre tuit] ensanble a la b[ata]ille aprés Poin[son Anthone], lor seig[nor]. [Si fut li rois] Bohorz chac[iez, que tuit fussent] desconfiz et [chassiez dou] champ, quant [Keux li] [sene]chaus vint a [tote la] baniere, [qui molt les] conforta. Iluec ot es[tor mer]veilleus [et] [dure]ment feru. Si [chasse] molt [li uns les autres], si se [tindrent aiques perigales.

23  There is an unreadable lacuna here, with no obvious equivalent in other manu­scripts.

24  MS fr. 344, fol. 156v appears to read “l’antre” (the “n” indicated by an abbreviation mark), but this does not make sense here. The term appears to refer to Lancelot, so the mark may simply be a stray pen-stroke and the word should read “l’atre.”

25  The manu­script does not contain “et melle,” but “pelle” does not exist in isolation and so the omission of “et melle” is assumed to be an error and has been corrected to align with the other instances of this phrase in the Bristol Merlin.

Translation

71

They killed and struck down men and horses. King Arthur was with them, who helped them a great deal. He lit up the ranks wherever he was fighting. They fought so fearlessly that they beat their enemies and drove them away through sheer force. They forced Randol’s troops to retreat from the battlefield whether they wanted to or not, and they did not stop until they came upon Poince Antoine’s army, who were harassing King Bohort and his men. And when they arrived there was a huge rabble, and such great trauma and such a great noise that you would not have been able to hear God thundering. They kicked up so much dust that it blocked out the bright sunlight. And Keux the Seneschal led the pursuit, holding in his hand the dragon banner that Merlin had given him to carry. And huge flames were shooting out of its mouth and flying up into the air at regular intervals; they were so great and so terrifying that it made those who were seeing it for the first time tremble to the core with fear, and they said to one another that the end of the world must be coming. And the dragon had a very important meaning, because it represented King Arthur and his power, and because the flame that shot out of its mouth represented the great suffering and great slaughter of the people during the time of King Arthur. And the tail, which was long and twisted, represented the treachery of those who betrayed him, because they rebelled against him at the instigation of Mordred—the son that he had conceived with his sister, the wife of King Lot—when Arthur had crossed the ocean to fight against the emperor [Bvb] of Rome, and to conquer the lands of Gaunes, Benoic, Gaulle, and the Wasteland. This was due to the anger of the other11 that he had left behind, and the animosity that was between them that was caused by the close relationship that this other had with his wife, Guinevere, just as the story will tell you in due course. But now the story falls silent about this and will say nothing more about it here, until it reaches the appropriate place and time. Now the story says that an enormous battle took place in the fields outside the Castle of Trebes, between the forces of King Arthur and Randol, the Seneschal of Gaulle, who had retreated and deserted the battlefield. And they charged headlong into Poince Antoine’s men, who had King Bohort’s men closely surrounded and greatly in need of aid. And when Poince Antoine sees the retreating army coming, he goes to meet them. He is the first to launch himself towards King Bohort’s men, shouting his battle cry. And when the fleeing knights see him, they rally closely together and charge into the battle after their lord, Poince Antoine. They pursued King Bohort, and he was about to be defeated and driven from the field when Keux the Seneschal arrived with the banner, which was a huge source of encouragement. The battle here was extraordinary, and bitterly fought. They pursued one another relentlessly, but both sides were more or less equally matched.

11  Other manu­scripts name the “other” as Lancelot.

72 Edition

De l’autre] partie [se resont tant combaitus] les g[en]z monseignor [Gauvain a la gent Fraille], le duc d’Ale[magne, que toz les fist resortir] sor la gent [a roi Claudes de la Deserte, que ce comb]atoit [a la mesgnie le roi Ban, lui centisme, qui moult esto]ient26 a grant mes[chief. Et quant les iiii] batailles vindrent ensamble, si s[oustindren]t molt [li] uns les autres. Si [fut molt grant la noise] et le chaple des [espees sor les hiaumes. Iqui] fist misire Gau[vains merveilles de soi. N’onques mais n’avoit] veües [tez mervelles a un] seul chevalier com [il fist lou jor. Et li cont]es d[ist] que midi es[toit] [passez. Si avint] que [messires Gauvains] enc[ontrait lou roi Claudas qui ce combaito]it au [roi Ban, lui centisme].27 Et li rois Bans [n’e]st[oi]t [que lui vintime, si estoit] a molt grant meschief quant misires Gauvein[s] [y vint poignant]. Si fist [tous les rens fremir entour lui]. Et quant [il vit le roi Ban a si grand meschief, si se]28 fiert [autr’az, l’apee el] poing, [que] molt estoit de [grant bonté]. Et avint chose qu’il encon[trait lou roi Clau]das [pre]mierem[ant], qui molt [ce penoit del r]oi [Ban] damagier, et de sa gent. [Et messires Gauvains h]auce [l]’espee [qu’il t]e[noit devant lou roi Ban. Si cuide ferir Clau]das permi l’espau[le], [et cil gete l’escut anco]ntre, et misires [Gauvains i fiert si dure]ment [qu’il lou] fet [voller au dous moitiez], et l’espee [dessant] sus [l’arçon de la selle devant. Si] la trenche tot [outre, et lou cheval autresi permi les] espaules en [ii moitiez. Si trabuche a terre] l’un et l’autre, [tot an un mont, et] s’en passe outre que plus [n’i areste, car] il ne le conoist. Et fiert [si messires Gauvains] en trespassant un chevalier molt [prou de la manie] Claudas parmi l’esp[au] le qu’i le fendi jusqu’el [braïer]. Et puis refiert Arodainas si durement [Cra] [que la teste li fait voler la jus aval. Puez fiert a destre et a cenestre, et ce justise an poc] d’eure que molt leur en a ocis, qui tuit chaï�rent a terre devant les piez le roi Claudas. Si fait tant que nus ne l’ose atendre a cop, qui ses cops ait conneüz. [Q]uant li roi Bans voit le socors que Dieux li avoit envoié, et il voit la merveille que li enfes fesoit, si en mercie Dieu et aore. Et puis vient a l’enfa[nt], et li dit “Gauvain, biau douz sire, bien soiez vos venuz et si estes vos a mon [huez]! Si m’aï�st Dieux, que li rois Artus mes sires n’[ait] mie mal enploié la seignorie qu’il vos a bailliee de sa gent garder et conduire, car a mieudre de vos ne la peüst il mie avoir bailliee, jue[ne] [ne vielx].29 [Et] por [Deu] vos pri ge que vos m’[otro]ie[z vostre] [con]paignie hui toute jor.” [“Sire,” fait] misire Gauvains, “je la vos otroi [molt debonaire]ment, et ore [et] autre foiz, et g[rant mercis] de vostre requeste. [Mais il me covient quer]re mes freres et mes cousins [et mes com]pa[igno]ns q[ue j’ai perdus. Je ne sai] qu’il sont [devenus, se ne vos an poist. Et] mainte[nant] [que je les avrai trovez], je reperer[ai a vos.” “Sire,” fait li] rois [Bans], “ge alasse [molt volantiers avoc vos], mes trop [volantiers metisse avant poin]ne conment [je fusse vangiez] de mon ane[mi] [mortel que vos avez] abatu. 26  The preceding insertion is from MS fr. 98, fol. 204r due to an apparent error on MS fr. 344, fol. 157r where “saitisme” appears instead of “centisme.”

27  This insertion is from MS fr. 98, fol. 204r due to the error described in the note above of “saitisme” for “centisme.”

28  The last three insertions are from MS fr. 98, fol. 204r, since these lines are missing in MS fr. 344.

29  This clause does not appear in MS fr. 344, so the words “ne vielx” have been supplied from MS fr. 98 (fol. 204r), which offers the most similar reading.

Translation

73

Elsewhere, Sir Gauvain’s army had fought so hard against Froille, the duke of Germany, that they had driven them over towards where Claudas of the Wasteland and around one hundred of his men were fighting King Ban’s men, who were in great peril. And when the four battalions came together, both sides came to the support of their own. There was a great noise and clamour of swords clashing on helmets. Here, Sir Gauvain was performing extraordinary feats. Never before had anyone seen a single knight fight as marvellously as Gauvain did that day. And the story says that it was now past midday. Then Sir Gauvain came across King Claudas who, with one hundred or so of his men, was fighting against King Ban. And King Ban only had around twenty. He was in great distress when Sir Gauvain came hurtling in, causing the ranks to tremble in his wake. And when he saw that King Ban was in trouble, he rushes between them brandishing his well-made sword. And it happened that Sir Gauvain was the first to clash with King Claudas, who was hell bent on harming King Ban and his men. Sir Gauvain raises his sword to defend King Ban; he aims to strike Claudas on the shoulder, but Claudas counters the blow with his shield. Sir Gauvain strikes so hard that he splits the shield into two pieces, and brings his sword down onto the front of the saddle. He cuts straight through the saddle and slices the horse’s shoulder in two. Both horse and rider fall to the ground in a heap, and Sir Gauvain races past without stopping, because he has not realized who Claudas is. And he strikes a worthy knight from Claudas’s retinue across the shoulder as he passes him, cutting him through to the waist. And then he strikes Arodainas so hard [Cra] that he sends his head flying to the ground. Then he strikes right and left, and metes out such punishment that he has killed many of them and caused them to fall dead at Claudas’s feet in no time at all. He fights so hard that anyone who has known his blows would not dare stand up to him. When King Ban sees the aid that God has sent him, and observes the extraordinary feats performed by this young man, he thanks and praises Him. And then he goes to the young man and says to him, “Gauvain, my dear lord, you are very welcome, and you have done me a great service! So help me God, King Arthur was not mistaken when he gave you the authority to command and lead his men, because he could not have found anyone, older or younger, who would be better than you. And by God, I’m asking you to grant me your friendship from this day forward.” “My lord,” says Sir Gauvain, “I will grant it to you most graciously, now and in the future, and thank you very much for this request. But I must go and find my brothers and my cousins and my companions, if you don’t mind. I’ve lost them and I don’t know what has happened to them. And as soon as I’ve found them, I’ll come back and find you.” “My lord,” says King Ban, “I would have willingly gone with you, but first I must concentrate on finding a way to take revenge on my mortal enemy, the man that you have just struck down.

74 Edition

Et [lors fust la guerre finé30 se il] peüst estre [pris ou mors.” “Comant, sire,”] fa[it messires Gauvains, “mous]trez [lou] moi [li quez est sou.” “Veez lou lai,” fait li rois Bans], “a ces armes [noires florees de croiset]tes31 d’argent, [a cel escut mi partis de vert] et de vermeil, a cel [ymage blanche] de lion, qui est remontez [mellemant] entretandis que vos avoiz [parlé a moi et vos] ensanble.” “Sire,” fet misire[s Gauvains, “ancor] encui porron nos v[enir a poin, ce Deu plaist, et faisons] lor une envaï�e, se [il vos siet, et vez me] tout prest!” “Je ne de[sire autre chose,” fait] li rois Bans, “tant [come lui damaigier]. Ce est cil par qui [j’ai toz les damaiges reseüz.” “Qui] est il, sire?” fet [messires Gauvains. “Sou est Cla] uda[s], li sires de la Des[erte],” [fait li rois Bans, “q]ui tant m’avra [greveit longuemant.” “Comant?”] fet misires Gau[veins], [“S’est sou cil per cui] totes ces genz sont [assamblez?” “Oïl si]re, tout sanz faille,” fait li rois. [“Dont] lor alons,” fet misire Gauveins, “que nos [n’avons] que demorer!” Atant hurtent les [chevax] des esperons cele part ou il vire[nt] le roi Claudas remonter. Et si tost come il les voit venir, il lor [v]ient a l’encontre. Lors veï�ssiez [le chaple et la32 me]lee si grant encontre le rois Ban et [monseig]neur Gauvain, a l’aide qu’il avoient de xxm chevaliers encontre Claudas, qui avoit en sa conpaignie iic fer armez. Si lor tolirent place et chacierent de champ par la me[r]veilles d’armes que li dui conpai[gnons] [fai]soient. Et quant Claudas vit le dom[age] [sor lui] torner, si se fiert en la meslee [lai ou il la voit] [Crb]33 [plus espesse, car molt redotoit ces anemis a ancontrer qui nel menassent fors de la mort. Se ceit il bien, ce il lou pueent a poins tenir. Quant li rois Bans] et misire Gauvein i en voient aler, si hurtent aprés lui des esperons. Et quant cil les voit venir, si [tor]ne en fuie parmi la bataille [sai] et l[ai, et] cil aprés, qui guerpi[r] [n]e le vo[elent ne] lessier. Et se ne fust une [merveille qu’il trove]rent en la ba[taill]e, ja [ne lor fust eschapez]. [Q]ue que [messires Gauv]e[ins] et li rois Bans en[tandoient a la baitaille au roi] Claudas qu’il [porsivoient, si regarde] [mi]sires Gauveins de l’autr[e part] [et voit Agrevain son frere gehir] cont[re terre, lou cheval sor les cors, et Guer]re[her a] p[ié, l’apee el poing. Et d’autre part] rev[oit Galachin, son nevout, qui Frailles, li dus d’Ala]mai[ngne], tenoit [per lou naicel dou hiaume. Et avoit an sa compaignie m homes que tuit li aidoient. Et l’eüssent piesai mort, se ne fust Saigremors de Costantinoble et] G[al]echins, [et messires Yvains, li fiz lou rois Urien, et Yvains li Avoutres, et Ances et Alez, et Yvains a Blanches Mains et Yvain del Lieonnel, et Yvain del Siciel et Yvain d’Esclains, et Dodinauz li Savaiges et Keux d’Estregor, et Kahedins li Petis et li xl compaignons] qui fussent en Ca[rmelide avoc lou roi Artu. 30  This appears as “finee” (i.e., as a past participle) in MSS fr. 98 (fol. 204r) and fr. 9123 (fol. 219v), suggesting that the final “e” has been dropped by our scribe, rather than that it is meant as an adjective.

31  This sentence has been inserted from MS fr. 9123 (fol. 219v) instead of MS fr. 344, because the former appears to be verbally closer to the Bristol Merlin in this instance. While MS fr. 344 reads “armes noires floretees d’argent” (fol. 204r), the Bristol Merlin appears to have had several more words in the space between “armes” and “argent”; in this case, it seems likely that this sentence would have resembled the one given in MS fr. 9123 more closely. 32  The bracketed words here have been supplied based on partially visible letters and readings from other manu­scripts, but it is impossible to be absolutely certain of the wording. 33  This is an approximate placement based on the average number of letters in a line, due to damage at the bottom and cropping at the top of the folio.

Translation

75

And if he could be captured or killed, it would mean the end of this war.” “What, my lord?” says Sir Gauvain, “Show me which one he is.” “He’s over there,” says King Ban, “with the black armour adorned with silver crosslets, and the shield that’s half green, half red, with a white lion on it, the one who has remounted his horse amid the fighting while we’ve been talking together.” “My lord,” says Sir Gauvain, “we can finish this today, if it pleases God. Let’s launch an attack on them, if it pleases you. Here I am, ready to go!” “The only thing I want,” says King Ban “is to cause his downfall. He’s the reason for all of the hardships I have suffered.” “Who is he, lord?” says Sir Gauvain. “It’s Claudas, Lord of the Wasteland,” says King Ban, “who has been plaguing me for so long.” “What?” says Sir Gauvain, “Is he the reason that all these people have come here to fight?” “Yes, lord, without a doubt,” says King Ban. “Then let’s go!” says Sir Gauvain, “What are we waiting for?” And with that, they spur on their horses and head to where they can see Claudas mounting up. And as soon as he sees them coming, he goes to confront them. Then, you would have seen King Ban and Sir Gauvain, who were aided by twenty thousand knights, engage in a great battle and combat with Claudas, who had in his company two hundred armed soldiers. The two companions forced them to draw back and drove them from the battlefield through the extraordinary feats of arms that they performed. And when Claudas saw the tide of battle turn against him, he charges into the battle, where he sees the fray is [Crb] thickest, because he was very afraid of facing these enemies. He knew very well that if they managed to get him in their grasp, they would threaten him with nothing less than death. When King Ban and Sir Gauvain see him riding away, they spur their horses on to follow him. And when he sees them coming, he turns and flees here and there through the battle. And they followed him, refusing to abandon the chase and let him escape. And if it were not for something extraordinary that they encountered amid the battle, he would never have gotten away. While Sir Gauvain and King Ban were pursuing King Claudas, Sir Gauvain glances over to the other side of the battle and sees his brother Agravain lying on the ground with his horse on top of him, and Guerrehes on foot with his sword in his hand. And elsewhere, he sees his nephew, Galachin, who was being held by the nose-piece of his helmet by Froille, the duke of Germany. And Froille had the help of a thousand of his men who were there with him. And they would have cut Galachin to pieces, were it not for Sagremor of Constantinople and Galachin12 and Sir Yvain, son of King Urien, and Yvain the Bastard and Ance and Alez and Yvain of the White Hands and Yvain of Lionnel and Yvain of Sicily and Yvain of Esclain and Dodinel the Wild and Kay of Estragor and Kahedin the Small, and forty companions who had been at Carmelide with King Arthur. 12  Galachin, is of course, the knight being rescued; this appears to be a scribal error. Some other manu­scripts read “Guerrehes” instead (see, for example, MS fr. 9123, fol. 220v).

76 Edition

Cist] liii [chevaliers soustenoient la baitaille des m, que tolir ne lor] po[orent les iii compaignons] qui [estoient abait]uz. Et [per maintes fois lor avoient jai tolut a] fine for[ce, mais lors estoient jai tant a desus, car tan]t a[voient fait d’armes que tuit estoient l]assé et [mait. Et quant messire Gauvains voit lou] meschief et [lou peril a ces] fr[eres et a ces amis, si] dist au roi [Ban: “Sire, ne vos poist mies, car je vois asouz] aidier cui [je ne doi faillir jusc’a la mort!” Lor mostre soz qui estoient a si grant mesaise. Et quant li rois Bans lou voit, se li dist: “Poignez, sire]! Car [n’avez que demorer.” Et cil hurte celle part tant com chevax puet] p[lus aler, et li rois Bans aprés. Et se] f[ie]rent [auz si duremant que tuit li rans an so] nt fremi[s et tramblez, si duremant i ferirent. Et fierent les ii premiers qu’il ancontrerent que mors les abaitent toz es]tend[uz. Si s’an viennent celle part ou Agrevains et Guerreh] es es[toient abaitus. Si firent et abaitent a destre et a cenestre si duremant que nus a cop nes ose atandre, ains lor font voie toz li plus hardis, car an poc d’oure les ont coneüz come preudoumes et boin chevalier. Et quant Agrevains et Guerrehers voient lo secors, si saut chascuns sor un cheval, l’escut a col, c’assez an troverent anviron az de biaus et de boins. Et quant il furent remontez, si rancomancerent l’estor molt merveillous. Mais Galachins n’i estoit mies del tot a aise, qui gissoit ancor a terre, si lou demenoit Frailles trop vilmant. Quant messire Gauvains voit Galachin an tel tormant antre les piez dou cheval Fraille, si l’am poise molt formant. Il prant une lance fort et agüe qu’il tolit a un Alemans; si hurte lou cheval des esperons et se fiert permi si roidemant qu’il an abait plus de vii ansoiz qu’il puist avant venir. Et quant il aproche d’az, si baise la lance et fiert si duremant lou roi Fraille34 tres permi l’escut que tot li perse. Si s’an vient li fers dou glaive desuz lou hauberc menut maillié, mais onques ne s’an demantit. Mais tote voies il l’anpoint si duremant qu’il lou porte del cheval a terre, tot estandut, si roidemant que molt l’ait blessié et quassé a cheval. Puez prant lou boin cheval per la raingne, et i fait monter Galachin, que molt ait grant volanté et molt grant coraige ait de vangier son anui se il an puet an leu venir. [Cva]35 Et il si fist ne demorait mi]e grantment, car si tost come il fu remontez, si tost se fiert entre ses anemis mes la ou il vit le duc Froile remonter entre sa gent. Si le rabat [en]tre lor meins molt vilainement, et il ot droit, car molt li avoit fet grant let.

34  MS fr. 344 makes an error here: Froille is a duke, not a king.

35  This is an approximate placement based on the average number of characters in a line, due to damage at the bottom and cropping at the top of the folio.

Translation

77

These fifty-three knights continued to fight against the thousand enemies, but they were unable to rescue the three companions who had been unhorsed. And there were many times that they would have taken them back through sheer force, but they had lost the upper hand by this point, because they had fought so hard that they were completely drained and exhausted. And when Sir Gauvain sees his brothers and his friends in such great distress and peril, he says to King Ban, “Forgive me, my lord, but I’m going to help them, because I’ll die before I abandon them!” Then he points out the knights who were in such great distress. And when King Ban sees this, he says, “Let’s attack, my Lord! What are we waiting for?”13 And Gauvain spurs his horse over to where they are as fast as it can gallop, and King Ban goes after him. And they charge through the ranks so powerfully that they make them all shake and tremble. And they strike the first two knights that they encounter dead to the ground. They come to the place where Agravain and Guerrehes had been unhorsed. They strike and cut down men left and right, so fiercely that no one dares to stand up to them; even the bravest knights make way for them, because it did not take them very long to recognize that they are worthy men and good knights. And when Agravain and Guerrehes see that they are being rescued, they each leap onto a horse— because they could find plenty around them that were of fine quality—with their shields around their necks. And when they were remounted, the battle was reinvigorated with extraordinary ferocity. But Galachin was in a desperate situation: he was still lying on the ground, and Froille was abusing him very shamefully. When Sir Gauvain sees Galachin undergoing such torture underneath the hooves of Froille’s horse, he is greatly dismayed. He snatches a strong and sharp lance from one of the German knights, and he spurs his horse forward, charging so swiftly that he cuts down seven men before he can reach them. And as he approaches, he lowers his lance and strikes King Froille14 right through the shield, penetrating it completely. The head of the lance glanced over the hauberk, which was tightly mailed, but it did not pierce it. But nevertheless, he struck Froille so hard that he knocked him from his horse and laid him out flat on the ground, and it was so forceful that he was badly wounded and broken from the fall.15 Then Sir Gauvain takes the fine horse by the reins and gives it to Galachin to mount; and Galachin was very keen to do so, because he fully intended to avenge the harm done to him if he had the chance. [Cva] And he wasted very little time in doing so, because as soon as he was remounted, he charges through his enemies towards the place where he could see Duke Froille remounting among his men. He strikes Froille violently from out of their hands, and he was right to do so, because he had done him a great deal of harm. 13  The Old French expression “n’i avons que demorer” literally means “we do not have to stay”; we have opted for a more idiomatic translation here to convey the general sense. 14  This is most likely a scribal error, as Froille is in fact a duke.

15  The manu­script—which, in this case, is MS fr. 344—reads “que molt l’ait blessié et quassé a cheval” (fol. 156v) (he was badly wounded and broken on the horse). “Cheval” may be a misreading for “cheoir” (fall) (as found on MS fr. 98, fol. 204v: “que moult le blesa et quaissa a cheoir”), or perhaps an abbreviation of a longer sentence that said that he fell from his horse; in any case, the translation has been corrected accordingly for the sake of readability.

78 Edition

Et li ala et revint par desus le cors plus de vii foiz avant qu’il peüst avoir secors de sa gent, car trop li estoient esloignié en la grant bataille. Et quant vient aucune foiz qu’il l’ont remonté a cheval, et il le rabat par cop d’espee si vilainement que si home n’i atendent mes que [l]a mort. Et molt avoient gran poor qu’il ne fust na[v]ré a mort. Or dit li contes que einsi lor abat Galechin vii foiz ou viii, ainçois qu’il puist avoir aide de nul home qu’il eüst ne qui li peüsent tolir des meins, ne lui remuer de la place, tant estoit dolenz et corociez vers [lui d]es ennuiz que il li avoit fez. Ne ne li seroit mie [assez ce il] l’avoit tout desmenbré, car molt est dolenz [et corresi]ez en cuer dedenz de la honte qu’il li avoit fe[ite. Si lou] montre misires Gauvein au roi Ban: [“veez, sire], de Galechin mon cosin, coment il se con[tient vi]guereusement entre ses anemis! Et [il ait droit], car molt a en lui de bones teiches par coi il [doit av]oir proesce en lui. Car il est biaus et genz [et] [courtoi] et avenanz, et bien enseigniez vers totes [gens].”36 “[Cer]tes,” fet li rois Bans, “bien se puet vanter [hardie]ment cil qui l’a a compaignon qu’il a uns [des boins] [c]hevaliers del monde. Et Diex soit aorez de sa bon[té] [et de sa] [p]roesce.” A cest mot qu’il ont dit voient [les baitailles] remuer, et les unes genz parmi les au[tres] [toz] [p]elle et melle car li rois Artu et si conpaig[nons] [de la] [Tab]le Roonde ont tant37 feru et chaplé qu’il [firent a fin]e force et maugré lor38 flatir la gent [Poinson] [An]toine et la gent Randol le seneschal sor [la gent] [Clau]das de la Deserte, tout en un esfoï�s,39 et [sus la gent a duc] [F]roile, le duc d’Alemaigne, qui Diex [doust] [enco]nbrier par l’anui qu’il avoit fet a [...]-et le neveu40 monseigneur Gauvein. I[qui ot mol][t grant e]ntaseï�z de gent et si grant pou[driere] [levee que] se ce fust a plein champ, autresi [com il estoit] enmi les prez, ja nus n’i veï�st une [soule goute. Et quant] les iiii eschieles vinrent ensan[ble], [si i ot molt gra]nt [foison] de gent, si serrent et [estrangnent li uns l’atre. Mai]s molt sont esfreé [de dures ancontrees qu’il] ont eües. Quant li rois [Artus et li rois Bohors] [vo]ient que cil lor sont es[chapez] [et mellez avoc les] autres conpaignons, si les [anchausent molt] [vigu] ereusement et se refie[rt] [a la bataille tuit] [pel]le et melle. Iluec ot grant [baitaille et grant estor].

36  The manu­script again diverges from MS fr. 344 here, so additions to this clause have been supplied from MS fr. 98, fol. 204v. 37  The manu­script reads “ontant feru,” which has been attributed to scribal error and corrected.

38  The use of an indirect object is unusual here; MS fr. 344, fol. 157v has “magré qu’il an eüssent flaitir […].”

39  MS fr. 344, fol. 157v has “esfrois,” while MS fr. 98, fol. 204v has “effroi.” The line does not appear in MS fr. 9123. This would suggest the Bristol Merlin scribe, or that of his exemplar, misread the word and accidentally gave a form of “esfouir,” which makes less sense, but which is still not entirely absurd; accordingly, it has not been corrected. 40  Elsewhere in this manu­script and in other manu­scripts, Galeschin is Gauvain’s cousin. Part of the page has been torn away here, leaving a partially visible word ending in “-et.” This could be a confusion for Guerrehet, but since it is not possible to determine what this word would be for certain, we have signalled the lacuna with an ellipsis.

Translation

79

Galachin rode his horse back and forth over Froille’s body more than seven times before his men were able to rescue him, because they were too far away from the main battle. And when they did manage to get Froille back on his horse, Galachin knocks him off again with such a rough sword blow that his men expect him to be no less than dead. And they were very afraid that he was mortally wounded. Now, the story tells us that Galachin strikes Froille16 down seven or eight times before he was able to be rescued from him and taken away from there by any of his men, such was Galachin’s anguish and rage over the injury he had done to him. Even if he had completely dismembered him, it would not be enough for Galachin, because he is so anguished and enraged in his heart from the shame that Froille had caused him. Sir Gauvain points him out to King Ban: “My lord, that’s Galachin, my cousin. See how aggressively he deals with his enemies! And he’s right to do so, because he has many good qualities that all contribute to his valiance: he’s handsome, and noble, and courtly, and good-looking, and well-mannered towards everyone.” “Indeed,” says King Ban, “any of his companions could proudly boast that they’re a friend of one of the greatest knights in the world. And may God be praised for his virtue and valiance.” As they are speaking, they see the armies all shift over as as one skirmish runs into another and brings the battalions together, because King Arthur and his companions of the Round Table have attacked and fought so hard that they forced the armies of Poince Antoine and Randol the Seneschal to fall back, despite their best efforts, and drove them straight into the armies of Claudas of the Wasteland and Froille, the duke of Germany— may God punish him for the injury that he did to Galachin, Gauvain’s nephew—, creating a huge commotion. Everyone was crushed together, and they all kicked up so much dust that, whether you were out in the meadows or right in the battlefield, you would not have been able to see a thing. And when the four battalions came together, there was a huge crowd of people, pressed tightly against one another. But they are very shaken by the harrowing battles they have been fighting. When King Arthur and King Bohort see that Poince Antoine and Randol the Seneschal’s armies had escaped them and had joined with Claudas’s men, they pursue them relentlessly and charge headlong back into the battle. There, the fray and fighting were formidable.

16  The manu­script reads “lor abat” (he knocks them down), which is inconsistent with the context, in which only Froille is being attacked by Galachin. In line with readings from other manu­scripts (with the exception of MS fr. 344, which also gives the reading “lor”), we have translated “lor” as “Froille” to make the sentence read more clearly in English.

80 Edition

Iluec n’orent mestier [li couars jangleors,41 que lou soir] se vont vantant [as chaminees, qui n’ont mies lou c]uer ne le har[demant d’esgarder souz qui por] pris et por [honor conquerre ont laissiés lor terr]res et [lor païs. Ce dist li contes que molt i firent d’armes li compaignons lou roi Artu et li prisiez chevaliers de la Table Reonde ne li rois Bohors ne furent mies a cejor.42 Et d’atre part li rois Bans et messires Gauvains et sa compaignie i firent si grant ossicion de gent que tuit li prez sont covers et [Cvb]43 sanglanz des mors et des navrez. Si ot si grant noise et si grant criee que de iiii grans lues an poïssiez oïr la rumor] et la noise et le son des cors et [des] [b]usines. Quant cil del chastel de Trebes oient les criz et la huee des genz dehors, si se merveillent tuit que ce puet estre. Si montent as murs et as quernevax44 por veoir et por esgarder quel merveille ce puet estre. Si en cort la novele tant que les ii sereurs roï�nes sont montees as fenestres de la mestre tor en haut, et quant eles avinrent amont et regardent contreval les prez, et voient une45 grant aünee de gent que onques mes jor de lor vie veï�sent, et la greignor bataille qui onques fust veüe. Et voient le dragon que Keuz li seneschaus portoit, et rendoit a la fie si grant brandon de feu que li airs, qui estoit anubliz de la poudriere que estoit levee, en devenoit rouge et vermeulz iluec environ ou li dragons estoit. Et quant les ii dames et les genz de la vile voient cel signe que onques mes n’avoient veü tel, si se seignent de la merveille qu’il en ont. Lors font enquerre et demander quiex genz ce sont qui se conbatent a ceuls de l’ost, et qui cel enseigne est. Et quant li mesages vint a la bataille, si trouva i chevalier del roiaume de Logres qui remuoit son hiaume et remetoit uns autres tout frés, car il ne li valoit mes riens, et cil avoit non Bretel. Et quant li vallez vint a lui, si le salue, et cil li rent son salu molt debonerement. Si refet li vallez, “je vos vorroie prier par amors, que vos me deï�siez, par debenereté quieux genz ce sont qui a cest ost se conbatent, se ce estoit chose que i eüsiez ne honte ne domage ou mal a dire.” “Biaus douz amis,” fet Bretel, “ce poez dire laienz en cel chastel a ceuls qui vos i ont envoié que c’est li rois Bans de Benoï�c et li rois Bohorz de Gaunes, qui ont amené le roi Artu de Bretaigne la Grant—qui est lor sires liges—por rescorre lor terres et lor paï�s de lor anemis, qui a tort et a pechié ont coru sus euls. Mes or aprouche li termes qu’il en avront lor guerredon et la merite, se Deux sauve la force et la vertu et la poissance le roi Artu! Et veez la l’enseigne a cel dragon que li seneschaus porte.” 41  The word order is slightly different in MS fr. 344, fol. 157v (“Iqui n’orent li couars jangleors mestier”); however, the sentence structure of the Bristol Merlin manu­script has been preserved in the composite sentence.

42  A plural verb is used for a singular subject here. In MS fr. 98, the verb has two subjects: “ne le roi artus ne le roi bohors ne furent mie a seiour” (fol. 205r), which suggests that the source manu­script for MS fr. 344 contained a similar line that has been abbreviated, possibly in error. 43  This is an approximate placement based on the average number of letters per line, due to damage at the bottom and cropping at the top of the folio.

44  This is a very unusual spelling of the plural form of “crenel”; however, this word seems to be subject to a wide variety of spellings across the different manu­scripts (for example, “creniaus” (MS fr. 105, fol. 256r and MS Arsenal 3482, fol. 206v; “cretiaus” (MS fr. 770, fol. 225r); “carniaus” (MS fr. 9123, 221r). 45  Scribe A writes “.i.ne” here and on another occasion (see below) where “une” is meant. The reason for this form is unclear.

Translation

81

There, there was no room for cowardly braggarts, who go around at night boasting on the streets, but who have neither the heart nor the courage to look in the eye those who have left their lands and their countries to gain honour and distinguish themselves. The story tells us that King Arthur’s companions and the esteemed knights of the Round Table fought very hard, and King Bohort was not slacking either. And elsewhere, King Ban and Sir Gauvain and his company slayed so many people that the whole battlefield was covered and [Cvb] bloody with the dead and injured. There was such great noise, and such a great clamour, that the racket and the noise and the sound of people and trumpets could be heard from four leagues away. When the people inside the Castle of Trebes hear the uproar and the shouts of the armies outside, they all wonder what it could be. They climb up onto the walls and the battlements to look and to marvel at whatever it was. The news spread so far that the two queens, who are sisters, climb up to the windows at the top of the main tower. And when they reached the top and look down onto the fields, they see the biggest horde of people that they have ever seen in their lives, and the greatest battle that ever was seen. And they see the dragon that is carried by Keux the Seneschal, and such huge flames were shooting out of its mouth that the air around it, which was dark from all the dust, became bright red and crimson. And when the two ladies and the townspeople see this banner, the likes of which they had never seen before, they make the sign of the cross in amazement. Then the ladies send a young man to ask and find out whose soldiers these are, who are fighting against the army, and whose banner this is. And when this messenger arrived at the battle, he found a knight from the kingdom of Logres who was removing his damaged helmet, which was of no more use to him, and changing it for a fresh one. And his name was Bretel. And when the young man approached him, he greeted Bretel, and Bretel greeted him back very graciously. The young man says, “I would like to ask you, in friendship, if you would be so kind as to let me know whose army this is, if you are at liberty to tell me without incurring shame or detriment.” “My dear, kind friend,” says Bretel, “you can tell the people of the castle who have sent you that it is King Ban of Benoic and King Bohort of Gaunes, who have brought King Arthur of Great Britain—their liege lord—to rescue their lands and their countries from their enemies, who have sinfully and wrongfully attacked them. But the time has come for them to get the punishment they deserve, if God preserves the strength and power of King Arthur! And you can see his dragon banner over there, which the Seneschal is carrying.”

82 Edition

Quant li vallé entent la parole de Bretel, si le comanda a Dieu et cil le mercie de ce qu’il li avoit dit. Et cil li respont que a Dieu soit il comandez. Si s’en part atant li vallez, si liez et si joianz des noveles qu’il a oï�es que tart li est que racontees les ait as ii roï�nes qui lasus l’atendent. Si s’en vient la greignor aleüre qu’il puet del cheval trere tant qu’il vient es palés ou les ii roï�nes l’atendent. Ne nus ne li set tant demander noveles de cels dehors, quieux genz ce sont, que il lor vousist dire fors que tant: “qui savoir les voudra, si me sui ne tresque el palés!” [E]insi s’en vet li mesages tresc’au palés. Et quant les dames le voient venir, si li vont a l’en[con]tre aval por la grant plenté de gent [que elles] [v]irent aprés lui venir. Et quant eles [...]-es devant lui,46 si lor conta la no[velle] [si haut qu]e tuit cil l’entendent qui [Dra] or le suivaient, tout einsi come Bretel li ot contee. Et quant les dames et cil de leanz l’oient que c’est li rois Bans et li rois Bohorz, qui ont amené le roi Artu, lor seignor, si ne fu pas la joie petite que il en orent. Lors s’en montent tuit et toutes en haut por veoir la bataille et por esgarder le plus riche tornoiement de cels de fors qu’il veï�sent onques mes jor de lor vies. Et cil se conbatent tant que molt les lassent et travaillent li un et li autre. Mes cil del chastel n’orent gueres regardé le [tourn]oiement de ceuls de fors quant il voient de [lor] [de]stre venir iiii banieres de la forest de Briosque, qui s’en venoient molt soef l’une devant l’autre, long a loing le tre[t de] iiii arbalestees. Et quant les banieres aproch[ent], si conoissent que la premiere est des arm[es Antia]ume, le seneschal de Benoÿc, et la seconde [des] [ar]mes Grassien de Trebes, et la tierce des ar[mes] Pharien de Colnant, i chastel a vii liues de Gaunes. Et la quarte eschiele [si e]st [des] armes Leonce, le sei[gn]eur de Paerne. Et quant cil de lai[ens] [l]a [voient], si en font molt grant joie. Si fuissent molt volentiers ois[s]u fors de [le]anz qui [lor lai47 e]st, car molt i a de preudes [b]achelers, mes ne pot estre, que desf[e]nd[u] lor [fu] si ch[er] com il avoient lor [vies] et lor cors. Et Aliaumes48 aproche toutes voies. Lors se regarde [li rois Bans] et conoist les banieres qui aprochent. [Si les monstre] a monseigneur Gauvein. “Sire,” fait il, [“or sai] ge bien que par tans seront nostre anem[is] [(mis) a la voie].49 Je voi la tieux iiii banieres qui nos am[oinne]nt molt riche secors et bel!” “Et ou sont [...]50?” fet misires Gauveins. “Veez les la.” [Lors li monstre] a l’espee. Et quant misires Gauveins les voit, si set bien qu’il i a molt grant force de gent. Lors li dist misires Gauvein: 46  The sentence in the Bristol fragments is incomplete due to torn parchment, but supplying the missing words is not straightforward because the wording differs verbally from other manu­scripts containing the α redaction. Whereas the messenger is the subject of this sentence in other manu­ scripts, the ladies are the subject here (e.g., MS fr. 344, fol. 158r: “et quant il vient devant elles”). An ellipsis signals the lacuna.

47  From the remaining ink in the Bristol Merlin, it is improbable that the text once read “lor lai,” as it does in MS fr. 344, fol. 158r. However, since we cannot determine the original text, we have made this insertion for coherence. 48  Variant spelling of “Antiaume.”

49  The word “mis” has been inserted in round brackets here because it appears earlier in the sentence in MS fr. 344 (“[...] seront mis nos anemis a la voie,” fol. 158r).

50  There is a single word missing here, but it does not appear in other manu­scripts so we have signalled the lacuna with an ellipsis.

Translation

83

When the young man hears what Bretel has said, he commended him to God and thanks him for the information. And Bretel commended him to God in return. With that, the young man leaves, and he is so happy and delighted by the news that he has heard that he cannot wait to tell the two queens, who are waiting for him up in the castle. He gallops as fast as his horse will carry him until he arrives at the great hall, where the two queens are waiting for him. Everyone was desperate to ask him who was fighting outside, but he would tell them nothing, saying only, “anyone who would like to know should follow me to the great hall!” In this way, the messenger went up to the great hall. And when the ladies see him arrive, they come out to meet him because they saw that he was being followed by a huge crowd. And when they reach him, he delivers the news loud enough that everyone who [Dra] was following him could hear it, and he recounted exactly what Bretel had told him. And when the ladies and the people who were there hear that it is King Ban and King Bohort, who have brought their lord, King Arthur, they were delighted in no small measure. Then they all climb up to the tower to watch the battle and to see the most magnificent combat that they had ever seen in their lives taking place outside. And they were fighting so hard that each side was exhausting and fatiguing the other. But the spectators in the castle had barely begun watching the battle outside when they saw on their right four banners emerging from the forest of Briosque, which were advancing steadily one in front of the other, with a distance of four crossbow shots between them. And as the banners get closer, they recognize the coat of arms on the first banner as those of Antiaume, the seneschal of Benoic, and the second as those of Grascien of Trebes, and the third as belonging to Pharien of Colnant, a castle that is seven leagues away from Gaunes. And the fourth battalion has the banner of Leonce, the lord of Paerne. And when the people in the castle saw this, they were overjoyed. Those who were inside would have happily ventured out, because there are many courageous young men among them, but they were forbidden from doing so if they valued their bodies and their lives. And Antiaume is drawing ever closer. Then King Ban looks around and recognizes the banners that are approaching. He points them out to Sir Gauvain. “Sir,” he says, “now I know that our enemies will soon be sent on their way. I can see four banners that are bringing us powerful reinforcements.” “And where are they?” says Sir Gauvain. “There they are, look.” And King Ban indicates them with his sword. And when Sir Gauvain sees them, he knows that an enormous force is coming. Then he says,

84 Edition

“Sire, sire, or nos treons i poi ensus, et querons nos amis et nos conpaignons, tant que nos les aions, que par tanz ne puet estre qu’il ni ait grant foleï�z. Et quant nos serons tuit asanblé, si nos metons au devant par [la ou] [vos cuidiez qu’il] s’en aillent. Et savés vos [por coi jel di? Jel di] por ce, quant [nos les vairons foïr lai ou] nos serons enbuché, qu’il soient si [dure]ment chastié que, quant li remanans [vanrait an son] pa[ïs, que] il puissent dire et [tesmoi]gnier que il [n’aient] mie trové ne ribauz ne garçons, [et] que autre foiz se gardent d’entrer [an nostre terre et] es fiez le rois Artus [de Bretagne la Grant]. Et bien en soient sovenant [que il an la fin] n’en porroien a chief venir.” [“Sire,” fait li rois] Bans, “et ge veil qu’il soit fet tout [a vostre] [vo]lenté.” Lors s’en [part] li uns de l’autre et traie[nt] a une part hor[s] [del] [tournoiement] les conpaignons de la Table Ro[onde] pre[m]ie[re]ment, et puis le roi Artu et le roi Bohort, et puis aprés les xv chevaliers qui furent sou[doiers] en Carmelide, et puis les xvi damoisiax qui chevaliers estoient novel. Et quant il furent asanblé, si furent par conte iiic chevaliers et dui, et tout molt preuz, la flor de l’ost. Et tandis com il se sevroient a une part, et Antiaumes li seneschaus se fiert en la bataille de si grant aleüre come cheval le pot plus tost porter. Iluec ot grant froisseï�z de lances et grant chaple des espees et des hiaumes. Iluec fu hautement escriee l’enseigne le roi Ban de Benoÿc. Si i ot molt grant abateï�z d’omes et de [Drb] chevaus. Et quant Graciens i parvint, si se feri enz si durement que touz les covint a remuer de la place et guerpir la riviere, si s’espandirent les conpaignons aval les prez. Si comencent une bataille si grant et si mortiex dont maint fil de franche mere furent mort, sanglent a mort et a pechié, qui onques ne l’avoient deservi, dont Seinte Eglise abessa durement, car il en morurent que d’une part que d’autre xlm. Et tot [fut] par la deleauté de Claudas de la Deserte, qui [puis] en ot si mal guerre[don], [ainz] qu’il moreüst de mort, qu’il en mo[rut] vis [dese]ritez sor terre, si come l’estoire le tes[moigne]. Bohors en prist puis si grant venjance aprés [sou] que Lancelot ot le roiaume de Logres en [sa] [main], aprés la mort au roi Artus, qu’il en prist la [teste] toute chauv[e] enmi la forest de Darnan[tes], ou il l’encontra come paumier, [car il] s’estoit [partis] [del] roiaume [sa]nz le seü de nul home, a tot iiic cout[iaz, dont il cuid]oit ocirre par traï�son outre lui [et Lieonel, son] [f] rere, et Hestor, son cosin, qui tant fu preux [et boins] chevaliers et hardiz, einsi come li contes vos [d]e[vis]é a ça avant. Et si orroiz coment il en fu sesiz par Ivaine, qui tant l’ama, la Dame del La[c] qui Lancelot norri tant qu’il [fu] [chevaliers], et lui meï�mes et Lionnel. Mes atant se [taist or li contes de ce]s chos[es] raconter, et repere [a la baitaille ou le]s olz se conbatent a pleins chans dev[ant li chastel] de Trebes.

Translation

85

“My lord, my lord, now let us fall back and look for our friends and our companions until we find them, because this place will be overrun before long. And when we have gathered them together, we should go to wherever you think the enemy will flee and wait there. And do you know why I’m saying this? I’m saying this because when we see the enemy retreating towards our ambush, they will be so sorely punished that when the survivors go back to their countries, they will be able to say and testify that those they encountered were much more than good-for-nothing layabouts; and in future, they will think twice about setting foot in our lands and the fiefdoms of King Arthur of Great Britain. And may they never forget that they would fail in the end.” “My lord,” says King Ban, “May it be done exactly as you wish.” Then they separate in order to find the companions of the Round Table first of all, and bring them outside of the main battle. They then do the same with King Arthur and King Bohort, and then afterwards the fifteen knights who were enlisted in Carmelide, and then the sixteen young men who were newly-dubbed knights. And when they were all together, they numbered three hundred and two knights, all of them exceptionally brave and the best the army has to offer. And as they were withdrawing to one side, Antiaume the Seneschal charges into the battle as fast as his horse can carry him. Here, there were lances breaking all around, and a great clamour of swords striking helmets. Here, the battle cry of King Ban of Benoic was ringing out. Men and horses were being cut down everywhere. [Drb] And when Grascien arrived, he charged into the fray so forcefully that everyone was forced to give way and abandon the riverside, scattering the companions down into the fields. They started a battle that was so great and so deadly that many sons of noble mothers were killed and bleeding, which was wrong17 and sinful because they did not deserve it. The Holy Church incurred great damage because of this, because forty thousand of them died on both sides. And all of this was due to the disloyalty of Claudas of the Wasteland, who would be so thoroughly punished for it before he died that he would die in poverty, disinherited of his lands, as the story attests. When Lancelot held the Kingdom of Logre after King Arthur’s death, Bohort18 took such great revenge on him, because Claudas went into the forest of Darnantes, disguised as a penitent with a shaved head, where he met Bohort. Claudas had left his kingdom with three hundred men armed with daggers, intending to treacherously murder Bohort, his brother Lionel, and his cousin Hestor, who were good, worthy, and brave knights, just as the story will tell you in due course. And you will hear how he was captured by Yvain (who was a great friend of his), the Lady of the Lake (who had raised Lancelot until he became a knight), Bohort himself, and Lionnel. But now the story falls silent about this and returns to the battle, where the armies are fighting out in the open fields outside the Castle of Trebes.

17  The expression “a mort et a pechié” (deathfully and sinfully) does not work syntagmatically, and is presumably a corruption of an expression found in other manu­script versions, “a tort et a pechiez” (MS fr. 98, fol. 205v). The translation has followed MS fr. 98 here for the sake of readability.

18  The Bohort referred to here is the son of King Bohort who appears in the current narrative.

86 Edition

Or dist li contes que molt fu grant la bataille et li estors mort[ieux] as pleins chans devant li [chastel de Trebes, lai ou les ii eschielles de Benoïc ce sont mellees as gens lou duc Frail]le d’Alemaigne et as genz [Poinson Antone, que] tuit estoient pelle et me[l]le [avoc les gen]z le roi Ar[tu]. Et se conbatoient molt durement, et [d’une part] et d’autre. [Mais quant il c]e f[urent es]ten[dus aval] les chanz, l’en ne sot l[esquels] en orent [lou piour, car] cil deve[rs] Clau[das] [est]oient encore [lxvm tu]it conbatant, [et cil dev]ers le roi A[rtu n’est]oient pa[s] pl[us d]e xlviiim, et si se ten[oient] [au]ques parigal. Car li [ccc] [co]npaignon [s’estoient] tret a [une part, chascuns soi quart de compaignons, et s’] afe[içoient lor hiaumes et] resen[gloien]t e[t ranfress]isoient lor chevax. [Car si tost] com [il s’an fur]ent p[ar]t[is], si re[ncomanser]ent les genz [lou roi Claudas] en chanz molt f[ierem]ent, et reüs[ere]nt [saz del] roiaume de Logres plus de de[mi]e liue [loi]ng del chastel. [Et fir]ent a fine force [issir] et guerpir les tentes et les [pauvill]ons qu’il avoient pris et sa[isis]. Mes ne dem[orait pais] longuement que [li] aferes ala tout autrement. [E]ntretandis que li Romein et li [Alemans, et] cil de Gaule, et cil de la Deserte ba[ioit] a des[confiure] cels del roiaume de Logres et de la Petite Bretaigne, qui en avoient orendr[oit] le poior, et hui toute jor en avoient eu le mellor, si se merveilloient molt que lor proesces estoent51 devenues. Mes cil n’i estoient mie qui le grant esfort et la grant merveille d’armes avoient tote jor fait. Si en furent molt esbahi et molt desconforté, que d’els ne savoient il nule novele. Et nequedent si se desfendent chascuns au melz qu’il pueent, car bien sevent que tuit sont52 [Dva] mort se il ont ceulz perduz qui a tout meschiés recovroient et fesoient les efforz et les merveilles d’armes. Entretandis qu’il estoient en tel torment, vint Fariens de Gaunes, l’enseigne en la mein, a tout vm fer armez. Et quant li rois Claudas les voit venir, si les conoist molt bien a la baniere. Si les redouta molt, car autres foiz l’avoit essaié en meintes manieres. Lors sevra une partie de sa gent a une part, et dit a Poinçon Antoine et a Fraile que il pensent de bien fere et de ronpre lor anemis. “Et ge irai,” fet il, “encontrer ceuls que je voi la venir novelement de lor enbuschement. Et se vos me poez tant fere que vos les metez a la voie de cels qui ci viennent, vos deliverrai ge bien. Et sachiez que li uns des hons qui plus m’avra neü et grevé de ceste guerre les maine et guie, et s’aventure avenoit que il fust veincuz ou pris ou abatuz, il avroient perdu i de lor mellors menbres. Alez, que n’i avez que demorer! Orr i53 parra coment voz le feroiz!”

51  While this may be an error, it is also northwestern dialectal form of “estoient” and so has been retained. 52  The word “sont” is repeated at the top of the verso.

53  This seems to be a transcription error for “or i” (MS fr. 344 has “or i” (fol. 158v), while MS fr. 9123 (fol. 205v) reads “or y”).

Translation

87

Now, the story tells us that there was an enormous battle and a deadly fray in the open fields outside the Castle of Trebes, where the two battalions from Benoic were fighting in and among the armies of Froille, the duke of Germany, and Poince Antoine, who had become mingled together with King Arthur’s men. And both sides were fighting fiercely. But when they became spread out across the fields, it was impossible to say which side was losing, because Claudas’s army was still sixty-five thousand men strong, and King Arthur had no more than forty-eight thousand, and they considered themselves to be more or less equally matched. This was because the three hundred companions had temporarily withdrawn from the battle, and were repairing their helmets, re-fitting their saddles, and allowing their horses to rest. For that reason, Claudas’s men began to pursue19 the knights from the kingdom of Logres relentlessly again through the fields as soon as they had left, driving them more than half a league away from the castle. And they forced them to leave and abandon the tents and pavillions that they had taken and seized from them. But it would not be long until the tables were turned. While the Romans, and the Germans, and the Gauls, and those from the Wasteland were attempting to defeat the armies from the kingdom of Logres and Brittany—who were currently being overpowered, even though they had had the advantage so far that day—the latter were wondering what had become of their valour. However, these were not the knights who had been making huge efforts and performing extraordinary feats of arms all day. They were very frightened and dismayed, because they had not heard any news of the others. And nevertheless, they defend themselves as best they can, because they know very well that they are as good as [Dva] dead if they have lost their companions who were able to withstand all adversity and perform extraordinary feats of arms. While they were struggling in despair, Pharien of Gaunes arrived, banner in hand, with five thousand armed knights. And when King Claudas sees them coming, he recognizes his banner straight away. He was filled with dread, because Pharien had put him to the test in many ways before. Then he separated off a part of his army and took them over to one side, and he tells Poince Antoine and Froille that he means to succeed in destroying their enemies. “And I will go,” he says, “to attack those knights over there, who I see are coming out from where they have been waiting in ambush. And if you could help me by driving them into the path of their attackers, I will rid us of them. And you should know that the man who’s leading and guiding them has caused me more harm and damage than anyone else in this war, and if he were to be defeated, or captured, or cut down, they would lose one of their most important assets. Go, what are you waiting for? Now they’ll see what you can do!”

19  The manu­script reads “si re[ncomanser]ent les genz [lou roi Claudas] en chanz molt f[ierem] ent” (literally: Claudas’s men re-started very fiercely in the fields”). It is possible that “en chanz” is a misreading for “l’enchasse” (the pursuit), which is the object of “recommencer” in MS fr. 98 (fol. 205v). Whether or not this is the intended reading, English syntax requires a noun for this sentence to function syntactically, and “pursuit” makes sense in the context.

88 Edition

Atant s’en part Claudas a tout xm fer armez, et chevauchent encontre Pharien, les escuz pris par les enarmes, les lances esloigniees, enclins desouz les hiaumes, serré. Et quant Phariens les voit venir, si li vient a l’encontre molt hardiement, come cil qui molt estoit preuz et hardiz, et vigueresis54 de cuer, et sage de guerre, et amesurez, et loiaux desor touz ceuls de son paï�s. Et quant il s’entr’aprochent, si s’entrelessent corre de si grant aleüre come chevaus les porent porter plus tost, les lances souz les esseles. Si en i ot molt abatu des uns et des autres, mes molt en fu a Phariens granz li meschiez, car li Claudas estoient encor xm et li Pharien n’estoient pas plus de vm. Iluec ot estor perilleus et durement feru, car li Pharien estoient freschement venu et li Claudas estoient las et debatu, si i perdirent plus tant portant que cil ne firent, et se cil ne fusent si grant foison de gent, tuit fussent desconfit mes toutes voies les covint reüser vers la forest dont il estoient venu. [Q]uant Claudas voit que cil s’en vont, si cuident vraiement que il lor soient tuit venu. Si les tient si corz qu’il n’ont pooir de recovrer, ne tant ne quant. Si en est Farien si dolenz qu’a par un pou que il n’enrage. Si escrie “Gaunes!” sovent et menu. Mes riens ne li vaut, que il sont si entré en la voie que bien fere ne de lui ne d’autre n’i a mestier. Mes molt s’en vont li gentil chevalier noblement, et dont il i avoit a grant plenté, car il sont remés derriers les fuianz tiex viic avec Phariens, qui molt i firent biaus cops li uns pour les autres. Mes en la fin fussent mal mené quant Leonces, li sires de Paerne, i vint et les secorut trop fierement. Et Claudas et li suen estoient si engoissous sor ceuls qu’i baoient a desconfire que onques n’en sorent mot, ainz se ferirent entre[u]ls si durement et si roidement que plus de iiim en midrent par terre si malement que onques n’orent talent de tornoier de toute la quinzaine entiere, car li auquant en furent navré a mort sanz garison avoir et li auquant furent si atorné que bien peüsent avoir garison s’il fussent en tieu leu ou il peüsent lor cors aesier et sejorner, mes li cheval chargiez [Dvb] des armes lor alerent par desus le cors, qui molt les domagierent, et li auquant en furent ocis qui onques puis ne leverent de la place. Et lors recovrerent li fuiant, et les acueillirent si viguereusement qu’il fust avis qu’il n’i eüsent de tout le jor feru cop. Si covint Claudas et les seues genz arester, ou il vosisent ou non. Iluec fu la bataille felle et crueux, car molt s’entrehaoient d’anbe ii parz, et il furent bien autant quant si se tinrent bien paregal que li uns ne reüsoit l’autre. De l’autre part se conbatoient si durement cil del roiaume de Logres encontre les iiii princes. Si i ot molt grant ocision d’une part et d’autre, mes molt estoient desconforté cil del roiaume de Logres quant il n’i voient cels qui garder les deüsent. Et se il ne fussent tant de preudesomes come il i avoit, tuit fussent desconfit et chacié de champ. Et quant Merlin, qui totes ces choses savoit, sot que molt estoient entrepris cil del roiaume de Logres, si s’en vient la ou li rois Bans et li rois Bohorz e misi[res Gauve] in et sa conpaignie toute estoient embuchié. Et quant il s’en vint entr’euls, si lor dist: “Coment, seigneur baron, estes vos venu en cest paï�s por sejorner et por esgarder les tornoiemenz, et por vooir les proesces que li chevalier de cest paï�s sevent fere?

54  This may be a scribal misreading of “viguereus.”

Translation

89

With that, Claudas left with ten thousand armed knights. They ride to face Pharien with their shields raised, their lances extended, their visors down, and their helmets fastened. And when Pharien sees them coming, he goes to confront them boldly, because he was worthy and brave, and strong-hearted, skilled in battle, rational, and more loyal than anyone in his country. And when the two sides approach each other, they give their horses free rein to gallop as fast as they can carry them, with their lances couched under their arms. There were huge casualties on both sides, but Pharien was in a great deal of difficulty, because there were still ten thousand knights on Claudas’s side, and he had no more than five thousand. Here, there was a dangerous and hard-fought battle, because Pharien’s men had only just arrived, while Claudas’s were exhausted and battered. He lost more men than Pharien, and they would have been completely defeated if he had not had so many, but nevertheless, they forced Pharien’s army to retreat towards the forest, back the way they came. When Claudas sees them retreating, he is certain that they have been defeated. He has them so closely surrounded that they have no means of recovery at all. Pharien is almost mad with anguish. He shouts the battlecry “Gaunes!” over and over, but it was no use, because they had been driven back so far that even his or anyone else’s best efforts would have been in vain. But the noble knights were honourable even in retreat, and there were still a great many of them, because seven hundred had remained behind with Pharien after the others had fled. They struck great blows for one another. But in the end, Claudas’ army suffered greatly, the lord of Paerne, came to rescue them fearlessly. And Claudas and his army were so preoccupied with vanquishing Pharien’s men that that they did not realize Leonce was coming until his army charged into them so fiercely and so forcefully that they sent three thousand of them flying to the ground with such violence that they would not be able to fight for at least a fortnight. This was because some of them were mortally wounded and were beyond recovery, and some had injuries that could be healed if they were in a position to rest their bodies and recuperate, but instead they were trampled by horses that were weighed down [Dvb] with armour, which caused them a great deal of damage. And others were killed outright and would never get up from where they lay. And then Pharien’s army were able to recover, and they welcomed Leonce’s men with such enthusiasm that you would not have known they had been fighting all day. They caused Claudas and his army to stop in their tracks, whether they wanted to or not. Here, the battle was ruthless and cruel, because both sides despised each other. And both sides were equal in number and equally matched in strength, with neither being able to drive the other back. Elsewhere, the armies of the kingdom of Logres were fighting fiercely against the four princes. The slaughter was great on both sides, but the knights from the kingdom of Logres were very dismayed when they saw that their leaders are absent. And if they were any less brave and worthy, they would have been completely defeated and driven from the battlefield. And when Merlin—who knew everything—realized that the knights of the kingdom of Logres were in great distress, he went to where King Ban and King Bohort and Sir Gauvain and his company were waiting in ambush. And when he came to them, he said, “Lord barons, did you come to this country for a holiday, to watch the jousting and to see what acts of valour the knights of this country are capable of?

90 Edition

Sachiez que ce est une chose dont vos avez molt mal esploitié, car molt i ont perdu li nostre puis que vos oissistes de la bataille, et molt sont esfreé de ce qu’il ne vos voient ne oient. Et por Dieu, gardez que vos lor vendez ja si bien le sejor que vos avez fait, que cil qui de vos meins eschaperont ne puissent dire que cil del roiaume de Logres soient mie pautonier ne ribauz, ainz soient tenu por preudesomes et por bons chevaliers! Et vos,” fet Merlin au roi Artu, “est ce li guerredons au roi Ban et au roi Bohort, son frere, qui tantes foiz ont mis lor cors en aventure de mort por vos aidier et secorre a meint besoing, si come vos savez, la ou toz li mondes et li vostre vos avoient guerpi et lessié, qui vos estes venu mucier et tapir de pooir et de coardise? Sachiez que c’est une chose qui encor vos sera reprovee de vostre ami et de vostre amie, ce est de Guinervre, la fille au roi Leodagan de Carmelide, quant ele le savra.” Quant li rois entent la parole de Merlin, si s’enbronche de honte, mes onques ne dit seul mot fors que tant qu’il a geté i si grant soupir que tout tressue de l’engoisse qu’il en a. Et d’autre part redoute trop que Merlin ne soit corociez vers lui. [A]prés s’en vient Merlin a monseigneur Gauvein et a ses conpaignons, et lor dist: “Coment, seignor baron, sont ce les proesces dont vos vos soliez vanter et aatir, les uns contre les autres, el roiaume de Logres avant que vos fussiez onques chevalier? Et puis que vos le fustes, disiez vos les uns as autres que vos venriez tornoier sus vos anemis en la Petite Bretaigne, et verriez coment il sevent lor armes porter! Or les avez veüz come bons chevaliers que il sont, et bien i pert, car de la paor qu’il [Era] vos ont feite, vos estes venu tapir et mucier! N’en avez les cuers ne le hardement que vos les osisiez des els regarder, [te]l poor vos ont faite.” Et puis dist au roi Ban et au roi Bohort: “Et vos,” fait il, “seignor, qu’estes vos venu querre en cest paï�s, qui deüsiez estre sage et hardi et preuz? Car bien estes esprové, ce set en bien, lonc tans a ja. Qu’avez creüz, ces quoarz voion, failliz que il sont?55 Et de coardise fu ce qu’il vos ont fait mucier et tapir. Et vos deüsiez cels maintenir et garder qui sont en aventure de mort por vos et por vostre terre delivrer. Si porront bien dire, quant il venront en lor paï�s, que el servise a mauvese gent avront esté, qui les avez guerpiz et lessié el greignor besoing qu’il eüsent de vos.” “Certes, sire,” fet li rois Bans, “nos nel feï�mes se por bien non!” “Coment que vos l’aiez fet,” feit Merlin, “vos avez molt mal ovré! Si gardez que li domages qu’il vos ont faiz lor soit ja si bien guerredonez que il n’en puissent de riens vanter quant il vos seront eschapé.” “Certes, sire,” fet misires Gauveins, “endroit de moi vos di ge bien itant, si ferai que vilains, que bien le sai. Sachiez, conment que je l’aie fet par coardie, que je le ferai asavoir, ainçois que je menjuce mes de la bouche, s’il a en moi valeur ne pris, se g’en devoie estre mort et detrenchiez. Et tant ferai, ainz que je m’en parte, que conoistre me poirront li petit et li grant ne ja coardise que j’ei face n’iert reprovee au roi Artu, mon oncle, ce Dex pest, tant con je vive, ne traï�sons, dont Dex me desfende. Et vos, mi ami et mi conpaignon, se vos vos volez de blasme geter, si me sivez, que par tans lor sera montré que par coardise ne me sui tapiz et muciez!” 55  This line does not appear in other manu­scripts and is problematic in terms of meaning: “voion” (which does not have on obvious meaning, and which could equally be “vos on” or “vos ou”) is most likely a misreading for “veans” (MS fr. 344, fol. 159r has “viant”), while “creüz” is likely a form of “croistre.” The punctuation provided here is the best, but not the only possible, fit. The second sentence, for instance, could start with “lonc tans a ja […].”

Translation

91

You should know that you have let yourselves down, because our side has been suffering badly since you quit the battle, and they are very afraid because they can neither see nor hear you. And by God, you must make sure that you pay them back for the time you’ve spent resting, and to make sure that any enemies who manage to escape you won’t be able to say that knights from the kingdom of Logres are good-for-nothing wretches; instead they will consider them to be worthy men and excellent knights! And you,” Merlin says to King Arthur, “is this the thanks that King Ban and his brother, King Bohort, get for risking their lives to help you and save you in your hour of need, as you know they have, when all others and even your own countrymen had left and abandoned you? You, who are hiding away out of fear and cowardice? You should know that your friends will berate you for this, as will your fiancée, Guinevere, daughter of King Leodagan of Carmelide, when she finds out about it.” When the king hears what Merlin says, he hangs his head in shame. He says nothing, except for heaving a great sigh, and he starts to sweat all over out of anxiety. And he is also terrified that Merlin might be angry with him. After this, Merlin goes to Sir Gauvain and his companions, and he says to them, “Lord barons, whatever happened to the feats of bravery that you used to boast about and attempt against each other, back in the kingdom of Logres, before you became knights? And since you became knights, you used to say to each other that you would come and fight your enemies in Brittany, and put their skills to the test. Well, now you have seen just how good they are, and the fact that they have terrified you into [Era] hiding away is proof of that. You do not have the heart or the guts to even look them in the face, that is how frightened you are.” And then he says to King Ban and King Bohort, “And you, lords,” he says, “you who are supposed to be so wise, and brave, and worthy, what have you come looking for in this country? Because everyone knows well that you are knights with a great deal of past experience. How is it that these cowards, pathetic as they are, caused you to snap and hide yourselves away spinelessly? And you are supposed to be protecting and safeguarding those who are risking their lives for you, and for the sake of liberating your lands. When they go back to their own country, they will be able to say that they were serving weak lords who left and abandoned them when they had most need of you.” “Lord,” says King Ban, “we did it with good reason!” “Whatever your reasons were,” says Merlin, “what you did was wrong! Make sure that your enemies are thoroughly punished for the damage they’ve dealt you, so that the ones who escape will have nothing to brag about.” “Well,” says Sir Gauvain, “as far as I’m concerned, I will tell you this: yes, I know I’ve behaved ungraciously, but regardless of whether I did it out of cowardice, before I ever eat again I’ll show everyone what I’m worth, even if I’m killed and cut to pieces. And I’ll put in such a performance before I leave here that everyone, large and small, will know who I am, and no accusations of my cowardice will ever be levelled against my uncle, King Arthur, as long as I live, if it pleases God, nor of treason, God forbid. And you, my friends and companions, if you want to clear yourselves of any blame, follow me, because we’ll soon show them that we’re not hiding out of fear!”

92 Edition

Et Merlin comença a sourire. Et s’en vet a Keu le seneschal et li tost li56 le dragon de la mein, et li dist qu’il ne le doit pas porter, car enseigne de roi ne doit en pas tapir ne mucier en bataille chanpel, ainz la doit57 l’en porter el premier front. [L]ors se met Merlin au chemin et s’escrie a haute voiz: “Or i perra qui me suivra, car par tans sera venuz qui chevaliers i sera!” Et quant li rois Bans l’en voit aler, si dist au roi Bohort son frere que molt a preudome en Merlin. Si en parolent molt, et sanz faille il estoit plein de merveilleuses proesces, et fors del cors et des menbres, et grans et lons en s’estature. Mes bruns estoit, et veluz de poil volage plus que autre home. Mes molt estoit forniz de menbres et de cors, et gentil home estoit il de par sa mere. Car de son pere ne vos dirai ge ore plus, car assez l’avez oï� dire quil l’engendra. Mes nos ne trovons pas lisant qu’il meï�st onques meins sor home por mal fere ne por laidir, ne li contes n’en parole miee.58 Mes sovent avenoit, quant il estoit en grant presse de gent a toute sa baniere, qu’il abatoit des piez de son cheval et homes et chevaus. [Erb] [Q]uant Merlin ot pris le dragon en la mein Keuz le seneschal, si se mist a la voie touz li premiers seur un grant chevau noir come une59 meüre, qui a merveille le portoit tost. Et quant il aprochent de la bataille, si se fierent entr’els si durement que tuit li renc en fremissent et bruient jusque la ou li dus Froiles estoit, et Poinces et Antoines et Randol se conbatoient qui molt se penoient de cels de Logres desconfire. Et bien cuidoient que tuit li mellor d’euls fusent desconfit et afolé. Si avoient ja tant esploitié qu’a bien petit qu’il n’estoient desconfit et desbareté. Si en estoient molt dolent, et cil del chastel de Trebes, et encorurent as armes plus de viic de juenes bachelors, et isirent hors sor lor chevaus montez. Si les conduisoit Banins, uns chevaliers molt juenes, qui estoit filleus au rois Bans, filz Grassien de Trebes, nen avoit encore d’aage plus de xii anz, et si estoit il molt preuz. Et quant il vinrent a la bataille, si se ferirent enz et le comencierent molt bien a fere come escuier et serjant, car des chevaliers n’i avoit il nul. Si soutindrent molt ceuls qui estoient pres de desconfire, et lor eüsent pieça les dos tornez se il ne fusent. [A]tant vint Merlin et sa conpaignie, qui estoient plus de m que un que autres, et tuit molt preuz. Et portoit le dragon en la mein, et getoit parmi la geule si grant brandon de feu que touz li ars,60 qui estoit noir de la poudriere qui estoit levee si grant qu’a poines peüst li uns l’autre conoistre, en devenoit rouges et enbrasez. Si disoient cil qui onques mes ne l’avoient veü que bien paroit que Nostre Sires estoit vers els corociez trop durement.

56  This is evidently a scribal error; “li” does not make grammatical sense, and is not present in MS fr. 344 (fol. 159r). 57  The manu­script repeats “la doit,” presumably in error.

58  This is a probable scribal error for “mie.”

59  Scribe A writes “.i.ne” for “une” once again here.

60  It is unclear whether this is a variant spelling of “airs” or a possible comprehension error deriving from the context (the fire-breathing dragon banner may have prompted the scribe accidentally to read or write “ars” meaning “burned”).

Translation

93

And Merlin began to smile. He went to Keux the Seneschal, and took the dragon banner out of his hand, telling him that he did not deserve to carry it, because a king’s standard should not be hidden and concealed in a pitched battle, but should rather be carried in the front ranks. Then Merlin set off, shouting at the top of his voice, “Now we’ll see who will follow me, because anyone who does will be a true knight!” And when King Ban saw him leaving, he said to his brother, King Bohort, that Merlin was a very honourable man. They talked about it at length, and it was true that Merlin was exceptionally valiant, physically strong, and tall in stature. However, his complexion was dark, and he was hairier than any other man. Nevertheless, he was well endowed with a strong body and limbs, and he came from a noble family on his mother’s side. I will tell you no more about his father, because you have heard enough about who it was that conceived him.20 But there is nothing in any of the books21 that suggests that he ever laid his hands on another man with the intention of causing him harm or shame, nor do we hear anything about that in the story. But when he was carrying the banner in the thick of battle, he got his horse to attack other men and horses by kicking them. [Erb] When Merlin had taken the dragon banner from Keux the Seneschal, he was the first to set off, riding a large horse that was as black as a berry and marvellously fast. And when they approached the battle, they charged into it so fiercely that there was a great tremble and a clamour that shot through the ranks all the way through to where Duke Froille, and Poince Antoine, and Randol were fighting, hell-bent on defeating the army of Logres. And they genuinely thought that the best of their knights had been beaten and killed; they had fought so hard that they had very nearly defeated and routed them. They were devastated, as were the people in the Castle of Trebes, and more than seven hundred of the young men in there hurried to arm themselves and ride out into the field on horseback. They were led by Banin, a very young knight who was godson to King Ban and the son of Grascien of Trebes. He was no more than twelve years old, and very courageous. And when they came to the battle, they charged in and began to fight exceptionally well for squires and foot soldiers, because none of them were knights. They supported the efforts of the knights there who were close to defeat, and who would have been forced to flee much sooner had they not been there. Then Merlin arrived with his company, which consisted of more than a thousand worthy knights. He was carrying the dragon banner in his hand, and such huge flames were shooting out of its mouth that the air all around it—which was so dark with the dust that had been kicked up that they could barely recognize each other—glowed bright red. Those who were seeing it for the first time were saying that Our Lord must have been furious with them.

20  Merlin’s father is a devil, which explains some of his physical features. The story of Merlin’s conception by a devil is recounted at the beginning of this branch of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle; see “Les premiers faits du roi Arthur,” 571–98. 21  The French literally reads “but we do not find in reading.”

94 Edition

Quant itele enseigne lor fet aparoir, si chanja li aferes a cels qui ore en avoient le mellor, car si tost come li m conpaignon se furent entr’els feru, si comencierent a fere merveilles d’armes, et isi61 grant abeteï�z de gent que en pou d’eure furent apercé. Ilueques fist li rois Artus merveilles de son cors, car il ot l’escu jus jeté et tint l’espee a ii meins, qui molt estoit de grant bonté. Si comença a ocirre et a detrenchier partout la ou il venoit si merveilleusement que riens nule ne peüt62 a lui durer ne garir, tant eüst bones vesteüres. Et li contes dist qu’il en ocist il meï�mes ses cors, que ocist, que afola, plus de vc, dont grant damages fu a la Crestienté. Et tot ce fist il por les ranpones que Merlin li ot dites. Et tenoit les resnes de son cheval parmi son braz senestre, et le lessal63 aler a sa volenté. Et d’autre part refesoient merveilles64 entre le roi Ban et le roi Bohort, car molt se painent de lor anemis grever et nuire a lor pooir. Et il estoient bon chevalier, et seür et hardi, et avoient tot jorz esté desor touz cels del mont. Et li rois Artus s’estoit si parfont enbatu en la meslee que l’en ne sot quel part il fu alez, et autresi fist li rois Bans et ses freres. Et quant li conpaignon de la Table Roonde virent que il les avoient perduz, si comencierent i desroi si grant entr’els que li uns n’atendi onques l’autre; [Eva] et autresi firent li xl conpaignon que li contes a autre foiz nomez, et li xviii damoisel qui estoient chevalier novel. Et comencierent tuit li uns por les autres si grant desroi et si aspre meslee, et departirent si li uns de l’autre que li uns ne sot de l’autre quel part il fu tornez. Si avint le [jor] [main]te foi ce qu’il s’entretroverent et reperdirent, [et] cel jor avint sovent et menu, a cel enpeint65 le fist a merveilles bien Sagremor de Constentinoble la [riche], et ce dist li contes que por voir il estuet li uns des meilleurs chevaliers qui fust en tote l’ost. Et Galechins i refist tant d’armes que meintes foiz i refu montrez au doi d’els et d’autres. Et misire Ivaint, le fi[ls] au roi Urien, le recomença si bien a feire que nul mellor ne covenoit a querre [de lui]. Et l[i iii] [fr]ere monseigneur Gauvein se t[indrent tot lou jor] [en]sanble, que de[part]ir ne [se] [voud]rent. Si [i firent] molt d’armes, et t[...]66 molt en furent loé et [prisiez]. Et d’autre [part] se [c]onbatent si vertueus[ement] iii [compai] g[nons] de la Table Roonde: Nas[ciens] et [Adra]grais [et Hervis] de Rivol, que touz lé rens [faisoient] fr[emir et] [trem]bler par [la ou] il vont [et vi]ennen[t]. Mes sor [tous le] s autres [lou fist] bien [messi]res [G]auvains. Icil ne fesoit se merv[eilles] non. [Il estoit si] [per]duz entre les co[mbatans que [nus ne s]a[v]o[it a] dire qu’il [estoit deve]n[us, n’onques] si fre[res qui] tote jor ne [finerent dou querre per la bai]taille, il n[e lou porent trover puez que il ce fut] d’els partiz. [Quant] misire[s] [Gauvains ce fut f]e[rus an la] me[llee, si] c[erc]ha tant les re[ns] qu’[i]l [encontr]a Randol le senes[ch]al de [Gaule. Et s]i t[ost com il] le vit, [si li co]rut sus, c[ar molt estoi]t [prous et hardis. 61  “Si” would be the expected word here; this may be an idiosyncratic spelling or a scribal error.

62  This word appears as “peut” in the manu­script. Given that this clause demands a verb in a past tense, we presume that this is a misspelling of the imperfect subjunctive “peüst.” 63  This is an unusual spelling, but it does represent an accurate transcription.

64  The manu­script reads “merverveilles,” which is presumably a copying error and so has been corrected. 65  The feminine noun “empeinte” is converted to a masculine noun here, which may be an error.

66  This reasonably long lacuna has no equivalent in other manu­scripts, hence the ellipsis.

Translation

95

When the banner appeared, the tide of battle was turned against the winning side, because as soon as the thousand companions charged among them, they began to perform extraordinary feats of arms, cutting down so many people that they quickly made an impression. King Arthur performed extraordinary physical feats, because he had thrown down his shield and had both hands on his well-made sword. He started to kill and slaughter everywhere he went, so spectacularly that no one could withstand his attack, no matter how solid their armour. And the story tells us that he single-handedly killed or wounded more than five hundred, which was a great loss to Christianity. And he did all of this because Merlin had mocked him. And he held the reins of his horse with his left arm, letting it gallop wherever it wanted. Elsewhere, King Ban and King Bohort were performing extraordinary feats of arms, because they were doing all they could to destroy their enemies and bring them down. And they were both skilled knights, who were fearless and brave, and they had always been among the best in the world. And King Arthur had charged so deep into the fray that no one knew where he was, and King Ban and his brother did the same. And when the companions of the Round Table saw that they had lost them, they began to fight in such a frenzy that they did not stop to wait for each other; [Eva] and the forty companions whose names were mentioned earlier in the story and the eighteen young men who were newly-dubbed knights did the same. And they all began such a great frenzy and violent skirmish that they lost sight of each other, and each did not know where the other had gone. They often lost each other that day and then found each other again, and this happened multiple times. Sagremor of Constantinople, the rich city, performed extraordinary feats of arms during this assault, and the story tells us truly that he was one of the best knights in the whole army. And Galachin fought so hard in turn that the others often pointed him out to each other. And Sir Yvain, the son of King Urien, fought so well this time around that there was no need to find anyone better. And Sir Gauvain’s three brothers stayed together for the entire day, as they did not want to leave one another. They performed considerable feats of arms and [...]22 earned a great deal of praise and esteem for it. And elsewhere, three companions of the Round Table were fighting courageously: Nascien, Adragais, and Hervi of Rivol, who made the ranks all quake and tremble wherever they went. But nothing they did could compare to the feats performed by Sir Gauvain. His fighting was nothing short of miraculous. He was so lost in the fray that no one knew what had happened to him, not even his brothers. They had been looking for him in the battle all day, but they could not find him since he became separated from them. When Sir Gauvain charged into the fray, he searched among the ranks until he found Randol, the seneschal of Gaulle. And as soon as he saw him, he rushed to attack him, because he was exceptionally brave and courageous.

22  This reasonably long lacuna has no equivalent in other manu­scripts, hence the ellipsis.

96 Edition

Et messire] Gauvein[s lo fiert si dur]emen[t], en [trespassant] par[mi lou hiaume, qu’il] l’en coupe la [moitié] tout ou[tre, rez a rez dou hai]terel, car le cheval le tres[portoit] [et l’apee des]sant res a res des es[palles]. Si [li desmaille lou] hauberc quanqu’il [an ataint, et li tranche] de la char une grant charbonee desor [les] espaul[es], si que [les os aprés lou] cop del esp[ee] [peüssiez veo]ir [bla]nchoi[er]. Et au de[ssandre que] l’espee fist, trencha la [celle] et la feut[reür]e [et lou] cheval parmi l’eschine [jusqu’as] [b]o[iaz]. Si [trebu]che a terre tout en un mont [ap]r[és s’an passer] outre, car point n’i are[ste]. [Et lors] li [avint que il] encontra Dodine[l] le Sav[age et] [Keuz] d’Estregor et Kaiehandins li P[etit anmi sa voie], abatuz de lor chevaus, et [si les] t[enoit Poinces] [Antoi]nes molt cort. Et [quant messi]res Gau[vains] les voit si a mesch[ie]f, [si tor]ne [celle par]t et fait un tel [essart] en[tr’az que to]uz le[s fait] resortir ariere [et metre] a la [voie, ou il] veulent ou non. Et [cil s’]aille[nt as chevax], qui molt estoient [prous], car il en trove[rent an la plai] se [a grant] plenté. Si recomencerent le chaple et [la] meslee, que molt redoutent [souz lai ou il les v]oient aresté. Si se tiennent [au]tor [mon]s[eigneur] Gauvein tant [com il] peu[ent plus, mais il n’oren]t g[ueres] de[moré quant il] [l’]orent si perdu qu[e il ne sorent qu’il devi]nt. Molt fu granz [li estors et dure la mellee] as pleins de Trebes, [et molt i ot grant] fereï�z de haches et d’espees [desor] hiaumes et deseur escuz. [Et iqui firent molt d’armes li] chevaliers de la Table Roonde, et [vont] querant le roi Artu [Evb] par toute la bataille, mes ne le peuent trover, car il s’estoit si esloignié d’els et avoit tant alé que il s’estoit meslé au duc Froile et a Poinçon Antoine, qui avoient en lor conpaignie plus de viic chevaliers, et des mellor de toute l’ost. Si s’estoit li rois Artus meslé a els molt fierement, et se conbatoit d’els si a estal que nus a coup ne l’osoit atendre. Tot sanz escu tenoit s’espee a ii meins, et estoit si feruz qui il ateignoit que arme nule nel pooit g[aran] tir de mort, tant fust durement serré. Et quant Froiles et Poinces Antoines le voient, si li corent sus, et il se conbat a euls molt [vide]ment et si bien que molt en ocit et mehaigne environ lui. Et lors avint que messires Gauvein, ses niés, i sorvint, l’espee el p[oin]g, toute sanglante. Et li fuiaient de totes [parz], qu’a cop ne l’osoit nus chevaliers [a]t[endr] ez [tant] fust preuz et hardiz. Et quant il [voit le roi] Artu, [son] oncle, en tel tourment, si [torne celle] par[t] et [vo]it que Froiles, li dus d’Alemaigne, [et] Poinçon An[toines] se conbatoient a lui a t[out] xx ch[eva]li[ers]. [Et voit] que Froiles [l’avoit] feru d’une [lance] entre ii espaules si roidement que [tot] l’avoit adenté sor [le col] [del destrier]. Et se la lance ne brisast, il l’eüst porté [a terre] tout estend[u]. Quant misires [Gauvains voit lou cop] que cil a doné a son seig[neur] [et son oncle, si an] est si iriez qu’a pou qu’il [mist hors del sant. Lors met l’]espee [el] fuerre et s’eslesse [contre les Alemans et] [ar]ache a i chevalier i es[pié hors des mains, si fellenesseme]nt qu’il le por[te] [del] ch[eval a terre, to]t estendu. Lors s’en vient [a Froille, l’apié] en la mein. Et quant [cil lou voit venir, si li] [guen]chist, car il ne l’osa[it] [atandre, et ce fiert an la] [grei]gnor presse de [gent que il trueve. Et cil] [l’en]chauce, qui les[sier] [nel vuet mies] [legiere]ment, mes li ch[evalier Froille ce metent] entredeuls.

Translation

97

And Sir Gauvain struck Randol so hard across his helmet that he hacked half of it clean off, skimming the back of his neck. His horse surged forward, and as a result, Sir Gauvain brought his sword down across the back of Randol’s shoulders. It split the mail where it made contact with the hauberk, slicing off a great chunk of flesh from the shoulder, so that the gleaming bone was visible after the blow. And as the sword cut downwards, it went through the saddle and the saddle cloth, chopping through the horse’s spine right through to the entrails. It collapsed in a heap, and Sir Gauvain sped past without stopping. And then he ran into Dodinel the Wild and Kay of Estragor and Kahedin the Small. They had been struck down from their horses, and Poince Antoine had them closely surrounded. And when Sir Gauvain sees them in this desperate situation, he turns around and launches such a fierce attack that he forces them all to retreat and fall back, whether they want to or not. And his companions each leap onto a fine horse, because there were plenty of them around. Then the fighting and the clamour began again, and anyone who saw them coming towards them was very afraid. They try to stay as close to Sir Gauvain as they can, but it was not very long until they had lost him again and had no idea what had happened to him. There was an enormous fray and a harsh battle in the open fields outside the Castle of Trebes, and there was a great clamour of axes and swords clashing on helmets and shields. And the knights of the Round Table fought exceptionally hard, and they go searching for King Arthur [Evb] all over the battlefield, but they cannot find him, because he had strayed so far from them, and had gone so deep into the fray that he had entered into a fight with Duke Froille and Poince Antoine, who had more than seven hundred knights with them, the best in the army. King Arthur engaged in a fierce combat with them, and he stood so firm against them that no one dared wait to stand up to him. He fought without a shield, holding his sword in both hands, and anyone he struck received such a blow that no armour could save them from death, no matter how tightly fastened. And when Froille and Poince Antoine see him, they rush to attack him, and he fights them with such power and so well that he kills and maims all around him. And then his nephew, Sir Gauvain arrived, his bloody sword in hand. And knights were fleeing from him all around, because none of them dared stand up to him, no matter how brave and courageous they were. And when he sees his uncle, King Arthur, in such peril, he goes towards him and sees that he is up against Froile, the duke of Germany, and Poince Antoine, alongside twenty of their knights. And he sees that Froille has struck him between the shoulders with his lance, so forcefully that it has caused him to collapse forward onto his horse’s neck. And if the lance had not broken, it would have knocked him flat on the ground. When Sir Gauvain sees the blow that Froille had dealt his lord and his uncle, he is furious almost to the point of madness. Then he puts his sword in its scabbard, gallops at full speed towards the Germans, and snatches a lance out of the hands of one of their knights, so pitilessly that he sends him sprawling flat on the ground. Then he approached Froille, lance in hand. And when Froille saw him coming, he turned and ran because he does not want to wait around; he charges into the fray where he can see that it is thickest. And Sir Gauvain pursues him, not wanting him to get away lightly, but Froille’s knights stand in his way.

98 Edition

[Et quant il voit qu]’il [n’i porait] avenir, si prent [l’apié et lou lance si] [roi]dement, de tel aï�r et de [tel force, qu’il] li perche escu et le hauberc en[droit] [la senes]tre espaule, et li envoie et fer [et fust tot o]ut[re] [si en] parfont que la mo[itié] [del fe]r [qui an] [l]’espié estoit en parut de [l’autre part. Et sil ce] p[ame et] chiet pasmez a terre de [la dolor] q[u’il an ait. Et] si home s’asanblent sor [lui], car bien [cuid]ent que il soit mort. [A] chi[ef de] piece est revenu Froil de paumeison, et si fist desferrer et bender sa plé qui trop durement s[ei]gnoit. Et puis remonta si [com] il pot, mes molt se delt. Et si tost come67 m[is]ire Gauveins le vit verser, si retorna endroit son oncle, qui molt durement se conbatoit a Poinçon Antoine et a sa ge[nt] et a Randol [qu]e si home avoient remontés a son ch[eval], qui molt se penoit de lui grever por [la hont]e del cop que misire Gauveins li avoit doné. Et lors [s]i se fiert misires Gauveins entr’els, et f[ier]t a destre et a senestre, et delivra son oncle si vistement que nus n’ose demorer en la place ou il estoient aresté. Et lors avint que misires Gauvein encontra Poinçon Antoine, et [s’i fe]ri si durement en trespassant [d’Escal]abore desus la destre espaule [Fra] qu’il li envoia l’espee demie dedenz le mestre os. Et au resachier qu’il fist de l’espee a soi le porte a terre tout envers. Et puis referi Randoul parmi le hiaume si grant cop que tot li coupa le hiaume et la coife de fer et la char tresc’a la teste. S’i l’abat si estoné que bien cuidierent cil qui le cors virent trestot de voir q’il fust mort sanz recovrier. Si poignent a la rescousse de toutes parz. Et lors avint que toutes les batailles branlerent, et les amenerent batant tresqu’a la bataille Claudas, qui molt durement se conbatoit a Leonce et a Pharien. Et quant les batailles68 furent toutes ensanble, si se ferirent les uns parmi les autres, tout pelle et melle. Iluec ot molt grant foleï�z et d’uns et d’autres, car li fuiant s’aresterent a l’eschiele Claudas. Et quant li rois Artus voit qu’il s’en vont, si apela monseigneur Gauvein et li dist: “Biax niés, traiez vos envers moi, que il me sanble que il s’en vont. Et ne me guerpissiez mes hui que vos puissiez!” “Sire,” fet misires Gauveins, “il ont droit se il s’en vont, car li demorer i est mauvés desoremes. Et alons prés et les aidons a desconfire!” “Alons,” ce dist li rois, “que n’i avons que demorer!” [Q]ue que li oncles et li niez tenoient iluecques lor parlement, atant es vos le roi Ban et le roi Bohort son frere69 qui s’en batirent sor els, l’espee el poing, toutes sanglantes. Et chaçoient et ocioient devant els quanqu’il ateignent. De ce avint il bien a Poinçon Antoine qu’il furent70 einçois monté es chevaus. Or la chace fust comenciee. Et quant li quatre enmi s’entretroverent, si s’entrefirent molt grant joie. Et puis recomencierent la chace et le fereï�z aprés cels qui s’en fuient. Et lors lor avint qu’il encontrerent iii conpaignons de la Table Roonde, qui a merveille l’avoient bienfet toute jor: Nasciens et Adragais et Hervi de Rivel. Et lors furent li v chevalier molt preuz.71 Et none estoit ja passé, si fu le soleil molt chaut et molt haut. 67  The word “come” has been added as a correction by a later reader.

68  The final “s” is missing in the manu­script, presumably due to scribal error.

69  The final “re” is missing, presumably due to the scribe accidentally omitting an abbreviation mark.

70  In other manu­script versions, the subject of “furent” is Poince Antoine and Randol le Seneschal, hence the conjugation of être in the third person plural. It is possible that “Randol le Senechal” has been omitted in error, since the plural verb has been retained. 71  This seems to be a scribal error, as there are seven knights.

Translation

99

And when he sees that he cannot get through, he takes the lance, and throws it so powerfully, and with such violence and force, that it goes right through Froille’s shield and his hauberk and into his left shoulder. The tip and the shaft pierce him so deeply that half of the metal blade is protruding out from the other side. And he faints, falling to the ground unconscious from the pain. And his men gather around him, because they are convinced that he is dead. After a while, Froille comes round again, and he has his wound dressed and bandaged, because it was bleeding heavily. And he mounted his horse as best he could, but he was in a great deal of pain. And as soon as Sir Gauvain had seen him fall, he returned to where his uncle was, who was fighting fiercely against Poince Antoine and his men, and Randol, whose men had helped him back onto his horse. He was hell-bent on punishing Sir Gauvain for the shame of the beating that he had received from him. And then Sir Gauvain charged among them, striking blows left and right, and he rescued his uncle so rapidly that no one dared to stay anywhere near them for very long. And then Sir Gauvain came upon Poince Antoine, and he struck him so violently across his right shoulder with Excalibur [Fra] that he buried the blade halfway through the bone. And as he pulled his sword back out, he sent him sprawling to the ground. And then he struck Randol so hard across his helmet that he cut through the helmet and the chainmail coif, right down to his scalp. Randol was so stunned by the blow that anyone who saw it thought that he must certainly be dead and without hope of recovery. They rush from all over to rescue him. And then it happened that the battalions all shifted positions, and the fighting moved towards where Claudas’s army was engaged in a fierce combat with Leonce and Pharien. And when the battalions had merged together, they all charged at one another wildly. Here, everyone was crushed together, because the army that was fleeing ran into Claudas’s battalion. And when King Arthur sees that they are pulling back, he calls to Sir Gauvain and says to him, “My dear nephew, come over here, because it looks like they’re retreating. And stay with me from now on if you can!” “My lord,” says Sir Gauvain, “they’re right to retreat, because it would be a bad idea for them to stay any longer. Let’s get closer and help to defeat them!” “Let’s go,” says the king, “what are we waiting for?” While uncle and nephew were talking, here comes King Ban and his brother, King Bohort, who are fighting all around them, brandishing their bloody swords. And they were chasing down and slaughtering whoever they encountered. It was a good thing for Poince Antoine that he had already remounted. Now the pursuit had begun. And when the four friends found each other again, they were overjoyed. And they rejoined the chase and the fight, pursuing the fleeing enemies. And then it happened that they came upon three companions of the Round Table who had performed marvellously all day: Nascien, Adragais, and Hervi of Rivol. And these five knights were all highly courageous. And None had already passed; the sun was hot and high in the sky.

100 Edition

[Q]uant la chace fu comenciee, si trova Keuz enmi sa voie l’escu le roi Artur encontre [a] tere gisant. Si ot molt grant poor, quant [i]l le vit, que li rois ne fust morz. Si le fist prendre a un escuier, et li dist qu’il alast aprés lui tant qu’il verroit se il troveroit le roi Artu, [so]n seignor, et lors se remet en la chace a[p]rés les autres. Si i fu molt granz li enchaz, que onques ne s’aresterent duques sor l’eschiele Claudas. Iluecques se tinrent une piece, mes [c]e ne fu mie longuement, car si tost come li rois Bans et li rois Bohorz, et misires Gauvein [et] li rois Artus, et Nasciens et Hervis, et Adragais [et] Sagremor, et misire Ivains72 li Granz et misires [Y]vein li Avoutres, le filz au roi Urien, et Yvains l’Esclains et Yvains del Tinel, et Yvains del Lion[el] et Yvains as Blanches Meins, et Dodiniax [li] Sauvages et Keuz d’Estregor, et Kehandin li Petiz et Galechins, le filz au roi Neutre [de] Garlot, et misires Keuz li seneschaus, qui molt fu liez de ce qu’il avoit trové le roi, qui s’en vi[e]nt a lui tantost come il le vit et li rendi son escu, et li fist prendre par la [Frb] guigne73 a son col. Et lors vint Merlin, le dragon en la mein, et les escrie: “Ore a els, franc chevalier, car tuit sont desconfit!” Et misire Gauvein a pris un glaive, si desrenge touz li premiers et fiert le roi Claudas parmi l’escu et parmi le hauberc, que parmi le flanc li fet passer la lance tout outre. Si l’enpeint si durement qu’il l’abat a terre tot estendu, les janbes contremont, si roidement que tout li escuz fent et esmie au chaoir que il fist desus. Si brise sa lance et il s’en passe outre par desus le cors, tout a cheval, et il se pasme. Et misire Gauvein mist la mein a l’espee et se fiert en la greignor presse de gent que il pot trover, la ou l’avoit. Si les deront si en son venir que parmi els touz s’en passe; si lor vet par desus le cors tout a cheval, et les perce tout outre, ja si espés ne seront, iii foiz ou iiii. Si on parolent molt si conpaignon des proesces que il li voient fere,74 et le montrent li uns a l’autre. Et lors poignent a la rescousse de lor seigneur, le roi Claudas, de toutes parz. Si le traient hors de la presse a quelque paine, et l’avoient ja mis a cheval quant iii chevaliers vinrent poignant: Agraveins et Gerrehés et Gahevet, qui a merveilles l’avoient bienfet hui toute jor. Et quant il virent iluec les genz asanblees, si se fierent entr’els si durement que touz les font remuer de la place. Iluec fu Claudas reportez a terre et navré en trois leus molt malement, sanz la plaie que misires Gauvein li ot fete el flanc de la lance, car Agraveins li fist une grant plaie en l’espaule destre, et Guerrehés sus l’espaule senestre, et Gaheriet une en la teste. Et a pou se faille que il ne fu mort gitez, et fu molt folez et debatuz entre les piez au chevaux. Mes toutes voies se traveillerent tant si home qu’il lor tolirent, mes molt i orent ainçois si home perdu. [M]olt fu grant la bataille et dure la meslee as pleins de Trebes, la ou Claudas li rois fu remontez. Et lors avint que toutes les batailles branlerent de toutes par[z], et se ferirent les uns parmi les autres. 72  The manu­script appears to read “iurlins,” but the form of the “rl” looks like a misformed “a,” leading to our reading of “ivains.” Even if the scribe did accidentally misread his exemplar, the correct reading is confirmed by MS fr. 344, fol. 160r, which has “yvains.”

73  Part of this word (“guig”) appears at the end of the column, and then has been re-written in full at the beginning of the next column.

74  The manu­script reads “ferer,” which is a presumed error. It has been corrected to align with MSS fr. 344 (fol. 160r) and fr. 98 (fol. 207v).

Translation

101

As they began the pursuit, Keux came across King Arthur’s shield lying on the ground. When he saw it, he was very afraid that the king was dead. He ordered a squire to pick it up, and told him to follow him until he could find his lord, King Arthur, and then he joined in the chase along with the others. They pursued them hard, and did not stop until they reached Claudas’s battalion. They stopped there for a time, but it was not for very long, because as soon as King Ban and King Bohort and Sir Gauvain and King Arthur and Nascien and Hervi and Adragais arrived, they found23 Sagremor and Yvain the Tall and Yvain the Bastard, the son of King Urien, and Yvain of Esclain and Yvain of Tinel and Yvain of Lionnel and Yvain of the White Hands and Dodinel the Wild and Kay of Estragor and Kahedin the Small and Galachin, the son of King Neutre of Garlot, and Keux the Senechal, who was very happy to have found the king. He went up to him as soon as he saw him and gave him back his shield, and King Arthur fastened it onto the strap [Frb] around his neck. And then Merlin arrived carrying the dragon banner, shouting “At them, noble knights, because they’re as good as defeated!” And Sir Gauvain was the first to break rank; he picks up a lance and strikes King Claudas through the shield. The lance penetrates the hauberk, and goes straight through his side. He strikes him so hard that he knocks him flat on the ground with his legs in the air, and he fell so forcefully that his shield broke and shattered as he landed on top of it. The lance broke, and Claudas passed out as Sir Gauvain rides over his body. And Sir Gauvain drew his sword, and charges into the thickest part of the fray that he could find. He crashes through the press so forcefully that he charges straight through it, trampling over the bodies with his horse and breaking through crowds of knights, even if they are three or four men deep. His companions talk a great deal about the feats of bravery they see him perform, pointing them out to one another. And then King Claudas’s knights rush from all over to rescue their lord. They pull him away from the fighting with some difficulty, and no sooner had they put him back on a horse than three knights came hurtling in: Agravain, Guerrehes, and Gaheriet, who had been fighting exceptionally well all day. And when they saw the crowd of Claudas’ men gathered there, they charge among them so fiercely that they are all forced to get out of the way. Here, Claudas was thrown to the ground and wounded very seriously in three places, not counting the lance wound in his side that Sir Gauvain had given him, because Agravain gave him a wound in the left shoulder, Guerrehes one in the right shoulder, and Gaheriet one on his head. And he came very close to being killed, and trampled and crushed by the horses’ feet. However, his men made every effort to rescue him, even though many of them died in the process. There was an enormous battle and a harsh combat in the open fields at Trebes, where King Claudas had remounted his horse. And then the battalions all shifted positions and ran into one another.

23  There is no verb in the main clause of this sentence as it appears in this manu­script and other related manu­scripts containing the α redaction. In order for the sentence to make sense in English, the translation has added verbs based on the sentence as it appears (in an altered form) in the β redaction.

102 Edition

Si s’en parti Poinces Antoines, li conselz de Rome, et Froiles, li dus d’Alemaigne, et Randol, le seneschal de Gaunes, et Claudas, li sires de la Deserte, si mal atornez qu’a poines pooit chevauchier, ne li autre ne restoient pas del tout sein, car il n’i a celui qui n’ait plaie grant et parfonde et perilleuse,75 et qu’il ne coviegne bon mire se garir en velt. Et quant il voient le domage si grant qu’il ont receü, si sont si dolent que par un petit qu’il n’enragent. Si demanderent quel part il tornerent. “Biaus seignor,” fet li rois, “je lo que nos alons a la Deserte, que c’est li mieudres reperes que nos aions, et li plus procheins.76 Si nos en iron parmi la forest Onbrage, par desouz mont Jaï�r, une viez voie herbue que je i sai. Mes je sui si mal atornez que a paines porra endurer le chevauchier.” Endementres que il tenoient iluec lor parlement, voient lor batailles toutes deronpre et reüser l’une sor l’autre, et l’une ça et l’autre la. Si comencent l’enchauz si grant que la poudriere i leva si merveilleuse que il ne savoient quel part il aloient. Si abatent tant, et ocient, les genz au roi Ban [Fva] et les genz au roi Bohort que il s’en vinrent en trespas qu’il savoient si tost come il virent la desconfiture sor els torner. Et les gens au roi Artu les enchaucent molt durement que il ne baoient fors a els desconfire et abatre. Si en ocidrent molt et retinrent come il vorent. Et quant il avenoit que li fuiant s’en batoient sor cels qui gardoient [les] [tres]pas, si en ocioient tant que [tuit les pres en] estoient covert des mo[rts] et des navrez. S[i] dura la chace toute jor jusque [la] nuit. S’en retinrent de pris a grant pl[en]té. Et Claudas li rois et Poince Antoines et Froiles li dus et Keuz,77 li seneschaus de Gaule se garantissent a lor pooir, mes trop amenerent petit de gent, car li contes [dit], de iiiixxm qu’il furent au come[nce]ment, ne n’eschapa pas la [m]oitié. Et de cest mo[it]ié n’en menerent il m[ie xx]m, ain[z] fuioent parmi cez forez, li u[ns] ça et [li] autres la, por conduire lor cors a garison, [et ne] chaloit quel part. [E]nsi furent desconfit li iiii prince [con]me vos avez oï� par [le] sen et par le savoir de Merlin. [Et] quant il les orent enchaciez jusqu’a la nuit, si s’en reperent et retornent ariere a tot grant plenté de prisons. Et s’en vinrent devant le chastel de Trebes ou il se logierent es te[nt]es a ceux qu’il orent desconfit. Si menerent molt g[ran]t feste et grant joie le soir. S[i] ot molt grant lumiere tote nuit, car il troverent si bien garnies les herberges de totes iceles choses que il convenoit a cors d’ome a[e]sier que riens nule ne lor failli, ne n’i despendirent onques riens del lor ne tant ne quant le soir. Quant il f[urent] herbergié par tote l’ost, gaita Fariens et Gratiens que d’aucunes genz ne fussent asailli la nuit. Et li rois Bans et li rois Bohort amenerent le roi Artu et monseigneur Gauvein et les conpaignons de la Table Reonde et les xl chevaliers que contes78 vos a nomez et les noveua[x]79 adobé deden[z] Trebes, ou l’en lor fist molt grant joie. 75  The word “perilleuse” has been corrected here from “perilleuseus.”

76  The final letter of “procheins” is ambiguous, and could read as either an s or upper case e (which would constitute an error of agreement).

77  This refers to “Randol li senechaus de Gaule” in other manu­scripts. It is likely that the scribe accidentally wrote “Keuz li seneschaus” out of habit. 78  MS fr. 344, has “li contes” (fol. 160v).

79  MS fr. 344, has “noviaz” (fol. 160v); it is possible the scribe meant to write “noveaux,” or it may simply be an idiosyncratic spelling.

Translation

103

Poince Antoine, the Roman consul, Froille, the duke of Germany, and Randol, the seneschal of Gaulle, all retreated, along with Claudas, lord of the Wasteland, who was in such a dreadful state that he could barely ride. The others were no better off, because each of them had deep and serious wounds that would require the attention of a good doctor if they were to be healed. And when they see the damage done to their armies, they are so devastated that they practically lose their minds. They ask each other where they can go. “My dear lords,” says the king, “I suggest that we head to the Wasteland, which is the best place of refuge that we have, and the nearest. I know an old grassy route that will take us through the Forest of Onbrage and along the foot of Mount Jaï�r. But I am in such a terrible state that I will barely be able to manage the ride.” While they were speaking, they see their battalions all break apart and pull back, running into one another. Then began such an aggressive pursuit that so much dust was kicked up that no one knew which direction they were going in. The armies of King Ban [Fva] and King Bohort cut down and killed so many men that, as soon as they saw that they saw that their enemies were defeated, they headed towards a pass that they knew. And King Arthur’s men pursue them hard, determined to defeat them and cut them down. They kill many, and capture whomever they want. And when the fleeing armies ran into those who were waiting to ambush them at the pass, they slaughtered so many that the fields were covered with the dead and wounded. The pursuit went on until nightfall. A great many worthy prisoners were captured. And King Claudas, and Poince Antoine, and Duke Froilles, and Randol,24 the seneschal of Gaulle tried to fight back, but they had not brought enough men with them, because the story tells us that out of the eighty thousand that they had started with, not even half managed to escape. And out of this half that escaped, they did not manage to take more than twenty thousand with them, because the rest fled aimlessly through the forest, seeking to get themselves to safety and not caring where they went. The four princes were thus defeated by Merlin’s knowledge and sense, just as you have heard. And at the end of the day, when King Arthur and his allies had finished chasing them down, they turned in and came back with a great deal of prisoners. And they went to the foot of the Castle of Trebes, where they set up a camp to house the prisoners they had taken. That evening, they celebrated and enjoyed themselves a great deal. The camp was well lit all night, and they found that it was well stocked with everything that they could possibly require, and they had no need to use up any of their own provisions the entire night. When the whole army had set up camp, Pharien and Grascien kept watch to make sure they were not attacked during the night. And King Ban and King Bohort brought King Arthur and Sir Gauvain, and the companions of the Round Table, and the forty knights that the story has already named for you, and the newlydubbed knights into the Castle of Trebes, and the inhabitants of the castle celebrated their arrival. 24  The manu­script says “Keux” here, which is evidently an error; “Randol” has been reinstated here for clarity.

104 Edition

Et furent iiic chevaliers par conte, tuit de pris, et furent si [bien] servi cel soir come [nules] genz [porent] estre mie[lz], [de] toutes iceles choses qui a cors d’ome c[onv] enoient. Et qui que menast joie [ne] qui non [ne] monta riens [a la joi]e que [les] ii roï�nes [font] qu[ant] eles virent lor ii [maris], que si longue[ment] avoient desire[z]. [Et ce n’estoit] mie de merveille, car pieça [m]es n[es] avoient veüz, conme juenes d[ames qu’e] les estoient et de grant biauté. [Si ce penerent molt de] servir le [roi Artu et ces] c[om] paignons. Et eles en [sorent molt bien a chi]ef venir, conme celes qui bien sevent preudome serv[ir]. Que vos iroi tote jor acontant ne les aises ne [les] del[iz] que il orent le soir? Servi furent bien et richement come preudomme. Et quant il orent soupé, si s’[aleren]t couchier, car mestier avoient de reposer que tuit estoient las et d[uelant] li [pl]us sai[n] de grant travail et de la [p]eine qu’il [Fvb] orent toute jor soufert. Si i vint li rois Artus et misire Gauvein et si troi frere et Sagremor et misire Yvains et Dodinax et Antor et Keuz li seneschaus en une molt bele chanbre tout par els. Et si i fu Merlins, qui partir ne s’en volt cel soir, et li conpaignon de la Table Roonde et li novel adoubé et li xl conpaignon jurent en une grant sale. Quant li rois Bans et li rois Bohorz les orent fet [a] esier de quanqu’il porent, si s’en alerent gesir avec lor fames es cha[nbr]es, et lessierent granz tortiz ardanz devant les barons. [L]e soir menerent molt grant joie li dui baron a lor fames, come cil qui molt s’entramoient. Et cel soir, ce dist li contes, conçut i enfant Helaine, la fame au roi Ban, et quant il se furent assez entreconjoï�, si s’endormirent a chief de piece. Et si tost come il si furent endormi, si chaï� la fame au roi Ban en i molt merveilleus songe, qui molt durement [li dura. Et] molt en fu espo[e]ntee [quant] ele s’es[veill]a, car il li fu avis que ele estoit en [une] tres haute montaigne toute seule. Si veoit molt grant plenté de gent et de bestes env[iron] lui, de toutes manieres, et [p]esso[i]nt [l’erbe] qui molt iert drue et granz. [Et quant elles avoient] piece p[ansé, si sordoi]t ent[r’aus une] si grant noise, et si desmesuree que [l’une] coroit [a l’autre] sus et l’avoient git[ee] [del païs]80 [toute] fors. Si se partoient en ii parties toutes en une part, si les conduisoit uns grans lions molt orgueilleus, et de l’autre part, cil [n’es]toient pas tant de la moitié, estoit mestres conduiserres i fiers lions coronez. Mes n’estoit mie si granz come li autres ne si fiers. Et cil lions coronez avoit [en sa conpaignie x]viii lionciaux toz coro[nez], dont chascuns avoit seignorie et pois[s]ance d’une partie des bestes qui estoient to[rnees] devers li lion corone[z]. Et li au[tres] [grans] lions qui n’estoit pas coronez avoit xxix [lieontias an sa] conpaignie, qui tuit estoient [coronez] et avoit chascun seign[ori]e es beste[s] [qui] estoient torné devers le lion [sanz corone]. [Q]uant [les bestes ce fure]nt parties et [se]vr[ees, si regardoit] a une partie del [lieon coroné. Si veoit] [iiic] toriaus que tuit es[toient lié per] les [coz] a une mengeüre, et menj[o]ient en un81 restelier l’erbe menue qui de [novel estoi]t se[o]ié.

80  “Del paï�s” appears earlier in the sentence in MS fr. 344 (“les vouloit del paï�s geter tote hors,” fol. 160v), but it has been inserted here as a plausible surrogate for the two short words that have been obscured by damage. 81  The scribe writes “une” here, likely in error, and this has been corrected.

Translation

105

They numbered three hundred knights in total, all of whom were very worthy, and they were served as well as they could possibly be, with everything they could possibly require. And no one was more delighted by their arrival than the two queens when they saw their husbands, for whom they had been yearning for a long time. And this was hardly surprising, because they had not seen them for a very long time, and they were very beautiful young women. They went to great effort to serve King Arthur and his companions. And they knew very well how to do it, and how a noble man should be served. Why should I spend the whole day telling you about the comforts and the delights they experienced that night? They were served splendidly, as befits worthy men. And when they had eaten, they went to bed, because they were well in need of a rest. Even those among them who had the fewest injuries were exhausted and suffering from the huge efforts that they [Fvb] had exerted all day. King Arthur, Sir Gauvain and his three brothers, Sagremor, Sir Yvain, Dodinel, Antor, and Keux the Seneschal all retired to a very fine room that they had all to themselves. And Merlin was there too, because he did not want to leave this evening, as well as the companions of the Round Table, the newly-dubbed knights, and the forty companions, and they all slept in another large room. When King Ban and King Bohort had made sure they were as comfortable as possible, they went to sleep with their wives in their bedrooms, leaving the candles lit for the other barons. That evening, the two kings were joyfully reunited with their wives, because they loved each other a great deal. And the story tells us that Helaine, King Ban’s wife, conceived a child that night. And when they had finished expressing their affections, they fell asleep after a while. And as soon as they were asleep, King Ban’s wife slipped into a remarkable dream, which lasted a long time. And she was very frightened by it when she woke up, because she had dreamed that she had been standing all alone at the top of a very high mountain. She had seen a large number of people and animals around her, of all different types, and the grass was very lush and sweet. And when the animals had reflected for a while, a huge commotion erupted, which was so wild that the animals ran to attack each other and force each other off the land. They divided themselves into two groups and each group went to one side. One was led by a great, proud lion, and the leader of the other, which made up less than half of the animals, was a fierce lion wearing a crown. But this lion was not as large as the other lion, nor as fierce. And this crowned lion was accompanied by eighteen lion cubs, all of whom wore crowns, and each of whom had lordship and power over some of the animals that had turned towards the crowned lion. And the other great lion who was without a crown was accompanied by twenty-nine lion cubs, all of whom wore crowns and had lordship over the animals that had turned towards the lion without a crown. When the animals had parted and separated from each other, she looked over to where the crowned lion was. She saw three hundred bulls who were all tethered by the neck to a manger, and who were eating fresh, thick grass from a hayrack.

106 Edition

Et por ce qu’[il] [sambloit a grant lie]on sanz coronne [que] il avoi[it meillor] pasture [dever]s le l[io]n [coroné],82 tant portant [li corroit] seur [por lou to]lir et par envie. Si prenoit chascuns des lionciax coronez une p[a]rtie des bestes, tant qu’eles estoient en x[xx] tropiaus, et s’aloient conbatre au lion coroné, qui avoit ses bestes parti[es] en xviii [tro]piaus. Et avoit chascuns ses bestes par lui. [Et] li iiic torel, qui molt estoient fier et org[ueil]leus, en menoient une partie, et li lion [co]ronez en menoient l’autre. Si menoient u[ne] si fiere bataille entr’els que onques [de] si grant n’oï�stes parler come il la come[n]-[Gra]-çoient, mes en la fin ne pooient durer les bestes au lion coroné, ainz les covint plessier et reüser arieres. Si en estoit molt esporiz li lions coronez que il ne perdist sa pasture. Que que les bestes se conbatoient en tel maniere con vos avez oï�, avint a la dame que uns granz lieparz, li plus fiers et li plus merveilleus qui onques fust veüz, li issoit parmi la cuisse destre et s’en [al]oit parmi une molt grant valee p[ar]fo[n]de. Et quant il estoit entré en la valee, [si estoit] avis a la dame que une grant [bruine] l’en tolist la veüe en tel maniere que [e]le ne savoit qu’il estoit de[venu]. Et [quant] ele l’avoit perdu, si se tor[na] [dev]ers les bestes qui encor se conba[toient]. [Si voit que] molt en avoit le pis li [lieons coronez et ces] bestes, quant uns gran[z] [leupars i sorvint et] oissi des forez sav[aiges, et regardait] les batailles des bestes. Et quant [il vit] que li lions coronez e[n] ot [lou piour, si li al]o[it] [ai]dier, et coroit sus as bestes au lion qui n’estoit pas coronez et se conbatoit a els, que [totes] les fesoit resortir, ne tant [com il] estoit [enco] ntre eles ne porent avoir le [meillor de la baitaille]. Quant li lions qui n’estoit pas [coronez vit] qu’il ne porroit venir au [desus del lieon coroné] ne tant come cil granz liepart [ce voit] [si encon]tre lui, se fist tantost departir [la mellee, et] s’acointa tant del liepart qu’il le tret vers [lui]. Et au tierz jor se reconbatirent les bestes [an]sanble, que li lions coronez [tornoit] toute a desconfiture por l’[aide] d[ou leupart] qui estoit encontre lui. Q[uant li leupars] vit que li lions coronez estoit [pres que] desconfiz, si fist signe au [lieon sanz corone] qu’il li alast crier merci, et [il si fist. Si fut faite la pais] en tel maniere des ii lions [que onques pues] ne se corocierent ensanble. [Et] lor re[gar]doit la dame le liepart se [elle lou porroit] [co]noistre par nule rien; si li s[ambloi]t en la [fin] que ce estoit icil meï�mes qui de sa [cuisse] [es]toit issuz, qui si estoit [creüs et am]e[n]dez. Et puis resploita tant [icil lupars, ce li] sanbloit, que toute[s] [les bestes de la] B[l]o[ie] Bretaigne l’enclinoient, [et totes celles] de Gaunes et de Benoÿc [et de Gaulle et de la] Deserte. Et quant il avoit tou[te la] sei[gnorie] de ces bestes, si s’en aloit si [loing an] forez anciennes qu’eles ne savoient qu’[il devenoit]. [E]n cel [songe] demora [la roïne] toute nuit et que onques n’en [issi] jusqu’au jor. Et lors s’esveilla a l’en[jornee], molt es[poerie et molt] [es]bahie des merv[eill]es q[ue elle] avoit toute nuit veüe. Et qu[a]nt li rois Bans la vit si esbahie, si li demanda qu’elle avoit, et ele li [con]te le songe si come ele l’avoit veü en son dormant. Et quant ele li ot conté, si li dist li rois que se Dieux plest, ce n’iert se bien non.

82  The space in the manu­script is longer than this insertion, but the damage is too great to allow identification of the missing words.

Translation

107

And because the crowned lion thought that the lion without a crown was surrounded by better pastures, it attacked and tried to take the pastures out of envy. Each of the crowned lion cubs took some of the animals and divided them into thirty herds, and they went to fight against the crowned lion, who had organized its animals into eighteen herds. And each lion cub had its own herd. And the three hundred bulls, who were extremely proud and fierce, led one side, and the crowned lion led the other. They began a ferocious battle, more ferocious than any you have ever heard about before. [Gra] But in the end, the animals that fought for the crowned lion could not hold out against them, and they were forced to pull back and retreat. The crowned lion was very anxious at the loss of his pasture. While the animals were fighting, as you have heard, it seemed to the lady that a great leopard, the fiercest and most remarkable that was ever seen, emerged out of her right thigh and ran away into a deep valley. And when it reached the valley, a thick fog seemed to obscure her view, preventing her from seeing what had happened to the leopard. And when she had lost sight of it, she turned back towards the animals who were still fighting. She could see that the crowned lion and its animals were losing the fight, when a great leopard appeared from out of the wild forest, and began to watch the battle of the animals. And when it saw that the crowned lion was being defeated, it went over to help, and began to attack the animals that were fighting for the lion without a crown, and it fought them so hard that it forced them to withdraw, because they could not possibly win the battle as long as the leopard was against them. When the lion without a crown saw that it could not vanquish the crowned lion as long as it had the great leopard on its side, it left the battle and befriended the leopard, so that it came over to its own side. And on the third day, the animals fought again, but this time the crowned lion lost the battle, because the leopard was now against it. When the leopard saw that the crowned lion was at the point of defeat, it gestured to the lion without a crown that the crowned lion should go and beg for mercy, which it did. In this way, the two lions made peace with each other, and there was never again conflict between them. And the lady looked closely at the leopard to see if she could recognize it in any way, and she eventually realized that this was the same leopard that had come out of her thigh, which had matured and grown in strength. And this leopard accomplished so much that all the animals in Blue Britain25 bowed down to it, as well as those from Gaunes and Benoic, and Gaulle, and the Wasteland. And when the leopard had lordship over all these animals, it withdrew into the ancient forests, and she did not know what became of it. The queen stayed immersed in this dream all night, and did not emerge from it until it was light. And when she woke up at daybreak, she was very terrified and astonished by the extraordinary things that she had seen during the night. And when King Ban saw how frightened she was, he asked her what was wrong, and she told him about the dream, just as it had appeared to her as she slept. And when she had recounted it, the king said to her that this can only be a good thing, if it pleases God. 25  Great Britain was occasionally referred to as “Blue Britain” in Arthurian literature, possibly due to its history of great loss and sadness according to an explanation in one manu­script of the Queste del saint Graal; cf. Godefroy, Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française, 663.

108 Edition

Lors se leverent et alerent a la premiere messe, entre le roi [et sa fe]me, au plus coiement qu’il p[orent], car il ne vorent mie esveillier le roi Artu si mein, ne les conpaignons qui se dormoient et reposoient volentiers, car molt estoient travaillé le jor devant. Si pria [Grb] li rois Bans Nostre Seigneur molt corelment qu’il li donast la mort quant il li demanderoit. Et il estoit molt preudom en foi et en creance, et cele p[riere] fist il par maintes foiz, tant que une foiz [li] avint en avison en son dormant que une voiz83 li dist que sa proï�ere ser[oit] [ave]rie, car la mort [avroit]84 le jor qu’il la demanderoit. Mes avant le convend[rait pec]hier mortelment en avoutire, une foiz sanz plus, ains qu’il [m] oreüst de mort. Et [ne] de[morait] pas gran[t]ment, mes ne s’[an] es[maies]t il ja, que s’en racor[deroi]t a Nos[tre] [Se]igneur. En cel songe ou [li rois Bans si] estoit, fut avis au roi [Ban, quant la vois] se departi de lui, qu’elle [geta un] tel [esc]rois qu’il li fu avis que ce fu[st] tonnoir[es] li plus granz et li plus merveilleus qu’il eüst onques oï�. Si tressailli si durement li ou il tenoit la roï�ne sa fame entre ses braz, conme cil qui cuida estre feruz de foudre, [que] par un pou qu’il ne chaï� hors de sa cou[che]. Si en fu la roï�ne si esfrëee85 qu’ele ne pot onques mot dire d’une grant liuee, et ses sires meï�smes fu [si] [a]tain[s] que il ne sot [d]e [veri]t[é ce] il es[toit] ou non. Et quant il fu revenus en son memoire, si se leva et s’en ala au mostier, [et] se confessa et oï� la messe. [Et] ne [fut] [on]ques plus jor tant con[me] [il vesquit qu’il ne] se confessast de [viii jors an] au[tre, et comuni]ast del sa[int saicremant. Et atretel fai]soit li rois [Bohors, car molt estoit proudons et de bone vie.] [E][nsi fut li rois Artus el roiaume] de Benoÿc, [il et si home, un] mois [antier. Si] coururent en [la terr]e Cl[au]das ch[ascuns jor], si li gast[erent molt et essill]ier[ent et atorn]ere[nt, ci que molt fut] [p]uiz [grant tans passez que il eüst pooir de corre sor] le [roi Ban]. Mes puis i [corrut il per la force] Poinçon Antoine et par la for[ce] au [roi de Gaulle], si come li contes vos devisera [sai avant. Et conreait si mallem]ent [les] ii [freres] qu’il ne [lor remeïst on]qu[es roie de terre. Si qu’il fur]ent molt [povres et essillié] sor [terre, et lor femes] veves et [esgarees, que puez fur]ent [nonnes vel]ees en la [roial] mo[stier] por [poor de Clau]das. N’on[ques p]uis [n]e porent avoir s[ecors del roi] Artu, [car tant a]voit en son paï�s a fere [que venir] n’i [pot a celle fo]iz. Si en furent li oï�r [qu’il anjandr]e[rent long]uemen[t] [des]herité. Lor r[andit li ro]is Artus [et ch]as[sa Claudas hors de] sa terre, et si lor [donait lou roi]au[me de Gaulle. Ici] le vos contera li contes [sai] av[ant, mais atant ce] test ore li contes de [ices chos]es [a rescon]ter [et] parole de Merlin, q[ui ce] departi del roi Artu la veille de la Seint [Je]han, mes ce fu si coiement que nus nel sot que li [rois] Artus et li rois Bans et [misire] Gauvein et li rois [Bohorz]. [Ici]st iiii s[o]ren[t] bien l’alee Merlin, [mais il ne sorent qu]el part il s’en ala. Et lor[s] [d]is[t] li rois Bans a Merlin: “Sire, je sui molt esfreez d’une [avision] qu[i m’est] [av]enue et a ma fame. Si av[roie] [molt] grant mestier de conseil, et vos estes [li plus] [sa]ge home qui ore vive. Si me vos [consilliez, la vostr]e merci, si ne vos en doit p[eser] [que elle] peu[e]nt senefier.” 83  The manu­script reads “foiz,” which has been corrected.

84  This sentence is missing a verb, which has been supplied from the same line in MS fr. 344 (“car la mort avroit il lou jor qu’il la demanderoit,” fol. 161r). 85  The scribe writes “esfree” here, which is presumably an error given the need for both a feminine agreement and the lack of evidence in the manu­script for the fall of hiatus, as discussed above.

Translation

109

Then the king and his wife got up and went to the first mass of the day as quietly as they could, because they did not want to wake King Arthur so early in the morning, nor did they want to disturb his companions, who were much in need of sleep and rest because they were so exhausted from the previous day. King Ban prayed [Grb] very earnestly to Our Lord that he would give him death when he asked for it. He was very sincere in both faith and belief, and he repeated this prayer many times over until on one occasion, he was visited by a voice in a dream, which told him that his prayer would be answered, and he would be given death on the day that he asked for it. But first, he must commit the mortal sin of adultery just once before he dies. It would happen in the near future, and he should not be anxious about it, because he would make peace with Our Lord. While King Ban was in this dream, he dreamt that the voice left him with such a gigantic crash that it sounded like the greatest and most extraordinary clap of thunder he had ever heard. He leapt up so violently from where he was lying with his arms around his wife that he nearly fell out of bed, as if he thought that he had been struck by lightning. The queen was so afraid that she could barely speak for quite some time, and her lord was also so disturbed by it that he could not be sure whether it had been real or not. And when he had recovered his senses, he got up and went to the monastery, where he gave confession and heard mass. And there was not a week that went by for the rest of his life that he did not go to confession and take holy communion. And King Bohort did the same, because he was a worthy man who lived a very virtuous life. And so King Arthur stayed in the kingdom of Benoic with his men for a whole month. They raided Claudas’s lands every day, ravaging and laying them waste, to ensure that they would not be able to attack King Ban again any time soon. But Claudas was able to launch an attack some time later, aided by the armies of Poince Antoine and the King of Gaulle, as the story will tell you in due course. And their assault on the two brothers was so devastating that they did not leave them a single speck of land. They were cast into poverty and exiled from their lands, and their wives were left widowed and destitute. They retired to the royal convent to become nuns, for fear of Claudas. They could not rely on King Arthur’s help at that time, because he had problems to deal with in his own country and was not able to come to their aid. Their children were disinherited for a long time. Afterwards, King Arthur would restore their inheritance, driving Claudas out of their lands and giving them the kingdom of Gaulle. The story will come to this at the appropriate time, but for now, it falls silent about these matters, and turns to Merlin, who left King Arthur on the eve of the feast of St. John. But he went so discreetly that no one was aware of his departure, other than King Arthur, King Ban, Sir Gauvain, and King Bohort. These four knew that Merlin had left, but they did not know where he had gone. At that time, King Ban said to Merlin, “My lord, I am very disturbed by a vision that came to my wife and me. I am in great need of counsel, and you are the wisest man alive. Please advise me, if you do not mind, on what it might mean.”

110 Edition

[Gva] “Certes, sire,” fet Merlins, “en ii avisons a molt86 grant senefiance, et ce n’est pas merveille se vos en estes espooriz.” Lors li demanda li rois Artus kieux les aventures estoient, et Merlin li conte touz itex come sa fame et lui les avoient veües en lor dormant, si que li rois Bans meï�mes conoist qu’il li a dit voir. [Q]uant li rois Artus et misire Gauvein et li rois Bohorz oï�rent les fiers songes que Merlins lor ot devisez, si saignent de la merveille que il peuent senefier. Si i pensent molt longuement, et quant il ont grant piece pensé a ceste merveille, si li dist li rois Artus: “Sire, vos avez dit quel li songe furent. Or nos en dites la senefiance, la vostre merci, que c’est une chose que je trop voluntiers orroie.” “Sire,” fet Merlin, “del tout en tout ne le veu ge mie esclarier, car je ne le doi pas fere, mes toutes voies j’en dirai une partie, itant come a moi en [a]ferra.” S’en comence sa reson tele come vos porroiz oï�r par [t]ex moz: “[R]ois Bans, il est voirs” fet Merlin, “que li granz lions qui n’estoit mie coronez senefie i molt riche prince et molt poissant d’amis et de terre, qui conquerra par force xxix roiaumes. Et fera venir a sa merci et a sa seig[norie] touz les xxix rois coronez, et ce sont li xxix [lions] que ta fame vit en son dormant. Et l’autre lion que ele vit coroné, qui avoit en sa subjection xxiii lionciax touz coronez, senefie un roi molt poissant et molt riche, qui avra xxiii rois souz lui tuit si home lige. Et li iiic torel que ele vit einsi senefie iiic chevaliers, qui tuit seront par fiances li uns a l’autre d’els entraidier jusc’a la mort. Et tuit seront home a cel roi. Et icil princes de terre dont je t’ai primes parlé, si vorra tolir la terre a icel roi par fine force, mes il se desfendra tant com il porra. Et quant ce vendra que cil princes avra mis au desouz cel roi, si li vendra uns chevaliers mesconeüz qui molt longuement avra esté perduz. Si aidera a cel roi tant que li princes ne le pot chacier de champ ne de sa terre. Et li lieparz senefie ce chevalier, car autresi come li lieparz est fiers et orgueilleus sor toutes autres bestes sera il mieudres que chevaliers que l’en sache a son tans. Par celui chevalier sera fete la pes entre le prince et le roi qui tant s’entrehaoient.”87 “[O]re avez oï�” dist Merlin, “vostre avison, et quele en est la senefiance. Or si m’en irai atant, car aillors ai a aler.” Et quant cil oient la mervelle del songe que Merlin lor ot dit, si en furent plus esbahi et plus pensif qu’il n’avoient devant esté. Et lors li demanda li rois Artus se il lor esclereroit autrement que il n’a fet, et il dit que nenil. Atant s’en parti la veille de la Seint Johan, et s’en ala a s’amie qui l’atendoit sor la fontaine tout a cop por le covent qu’ele li avoit. Et quant ele le conut, si li fist molt grant joie com ele peüst fere a nul home greignor, et le mena en ses chanbres en lor repere si coiement c’onques ne furent aperceü de nul home. Et ele li enquist et demanda de meinte merveille, et il li aprist tout quanqu’ele li requist por la grant amor en coi il l’acueilli. Et quant cele vit et sot qu’il l’ot prise en si grant amor, si li pria et demanda qu’il li enseignast coment ele endormiroit i home sanz esveillier, [Gvb] tant come ele vorroit. Et Merlin sot bien tote sa pensee, et toutes voies li demanda por coi ele le disoit. 86  The phrase “a molt” is repeated in the manu­script, presumably in error.

87  In the manu­script, this reads “s’entrehaoriont,” with the “r” added by a later reader in superscript who evidently attempted, but failed, to correct the error.

Translation

111

[Gva] “Of course, my Lord,” says Merlin, “these two visions have great significance, and it was no wonder that you found them disconcerting.” Then King Arthur asked what the vision entailed, and Merlin recounted exactly what King Ban and his wife had seen in their dreams, so that King Ban knew he was telling the truth. When King Arthur and Sir Gauvain and King Ban heard Merlin’s account of the dramatic events of the dream, they make the sign of the cross in astonishment at what it could mean. They think long and hard about it, and when they have considered the extraordinary dream for quite some time, King Arthur says, “My lord, you have told us what happened in the dream. Now, I would be very grateful if you could tell us what it means, because I would very much like to hear it.” “My lord,” says Merlin, “I do not want to tell you every detail, because that is something that I must not do. However, I will explain some of it, and as much as I feel is appropriate.” He begins his explanation of the dream in the following words, as you will hear. “King Ban, it is true,” says Merlin, “that the great lion without a crown represents a very rich prince, who will be well endowed with lands and friends, and who will conquer twenty-nine kingdoms by force. And he will subdue and gain lordship over twenty-nine crowned kings—these are the twenty-nine lions that your wife saw in her dream. And the other lion that she saw, the crowned lion who had twenty-three crowned lion cubs as its subjects, represents a very rich and powerful king who will have eighteen kings under his lordship. And the three hundred bulls that she saw represents three hundred knights, who have sworn to help each other until death. And they will all be in service to this king. And the prince that I mentioned first of all will attempt to conquer the king’s lands by force, but the king will defend himself as best he can. And when the prince has defeated the king, an unknown knight, who will have been lost for many years, will arrive. He will help this king fight the prince, to the extent that the prince will not be able to drive the king from the battlefield or away from his lands. And the leopard represents this knight, because just as the leopard is fiercer and prouder than all the other animals, this knight will be the best that will ever be known in his time. It is because of this knight that the king and the prince, who hated each other so much, will make peace.” “Now you have heard,” says Merlin, “what your vision was, and what it means. Now I must leave, because I have business elsewhere.” And when they heard the wondrous dream that Merlin had recounted, they were more amazed and haunted by it than they had ever been by anything before. And then King Arthur asked Merlin if he could shed any more light on it, but he refuses. With that, Merlin left on the eve of St. John’s Day, and went to his sweetheart who was waiting for him promptly at the fountain as she had promised. And when she recognized him, she was more overjoyed than she would be at the sight of other man. She led him back to her home and took him to her room, so discreetly that no one noticed. And she enquired about many marvellous things, and he taught her everything that she asked of him because of the great love he had for her. And when she saw and realized that he was so deeply in love with her, she begged and asked him if he would teach her how she could make a man fall asleep and wake again [Gvb] as she pleased. And Merlin knew very well what she was thinking, but he still asked her why she wanted to learn this.

112 Edition

“Ge le di,” fet la pucele, “por ce que, toutes voies quant je venré a vos parler, que j’endormiré mon pere Dionas et ma mere, si que ja ne s’apercevront de moi ne de vos. Car sachiez que je morroie se il percevoient riens nule que nos feison.” Itiex paroles disoit la pucele a Merlin soventes foiz, tant que vint i jor que il s’en furent alé el jardin por els esbatre88 entr’els ii, et se furent bouté desouz une ente ambedui. Et la pucele le fist couchier en son devant et le comença a enquerre, et lui aler environ, et l’atrest tant sor lie et une foiz et autre que a merveilles l’ama. Et lors li requist la pucele qu’il li apreï�st i home a endormir. Et il sot bien toute sa pensé, et totes voies li aprist il autre choses assez, que Dex Nostre Sires le volt einsi, que tenir ne s’en pot. Et si li aprist iii nons qu’elles escrivoit en un anel toutes les foiz qu’elle devoit a lui parler, qui estoient plein de si grant force que ja tant come il fussent sor lie89 enpeint ne peüst nus a lui parler. Et cele mist tout en escrit, et des iluec en avant ele atorna si Merlin toutes les foiz qu’il venoit parler a lui, qu’il n’avoit pooir de lui. Et por ce dit l’en es proverbes que fame si a plus i art que li deables. Einsi demora Merlin viii jors touz pleins avec la pucele, mes nos ne trovon pas lisant que onques Merlin li requeï�st vilanie, ne li ne autrui. Mes ele en avoit trop grant poor quant el le conut et elle sot qui il fu. Et por ce se garnisoit ele si bien encontre lui quant il voloit a lui parler. Si demora viii jorz avec s’amie sanz remuer. Si li aprist toutes lé merveilles que nus clers mortiex porroit savoir, et des choses qui estoient feites et dites et de celes qui estoient a avenir molt. Et ele mit tout en escrit que riens nule n’i lessa. Et lors s’en parti Merlin et s’en revint a Benoÿc, ou li rois Artus et sa conpaignie sejornoit, qui molt furent lié quant il le virent. Si menerent entr’els bone vie. [A]prés ce que Merlins fu reperiez a Banoÿc, einsi con vos avez oï�, si monta misire Gauvein et sa conpaignie, des melz montez de l’ost, et entra en la terre Claudas. Si preerent toute la terre, et essillierent, et brisierent viles et bors et chastielx, et midrent tout a plain et ardirent si tout a feu et a flanbe que riens nule n’i remest en estant. Si s’en foï� touz li pueples hors de la terre, et cil corurent d’iques enz es portes de la Deserte et destruirent quanqu’il avoit environ. N’onques Claudas ne fu tiex ne sa conpaignie que il osassent hors oissir encontre els. Si apovria si Claudas qu’il n’avoit entor lui ame qui servir le daignast, et tantost come misires Gauveins et sa conpaignie se retornerent, se partirent de Claudas, Poinces Antoines et Froiles, li dus d’Alemaigne, et Randol, li seneschaus de Gaule, dolent et corocié de lor perte et de lor damage. Si jurent et a-

88  The word “es” has been written twice in the manu­script, presumably in error.

89  This is an unusual spelling of the feminine form of the indirect object pronoun. According to Pope, li was often used for both masculine and feminine forms, which were later differentiated by the separate pronouns lui and ele. See Pope, From Latin to Modern French, 324.

Translation

113

“I am asking,” said the girl, “so that every time I come to speak to you, I can make my father, Dyonas, and my mother fall asleep so that they cannot see us together. Because you should know that I would be dead if they had any idea what we were doing.” The girl said this to Merlin several times, until one day, when they had gone out into the garden to amuse themselves, they sat down under a fruit tree. And the girl made Merlin lie down in her lap, and she started to ask him questions. She moved around him, and seduced him again and again until he was sick with love for her. And then she asked him to teach her how to put a man to sleep. And he knew very well what she was planning, but nevertheless, he could not prevent himself from teaching her this skill, and many others as well, because Our Lord God wanted it this way. And he taught her three names, which she inscribed on a ring every time that she had to speak to him. These words were so powerful that when they were imprinted on her, they prevented anyone from speaking to her. She put all of this down in writing, and from then on, she manipulated Merlin every time that he came to talk to her, so that he had no power over her. And that is why the proverbs say that women have one more trick than the devil. Merlin stayed with the girl for a full week, but there is nothing in any of the books to suggest that he ever asked her—or anyone else, for that matter—to do anything that would bring her shame. But she was still very afraid of him when she found out who he was. And because of this, she made sure to protect herself when he wanted to speak to her. He spent a week with his sweetheart without leaving, and he taught her all kinds of marvels that are beyond the knowledge of any mortal scholar, as well as many things that were done and said in the past, and things that would happen in the future. And she wrote everything down, leaving out nothing. And then Merlin left and returned to Benoic, where King Arthur and his company were staying and enjoying some leisure time. They were very glad to see him. After Merlin had come back to Benoic, as you have heard, Sir Gauvain mounted his horse along with his companions, the best knights of the army, and set out into Claudas’s lands. They plundered and pillaged the entire land, demolishing towns and fortresses and castles, razing them to the ground, and burning them with fire and flame until nothing was left. They sent all the people fleeing from the land, and they stormed the gates of the Wasteland and destroyed everything all around. Neither Claudas nor his company dared go outside to face them. They caused Claudas to become so impoverished that there was not a single person who would stoop to serving him. And as soon as Sir Gauvain and his company had returned, Poince Antoine, Froille, the Duke of Germany, and Randol, the Seneschal of Gaulle, all left Claudas, dismayed and angry about the losses and damages that they had suffered. They promise and [...]

APPENDIX: TABLE OF CONCORDANCE Fragment siglum

Gerson location

A

Vol. III, rear flyleaf

B

Vol. II, front flyleaf

C

Vol. I, rear flyleaf

D

Vol. I, front flyleaf

E

Vol. II, rear flyleaf

F

Vol. III, front flyleaf

G

Vol. IV, rear flyleaf

r/v* First legible words r

[…] et tes genz […]

Last legible words […] l’oraille del bois, par […]

v

[…] le cor corner […]

[…] il s’entrevirent […]

v

[…] Poinces Antoine molt […]

[…] Arodainas si durement […]

r

[…] come il fu […]

[…] cil l’entendent qui […]

v

[…] mort se il ont […]

[…] de la paor qu’il […]

v

[…] et autresi firent […]

[…] la destre espaule […]

v

[…] et les genz […]

[…] come il a comen- […]

v

[…] “Certes, sire” fet […]

[…] Si jurent et a-[…]

r

v

r

r

r

r

[…] et granz et fors […]

[…] d’eure que molt […]

[…] or le suivaient […]

[…] vos ont feite […]

[…] qu’il li envoia […]

[…]-çoient, mes en la […]

* Orientation in current binding. ** The last legible words are equivalent to: Walter, 1191, para. 383/ Sommer, 266, l. 40/Trachsler, para. 267.

[…] celui qui point […]

[…] aidier cui [… page torn]**

[…] sevent que tuit sont […]

[…] n’atendi onques l’autre […]

[…] au roi Ban […]

“[…] senefier.” […]



Appendix: Table of Concordance

115

Ed. Sommer (1908)

Ed. Walter (2001)

Ed. Trachsler (forthcoming)

260, l. 6 […] 260–61, l. 42/1

1175, para. 371 […] 1178, para. 373

para. 256 […] para. 257

262, l. 35 […] 264, l. 12

1182, para. 376 […] 1185, para. 378

para. 261 […] para. 263

261, l. 5 […] 262, l. 32

264, fn. 1 […] 265, l. 35 265, l. 35 […] ? 267, l. 17 […] 269, l. 2 269, l. 2 […] 270, l. 21

270, l. 21 […] 271, l. 35 271, l. 36 […] 273, l. 18 273, l. 18 […] 274, l. 37 274, l. 37 […] 276, l. 15 276, l. 15 […] 277, l. 41 277, l. 41 […] 279, l. 26 279, l. 26 […] 281, l. 8

1178, para. 373 […] 1182, para. 376 1185, para. 378 […] 1189, para. 380 1189, para. 380 […] ? 1193, para. 384 […] 1197, para. 389 1197, para. 389 […] 1200, para. 393 1200, para. 393 […] 1203, para. 397 1203, para. 397 […] 1207, para. 401 1207, para. 401 […] 1210, para. 404 1210, para. 404 […] 1214, para. 408 1214, para. 408 […] 1218, para. 412 1218, para. 412 […] 1221, para. 417 1221, para. 418 […] 1225, para. 420

para. 257 […] para. 261 para. 263 […] para. 265 para. 265 […] ? para. 267 […] para. 270 para. 270 […] para. 273 para. 273 […] para. 276 para. 276 […] para. 280 para. 280 […] para. 283 para. 283 […] para. 285 para. 285 […] para. 288 para. 288 […] para. 291 para. 291 […] para. 294

PLATES: IMAGES OF FRAGMENTS

Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 1: Fragment Ar, Volume III, rear flyleaf recto

117

118 Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 2: Fragment Av, Volume III, rear flyleaf verso

Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 3: Fragment Br, Volume II, front flyleaf recto

119

120 Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 4: Fragment Bv, Volume II, front flyleaf verso

Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 5: Fragment Cr, Volume I, rear flyleaf verso (turned 180°)

121

122 Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 6: Fragment Cv, Volume I, rear flyleaf recto (turned 180°)

Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 7: Fragment Dr, Volume I, front flyleaf recto

123

124 Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 8: Fragment Dv, Volume I, front flyleaf verso

Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 9: Fragment Er, Volume II, rear flyleaf recto

125

126 Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 10: Fragment Ev, Volume II, rear flyleaf verso

Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 11: Fragment Fr, Volume III, front flyleaf recto

127

128 Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 12: Fragment Fv, Volume III, front flyleaf verso

Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 13: Fragment Gr, Volume IV, rear flyleaf recto

129

130 Plates: Images of Fragments

Plate 14: Fragment Gv, Volume IV, rear flyleaf verso

BIBLIO­GRAPHY

Manu­scripts and Archival Sources Bristol, Bristol Archives, 40365/V/1/(a) (St Leonard’s Vestry Minutes, 1615). —— , Mayor’s Register Book, fol. 70 (Council Minutes, December 6, 1613). London, British Library, MS Cotton Domitian A VII (Durham Liber Vitae). —— , MS Harley 438. —— , MS Harley 991. London, Lambeth Palace Library, Fairhurst Papers, MS 3513, fols. 21r–v. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 178. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de l’Arsenal, MS 3482. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 91. —— , MS fr. 105. —— , MS fr. 344. —— , MS fr. 770. —— , MS fr. 9123. Tours, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 951. York, Borthwick Institute of Archives, Chancery Probate Records (Inventory of the goods of Archbishop Tobie Matthew, 10 April 1968). —— , Probate Register 40, fol. 195r (Tobias Matthew’s will). —— , Probate Register 40, fols. 397r–398v (Francis Matthew’s will). York, York Minster Library, Catalogus librorum, 1638, fol. 47r. —— , MS Add. 18. —— , Thomas Comber, Catalogus librorum in Bibliotheca Ecclesia Cathedralis & Metropoliticae B: Petri Ebor, 1687, fol. 62r.

Early Printed Books

[Anonymous.] The Case Betwixt Mr. Pool and Mr. C. Bee Considered and Decided. Pamphlet, 1667. Bee, Cornelius. The Case of Cornelius Bee and his Partners, Richard Royston, William Samuel Thompson, Thomas Robinson, and William Morden, Booksellers. Pamphlet, 1666/1667. Bersuire, Pierre. Prima pars Dictionarij. Nuremberg: Anton Koburger, 1499 = Durham, Ushaw College, XVII.E.4.3–5. Gerson, Jean. Prima/Secunda/Tercia pars operum Johannis Gerson. Strasbourg [Argentina]: Martin Flach [Simus Martinus], 1494 = Bristol, Bristol Central Library, 88–90/SR39 —— . Prima/Secunda/Tercia pars operum Johannis Gerson. Strasbourg [Argentina]: Johann Grüninger, 1488. —— . Quarta pars operum Johannis Gerson prius non impressa. Strasbourg [Argeñ.]: Martin Flach the younger for Matthias Schürer [ex officina Martini flacci iunior; exactissima Mathie schurer], 1502 = Bristol, Bristol Central Library, 91/SR39.

132

Biblio­graphy

Edited Primary Sources [Anonymous.] Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation. Vol. 2: The Story of Merlin. Translated by Rupert T. Pickens. Edited by Norris J. Lacy. Cambridge: Brewer, 2010. —— . The Old French Lays of Ignaure, Oiselet and Amours. Edited by Glyn S. Burgess and Leslie C. Brook. Cambridge: Brewer, 2010. —— . La Suite-Vulgate du Merlin. Edited by Richard Trachsler. Pre-typeset author manu­script. Forthcoming. —— . “Les premiers faits du roi Arthur.” Edited by Daniel Poirion and Irene Freire-Nunes. In Le livre du Graal. Vol. 1: Joseph d’Arimathie, Merlin, Les premiers faits du roi Arthur. Edited by Philippe Walter, 807–1662. Paris: Gallimard, 2001. —— . The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances. Vol. 2: L’Estoire de Merlin. Edited by Oskar H. Sommer. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1908. Robert de Boron. Merlin: Roman du XIIIe siècle. Edited by Alexandre Micha. Geneva: Droz, 1979.

Secondary Sources

A Catalogue of Books in the Bristol Reference Library Which Were Printed Abroad in Languages Other than English during the Years 1473 to 1700. Bristol: Corporation of Bristol, 1956. A Critical Edition of the 13th and 14th Centuries Old French Poem Versions of the Vie de St Alexis. Edited by Charles E. Stebbins. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1974. Barker, Nicholas. “The Importation of Books into England 1460–1526.” In Beiträge zur Ge­ schichte des Buchwesens im konfessionellen Zeitalter, edited by Herbert Göpfert et al., 251–66. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985. Barry, Jonathan. “Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century Bristol.” In Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, edited by Barry Reay, 59–90. London: Routledge, 1988 Baumgartner, Emmanuèle. “Review: Merlin: Roman du XIIIe siècle etc.” Romania 101 (1980): 538–43. Bogdanow, Fanni. “Review: Alexandre Micha, Lancelot, roman en prose etc.” French Studies 38, no. 3 (1984): 322–23. Booth, Joan. “Negotiating with the Epigram in Latin Love Elegy.” In Latin Elegy and Hellenistic Epigram: A Tale of Two Genres at Rome, edited by Alison Keith, 51–65. Newcastle-uponTyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2011. Bourgain, Pascale and Françoise Vielliard. Conseils pour l’édition des textes médiévaux: Fascicule III: Textes littéraires. Paris: É� cole nationale des chartes, 2018. Cambridge University Library Catalogue. Accessed September 26, 2019. http://idiscover.lib. cam.ac.uk/. Coates, Alan. “The Latin Trade in England and Abroad.” In A Companion to the Early Printed Book in Britain, 1476–1558, edited by Vincent Gillespie and Susan Powell, 45–58. Cambridge: Brewer, 2014. Chotzen, Thomas M. “Notice sur quelques fragments de manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de l’Université d’Amsterdam.” Neophilo­logus 14 (1929): 87–90. Clark, Liesl A. and P. J. C. Field. “The Amsterdam University Fragment of the Old French Prose Merlin.” Medium Aevum 61 (1992): 275–84. Cross, Claire. “Frances Matthew and the Re-Foundation of York Minster Library.” In 1414: John Neuton and the Re-Foundation of York Minster Library, edited by Hanna Vorholt and Peter Young. 2015. Accessed September 26, 2019. https://hoaportal.york.ac.uk/hoaportal/ yml1414essay.jsp?id=52.



Biblio­graphy

133

Cuddon, J. A. B. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. 3rd ed. London: Penguin, 1992. Derolez, Albert. The Palaeo­graphy of Gothic Manu­script Books: From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Doyle, A. I. “The Printed Books of the Last Monks of Durham.” The Library 10, no. 3 (1988): 203–19. Duba, William and Christoph Flüeler. “Fragments and Fragmento­logy.” Fragmento­logy 1 (2018): 1–5. Durham Priory Library Recreated Database. Accessed September 29, 2019. https://www. durhampriory.ac.uk/. Durham University Library Catalogue. Accessed September 29, 2019. https://library.dur.ac.uk/. Feather, John. “The British Book Market 1600–1800.” In A Companion to the History of the Book, edited by Simon Eliot and Jonathan Rose, 232–46. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Forsyth, Hazel. Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker: Surviving the Great Fire of London. London: Tauris, 2016. Fouché, Pierre. Phonétique historique du français. 3 vols. Paris: Klincksieck, 1952–58. Freymond, Emile. “Artus’ Kampf mit dem Katzenungetüm: Eine Episode der Vulgata des Livre d’Artus, die Sage und ihre Lokalisierung in Savoyen.” In Beiträge zur Romanischen Philo­ logie: Festgabe für Gustav Gröber, edited by Rudolf Zenker, 311–96. Halle: Niemeyer, 1899. Gavin, Joseph B. “Elizabethan Bishop of Durham: Tobias Matthew, 1595–1606.” PhD diss., McGill University, 1972. Giannini, Gabrielle, Jean-François Nieus, and Giovanni Palumbo. “Un nouveau fragment de Merlin en prose et de sa Suite Vulgate (Namur, Archives de l’É� tat, Arch. Eccl. 1664).” Le Moyen Âge 120 (2014): 673–711. Godefroy, Frédéric. Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue francaise et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle. Paris: Vieweg, 1881. Gossen, Carl Theodor. Petite grammaire de l’ancien picard. Paris: Klincksieck, 1951. Hain, Ludwig. Repertorium biblio­graphicum. 4 vols. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1826–38. Hampson, Robert Thomas. Medii Aevi Kalendarium: Dates, Charters, and Customs of the Middle Ages. 2 vols. London: Henry Kent Causton, 1841. Harley, Thomas. Matthew Poole: His Life, His Times, His Contributions Along with His Argument against the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. New York: Bloomington, 2009. Herbin, Jean-Charles. “Les formes régionales du Merlin: essai de classement.” L’Information Grammaticale 88 (2001): 33–39. Hurst, Clive. “Book Review: Pearson, David. Oxford Bookbinding, 1500–1640.” The Papers of the Biblio­graphical Society of America 95, no. 4 (2001): 533–34. Hyett, F. A. “Notes on The First Bristol and Gloucestershire Printers.” Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeo­logical Society 20 (1895–97): 38–51. Jackson, Ian. The Price Codes of the Book-Trade. Berkeley: self-pub., 2010. Jodogne, Omer. “Fragments d’un manu­script inconnu du Conte du Graal: les fragments de Lannoy.” In Mélanges offerts à Rita Lejeune, professeur à l’Université de Liège. 2 vols., 2:1039–52. Gembloux: Duculot, 1969. De Jong, Thera. “Parasite Consonants: A Homo­graphic Clash.” In Medi­eval Dialecto­logy, edited by Jacek Fisiak, 7–42. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995. Kennedy, Elspeth, Michelle Szkilnik, Rupert T. Pickens, Karen Pratt, and Andrea M. L. Williams. “Lancelot with and without the Grail: Lancelot do Lac and the Vulgate Cycle.” In The Arthur of the French: The Arthurian Legend in Medi­eval French and Occitan Literature, edited by Glyn S. Burgess and Karen Pratt, 274–324. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006.

134

Biblio­graphy

Ker, Neil R. Fragments of Medi­eval Manu­scripts Used as Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings, with a Survey of Oxford Binding c.1515–1620. Oxford: Oxford Biblio­graphical Society, 2004. Kwakkel, Erik. “Kissing, Biting and the Treatment of Feet: The Transitional Script of the Long Twelfth Century.” In Turning Over a New Leaf: Change and Development in the Medi­eval Book, edited by Erik Kwakkel, Rosamond McKitterick, and Rodney Thomson, 78–126. Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2012. Leedham-Green, Elisabeth. “Early Modern Handwriting: An Introduction.” English Handwriting Online 1500–1700. Accessed September 26, 2019. https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ ceres/ehoc/intro.html. Lucas, Peter J. “William Retchford, Pupil of Abraham Wheelock in Anglo-Saxon: ‘He Understands the Saxon as well as Myself’.” Transactions of the Cambridge Biblio­graphical Society 12, no. 4 (2003): 335–61. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. La langue française aux XIVe et XVe siècles. Paris: Nathan, 1997. Marks, Philippa. “English Bookbindings: Additions to the Collections 1975–1985.” British Library Journal 18, no. 1 (1992): 98–104. Mathew, Arnold H. and Annette Calthrop. The Life of Sir Tobie Matthew: Bacon’s Alter Ego. London: Elkin Mathews, 1907. Mathew, Norris. Early Printed Books and Manu­scripts in the City Reference Library, Bristol. Bristol: Hemmons, 1899. McFarling, Usha L. “Making Ink from Oak-Galls.” Verso: The Blog of the Huntingdon Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens. Accessed November 22, 2019. https://www.huntington. org/verso/2019/05/making-ink-oak-galls. Meale, Carol M. “‘all the bokes that I haue of latyn, englisch, and frensch”: Laywomen and their Books in Late Medi­eval England.” In Women and Literature in Britain, 1150–1500, edited by Carol M. Meale, 128–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Medi­eval Libraries of Great Britain (MLGB3) Database. Accessed September 29, 2019. http:// mlgb3.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/. Menna, Giulio. “Humanistic Script.” Sexy Codico­logy. Accessed September 29, 2019. https:// sexycodico­logy.net/blog/codico­logy/medi­eval-scripts/humanistic-script/. Micha, Alexandre. “Les manuscrits du Merlin en prose de Robert de Boron.” Romania 79 (1958): 78–94. —— . “Les manuscrits du Merlin en prose de Robert de Boron (suite).” Romania 79 (1958): 145–74. —— . “La Table Ronde chez Robert de Boron et dans la Queste del Saint Graal.” In Les Romans du Graal aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 29 mars–3 avril 1954, 119–36. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1956. Middle English Dictionary. Accessed September 28, 2019. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/ middle-english-dictionary/. Middleton, Roger. “Manu­scripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle: Some Books and their Owners.” In A Companion to the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, edited by Carol Dover, 219–35. Cambridge: Brewer, 2002. Middleton, Roger. “The Manu­scripts.” In The Arthur of the French: The Arthurian Legend in Medi­eval French and Occitan Literature, edited by Glyn S. Burgess and Karen Pratt, 8–92. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006. Moore, J. K. Primary Materials Relating to Copy and Print in English Books of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford Biblio­graphical Society, 1992. Newley, J. E. “A Life of Tobias Matthew, Archbishop of York 1546–1628.” Master’s thesis, University of Bristol, 1998.



Biblio­graphy

135

Nixon, Terry. “Catalogue of Manu­scripts.” In Les Manuscrits de Chrétien de Troyes/The Manu­ scripts of Chrétien de Troyes, edited by Keith Busby, Terry Nixon, Alison Stones, and Lori Walters. 2 vols, 2:1–85. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1993. Oates, Rosamund. “Tobie Matthew and the Minster Benefaction.” In 1414: John Neuton and the Re-Foundation of York Minster Library, edited by Hanna Vorholt and Peter Young. 2014. Accessed September 24, 2019. https://hoaportal.york.ac.uk/hoaportal/yml1414essay. jsp?id=40. Oldham, J. Basil. Blind Panels of English Binders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958. —— . English Blind-Stamped Bindings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952. —— . Shrewsbury School Library Bindings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1943. Oxford Bodleian SOLO Catalogue. Accessed September 26, 2019. http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/. Paris, Gaston. “Compte rendu de Freymond 1899.” Romania 29 (1900): 121–24. Parkes, Malcolm B. English Cursive Book Hands 1250–1500. London: Scolar, 1979. —— . Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: Scolar, 1992. —— . Their Hands before Our Eyes: A Closer Look at Scribes = The Lyell Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford 1999. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. Pauphilet, Albert. Chrétien de Troyes: Le Manuscrit d’Annonay. Paris: Droz, 1934. Pearson, David. Oxford Bookbinding 1500–1640, Including a Supplement to Neil Ker’s Fragments of Medi­eval Manu­scripts used as Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings. Oxford: Oxford Biblio­graphical Society, 2000. —— . Provenance Research in Book History. Oxford: Bodleian Libraries, 2019. Pfister, Max. “L’Area Galloromanza.” In Lo Spazio letterario del Medioevo. Vol. 2: Il medioevo volgare. 1. La produzione del testo, edited by Piero Boitani, Mario Mancini, and Alberto Vàvaro, 18–96. Rome: Salerno, 1999. Pickwoad, Nicholas. “The Use of Fragments in Medi­eval Manu­scripts in the Construction and Covering of Bindings on Printed Books.” In Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medi­ eval Books (Proceedings of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500), edited by Linda L. Brownrigg and Margaret M. Smith, 1–20. Los Altos Hills / London: Anderson-Lovelace / The Red Gull, 2000. Plomer, Henry R. A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland from 1641 to 1667. London: Blades, East, and Blades for the Biblio­ graphical Society, 1907. Pohl, Benjamin and Leah Tether. “Books Fit for a King: The Presentation Copies of Martin Bucer’s De regno Christi (London, British Library, Royal MS. 8 B. VII) and Johannes Sturm’s De periodis (Cambridge, Trinity College, II.12.21 and London, British Library, C.24.e.5).” Electronic British Library Journal (2015), article 7: 1–35. Accessed September 25, 2019. https://www.bl.uk/eblj/2015articles/article7.html. Pollard, Graham. “The Names of Some English Fifteenth-Century Bookbinders.” The Library 25, no. 3 (1970): 193–218. Pope, Mildred K. From Latin to Modern French: Phono­logy and Morpho­logy. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1934; reprint 1973. Purdie, Rhiannon. “Manu­scripts and Manu­script Culture.” In Geoffrey Chaucer in Context, edited by Ian Johnson, 43–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Raine, James. A Catalogue of the Printed Books in the Library and the Dean of the Chapter of York. York: John Sampson, 1896.

136

Biblio­graphy

Rollason, David and Lynda Rollason. The Durham Liber Vitae: London, British Library, MS Cotton Domitian A.VII. Edition and Digital Facsimile. 3 vols. London: British Library, 2007. Sacks, David Harris. The Widening Gate: Bristol and the Atlantic Economy, 1450–1700. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Schøsler, Lene. “From Latin to Modern French: Actualization and Markedness.” In Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress, edited by Henning Andersen, 169–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Sheils, William Joseph. “Matthew, Tobie (1544?–1628).” Oxford Dictionary of National Bio­ graphy (online edition). Accessed September 26, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ref:odnb/18342. Schmolke-Hasselmann, Beate. The Evolution of Arthurian Romance: The Verse Tradition from Chrétien to Froissart, translated by Barbara and Roger Middleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Stoddard, Roger E. Marks in Books: Illustrated and Explained. Cambridge: Houghton Library, Harvard University, 1985. Stones, Alison. “The Lancelot-Graal Project.” Accessed March 5, 2021. https://www.lancelotproject.pitt.edu/. Tether, Leah. “The ‘Un-publication’ of Floris and Blancheflour in Early-Modern England.” In “Floire et Blancheflor, XIIIe–XVIe siècle,” edited by Anne Réach-Ngô, Sofia Lodén, and Vanessa Obry. Special issue, Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes 38, no. 2 (2019): 367–86. Tovey, Charles. A Free Library for Bristol with A History of the City Library, its Founders and Benefactors. London: Longman, Brown / Bristol: Evans and Arrowsmith, 1855. Trachsler, Richard. “Pour une nouvelle édition de la Suite-Vulgate du Merlin.” Vox Romanica 59 (2001): 128–48. Venuti, Lawrence. “Translation as Cultural Politics: Régimes of Domestication in English.” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 65–79. New York: Routledge, 2010. Walker, Thomas D. “The Cover Design.” The Library Quarterly 62, no. 1 (1992): 90–91. Weiskott, Eric. “Multispectral Imaging and Medi­eval Manu­scripts.” In The Routledge Research Companion to Digital Medi­eval Literature, edited by Jennifer E. Boyle and Helen J. Burgess. 186–96. London: Routledge, 2018. Winters, Jennifer. “The English Provincial Book Trade: Bookseller Stock-Lists, c.1520–1640.” 2 vols. PhD diss., University of St. Andrews, 2012. York Minster Library Catalogue. Accessed September 26, 2019. https://yorsearch.york.ac.uk/. Zink, Michel. Les troubadours: Une histoire poétique. Paris: Perrin, 2013. Zurcher, Andrew. “Dating and Describing Hands.” English Handwriting Online, 1500–1700. Accessed September 27, 2019. https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres//ehoc/datdescr. html.

INDEX This index covers names, places, archival documents, manuscripts, early printed books and manuscripts mentioned in the main study. The edition and translation are not indexed.

α redaction. See Estoire de Merlin (Vulgate) Amores. See Ovid Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS 450: 3 Annonay fragments: 2 Atlas Major (1637): 26

Battle of Trebes. See Trebes Bee, Cornelius: 26–30, 31, 36, 47 Case of Cornelius Bee etc, The (1666/67): 27 Benet College, Cambridge. See Corpus Christi College, Cambridge Bersuire, Pierre, Prima pars Dictionarij (1499) (Ushaw College, Durham, xvii.E.4.3–5): 21 β redaction. See Estoire de Merlin (Vulgate) Binders Blank Book Binder: 28 Fruit and Flower Binder: 23 Half-Stamp Binder: 17–20, 21 Lattice Binder: 18–20 See also Roll binding Blank Book Binder. See Binders Bodleian Library. See Oxford Bohort, literary figure: 41 Bonn, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 526: 7 Bristol: 1, 3, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29 Bristol Bridge: 22 Bristol Archives 40365/V/1/(a): 22 Mayor’s Register Book: 22 Bristol Central Library: 1, 3, 20, 22–24, 47–48, 51 88–91/SR39: 2, 9–16, 17–31, 36 SR64: 23 College Green: 22 King Street: 22 Library in the Marsh: 22

Brussels Bibliothèque royale, MS 9246: 7 Brussels fragments: 2 State Archives of Belgium (Archives de l’État / Rijksarchief): 2 Bucer, Martin: 17

Cambridge: 17, 18–20, 23, 25–29, 35–36, 47 Corpus Christi College: 3, 24, 26 University Library, MS Add. 7071: 34 Case Betwixt Mr. Pool and Mr. C. Bee etc, The (1667): 27 Case of Cornelius Bee (1666/67). See Bee, Cornelius Castell, Thomas: 24 Catalogus librorum. See York, York Minster Library Caxton, William: 34 Champagne: 2 Chevalier de la charrette. See Chrétien de Troyes Christ Church College. See Oxford Chrétien de Troyes: 2, 57 Chevalier de la charrette: 2 Conte du Graal: 2, 57 Claudas, literary figure: 41–42 College Green. See Bristol Comber, Thomas: 25, 29 Conte du Graal. See Chrétien de Troyes Copyright Act of 1710: 27 Corinna, literary figure: 33 Corpus Christi College. See Cambridge Critici Sacri (1660): 26, 27 Douce, Francis: 35 Duranti, Guillelmus, Rationale Divinorum officiorum (1493): 21 Dürer, Albrecht: 2

138

Index

Durham: 21–24, 29, 31, 38, 47 Durham Cathedral Library, ChapterLib Inc. 63 (1493): 21 Durham Cathedral Priory: 21–24, 31 Durham Priory Library Recreated: 21, 23, 31 Durham University, Team Pigment: 51 Ushaw College xvii.E.4.1 (1495): 21 xvii.E.4.3–5 (1499): 20, 21 xviii.B.3.5–11 (1498): 21 xviii.A.5.4 (1505): 21 Durham Liber Vitae. See London, British Library, MS Cotton Domitian A VII Durham College. See Oxford

Edward VI, King of England: 17 Elizabeth, princess and Queen of England: 17 England: 22, 33–36, 44, 47 Estoire de Merlin (Robert de Boron). See Robert de Boron Estoire de Merlin (Vulgate): α redaction: 40, 47 β redaction: 40 Estoire del saint Graal: 7, 47 Flach, Martin: 17 Flach, Martin (the younger): 17 France: 3, 16, 33–34, 35, 47 Francien dialect: 43–44 Froille, literary figure: 55 Fruit and Flower Binder. See Binders

Gauvain, literary figure: 55 Gerson, Jean: 1, 16 Opera omnia: 1–2, 16, 17, 24 Prima pars operum Johannis Gerson (1494): 1, 17, 25 Prima pars operum Johannis Gerson (1488): 2 Prima (-quarta) pars (operum) Joannis Gersonis (1520–1521): 24 Quarta pars operum Johannis Gerson prius non impressa (1502): 2, 17, 25 Secunda pars operum Johannis Gerson (1494): 17, 25

Secunda pars operum Johannis Gerson (1488): 2 Tercia pars operum Johannis Gerson (1494): 17, 25 Tercia pars operum Johannis Gerson (1488): 2 Godfrey, Garrett: 19, 20 Grail Table: 39 Great Fire of London. See London Grüninger, Johann: 2 Hale, John: 26 Half-Stamp Binder. See Binders Haliday, Adam. See Holiday Holiday, Adam: 21–22, 31

Iohannis duns Scoti ordinis minorum doctoris [...] scriptum super primo Sententiarum incipit (1481) (York Minster Library Inc. 6–5(1)): 24 Ker, Neil: 25, 26 Kings Armes. See London King Street. See Bristol Knobloch, Johann: 17

Lancelot, literary figure: 41 Lancelot. See Chrétien de Troyes— Chevalier de la charrette Lancelot du Lac (1488 and 1494): 34, 35 Lancelot en prose: 7, 8 Lancelot-Grail Cycle: 1, 3, 7–8, 34–36, 39, 41, 47 Lattice Binder. See Binders Lee, Peter: 31 Leonce, literary figure: 41 Library in the Marsh. See Bristol Little Britain. See London Livre de Merlin (1498): 34, 35 Livre du Graal. See Robert de Boron Loire Valley: 41 London: 26, 28, 29, 35, 36 British Library MS Add. 32125: 7 MS Cotton Domitian A VII: 21 MS Harley 438: 26 MS Harley 991: 26 Great Fire (1666): 27



Kings Armes: 26 Lambeth Palace Library, Fairhurst Papers, MS 3513: 27 Little Britain: 26 Sion College: 26–27

Malory, Sir Thomas: 34 Morte Darthur, Le (1485 and 1498): 34 Mathew, Tobie. See Matthew, Tobias (Archbishop of York) Mathew, Sir Tobie: 24 Mathews, Norris: 15–16, 23, 25 Matthew, Frances: 22, 24 Matthew, Tobias (Archbishop of York): 20, 21–25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 47–48 Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: 21, 25 Merlin, literary figure: 41, 42 Metz: 8, 40, 44 Mort le roi Artu, La: 3, 7, 8, 39 Morte Darthur. See Malory, Sir Thomas Namur: 2

Opera omnia Johannis Gerson. See Gerson, Jean Ovid: 33 Amores: 33 Oxford: 3, 17–20, 21, 23–25, 29, 31, 35, 36, 47 Bodleian Library: 25 MS Douce 178: 8 Christ Church College: 21 Durham College: 21, 47 University College: 21

Paris Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 3482: 8 Bibliothèque nationale de France MS fr. 91: 8 MS fr. 98: 8, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53 MS fr. 105: 8 MS fr. 344: 8, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 52–53 MS fr. 770: 8 MS fr. 9123: 8, 53 Parker, Matthew (Archbishop of Canterbury): 24 Parker, Matthew (the younger): 24 Perceval. See Chrétien de Troyes— Conte du Graal

Index

139

Perilous Seat. See Round Table Picard dialect: 44, 45 Poince Antoine: 11, 55 Poole, Matthew: 27 Post-Vulgate Cycle: 1 Queste del saint Graal: 7, 8, 39

Raman. See Spectroscopy Redwood, Robert: 22 Rennes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 255: 41 Retchwood, John: 26 Retchwood, William: 26 Ridley, Robert: 31 Robert de Boron: 39 Estoire de Merlin: 39 Livre du Graal: 39 Roll binding: 18, 19, 20 Round Table: 39 Perilous Seat: 39

Sadler, Laurence: 26 Scott, Walter Francis, Duke of Buccleuch: 35 Scotus, John Duns, Primus (–quartus) scripti super sententias, Questiones quodlibetales (1506) (Bristol Central Library SR64): 23–25, 29, 30 Schürer, Matthias: 17 Scribe A: 9–11 Scribe B: 9–11 Selden, John: 27, 28 Sion College. See London Spectroscopy: 51 Spenser, Edmund: 27 State Archives of Belgium. See Brussels Stationers’ Register: 27 St. Petersburg, National Library, MS fr.F.pap.xv.3: 7 Strasbourg: 17, 47 Sturm, Johannes: 17 Suite du Merlin: 1 Suite Vulgate du Merlin: 1, 2, 7, 8, 34, 39–41, 47–48 Suite α: 39–43 Suite β: 39–43 Swalwell, Thomas: 31 Symonds, Richard: 26

140

Index

Team Pigment. See Durham University Tours, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 951: 8 Tovey, Charles: 25, 30 Towneley Plays: 32 Towten, John. See Tutyng, John Trebes Battle of: 7 Trinity College, Oxford. See Oxford—Durham College Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, MS L.III.12: 7 Tuting, John. See Tutyng, John Tutyng, John: 21, 22, 23, 31 University College. See Oxford

Vatican City, Vatican Library, MS Reg. 1687: Venice: 8, 23 Biblioteca Nazionale San Marco, App. Cod. xxix: 41 Vulgate Cycle. See Lancelot-Grail Cycle

Wells Cathedral School: 21

York Borthwick Institute of Archives Chancery Probate Records: 22 Probate Register 40: 24 Minster Library: 24 Catalogus librorum (MS) (1638): 24 Catalogus librorum (MS) (1687): 24 Inc. 1–6(1) (1499): 25 Inc. 2–7(2) (1503): 25 Inc. 6–5(1)) (1481): 24 MS Add. 18: 29 xiv.L.11 (1588): 25