Tiaudelet: Theodolus in Medieval France (Textes Vernaculaires Du Moyen Age) (English and Old French Edition) (Textes Vernaculaires Du Moyen Age, 22) 9782503580951, 2503580955

Citation preview

TIAUDELET

TEXTES VERNACULAIRES DU MOYEN AGE Volume 22 Founded in 2004, Textes Vernaculaires du Moyen Âge is an editorial enterprise designed to meet the needs of scholars and students alike. Its main focus is on texts which have hitherto failed to benefit from adequate editorial treatment and which, as a consequence, remain unknown or imperfectly known to the academic community. All aspects of medieval vernacular literary activity form part of its brief : literary texts, historical writings, including chronicles, devotional treatises, sermons, scientific treatises, and the like. The series also welcomes editions of better-known texts accompanied by modern translations, designed to meet the needs of scholars and students who may be unfamiliar with the language of the original texts. Each edition comprises a description of the source text or texts, manuscript or early printed book, accompanied by explanatory notes and a comprehensive glossary. All submissions are subject to blind or double blind peer review. The series concentrates on propositions in both medieval English and French. Potential editors are strongly advised to contact the general editor in the first instance before making a submission : [email protected]. Collection dirigée par / General editor Stephen Morrison (Centre d’Études Supérieures de Civilisation Médiévale, Université de Poitiers) Comité scientifique / Advisory Board Alexandra Barratt (Université de Waikato, Nouvelle Zélande), Daron Burrows (Université d’Oxford, Royaume-Uni), Vittoria Corazza (Université de Turin, Italie), Irma Taavitsainen (Université de Helsinki, Finlande), Alessandro Vitale-Brovarone (Université de Turin, Italie), Annette Volfing (Université d’Oxford)

TIAUDELET

Theodulus in Medieval France Tony Hunt

F

© 2018, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

D/2018/0095/267 ISBN 978-2-503-58095-1 e-ISBN 978-2-503-58096-8 DOI 10.1484/M.TVMA-EB.5.115786 ISSN 1782-6233 e-ISSN 2566-0225 Printed on acid-free paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 Introduction ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 The Language of Tiaudelet������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51 Tiaudelet��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 Notes��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 327 Glossary�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 383 Proper names���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 399 Appendix�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 407

PREFACE

Alice Hulubei’s extensive study of the eclogue in sixteenth-century France makes scarcely a reference to the celebrated work of Theodulus, in Latin or in French, and it is not found in her repertory of surviving texts.1 Yet there are, in fact, two texts, with French translations, which predate the Renaissance. A brief treatment of the first, with some excerpts, was undertaken by Amos Parducci in 1915.2 At that time no detailed examination of Ms BNF fr. 12478 had been made and the absence of a cultural context for its contents must have contributed to the subsequent neglect of the Tiaudelet and the absence of an edition. The unity and significance of the manuscript, which have clearly emerged from the appearance of individual textual editions,3 reside in the fact that it is essentially a vernacular ‘Liber Catonianus’ extending the accessibility to Francophone readers of a series of established Latin school texts which formed part of the educational curriculum of the Middle Ages. A second, later (c. 1480), Old French verse translation of Theodulus, by Jean Le Fèvre, together with the Latin original, survives in the National Library of Scotland (Inc.309). It retains a special interest as the unique copy of the print produced by Johannes Brito ( Jan Brulelou) in Bruges and is edited here in an appendix.

1 A. Hulubei, L’Eglogue en France au XVIe siècle: époque des Valois (1515–1589) (Paris, 1938) and Répertoire des églogues en France au XVIe siècle (époque des Valois, 1515–1589) (Paris, 1939). 2  A. Parducci, “Le Tiaudelet, traduction française en vers du Theodulus”, Romania 44 (1915–17), 37–54. 3  T. Hunt (ed.), Les Paraboles Maistre Alain en françoys, MHRA Critical Texts 2 (London, 2005); id., (ed.), Thomas Maillet (?), Les Proverbez d’Alain, CFMA 151 (Paris, 2007), pp. 7–30, id. (ed.), Ovide, du remede d’amours, MHRA Critical Texts 15 (London, 2008).

INTRODUCTION

‘Theodulus / Theodolus’ ‘Thirty-seven pairs of amoebaic quatrains in leonine dactylic hexameters’. This desiccated, technical description of Theodulus’s Ecloga,1 tells us nothing, of course, about the function and interest of the poem, which is in fact an energetic debate between two animated contestants: one called Truth (Alithia / Alathia; variously, especially in later manuscripts, Alethia, Alaethia, ‘veritas Dei’), who is a shepherdess of the line of David, and the other named Falsehood / Deceit (Pseustis, ‘liar’), an Athenian goatherd.2 The name of the work’s unidentified author,3 Theodolus or Theodulus, has been analysed by some writers4 as theos + dōlus, reflecting the central antagonism in the debate between Christian truth and pagan falsehood, and by others as theos + dulus ‘servant of God’, which, it has been argued, might point to the authorship of Gottschalk (of Orbais), though this is now deemed unlikely. The Ecloga is normally dated to the ninth or tenth century, with Herren considering a date as late as the early eleventh century.5 The work is designed to promote an educational, rather than a strictly moral, purpose by, first, summarizing a series of juxtaposed narratives drawn from the Old Testament and Classical mythology and, second, by demonstrating, through implicit comparison and opposition, the continuity and contrast of pagan and Christian wisdom, thereby stimulating the processes of interpretation and reflection which form part of a Christian education.6 The Ecloga is remarkably free from dogmatic assertion and authorial prejudice, often appearing even-handed, if not equivocal, in its treatment of the different narratives, so that the 39 ‘bouts’ or ‘rounds’ of the argument – the certamina – may be scored as in a contest, with the consequence that each side wins some rounds, which occasionally produce

1  The use of the plural Eclogae reflects the natural division of the work into a number of parts, corresponding to lines (1–36), 37–180, 189–244, 253–352. J. Chance, Medieval Mythography 1, From Roman North Africa to the School of Chartres A.D. 433–1177 (Gainesville etc., 1994) p. 388 discusses Bernard of Utrecht’s tripartite division of his commentary. 2  An obvious link to the Last Judgement, see Matth. 25, 32–33. 3  See J. Chance, Medieval Mythography 1, pp. 355–57 who advocates Hrosvitha of Gandersheim’s candidacy for authorship and proposes a date of c. 1000. Chance provides a useful discussion of the work on pp. 347–63. 4  Including that of the Accessus ad auctores, ed. Huygens (see n. 42 below), p. 27. 5  See below n. 10. 6  Thomson and Perraud, Ten Latin Schooltexts, are right to say (p. 124) “The Eclogus therefore stands in the tradition of Christian apologies that do not wholly reject pagan literature.”

10

Introduction

what seems to be a ‘tie’ or stalemate.7 The verdict is pronounced by Alithia’s sister Fronesis (‘judgement, understanding, wisdom’), who has been acting as ‘mediatrix’, but without expressing any justificatory grounds, and although she is ostensibly non-partisan, it is only to be expected that her judgement should favour Alithia, who equitably confines herself to arguing from the concealed (‘covered’) wisdom of the Old Testament rather than the revealed wisdom of the New, thus establishing a level playing field for herself and her rival.8 The ending, that is the judgement delivered by Fronesis, which is not quite so decisive or triumphant as some readers may have desired, finds reinforcement in a seven-line doxology (ll. 345–52) which was added in the twelfth or thirteenth century and is found in only certain manuscripts. In it Alithia, ‘hoste suo victo’, plays on the Virgilian tag (Aen. 683) ‘parcere subjectis et debellare superbos’9 in the phrase ‘erige subiectos cunctos tibi, sterne superbos.’ The concision and allusiveness of the quatrains, together with the contestants’ varying levels of competence in the conduct of the argument, quite naturally established the need for an expounder, for there is no such figure in the poem. Such a desideratum inevitably destined the work for the classroom. Unsurprisingly, the Ecloga was copied in some 200 manuscripts,10 formed the subject of at least five commentaries, and entered the school textbook collections known as Liber Catonianus and Auctores Octo,11 lasting until the time of Rabelais (see Gargantua, ch. 14). The first of the commentaries, by Bernard of Utrecht, writing between 1076 and 1099, is essentially grammatical, and the second, by the ‘Anonymus teutonicus’, of which an unfinished edition by A.P. Orbán exists (see Bibliography), offers a thorough-going Christian allegorization as well as referring much of the material to the relationship between 7  See M. Herren, “Reflections on the Meaning of the Ecloga Theoduli: Where is the Authorial Voice?” in W. Otten and K. Pollmann, Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin Christianity. The Encounter between Classical and Christian Strategies of Interpretation, Vigiliae Christianae suppl. 87 (Leiden, 2007), pp. 199– 230. W. Wetherbee, The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism 2 (2005), p. 121 comments that ‘the most interesting feature of the poem is the good-humoured detachment with which it balances the points of view of the two protagonists, and hints at their complementarity by suggesting analogies between their cosmologies and legendary traditions.’ 8  The commentary, of course, does not eschew reference to the Gospels and the New Testament (443ff ). 9  Cf.  T. Hunt, “The Lion and Yvain”, The Legend of Arthur in the Middle Ages. Studies presented to A.H. Diverres by colleagues, pupils and friends (Cambridge, 1983) [pp. 86–98], esp.95–97. 10  B.N. Quinn, “ps-Theodolus” in P.O. Kristeller and F.E. Kranz (eds), Catalogus translationum et commentariorum 2 (Washington, D.C., 1971), pp. 383–408 who refers to Osternacher’s ms listings. See also G.L. Hamilton, “Theodulus: A Medieval Textbook”, Modern Philology 7 (1909), 169–86. 11  See T.  Hunt, Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth-Century England 1 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 67–79; P.M. Clogan, “Literary Genres in a Medieval Textbook”, Medievalia et Humanistica, N.S. 11 (1982), 199–209; N. Orme, Medieval Schools: from Roman Britain to Renaissance England (New Haven / London, 2006), pp. 98–102; see also J. Fleming in Speculum 78 (2003), 1085–89. There is a valuable study of the Ecloga and Bernard of Utrecht’s commentary on it in H. Brinkmann, Mittelalterliche Hermeneutik (Tübingen, 1980), pp.  348–401. Cf.  Wetherbee in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 2, (Cambridge. 2005), pp. 123–25.

‘Theodulus / Theodolus’

11

scholars – both masters and students.12 Neither of these commentaries has much to offer the elucidation of the Tiaudelet any more than has that of Odo Picardus (Eudes de Fouilloy).13 There are several translations into medieval German.14 In the twelfth century it was clearly used as the model for Warnerius of Basle’s Synodus,15 in which the figure of Thlespis recounts the Old Testament narratives and Neocosmus those of the New Testament. Neither figure is awarded outright victory and Sophia is no quicker to judgement than Fronesis. Theodulus’s poem is often transmitted in three parts corresponding to lines 1–36 (the introduction, with its reminiscences of Virgil’s Eclogues), lines 37–180, and lines 181–344, (divided by two pairs of invocations - to the pagan gods and to the Christian God - at lines 181 and 285). The process of comparing pagan myths and Old Testament narratives, comparable to ‘collatio Novi et Veteris Testamenti’, and fairly obvious in the case of the stories of the Creation, the Flood, Hercules and Sampson, Amphiaraus and Korah, may owe something to Prudentius’s Contra Symmachum and Sedulius’s Carmen paschale.16 And other precedents may have been used, such as Prudentius’s Dittochaeon (Tituli historiarum) which consists of 49 sets of quatrains on the Old and New Testaments, most probably designed to introduce pictures.17 There are some similarities in the Ecloga with Avitus.18 It appears in some collections of school texts, though not primarily in 12  e.g. p. 158 on Eclog. 173: ‘Nota moraliter per Arculem intelligitur quilibet bonus scolaris, per pomerium aureum intelligitur sciencia, per draconem intelligitur ruditas. Unde Arcules, .i. bonus scolaris, si velit habere tale pomerium aureum, .i. scienciam, oportet eum maxime laborare et interficere draconem per labores, .i. ruditatem suam, autoritate Boecii [De disciplina scolarium]. Item metrista Gutta cavat lapidem non vi, sed sepe cadendo [cf. Ovid, Pont. 4.10.5] Sic addiscit homo non vi, sed sepe studendo.’ 13  For a brief study of the authorities utilized in this commentary see Ch. Schmitt, “Zum Kanon eines bisher unedierten Theodulkommentars”, GRM N.F. 24 (1974), 1–12. 14  See N.  Henkel, Deutsche Übersetzungen lateinischer Schultexte. Ihre Verbreitung und Funktion im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit (München / Zürich, 1988), pp. 239–42. 15  See P-W.  Hoogterp, “Warnerii Basiliensis Paraclitus et Synodus”, AHDLMA 8  (1933) [261–363], 364–429. Important corrections to this edition are furnished by A.P.  Orbán, “Einige Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Ekloge Synodius des Warnerius Basiliensis”, ALMA Bulletin Du Cange 46–47 (1986– 7), 109–22 and id., “Die Ekloge ‘Synodius’ des Warner von Basel. Ein Beitrag zur Textkonstituierung” in MLat. Jbch. 28/2 (1993), 17–24. Orbán’s bio-bibliographical hypotheses on Warnerius are refuted by F.J. Worstbrock, “Zum Stand der Forschung über Warnerius von Basel”, MLat. Jbch. 33/2 (1998), 45–54. 16  See Green, ed. cit., pp. 112–13 and id., “The Genesis of a Medieval Textbook. The Models and Sources of the Ecloga Theoduli”, Viator 13 (1982), 49–106. 17  See Thomson and Perraud, Ten Latin Schooltexts, pp.  86–109 (including translation of the text); Brinkmann, p. 355; Hamilton, p. 178. 18  On the 5th-C poet Avitus see G.A. Shea, The Poems of Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus (Tempe, Arizona, 1997). There are six poems – on the Creation, the Fall and the Judgement of Adam and Eve. The fourth poem contains the story of the Flood and the preservation of Noah and his family. The fifth is on the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt (incl. the parting of the Red Sea) and the destruction of the Egyptian army. For attitudes to Greek myth see Augustine, De Civitate Dei 18:12. For bibliography see Avit de Vienne, Histoire Spirituelle t. 1 (Chants 1–11), t. 2 (Chants IV–V) introd., texte critique, trad. N. Hecquet-Noti (Paris, 1999 / 2005). The five poems form De spiritualis historiae gestis (c. 500). See on the Flood and

12

Introduction

the libri Catoniani. Osternacher was one of the first to study possible sources and analogues for Theodulus.19 The sources of Theodulus’s treatment of classical myths are sometimes difficult to specify, reflecting the complexity of transmission of ancient mythography.20 Three compilations of classical myths, known as Vatican Mythographer 1, 2, and 3 (which is probably the work of Alberic of London), had been familiar to scholars since they were first published by Cardinal Angelo Mai in 183121 and re-edited by Georg H. Bode in 1834.22 The work of the First Vatican Mythographer survives in a single, twelfth-century manuscript and comprises three books totalling (according to the editor) 234/229 myths. The myths are retold without commentary or authorial intervention and without any discernible order or structure. It has received no fewer than three modern textual studies.23 The uninspiring, anonymous author is placed imprecisely in the period 875–1075. The work of the Second Vatican Mythographer24 is longer and more ambitious, surviving in at least eleven manuscripts.25 There is a greater attempt to order the myths and comment on them. The author seems to have been working a little later than the First Mythographer and there have been tentative efforts to identify him with ‘Lactantius Placidus’ or Remigius of Auxerre. The most interesting of the three Vatican Mythographers is the Third,26 now generally accepted to be Alberic of London, but with some support for preferring Alexander Neckam. There is much interpretation and allegorizing, widespread use of classical and medieval sources, and something akin to an individual authorial personality emerges. There are more than forty manuscripts. There has been no edition since Bode. All three Mythographers are now available in an English translation by Ronald E. Pepin.27 In the notes to the present edition of Tiaudelet I refer to Mythographers 1 and 2 in the edition of Péter Kulcsár, who provides references to Mai’s edition, the Deucalion, p. 100 (Avitus rejects such tales); on the giants, heaping mountains on mountains, p. 102; on the ascent of Enoch, p. 104; on the building of the Ark, p. 105; arrival in Armenia, p. 112; the raven standing for the Jews, p. 113; the rainbow, p. 115; Moses and the snake p. 117. 19 J.  Osternacher, Quos auctores Latinos et sacrorum Bibliorum locos Theodulus imitatus esse videatur (Urfahr-Linz, 1907). 20  See A. Cameron, Greek Mythography in the Roman World (Oxford, 2004). 21 A. Mai, Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum t. 3 (Roma, 1831). 22 G.H.  Bode, Scriptores rerum mythicarum Latini tres Romae nuper reperti 2  vols (Celle, 1834; repr. Hildesheim, 1968). 23 P. Kulcsár, Mythographi Vaticani I et II, CC ser. Lat. XCIC (Turnholti, 1987); Ph. Dain, Mythographe de Vatican 1: Traduction et commentaire (Paris, 1995); N. Zorzetti and J. Berlioz, Le Premier Mythographe du Vatican (Paris, 1995). 24  See J.  Chance, Medieval Mythography 1, pp.  300–46. See also W.  Wetherbee in A.  Minnis and I. Johnson, The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism vol. 2 (Cambridge, 2005), p. 121. 25 Kulcsár, ed. cit., pp. vi–xi. 26  See Wetherbee, loc. cit., pp. 136–37. 27  R. E. Pepin, The Vatican Mythographers (New York, 2008).

Tiaudelet

13

numbering of which is broadly followed by Pepin in his translation. In the absence of an accessible edition of the Third Mythographer the references I provide are to the work of Pepin. There are two useful editions of Theodulus which I have drawn on for both text and commentary, namely those of Roger Green28 and Francesco Mosetti Casaretto.29 There are English translations in I. Thompson and L. Perraud, Ten Latin Schooltexts of the Later Middle Ages. Translated Selections (Lewiston/ Queenston/Lampeter, 1990), pp. 110–57 (introduction, translation, notes); in G. Rigg, The Eclogue of Theodulus: A Translation (medieval.utoronto.ca/ylias/ web-content/Theoduli.html) (translation and notes); in M. Herren, “Reflections on the Meaning of the Ecloga Theoduli: Where is the Authorial Voice?” in W. Otten & K. Pollmann, Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin Christianity. The Encounter between Classical and Christian Strategies of Interpretation, Vigiliae Christianae suppl. 87 (Leiden, 2007), pp. 199–230 (text and translation), and in R.E. Pepin, The English Translation of Auctores Octo, a Medieval Reader (Lewiston etc., 1999), pp. 25–40. Tiaudelet The French Tiaudelet forms a conspicuous part of a manuscript, Paris, BNF fr.12478 (olim Suppl. Fr. 1316) which comprises vernacularizations of school texts: Ovid’s Remedia amoris and Ars amatoria, Alan of Lille’s Liber parabolarum, and two versions of the Facetus.30 The Latin source texts are not provided save for partial provision in the case of the Remede d’amours.31 Linked to the ‘arts of love’ is (ff. 77r–90r) La Puissance d’amour by pseudo-Richard de Fournival. Thus the contents of the manuscript combine classical mythology, amatory literature and proverbial wisdom with frequent recourse to forms of debate.32 The vernacularizations are unica, copied in the fifteenth century (probably in the third quarter), and excerpts from the translation and commentary of Theodulus were published by Amos Parducci in 1915.33 Besides printing five illustrative excerpts, Parducci, following the testimony of Gilles le Muisit (1272–1353), who refers to a translation 28 R.P.H. Green, Seven Versions of Carolingian Pastoral, Reading University Medieval and Renaissance Latin Texts (Reading, 1980), pp. 26–35 (text), 111–49 (commentary). 29  F. Mosetti Casaretto, Teodolo, Ecloga. Il canto della verità e della menzogna (Firenze, 1997). 30  See T. Hunt (ed.), Thomas Maillet (?), Les Proverbez d’Alain, CFMA 151 (Paris, 2007), pp. 7–30. 31  See T. Hunt (ed.), Ovide, du remede d’amours, MHRA Critical Texts 15 (London, 2008). 32  See H.  Walther, Das Streitgedicht in der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, Mit einem Vorwort, Nachträgen und Registern von Paul Gerhardt Schmidt (Hildesheim, 1984) (on Theodulus see pp. 93–98). Cf. G.J. Reinink and H.L.J. Vanstiphout (eds), Dispute Poems and Dialogue in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East, Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 42 (Leuven, 1991). 33  A. Parducci, “Le Tiaudelet, traduction française en vers du Theodulus”, Romania 44 (1915–17), 37– 54. Cf. T. Hunt in A. Minnis and I. Johnson (eds), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism vol. 2

14

Introduction

of Theodulus (Tiaudelet) by a friar minor, Jacqemon Bochet, proposes to see in this figure the author of the translation contained in BNF fr. 12478. This reasonable surmise has been supported by Geneviève Hasenohr, who has further rendered a great service by adducing the evidence of the Tiaudelet when examining a set of picture descriptions – ‘fachon des figures du livre de Teaudelet’ – in a Burgundian manuscript, BNF fr. 1278 ff. 299–302v of the fifteenth century.34 The set of pictures has as a ‘texte de référence’ the French commentary attributed to Bochet of which Ms fr.12478 is the only surviving copy, which stops at exactly the same point as the programme of pictures does. The redactor of the ‘façon des figures’ was, in Hasenohr’s view, from the same area of N.E. France as Bochet, probably the Tournaisis. Regionalisms in the lexis of the poem confirm the importance of the Artois, Flanders and Hainaut. Better known is another translator of the Ecloga, Jean Le Fèvre, whose Theodelet is written in decasyllabic lines of rimes plates and survives in at least four manuscripts,35 but it lacks the interest of Bochet’s translation / adaptation (it seems likely that both the Ecloga and the commentary were translated from a Latin source-text). One hundred years is a very long time to wait for an edition of a text which has been the subject of a detailed scholarly article like Parducci’s. Ms BNF fr.12478 is a sort of Liber Catonianus in the vernacular.36 There is a single scribe for the whole manuscript and the text is largely free from blunders, as we shall see, though it is certainly not an autograph copy. One or more lines appear to have fallen out after lines 4200, 5428, 7161, 7247, 8133, 8384 (see notes). From f. 91r to f. 94v the text is continuous. Thereafter each unit, consisting of text (the original quatrains rendered into douzains) plus ‘gloze’, is separated from the following unit by ample blank spaces. Red initials are found within the gloss on ff. 99r–101v, but are elsewhere reserved for opening lines (text and ‘gloze’) and rubrics. There is no punctuation of any sort save the modest use of a vertical line to indicate certain syntactic breaks, especially after a rejet. Restrained use is made of the standard abbreviations, but there is nothing out of the ordinary. There are scribal corrections which I indicate below:

(Cambridge, 2005), pp. 369–70. On Parducci see A. Monteverdi, “Ricordo di Amos Parducci”, Cultura Neolatina 9 (1949), 171–73 who strangely makes no reference to the publication on Tiaudelet. 34  “Tradition du texte et tradition de l’image: à propos d’un programme d’illustration du Theodelet” in P. Cockshaw et al. (eds), Miscellanea codicologica F. Masai dicata MCMLXXIX vol. 2 (Gand, 1979), pp. 451–67. 35  See G. Hasenohr-Esnos (ed.), Le Respit de la Mort par Jean Le Fèvre (Paris, 1969), p. xlviii who records BNF fr. 572, 1923, 24864, and nouv. acq. lat. 1107. C. Galderisi, Translations médiévales. Cinq siècles de traductions en français au Moyen Age (XIe-XVe siècles) 2, i (Turnhout, 2011), p. 427 provides nothing new on the versions of Jean Le Fèvre and Jacquemon Bochet. 36  The contents of the manuscript are detailed in T. Hunt, Thomas Maillet (?), Les Proverbez d’Alain, CFMA 151 (Paris, 2007), pp. 7–30.

The Prologue

15

In the lefthand margin on f. 95v there is a guide indication of the main rubric, ‘Alathie texte’; the commonest sign of deletion is barring, as in the following cases: (782) corage before usage; (1263) le corage before de loutrage; (1878) regle before regreter; (1879) et s et sa malice between son maleur and et sa malaise; (1871) abra before abraham; (1993) e before en grant; (3105) retourner before revenir; (3381) yrte before une; (4450) d before dont; (5133) tant before quant; (5277) ll before lassus; (5356) destine before distinguee; (5740) pooir before voloir; (7296) fa before fist; on f. 220v l. 29 is an erroneous anticipation of (7716) and is barred; (8608) deubt before deubt. Sometimes a letter or two have been blotted out rather than barred: (1258) fi before fu; (1341) d before dont; (4450) d before dont; (4453) ali before almena; (4454) ju before juno; (7068) qe before quapres; (7291) a minim before se tourna. Blank spaces are found in lines 5706, 7504. Words to be interverted is indicated by two “ marks in (1151), comment and conseil; (1667) son fil and vit; (5349) en ricesse and en concorde. Interversion of whole lines in indicated in (3527–8) by the placing of the letters b and a at the head of each line. Simple expunction marks are employed under the last letter of sieutt (1655), appellee (2422), ung (2237, read vii), appellee (8509). In (7107) que is a superscript insertion over barred sont. A final curiosity is the appearance between words of a sort of space-filler, resembling a long ſ crossed through with one or two horizontal strokes, as in 333, 462, 1125, 4024, 4028, 4855, 5032, 5072, 5142, 5166, 7570.

The main sources of Tiaudelet seem to have been the Bible and the classical auctores themselves, though it is more difficult to determine in what precise form they were accessed. There is comparable material in the Ovide moralisé37 of c. 1316–28 and a few further reflections of material contained in the Tiaudelet occur in the Ovide moralisé en prose,38 dated to approx. 1466–67. The Prologue The Old French adaptation begins with a substantial prologue (1–136)39 in which a passage of sustained wordplay on recorder ‘to record’ and racorder ‘to reconcile’ (1–16) provides the causa scribendi, namely the belief that the recording of good things (biens 2, 7, 11, 13, 15 cf. 32) is a way of moving closer to God. The good things (biens 17) recorded are ‘soubtieutez de grant affaire’ (18) drawn from various sources and assembled in a book known as ‘Theodulus’. Subtlety (18, 25, 30,

37  Ed. C. de Boer, Ovide moralisé, poème du commemcement du quatorzième siècle, 5 vol. (Amsterdam, 1925–38). There is a recent collection of studies in L. Harf-Lancner et al., Ovide métamorphosé: les lecteurs médiévaux d’Ovide (Paris, 2009), pp. 105–238. See also the observations of H. Campangne, Mythologie et Rhétorique aux XVe et XVIe siècles en France (Paris, 1996), pp. 46–73 and A. Pairet, Les Mutacions des Fables. Figures de la métamorphose dans la littérature française du Moyen Âge (Paris, 2002), pp. 97–134. 38  Ed. C. de Boer, Ovide moralisé en prose (texte du quinzième siècle) (Amsterdam, 1954). 39  Much more detailed than the conventional accessus, see R.B.C. Huygens, Accessus ad auctores, Bernard d’Utrecht. Conrad d’Hirsau, Dialogus super auctores (Leiden, 1970), pp. 26–27 and 93–95.

16

Introduction

40) and learning (‘study’ 26, 47, 59) are watchwords and the concept of integumentum is recalled in the words couvertement (39), sens … couvers (43–44, 104), and fablez couvertez (79).40 It is through specific instances (exemplez 39, 42, 65), including samblanches (41), that we reach the all-important sens (43, 46, 57, 68, 73, 74, 68). Penetration to the higher sense is central to the enterprise. The commentator is clear and explicit in his description of the work. We are told that Theodulus carefully studied the pagan poet-philosophers, above all Ovid and his Metamorphoses,41 known as ‘Ovide le grand’ (33), which displayed that author’s mastery of nature and of love. Then Theodulus turned to materials ‘c’on doit trop mieulx prisier’ (48), the books of Scripture, which eschew all illusion and deception and offer inexhaustible enlightenment. Theodulus then ordered these materials in such a way as to juxtapose corresponding units, thus comparing and contrasting the stories in the Bible and those in Ovid in the manner of learned disputants arguing with each other (‘contrearguer’ 72). The arguments against biblical testimonies are attributed to an imaginary shepherd (i.e. Pseustis, ‘falsehood’) and those deriving from Scripture and marshalled in quatrains (‘en .iiii. vers’ 86) are given to a shepherdess (i.e. Alithie, ‘truth’) ‘qui par chans au pastour respond / et en respondant le confont’ (89–90). The shepherd is said to show how vice defeated truth and virtue, whilst the shepherdess parries this argument with a demonstration, through Scripture, of how truth overcame falsehood and injustice. There is a very clear statement of the work’s purpose: ‘Et en cecy le livre entent / Destruire faulx appertement / Et pechiez, et voir congoÿr / Que sainte Eglise doibt tenir’ (99–102). The final section of the Prologue, lines 103–36, gives prominence to the first person singular in presenting the adaptor’s approach to his task. The adaptor proceeds to give a clear account of the form of his source and his translation of it. He will clarify, with God’s help, the profound sense contained in the quatrains and thereby reprove foolish men and teach them to hate sin and promote truth, which is too little respected. Since Latin is more concise than French (‘romman’ 114), the original quatrains of Theodulus have been expanded into douzains,42 couched ‘en langue humaine’ (117) to teach the way of Jesus and avoidance of Sathan. The aid of God (‘le Sage’) is requested. The accompanying commentary, headed ‘gloze’, is of variable length, but there are two consecutive commentaries so headed on Ecloga 269–72, both of a misogynistic nature and explained by the author in lines 8711–16. In general the commentary is largely composed of 40  Cf. ‘Pour mieulx entendre tous les sens / Qui sont contenu par dedens’ (2317–18). 41  See R. Levine, “Exploiting Ovid: Medieval Allegorizations of the Metamorphoses”, Medioevo Romanzo 14 (1989), 197–213. On the tradition of mythography see A. Cameron, Greek Mythography in the Roman World (Oxford, 2004). 42  With the exception of 2721–34 (fourteen lines) and 5241–50 (ten lines).

The Debate

17

narrative, unlike Macé de la Charité’s Bible which incorporates the allegorical interpretations of Peter Riga’s Aurora and curtails the biblical narrative. There are, however, occasional allegorical explanations.43 The Debate It is notable that the Tiaudelet is coterminous with the debate proper in the Ecloga, and omits entirely the rest of the concluding material (Eclog. 285–352). This establishes beyond doubt that the principal arguments of the debate, the comparisons of classical mythology and the Old Testament, represent the unique substance of the adaptation and that other forms of religious argument, as at the end of the Ecloga, may be ignored, for it is essentially as a work of Christian education rather than of spirituality that it is treated. The text opens with the plaidier (71), desputacion (76), parlement (104), controversie (105), plait (115) between Pseustis (Falsehood) and Alithia (Truth) in the presence of Fronesis (Wisdom, ‘Prudence’, 111).44 The adaptor introduces his version of the Ecloga with the words Et pour mieulx ce plait demoustrer Il nous convenra exposer Quanqu’il a chi dit en figure, Si que chose n’y soit obscure. (115–18)

The debate consists of a series of thematic parallels (both complementary and contrasting) in which Pseustis picks and chooses between classical myths, whilst Alithia pursues the magnalia Dei in chronological order, thereby affirming the continuity of the Old Testament. Of Alithia’s quatrains, the first twelve are devoted to the Book of Genesis (Adam and Eve to Joseph and Potiphar’s wife), followed by pairs of quatrains drawn from Exodus, and Numbers, one each from Joshua and Judges, six from the four Books of Kings, three from the Book of Daniel, concluding with one episode from Judith and one from Esther.45 Lines 113–16 interrupt the linear sequence of episodes. The destruction of Sodom actually precedes the sacrifice of Isaac, which is anticipated by the poet (105–08) to preserve narrative continuity with the preceding quatrain on Abraham (97–100). A major leap 43  See ll.  342–74 (‘le haut siege’), 1261–1314 (inhabitants of Babylon and the fallen angels), 3625ff (Golden Calf ). 44  Bernard. p. 29, 245 identifies her with Aecclesia. 45 Brinkmann, op. cit., p. 356 provides numerological motivation of various groupings (cf. also p. 373). For example, there are 12 OT and 12 Classical quatrains (24 like the Dittochaeon Eclog., 37–132); 12 (2 × 6) to conclude the first half (132–80); then 7 quatrains from the OT, and 4 quatrains in defence of women. Lines 181–88 and 245–52 are interludes.

18

Introduction

occurs at lines 241–44 which introduce the episode of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel is also used at 257–60, and the apocryphal Daniel and Susanna at 265–68). The classical fables display a much less careful order, by no means following the sequence in which they are presented in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, though, as Green observes (ed. cit., p. 113), “there are signs of an intelligent linking of the myths together: the Giants (85ff ) lead on to Apollo’s injury to them and subsequent punishment … the Cadmus saga is presented together (132–52), as are the birth, life and death of Hercules in 165–76. In 229–40 the Olympic Games and Salmoneus are linked by the town of Elis.” So far as interpretation is concerned, there is much in the Ecloga to interest the reader. Ralph Hexter has lamented that it has been so understudied,46 and, we may add, little written about.47 It will be useful, right at the beginning, to provide an overview of its contents in order to indicate the thematic unity of the paired quatrains. In the summary below the length of the French commentary or ‘gloze’ appears in italics and within square brackets after each quatrain. The pairing of quatrains containing material, on the one hand from classical mythology, and on the other from sacred history, is important evidence of the translator-commentator’s skill in handling his Latin source. The subjects are chosen to form a parallel or contrast, following the order of the Old Testament.48 My suggested headings are thematic rather than moral (as Mosetti Casaretto’s tend to be, despite his list p. 49 ‘Tavola Tematica’). My headings are preceded in italics by those provided by Bernard of Utrecht in the last quarter of the eleventh century in his Commentary on Theodulus (edited by Huygens). The number of lines allocated in the French commentary to each Theodolan quatrain is given in italics within square brackets. Primi igitur inducuntur Saturnus et Adam, qui primi errorum causa fuerunt, hic idolatriae, ille inobedientiae, et regnum amiserunt, alter terrenum per filium, alter celeste per coniugem, quod a Pseusti ad iactantiam, ab Alithia inducitur ad cautelam. [37–40] First Beginnings [Peustis] The Golden Age ushered in by Chronos / Saturn, beginning ‘Primus …’, ending ‘ipso gaudet avo superum generosa propago’ (40) [44] [41–44] [Alithia] Paradise and Adam’s banishment, beginning ‘primus homo’, ending ‘sentit adhuc proles, quod commisere parentes’ (44) [102]. 46  R. Hexter, “Latinitas in the Middle Ages: Horizons and Perspectives”, Helios 14 (1987) [69–92] 69 & 78. 47  There is a disappointingly small section in E. Kegel-Brinkgreve’s capacious study The Echoing Woods: bucolic and pastoral from Theocritus to Wordsworth (Amsterdam, 1990), pp. 214–21. 48  With the exception of the situating of the stories of Judith and Esther (Eclog. 274–76, 281–84) after that of Susannah in a sequence which is found in Alcuin and Theodulf, see Frans van Liere, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible (Cambridge, 2014), pp. 94–95.

The Debate

19

Hic Iovis regnum male partum et Adae exilium merito illatum conferuntur, quorum alterum gentiles gloriae, alterum fideles ascribunt miseriae. Hoc illis elationis, istud his materia est humilitatis. [45–48] Expulsions [Pseustis] Jupiter banishes his father Saturn [12] [49–52] [Alithia] The expulsion of Adam [202]. Hic inventores et diversitates sacrificii in utroque populo duorumque deorum totidemque fratrum litigium a Pseusti ad supersticionem, ab Alithia inducuntur ad religionem. [53–56] The First Sacrifices [Pseustis] By Cecrops to Jupiter [46] [57–60] [Alithia] By Abel and Cain in an allusion to the sacrifice of Christ the Paschal Lamb [88]. Hic Licaonis perfidia et mutatio et Enoch pietas et translatio comparatur ad innocentiae exemplum. [61–64] Descents and Ascents [Pseustis] Lycaon, the Arcadian King, scorned Jupiter and lost his humanity, descending to the life of a wolf in the fields [46] [65–68] [Alithia] Enoch respects justice in a defiled world, transcends that world, ascending to Heaven without suffering death, and will precede, together with Elijah, the second coming of Christ as Judge [72]. Hic fictum sub Deucalione et verum sub Noe diluvium et rerum reparatio secundum utrumque ad mendacii et veritatis discretionem conferuntur. [69–72] The Flood [Pseustis] The Universal Flood (vorago / abissus), apparently arbitrary, and its two survivors Deucalion and Pyrrha [48] [73–76] [Alithia] Eight survivors of the Flood, bringing both punishment and salvation, and hope for the future (rainbow) [100]. Hic Iovis in Ganimede rapto per aquilam ignominia et Noe in ramo allato per columbam simplicitas allegorico conferuntur intellectu. [77–80] Interventions of birds [Pseustis] The abduction of Ganymede by an eagle [48] [81–84] [Alithia] The assistance rendered to Noah by a dove (and a raven) [66].

20

Introduction

Hic Gigantum conspiratio et turris edificatio ad subiectionis coequantur exemplum. [85–88] Reaching Heaven [Pseustis] The ascent to drive out the inhabitants of Heaven (caelicolas) foiled by Mulciber’s thunderbolts [26] [89–92] [Alithia] The attempt by men to reach Heaven (caelum tangere) incurs God’s anger (the tower of Babel) [128]. Hic Apollinis orbatio et exprobratio et Abrahae fecundatio et vocatio ad deorum ignominiam et fidelium honorem conferuntur. [93–96] Departure [Pseustis] Apollo loses his divinity through the anger of the gods, leaves Heaven, and looks after the sheep of Admetus [88] [97–100] [Alithia] Abraham has to leave his Fatherland, but Sarah bears a child (Isaac) in their old age [148]. Hic presumptio in Dedali orbatione et obedientia in Abrahae oblatione conferuntur. [101–04] Father and Son [Pseustis] Daedalus persists after the fall of his son Icarus [100] [105–08] [Alithia] Abraham through his obedience is released from the need to sacrifice his son, who follows him away [76]. Hic Phillidis mutatio et Sodomitarum subversio ad castitatis profectum inducuntur. [109–12] Sensuality and Metamorphosis [Pseustis] The metamorphosis of Phyllis [130] [113–16] [Alithia] The metamorphosis of Lot’s wife [154]. Hic Diomedis cum Venere et Iacob cum angelo congressio ad compescendam conferuntur audaciam. [117–20] Struggles with the divine [Pseustis] Diomedes attacks Venus, and his companions are turned into birds [118] [121–24] [Alithia] Jacob wrestles with God [78]. Hic Ypoliti et Ioseph ab illicita Venere abstinentia ad pudiciae edificationem comparatur. [125–28] Chastity [Pseustis] The death of the chaste Hippolytus was engineered by his father Theseus, who believed his stepmother’s lies, but incurred the wrath of Diana who brought Hippolytus back to life [96] [129–32] [Alithia] Joseph chastely spurns the advances of Potiphar’s wife and advances from slave to ruler of the kingdom of Canopus (Egypt) [300].

The Debate

21

Hic Cadmi astucia et Moysi virtus comparantur. [133–36] Magic? [Pseustis] Cadmus gave the Greeks their alphabet and became a hissing serpent [134] [137–40] [Alithia] Moses saves his people confounding the magicians [402]. Hic tauri quo Europa decepta est et aurei vituli quem Israel adoravit, fit collatio. [141–44] Cult of Animals [Pseustis] Europa and the Bull ( Jupiter) [68 +54] [145–48] [Alithia] Aaron and the Golden Calf [286]. Hic Amphiarai et Chore absorptio ad coercendam pecuniae cupiditatem inducitur. [149–52] Swallowed up [Pseustis] Amphiaraus is persuaded by his wife to fight at Thebes where he dies, swallowed up in a chasm (specus), and is avenged by their son Alcmaeon [198] [153–56] [Alithia] A similar fate befalls Korah who rebelled against Aaron and was swallowed up (‘englouti’) by the earth (infernus). Moses was ‘enseveli’, buried quietly in a tomb which no human has found [156]. Hic de Io mutatione et asina Balaam fit collatio. [157–60] The Wild and the Human [Pseustis] Io turned into a cow [144] [161– 64] [Alithia] Barlaam’s ass is made to speak [142]. Hic de noctis duplicatione in Herculis conceptione dieique productione sub Iosue sermo est. [165–68] Changing the movement of the Stars [Pseustis] Prolongation of night for the sake of Jupiter [116] [169–72] [Alithia] Prolongation of day for the sake of Joshua [154]. Hic de Herculis et Samsonis fortitudine fit collatio. [173–76] Supreme physical strength overcome [Pseustis] Some of the labours of Hercules until he dies through Deianeira’s gift of a medicated robe [224] [177– 80] [Alithia] Samson’s exploits until Dalilah treacherously cuts off his hair [296]. [181–84] Nature of the divine [Pseustis] appeals to his gods (polytheism) [20 + 44] [185–88] [Alithia] extols the Holy Trinity (Trinitarian monotheism) [284]

22

Introduction

Hic Orphei et David canendi peritia mistice conferuntur. [189–92] The Power of Music [Pseustis] Orpheus and the power of music [100] [193–96] [Alithia] David and the power of music [166]. Hic Mercurii astutia et Salemonis opponitur sapientia. [197–200] Wisdom [Pseustis] Hermes / Mercury the magician [34] [200–04] [Alithia] Solomon the Sage [232]. Hic terrae fertilitas per Cererem et sterilitas per Heliam conferuntur. [205–08] Dearth [Pseustis] Triptolemus and ending famine [76] [209–12] [Alithia] Elijah stops the rain and eats and drinks copiously [142]. Hic Gorgon et Chimera ad Iezabel et Bellorofon opponitur ad Heliam. [213–16] Ascent to Heaven [Pseustis] Bellerophon [194] [217–20] [Alithia] Elijah [140]. Hic Tithoni vitae defectio et Ezechiae restitutio conferuntur. [221–24] Death deferred [Pseustis] Tithonus and deferment of death [74] [225– 28] [Alithia] Hezekiah defers death [168]. Hic ludorum lascivia a Pseusti et Iosiae mortis mesticia inducitur ab Alithia. [229–32] Scenes of Public Triumph and Defeat [Pseustis] The Olympic Games and joy [98] [233–36] [Alithia] Sadness at Josiah’s death and the battle of Megiddo [166]. Hic Salmonei in Iovem et Nabuchodonosor in deum temeritas denotatur. [237–40] Hubris [Pseustis] Salmoneus’s arrogance in pretending to equal Jupiter [90] [241–44] [Alithia] Nebuchadnezzar’s excessive pride [70]. Hic ostenditur Pseustis deficere aut Alithiam temptare. [245–48] Movement of the Sun (cf. 165–72) [Pseustis] complains at the delay of night [90] [249–52] [Alithia] extols daylight [88].

The Debate

23

Hic Dane reclusio et corruptio et Danielis in carcere visitatio conferuntur. [253–56] Protection [Pseustis] The rape of Danae locked in a tower and seduced by gold [120] [257–60] [Alithia] Daniel shut in the lions’ den and protected by God [118]. Hic Niobes superbia et Susannae castitas inducitur. [261–64] Pride and Humility [Pseustis] Niobe’s pride [178] [265–68] [Alithia] The humility of Susanna [280]. Hic quarundam feminarum scelera Pseustis Alithiae probitati opponit. [269–72] Feminine Nature (cf. 269 ‘levitate muliebri’) [Pseustis] Two mothers, Procne and Medea, slay their own children [170 + 60] [273–76] [Alithia] The courage and virtue of Judith [268]. Hic Scillae patriae proditio et Hester civium liberatio conferuntur. [277–80] National Security [Pseustis] Scylla’s betrayal of her father and the fatherland [106] [281–84] [Alithia] Esther’s protection of the Jewish people [274]. This scheme does not, of course, give any indication of the persuasive power of the contestants’ arguments or chosen material. To assess such power, we may follow Herren’s initiative (see footnote 10) and make a comparative assessment of the 29 pairs of quatrains which comprise the debate proper. The aim will be, first of all, to evaluate the relative cogency and gravamen of the paired tales in the Latin, and secondly, to examine whether the French adaptation, the Tiaudelet, confirms or else modifies these results through narratorial statements or added details. The French work contextualizes and amplifies the ‘stories’ by supplying the commentary or ‘gloze’ which importantly supplements the laconic and allusive content of Theodulus’s quatrains. No doubt Theodulus expected his readers to recall much of the tales that was merely alluded to in the quatrains. In a sense the Tiaudelet saves the reader / listener from doing that, but there is the danger that it so amplifies the stories, especially in the case of the Bible, that it not merely fills all possible gaps in its aim of teaching students the full material, but may actually thereby obscure the salient features which link the paired quatrains and on which the outcome of the contest must hang. In other words, the sharp, alert tone of the debate in the Ecloga risks being slightly muffled by the amplitude of the French adaptation. If Theodulus is too allusive, and for some readers occasionally

24

Introduction

ambivalent, the French adaptation is almost too inclusive. This is because their purposes are rather different: the first, to sharpen judgement and exercise the critical faculty; the second to instruct by knowledge through telling the full story, not just decisive features of it. In the task of scoring the debates two criteria need to be borne in mind: first, the element of edification – that is, the moral value or significance of the actions or features adduced in the examples, and second, the criterion of outcome, that is, the result of the action described and whether it is positive or negative. If there are no significant differentiae one may speak of a tie, and if there seems to be no point of correspondence at all between two tales, then the round may be dismissed as an implied nonsuit. If this sounds simplistic, it should be said that in Theodulus the correspondences and contrasts in the confrontation of biblical and mythical narratives are never crass collisions. They are often quite subtle, and implications or inferences need teasing out. There are, indeed, few explicit leads. Theodulus clearly expected his readers to be familiar with context and details, to ‘fill out’, as it were, the profile of each narrative. For those not so familiar with the stories, the French translation and the commentary come to their assistance, in what is not a singing-match, depending on the manner or style of the performers, but a debate depending on the matter and the moral argument. The correspondences or parallels vary considerably in precision, homology and outcome: sometimes they scarcely exist at all. The interest of the debate lies in a sort of metatext which is constituted by reception and interpretation. In what follows an assessment is made of the winner in each round, and beneath that assessment, in smaller type, an indication of how the Tiaudelet may influence that judgement, whether by reinforcing it or modifying it. Theodulus cleverly lets Pseustis win the first three debates, to encourage us to take them seriously and to avoid giving the impression that they are ‘set up’ and the outcomes predetermined by the primacy of Christian truth. The first debate [37–44] covers expulsion stories, the parallels involving Saturn and Adam being sufficiently clear as to be explicitly indicated in the French commentary: ‘Ceste verité est samblant / Ad ce qui est dit par devant / De Saturne qui fu cachiés / De son paÿs et exsilliés’ (187–90). The first story has a positive value: Saturn ushered in a ‘Golden Age’ and ‘ipso gaudet avo superum generosa propago’, Ecloga 40 (‘the noble race of the gods rejoice in their ancestor.’) The depiction of Paradise, on the other hand, includes the negative ‘vipereum venenum’ (‘serpent’s poison’) and ‘pocula mortis’ (‘draught of death’), with the downturn ‘sentit adhuc proles, quod commisere parentes’ (44) (‘Their offspring still feel what the parents did’), a striking reversal of line 40 which points only too clearly to the outcome. Pseustis wins this round: with her misogynistic reference to Eve, Alithia seems simply to play into his hands. Perhaps this facile round is to help us to understand the nature of the contest.

The Debate

25

The second debate [45–52] is the sequel, as is made clear again in Tiaudelet: (‘Ceste fable chi appartient / A la premiere qui maintient / Que Saturnus qui fu si grans / Disposa le siecle et le tamps / Tout d’or …’ (301–04)). Jupiter expels Saturn and there follows a Silver Age, also esteemed by the gods: ‘et iam primatum dedit illi curia divum’ (48) (‘the council of the gods gave it pride of place’). The reprise of the primal pair in Paradise, on the other hand, retains the gloom of the earlier quatrain: instead of the dulled image of silver, we have ashes to ashes (cineres), and exclusion of all from Paradise by the flaming sword. Pseustis gains an easy victory. The commentary in Tiaudelet contains many sermon-like passages some of which discuss Christian symbolism, but nothing attenuates the sombreness of the biblical account of the Fall, the outcome of which remains negative.

The third debate [53–60] deals with recognition of the deity through sacrificial rites. Cecrops who founded Athens, with the help of Pallas, initiated blood sacrifice and established rites for Jupiter which posterity followed. He was regarded as a benefactor. But in the story of Cain and Abel blood sacrifice involves murder and brings no good with it. It is true that Abel’s sacrificial lamb is said to befit Christ, but this hardly compensates for the fact that whilst Cecrops uses his sword (ferrum) positively (as an instrument of worship), to open up the entrails of an ox for sacrifice, Cain uses his sword (ensis) wholly negatively, to produce the death of his brother. In these circumstances Alithia must surely be thought to lose. The French adaptor reinforces this conclusion, for he emphasizes that Cecrops seeks to please the deity by his actions (see 542ff, 563f ) (the overturning of Pythagoras’s rejection of meat eating). The picture is positive, whereas Cain acted against the deity and out of malign motives (see esp. 644ff ) which contrast him to Cecrops’s nobility. The adaptor roundly condemns Cain and evokes the Deity’s revenge. Here the adaptor would seem to intensify the disastrous nature of the Christian exemplum. Pseustis comes out on top for the third time.

The Fourth [61–68] debate begins a negative story of Lycaon’s punishment for the deception practised on Jupiter - he is turned into a wolf. This is a story of descent (by Jupiter), who was deceived by his host (Lycaon) who consequently ‘caelestes provocat iras’. This is not very well matched to the quatrain on Enoch, who at least is described as ‘iustitiae pollute cultor in orbe’ (cf. Abel iustus), whereas Lycaon is unjust, and – another contrast – Enoch ascends; he is never heard of again; he does not suffer death, ‘for God took him’ (Gen. 5, 29) and there are no reported consequences, unlike Lycaon’s punishment, for his deeds. In addition Enoch will be followed by Elijah believing in the coming of the Judge against the Leviathan. Alithia’s tale is much the more positive.

26

Introduction

In the French adaptation Enoch behaves ‘loyaument’ and Elijah is described as ‘De juste et loyal compaignie’. They prepare God’s coming and are rewarded with Paradise, which is thus restored. The theme binding the two speeches is thus justice (see Eclog. 67 ‘judicis adventum’), which is underlined in the adaptor’s commentary: ‘jugement’ (757, 766), ‘justichier’ (768), ‘justes’ (771), ‘loyaument’ (758, 761), ‘loyaux’ (784). Elijah is the opposite of Lycaon, who is disloyal to Jupiter. The antagonism of Cain (of whom Enoch is a son) and Abel contrasts with the solidarity of the Enoch / Elijah pair. Here Alathie’s49 tale (with a much amplified commentary) seems to guarantee victory for its positiveness.

The fifth debate begins with the Flood [69–76], sent by Jupiter with the assistance of Neptune, destroying humanity except for a couple of souls. The story of Deucalion and Pirra is positive enough: the French adaptor comments ‘Ainssi fu tous renouvelez / le mond par ces .ii. escapés’ (883–84), for they renewed the human race by throwing behind them, as directed by Themis, the bones of their mother (i.e. the stones of mother earth). The speech of Alithia begins with ‘ultio digna Dei’, ‘the rightful vengeance of God’, occasioning the Flood, but cites the optimistic sign of the rainbow as indicating that the disaster would never recur. A very close result, but a tentative win for Alithia with the detail of the rainbow furnishing a positive outcome. In the French adaptation justice is important: Noah is ‘de vie pure’ (892), ‘de parfaite vie’ (922) (Gen. 6, 9 ‘justus et perfectus’), and God called him ‘cui justice il avoit loé’ (916, 918) ‘pour tout le mond renouveler’ (924 // 883). There is a meticulous description of the building of the Ark, following the details in Genesis. The Ark and the rainbow are potent symbols. Here we may say that Alathie’s report of the appeasement of God and His explicit promise that there will be no further flood (984–90), together with the detail concerning the rainbow, clinches the argument: ‘Quant on le voit, on est certain / Que dedens .xxx. ans corps humain / Et bestez sont asseürés / Que tant sont de mort respités’ (995–98).

The sixth debate [77–84] juxtaposes the rape of Ganymede, and Noah’s experience with the raven and dove. It seems to be birds that provide the link. But all is not so simple. The obvious parallel with Ganymede would have been the assumption of Enoch. It is particularly surprising that the parallel is not exploited, because the present alignment of stories is not entirely satisfying: the eagle abducting Ganymede is not mentioned in the text which refers only to Jupiter’s armiger (‘standard-bearer’), so the view that it is birds that provide the link between the tales is weakened. Any material or symbolic interpretation of the eagle must depend on supplying the reference (from Virgil or Ovid, or the Vatican Mythographies). Symbolically the eagle might be held to represent an aggressive (pagan) force; the gentle dove, more obviously Christianity (peace, the olive 49  The French text employs the form Alathie (Alathia at ll. 73, 175, 4531).

The Debate

27

branch, the Holy Spirit); the black raven (which the animals explicitly condemn for perfidy and refusing to bring salvation) presumably standing for Judaism.50 There is nothing to this effect in the early bestiaries. The second problem is that the theme of homosexual love, introduced in some medieval sources, and commonly associated with Ganymede (> ‘catamite’), is no more mentioned than is the eagle, though it may be hinted at if we interpret lepores as ‘lepōres’, ‘charms’ not hares.51 In the end Alithia just wins because of the potent Christian symbol of the dove, but there is little real symmetry between the two tales. In the French commentary, we read that Saturn, Jupiter’s father, was at war with his son who joined battle and abducted Ganymede for whom he conceived a homosexual love and abandoned Hebe: ‘Et mua amour feminine / En malvaise amour masculine’ (1057–58). A negative outcome. The eagle is quite explicitly referred to in the translation and the commentary. In the story of Noah the translated Theodolan quatrain simply opposes the ‘crow’ and the dove. The ark is explicitly allegorized as Holy Church (1134–36), ‘c’est sainte Eglise pure, / Par qui est toutte ame portee / Qui de la mort est respitee.’ In this debate the difference of outcomes is striking and Alathie surely wins in the French commentary because of its inclusion of certain details which reinforce her case.

The seventh debate centres on giants and heights [85–92]. The giants, out of pride, sought to oust the dwellers in Heaven, but Jupiter cast them down and destroyed them with a lightning strike from his smith Vulcan. The outcome is wholly negative. Alithia counters with the story of the tower of Babel and the building activities of men (‘filii Adam’). Here the main aim is to build high ‘to touch the sky’ (1180), ‘pour leur nom par tout avanchier’ (1204, 1213–4; see Gen. 11, 4 ‘et celebremus nomen nostrum’), but this presumption irritated God and He punished them by confusing their tongues52 and scattering them.53 God descends to see their handiwork and anticipates its furtherance (‘nec desistent a cogitationibus suis donec eas opere conpleant’, Gen. 11, 6 ‘nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.’). The confusion of tongues gives the name of their city ‘Babylon’. The adaptor gives in the commentary an explicit account of their pride (the allegory of the story, including that of the fallen angel). The outcome is less catastrophic because the purpose of the builders of Babel was 50  See N.  Hecquet-Noti, “Le corbeau nécrophage, figure du juif, dans le De diluuio mundi d’Avit de Vienne: à propos de l’interprétation de Gn 8, 6–7 dans carm. 4, 544–84”, REAug 48 (2002), 297–320; A.B. Rooth, The Raven and the Carcass. An Investigation of a Motif in the Deluge Myth in Europe, Asia and North America (Helsinki, 1962). 51  Thomson and Perraud translate Ecloga 77 ‘The boy Ganymede exerts his Trojan charms to the full’. 52  Babel is artificially connected with the Hebrew balal ‘mix up, confuse’. 53  Macé de la Charité’s Bible, based on Peter Riga’s Aurora, gives a different motivation, see ll. 1164ff, for he includes Nimrod and his non-biblical association, as a figure of pride and rebelliousness against God, with the tower of Babel.

28

Introduction

less aggressive (to equal, not to overthrow), though they are of course punished. I think this gives Alithia the edge. In the Tiaudelet the next round (eight) begins ‘Peustis quant fu abatus’ (1318), thus confirming that Alathie won the previous round. Herren, (p. 205) thinks this round ‘looks like a tie’.

The eighth debate [93–96] concerns the revenge of Apollo on the Cyclopes, who had struck down Paeon (that is, Asclepius) his son with their thunderbolts, and the revenge in turn taken on him by Jupiter for this act. This is matched with the miracle of the aged Sarah’s impregnation by the even more aged Abraham. Both sets of characters experience a radical change of fortune: in the case of Apollo a negative one ( Jupiter’s revenge on him); in the case of the aged couple a positive one. But what are the causes? Abraham is rewarded for his obedience to God, but the punishment of Apollo is for his hubris (it is the Cyclopes who were obedient to a command – that of Jupiter). Apollo is stripped by the Gods of his dignity and becomes a shepherd to Admetus. The parallels are pretty slack and for this reason we might conclude in favour of a nonsuit. The Tiaudelet provides a long passage on a battle seen by Paeon between a shepherd and a basilisk, the shepherd being protected by a garland of flowers, but falling defeated when deprived of it. Subsequently he used the flower to secure miraculous victories, reviving for example Hippolytus. It is this that aroused the anger of Jupiter. So here the cause of Jupiter’s revenge is explained at length. The Abraham story also receives a big addition in the commentary – ordeal by fire as a test of faith – which otherwise offers a detailed replication of the biblical account. The stories have little in common and the verdict remains unchanged: a nonsuit.

The ninth debate (101–08), foregrounding the themes of disobedience and obedience, compares the story of Icarus, who ignores his father’s advice, and the tale of the patriarch Abraham who obeys his father, God the Father, and sacrifices his only son Isaac, who in turn obeys his father (Abraham). This double obedience must give the victory to Alithia. The Eclogue concludes ‘sequitur patrem sua proles’ (108) (‘His offspring followed the father’) which points up the contrast with Icarus, who did not follow the advice of his father (Daedalus) but only his course. As so often, the commentary fills out greatly the basic character (Daedalus) and story – to instruct the young and ignorant. This is another story about aiming high (1643ff ) and about disobedience (1656ff, by Icarus to his father). An addition in Tiaudelet is the elaboration of Icarus’s conversion into a star. Most importantly, the French adaptor draws attention explicitly to Icarus’s disobedience to his father, which is not explicitly mentioned

The Debate

29

in Theodulus, who actually has 102 ‘filius insequitur’, meaning that he follows the course of his father, not his advice. A very clear victory for Alathie.

The tenth debate [109–16] matches the story of Phyllis and Demophon with that of Lot and his wife, a contrast of loyalty and disloyalty. Phyllis clings to hope of her lover’s return and responds to him, when she has been turned by the gods into an almond / hazel (in the French) tree by putting out leaves. In the French and in Ovid she hanged herself on the tree. Lot’s faithless (‘perfida’) wife was turned into salt. Here the female roles are reversed: the faithful Phyllis and the faithless wife of Lot. The stories are linked by the theme of both metamorphosis and promise: Demophon’s promise to Phyllis, which he is prevented from fulfilling, and God’s promise to Abraham, Lot’s uncle, to save him alone (Gen. 18, 22–23). However, Alithia offers a purely negative story and must surely lose this round. In Tiaudelet Demophon departs ‘pour conquester et los et pris’ (1809; cf. Chrétien’s Erec) as well as to take part in the Trojan war. He breaks his promise to Phyllis as the result of a storm. The French turns it into a tragic love story (see 1896–1902), ‘Ainssi met amour folle a mort / Sans metre ayde ne confort (1915–16) – here folle means ‘desperate’ (1909–10). The French commentary refers to Lot’s wife not believing what she had heard and seen, and to her looking back (Gen.19, 17) (see Macé de la Charité, Bible 1482ff - both Lot and his wife). Unlike Demophon, she has no excuse for her disobedience.

The eleventh debate [117–24] juxtaposes the tale of Diomedes wounding Venus in battle and the story of Jacob wrestling with the Lord. What binds them is that a mortal engages in physical combat against a god (God) and the consequences are felt by a group of successors; so the comrades of Diomedes are turned into birds, and the offspring of Jacob abstain from eating the sinew of the thigh. These symmetries show Venus and Jehovah dispensing justice in the same way, through successors. The lack of a clear discriminatory feature, or voice, suggests that this round must be a tie. When we turn to the French adaptation, on the other hand, the commentary tells us that Diomedes was rendered mad by Venus (2090–91; 2172–3, 2182 on account of his wife Aegialia, whom Venus caused to become the mistress of Sthenelus’s son Cometes) and many of his men drowned (2126ff ) and turned into birds, whilst Jacob receives no such punishment, but, on the contrary, becomes ‘Israel’ (2287 Gen. 32, 28; Macé 2120). This seems to give victory to Alathie.

The twelfth debate [125–32] deals with the story of Hippolytus and Phaedra aligned with the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (which as a motif entered Old French literature). A young, single, exceptionally virtuous male is seduced by

30

Introduction

a lustful older woman who is married. The outcomes are not so negative as might be expected. Hippolytus dies a horrible death, but in Theodulus is brought back to life through Diana’s intervention, and lives on as Virbius (‘twice man’), whilst Joseph eventually prospers in a less striking and more material way, rising from slavery to authority over Egypt, not as the result of an act of friendship, but as reward for interpreting the king’s dreams. Here Theodulus seems to be tipping the balance of the argument in favour of Pseustis. The French commentary brings out Diana’s respect for Hippolytus’s chastity and her ‘grant amisté’ (2400) for him, thus respecting Theodulus’s innovation in resurrecting him. But in contextualizing the story of Joseph the French adaptation brings out his sufferings and the injustices done to him (incl. the tale of his coat of many colours) i.e. the backstory to his arriving at Potiphar’s court as well as his restoration to honour and authority: ‘Pour ce sauveur on l’apella’ (2704). Here the inclusiveness of the massively expanded French commentary evens up the debate. More particularly, the commentary’s identification of Joseph as a figure of Jesus Christ (2710–20 cf. Macé 2921) must be held to give the palm to Alathie.

The thirteenth debate [133–40] juxtaposes the stories of Cadmus and Moses. A parallel is established by the invention of one art (writing, ‘grammata’) and the destruction of another (magic); elsewhere (e.g. Isidore, Etym. I.iii.5) Moses is credited with inventing the Hebrew alphabet. Another implicit motif linking the two is the symbol of the snake; Cadmus and his wife Harmonia are at his suggestion turned into snakes. If Cadmus is to survive, it seems that he must become a snake, but the motivation suggested in Ecloga 135–36 is unclear (cf. Met. 3, 1–30 and 4, 569ff ). There is no positive outcome of the couple’s transformation into snakes. In the Moses story, vastly amplified in the French commentary, his victory in the snake contest (3159ff, Exod. 7, 10f; not even alluded to in Theodulus) marks an unequivocal victory over evil, and leads to his success in rescuing his people. Victory to Alithia then, but in the Tiaudelet this detail of Moses and the snakes is so minimized (137 ‘magicas artes’, Exod. 7, 11 ‘maleficos’) that the narrative can scarcely bear comparison at all with the story of Cadmus. In this context and perspective the contest appears null. Only the concentration of the Ecloga foregrounds the common element of the snake. Moses’ positive feats are undeniable, but there is no satisfactory, still less, eloquent, link to Cadmus. The fourteenth debate [141–48] pairs the story of the seduction of Europa (Agenor’s daughter) by Jupiter disguised as a bull with that of Aaron and the Golden Calf, the animal being the sole and obvious link. Here there is something of a stalemate. The incident of “the sin of the calf ”, in which the Israelites turn to idolatry whilst Moses is on Mount Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, is self-evidently negative. The French commentary devalues the animal in an excursus on the calf and idols, so a still more negative assessment emerges (though

The Debate

31

in many cultures the bull is no less idolized (cf. 6354ff ). It is difficult to ascribe victory here, as there is really no homology of the two stories. The fifteenth debate [149–56] links the fates of Amphiaraus and Korah, both of whom were swallowed up. This looks like a tie, but the fate of Moses ‘enseveli’, whose tomb remains unknown (Deut. 34, 6), offers an extension which might just be thought to give Alithia’s case an element of superiority. Rather exceptionally, the first story is given at great length in the Tiaudelet commentary, with more than the usual number of comments about Amphiaraus being brought low by his wife (3847ff ) and a great diatribe against money and venality. The story of Korah is not accompanied by such details, but preserves the feature of Moses’s burial place not being revealed. Only the extension of the narrative to Moses’s death arguably avoids a tie here.

The sixteenth debate [157–64] juxtaposes the story of Io’s persecution of Juno to that of Barlaam’s ass; they share the theme of the human and the bestial. Io’s story ends badly because her human speech was removed and replaced with that of a beast – though she is restored to her former nature on her eventual arrival in Egypt. In the story of Balaam, the speech motif is reversed, the ass finally speaking with a human voice. In the first story nature deteriorates, in the second it improves. But why is Balaam’s use of human speech referred to in Ecloga 163 as ‘res horrenda nimis’? Alithia wins, through a superior outcome; Balaam receives enlightenment through the reaction of his ass who can see the angel sent by God to impede his going to king Moab. The seventeenth debate [165–72] pairs the begetting of Hercules (Alcides) and the biblical account of Joshua’s victory at the battle of Gibeon (Gabaon). The binding element is, of course, the motif of the modification of the moon’s / sun’s course to ensure a specific event. On the one hand we have Jupiter’s activities under the aegis of Phoebe (the moon) to arrange the prolongation of the night, so that he may enjoy the embraces of Alcmena; and on the other hand Joshua’s prayer for extension of the day by Phoebus (Apollo, sun) so that he may win a great victory. Alithia here is willing to accommodate a classical figure (Phoebus). The pagan story ends in the conception of Hercules, and pointedly foreshadows his heroic future through the mention of his strangling the serpents which his stepmother Juno dispatched to kill him. So each of the miracles permitted by the passage of time in these two stories leads to a happy outcome. But Jupiter’s success is achieved by sin and stealth, and under cover of darkness, while Joshua’s is gained by virtue displayed in the light. There is no doubt that Alithia’s example is the more weighty. The quatrain ends with the quasi-homiletic ‘quae sanctae fidei sint praemia, discite cuncti! (‘Learn, all, what the rewards of faith are’). There are no added elements in the French commentary. The eighteenth debate [173–80] aligns the stories of Hercules and Samson, linked with the previous (seventeenth) debate. Hercules fulfils the promise of his

32

Introduction

infancy by defeating a succession of baneful monsters: Geryon, the Hydra, and Cacus. Samson, here quite detached from his customary Christological significance, is linked to Hercules through the reference to ‘exuviis indutus membra leonis’ (Ecloga 177) – both heroes wore a lion’s pelt. Samson, further, performed feats for his people, freeing them from danger. A common element, of course, is that each of the two heroes is destroyed by the treachery of a woman as well as being a benefactor of his society through heroic action. Both Deianeira and Delilah may be broadly characterized as concubines (paelices). Here we have a tie – two heroes, who are presented as benefactors of their respective societies through heroic actions, are destroyed through the machinations of ‘evil’ women. The contestants seem pretty balanced. In the French commentary, however, a detail is added which might just give Alathie the edge: ‘Et adonc plus de gens tua / Sanse le fort a son morant / Qu’il n’avoit fait en son vivant.’ (5236–38). This is a rendering of Judges 16, 30, (‘So the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those he had killed in his life’) suggesting a final triumph even in death (contrast Hercules’s death through Nessus’s deception of Deianeira).

[181–88] A breather, in which the two contestants call on, respectively, the pagan gods and the Christian God for assistance. Against the 64 lines of French commentary on the pagan gods, there are 284 lines, full of rhetorical elaborations, on the Christian God. The balance is not in doubt.54 The nineteenth debate [189–96] juxtaposes Orpheus and David as embodiments of the art of music, a difference being that Orpheus has power over nature (trees), whilst David influences a king; David succeeds (Saul) to the kingship, but Orpheus loses his wife - very different outcomes. The reader is expected to know, of course, the final result of the ‘harsh condition’ – condicione gravi / ‘pesant condicion’ - imposed by Proserpina. This marks a clear victory for Alithia. Alathie’s argument is fortified in the French commentary, which in the case of Orpheus concludes with a clear ‘moral’, a warning against eloquence (5715–22) put before wisdom (science). In addition, the French commentator declares that the fate of David was the will of Our Lord out of consideration of David’s goodness (bonté); also included is David’s victory over Goliath. The commentary concludes with praise of David’s demeanour (5888ff ). This is one of the clearest victories in the work.

The twentieth debate [197–204] offers a comparison of two figures of wisdom, Hermes (Mercury) and Solomon. Mercury is presented as a hero and magician, with the sarcastic comment that you might say that Juno (‘noverca’, his 54  I do not include this and 245–52 in my scoring of the debates.

The Debate

33

stepmother) gave suck to him (he was Jupiter’s son by Maia). Solomon, so diligent a pursuer of wisdom, and favoured by the Almighty, excelled in the customs of Nature, and, further, embellished the citadel with a temple. And yet the wealthy Solomon was brought low by his love of women; that is his weakness, not a misogynistic comment on scheming women. In Theodulus’s text this looks like a tie. But the picture changes in the French where Mercury’s knowledge of medicine (his ‘caduceus’ is also mentioned), with a command over life and death, is evoked. Solomon comes out well too, for the commentary emphasizes the range of his knowledge; the building of the temple is described in detail. Crucially, his love of women, which caused his downfall, though unavoidably referred to in the translated quatrain 5957–8, is completely omitted! Through this omission of Solomon’s fault, he must inevitably appear the more impressive figure! The balance of the argument shifts in favour of Alathie (but see Macé, Bible 3 (Rois) ll. 14732 esp. 14745/756 on Solomon’s love of women and ll. 14797–8 on his wisdom).

The twenty-first debate [205–12] deals with famine (Triptolemus sent by Ceres) and drought (Elijah) on a pretty equal footing. In the French, both outcomes are very positive (including ‘serpent’ and the ‘assecla corvus’) – see the conclusion of the commentary on Ceres and famine (6269ff ). In Alithia’s argument the protagonist is Elijah himself (to parallel Ceres), despite the fact that all is decided by God in I Kings 17, 2–6. This is a clear dead heat.

The twenty-second debate [213–20] juxtaposes the figures of Medusa and Perseus with Elijah and Jezebel, and both stories have a positive outcome. Each story ends with a victorious ascent of the male, though Bellerophon and Perseus are conflated, as are the stories of Jezebel and of Elijah. Is this a tie? Not quite perhaps, because Ecloga 220 has ‘Spiritus heredi geminatur amore magistri’ (‘For love his heir received his master’s spirit twice’), referring to Elisha, Elijah’s disciple (see 2 Kings 2, 9, see Tiaudelet 6648–50) and this motif is prominent in the conclusion of the commentary which ends with a miracle (6779ff ). This addition, reminiscent of post mortem miracles at the end of saints’ lives and reported in 2 Kings 13, 21, really enhances Elisha’s benefit. Victory to Alathie. The twenty-third debate [221–28] deals with two cases of the deferment of death, namely the experiences of Tithonus and Hezekiah. Tithonus was eventually turned into a cicada, and Aurora’s son Memnon died at Troy, and his sisters were turned into birds and fought bloody battles until they too died – a very negative outcome. The second case, Hezekiah, has his life prolonged by God (2 Kings 20, 6) by 15 years and (‘ne dubitaret item se premeruisse salutem’, Ecloga 227 ‘Lest he should doubt that he had merited his health’) the sun retreated in its course. This is described in the French commentary as ‘.i. miracles moult grans’

34

Introduction

(cf. debate 21). Here there is a much more optimistic note and Alithia emerges very clearly as the winner. The twenty-fourth debate [229–36] seems to offer very few parallels, and more contrasts, between the joy and praise of the founder and victor in the Olympic Games, and the death of Josiah on the plains of Megiddo which calls forth the laments of Jeremiah and others and remembrance of his celebration of the Passover. Despite the reference to ‘sequitur confusio victum’ (Ecloga 232 ‘the vanquished suffered shame’, Tiaudelet 7067, 7135f ), it is obvious that the outcome of the Olympic story is very much more positive. Victory to Pseustis. Hercules is credited with the conception and ordering of the games, in honour of Jupiter. In contrast, the prevailing mood in Alithia’s story is sadness, especially Jeremiah’s sadness for Josiah, who had established the practice of the Passover (Tiaudelet 7288), and insisted on confronting the Pharaoh in battle and dies, giving rise to great lamentation. This is very obviously a win for Pseustis. The twenty-fifth debate [237–44] involves Salmoneus and Nebuchadnezzar (see also Tiaudelet 8746–50), who are punished for their arrogance in seeking to usurp the role of the deity. Salmoneus’s imitation of the power of Jupiter (Zeus) is punished by the god who defeats the rival (‘comparis  / compere’). Nebuchadnezzar, acknowledging no god but himself, endured seven seasons of dew and rain, a man reduced to animal existence. His example serves to illustrate that all should be content with nature’s powers (i.e. the powers that nature has conferred on them). The French commentary brings out Salmoneus’s arrogance (‘en son cuer cuidoit qu’il fuist Dieus’, 7367). Nebuchadnezzar is punished for ignoring God - again, the terms pride and arrogance are used - and ‘il cuida estre Dieu sans per’ (7483 cf. 7490). These are real parallels. This should really be a tie, possibly the closest of all.

([245–52] the movement of the sun (= why summon night?) The twenty-sixth debate [253–60] ranges the stories of Danae and Daniel which contrast the themes of corruption and protection, both through a god ( Jupiter and the Christian God). Danae, guarded in a tower by her father Acrisius, is debauched by Jupiter in the form of golden rain; Daniel locked in the lions’ den is fed by Habacuc who had made a miraculous journey. Daniel is protected by God. Clearly Alithia’s story has the positive outcome. The French commentary brings out the corrupting power of money in a long coda, summarizing the tale, and in the case of Daniel the power of divine protection given to a faithful servant. Alathie wins hands down.

The Debate

35

The twenty-seventh debate [261–68] juxtaposes two powerful adversaries, Diana (daughter of Latona/Leto), and Susanna, in the conflict of pride and humility. Diana punishes the chattering Niobe, a figure of pride and sadness, whose daughters and sons were killed by Diana and Apollo respectively for insulting their mother. Susanna confounded the lascivious Elders through courage and discipline, overcoming the ‘law that nature gave her.’ Clearly a victory to Alithia. The French commentary elaborates considerably on Latona and Diana as figures of wisdom and learning and logic! The story of Susanna displays her courage and self-discipline (in overcoming the nature of her sex, ‘tanti sexus’) and she is saved by God ‘qui ne laisse perir / Cheulx qu’il voit sans raison souffrir’ (8393–4); ‘Qui sauve cheulx qui bien lui prient / Et qui de coer en luy se fient’ (8465–66).

The twenty-eighth debate [269–76] turns on examples of womanhood. In a clearly anti-feminist speech instancing ‘levitas muliebris’ Pseustis evokes the figures of Procne and Medea which in the French are treated in two long and separate glosses, with an unusual reference to motivation: ‘[Pseustis] commencha a despiter / Femme pour courchier Alathie’, (8488–89) repeated at the end (8711–16). Alithia counters these insults with the story of Holofernes, who is ‘captus vesano amore’ (‘crazed with passion’) for Judith and murdered by her, who is chaste, courageous and assisted by God i.e. like Susanna, the opposite of the (antifeminist) stereotype. And like Susanna she attracts a long commentary in the Tiaudelet. Again victory to Alithia. Finally, the twenty-ninth debate [277–84] (I don’t count 245–52) contrasts the stories of Scylla and Esther. Scylla, assailed by the beak of her father Nisus (who is first to be changed into a bird – a sea-eagle, haliæetos), was transformed into a ‘ciris’ (a mythological bird rendered as ‘aloe’ in Tiaudelet). Scylla betrays father and fatherland. The ascent of Esther to the position of Queen Vashti is accompanied by the help she gives to her fellow Jews to escape the fate planned for them by the chief minister Hamon. In the story of Scylla, it is Scylla herself who is, at the end, persecuted – by her father –, whilst Esther abolishes the persecution of her people. A clear victory to Alithia. The results of this judicial enquiry are surprising and reinforce recognition of Theodulus’s skill in maintaining the dynamics of the debate. Alithia wins outright fourteen rounds, that is half the matches. Pseustis wins outright five matches. The number of ties is five. And the number of matches where there is a modification of the result by the French adaptation is four. Unsurprisingly, Alithia tends to gain from the treatment she receives and the detail that is supplied in the Tiaudelet. The text of Theodulus alone, though, guarantees that there is a definite challenge to discrimination and judgement which gives life to the poem.

36

Introduction

The second notable feature of the debate in the Ecloga is the attitude to women displayed in the poem, an unavoidable issue since at least two scholars (Chance and Herren) have entertained the idea that the author might have been a woman. In the introduction to their translation of school texts Thomson and Perraud state (p. 124) “The most obvious respect, however, in which the Eclogue is typically a product of the Middle Ages lies in its attitude to women”, by which they mean anti-feminism. Their case, as put, is superficial, for they list the mere mentions of notoriously misbehaving women from the Old Testament. So let us dig a little deeper.55 Both contestants, Pseustis and Alithia, permit themselves misogynistic remarks on occasion; pro-feminist attitudes, on the other hand, seem to be the monopoly of Alithia. This follows the logic of their speeches, which are surely designed to be judged according to their content’s moral value and the nature of their outcomes. In a quatrain towards the end of the debate, in a section not included in the French adaptation, Alithia pronounces the words ‘Dulce viro mulier’ (Eclog. 305). With reference to the impressive Susanna she recounts that the lascivious priests were not restrained by their age nor by ‘tanti sexus virtus’ [‘the virtue of so great a sex’] (266), in which Green thinks there might be ‘a hint of sarcasm’, and a further expression of women’s weakness (‘the natural law’ of 268), but we must bear in mind that it is Alithia who is speaking; the legem that Susannah overcame (‘Quam natura dedit legem, Susanna subegit’ (268)) is the weakness often associated with her sex in general, but ‘tanti sexus virtus’ surely refers specifically to Susanna and her exceptional discipline, whilst the natural law refers to women more widely, whom, and this is the point, Susanna surpasses. I am inclined to agree with Herren p. 215 that “the message seems to be: women are naturally weak …; however, women who believe in the one true God (Christian women) enjoy the possibility of overcoming their natural weakness, while the rest do not.” At the very least one could say “Alithia also tried to prove that Christian women enjoyed a greater possibility of achieving moral excellence than their pagan predecessors” (Herren, p. 217). In the main debate Pseustis speaks first – at the invitation of Fronesis: ‘Perge prior, Pseustis, quia masculus’ (34). What is the logic here? Green p. 101 calls it ‘sexist grounds (reversing chivalric procedure)’. Is it intended to be ironic? It is rendered literally in Tiaudelet 93–95. An alternative view might be that it is simply a courtesy to a male who is after all outnumbered: the judge is a woman, who is the sister of his female opponent. Moreover Alithia, representing Christian truth, will have no need of a headstart: it is Pseustis who is at a disadvantage, that of backing the wrong cause. And, quite evidently, if Alithia is to refute Pseustis’s arguments – he is the challenger – she must first hear them, and thus be the second 55  Cf. H. Brinkmann, Mittelalterliche Hermeneutik, p. 377f.

The Debate

37

to speak. And it is he who voices the most explicit condemnation of women: ‘Mens robusta viri levitate cadit muliebri’ (269), with a line devoted to women’s practices, and evocation of Procne and Medea. Is this negative statement simply an introduction to the two egregious cases he mentions, rather than a global virus? Alithia takes exception to such words “Aëra ne fedent, isthaec convitia, cessent’ (273) and counters with the story of Holofernes ‘Femineas vires expavit dux Olofernes / insignis viduae vesano captus amore’ (274–75). There is no question of Judith, ‘insignis vidua’ (‘that splendid widow’), representing ‘levitas muliebris’. The criticism is of Holofernes who was ‘vesano captus amore’, a fact which came to be regretted by the Assyrians. I agree with Green (note to 273ff ) that Judith’s cunning was seen as a virtue56 and that ‘there is no irony in the author’s choice of this representative of the female sex to rebut Pseustis’s remarks. Like Susanna, she overcame her supposed nature.’ It is true that women may be agents of destruction, with the men morally responsible – in the case of Solomon who turned to idolatry under the influence of women: ‘confertum gazis evertit amor muliebris’ (204) [1 Kings 11, 1ff ]. A list of negatively presented women must include Lot’s wife (‘perfida uxor’ 115), Amphiaraus’s wife (149; especially ll. 3869ff ), Deianeira and Delilah (173– 80), and Jezebel (inaccurately, 217). It can be claimed that no fewer than 16 quatrains contain derogatory implications about the nature of women (Thomson & Perraud, p. 125), that is, exploit a topos (cf. the general observation in Tiaudelet ‘Et ce ne fu mie merveille, / car femme angouisseuse tant veille, / quant son entente voelt avoir, / qu’il luy couvient avoir pour voir / ce qu’elle voelt, ou puis n’ara / paix en lieu où celle sera’ (3869–74)). This use of a topos is, of course, quite different from arguing that the author allied himself with such a view. As we saw in the scoring of the matches, the author ensured that Alithia, Christian truth, won, but in no way evaded the rigours of genuinely keen debate. The Ecloga was never designed as a defence of women, but it is true that it is a woman who brings victory to the right cause. The Ecloga does not set out to convey a universal view of women; it simply allows the contestants to involve examples of womanhood in the promotion of their argument.57 The strongest Christian examples are Susanna, Judith and Esther, with whom the poem ends. Such are the debates and controversies introduced into what is a familiar setting, which would surprise noone conversant with Virgil’s Eclogues, in particular 56  See the treatment of Judith in Peter Riga’s Aurora and in ms. Laud Misc. 242 (Bodleian Library) in Thomson and Perraud, pp. 269–82. 57  In the Tiaudelet we find only discreet reinforcements of what is suggested in Theodulus. For example, concerning the venality of Amphiaraus’s wife who overcomes her husband we read “Et ce ne fu mie merveille, / Car femme angouisseuse tant veille, / Quant son entente voelt avoir, / Qu’il luy couvient avoir pour voir / Ce qu’elle voelt, ou puis n’ara / Paix en lieu ou celle sera” (3869–74). This is followed by a characteristic diatribe against the corruptive power of money: ‘car tout obeïst a argent’ (3885; cf. 7843ff ).

38

Introduction

numbers 2 and 7. In a poetic contest between an Athenian youth (Pseustis) and a Hebrew girl (Alithia), with an older woman Fronesis (Alithia’s sister) as judge (prudentia and discretio), the stakes in the competition are Pseustis’s shepherd’s pipes and Alithia’s cithern, thus reflecting the classical convention of a music competition. However, Theodulus’s poem is not a musical or poetry competition, or even a paraenetic one, but an instructive or informative exercise, relating, in a largely allusive manner, to the positive and negative features of biblical and classical narratives; consequently, it attracted, in the Tiaudelet, a running commentary or supplement (quite possibly, of course, itself based on a Latin commentary): there are sixty commentaries, which vary in length from 12 lines to 402 lines – the brevity of the 12 lines is due to the overlap of Eclog. 45–48 with 37–40. Of the twelve commentaries which exceed 200 lines all but two belong to Alathie and biblical narrative. Of commentaries between 150 and 200 lines two thirds belong to Alathie. Part of the explanation resides in the high narrative content of biblical witnesses. The median length of the commentaries is 110–20 lines. Extensive passages of Christian moralizing are found in the following commentaries: 325ff (41–44 Adam and Eve); 3635ff (145–48 excursus on the calf and idols); 5327ff (185–88 the Holy Trinity and on angels). There is little allegory or exegesis. The commentator’s ‘gloze’ is basically narrative, with the essentially educational purpose of familiarizing the audience with the classical fables and biblical stories. Through this process it is possible to ‘fable sçavoir’ (131) and ‘entendre le voir’ (132). There are three quatrains which receive two glosses (141–44 3295ff, 3363ff Europa and the bull; 181–84 5251ff, 5271ff; 269–72 8487ff, 8657ff Procne and Medea). The first of these passages (ll. 325ff ) is systematic: it describes the symbolic attributes of Adam’s ‘seat’ (siege; sede Eclog. 49) in Paradise - ‘le hault siege’ given to him by God - in the following terms: its loftiness; the stability of its feet or base; its steps; seats; refuge to those who have committed offences; place of resort for performers of good works. Each of these six features is allegorized in passages of four lines: 352–54; 355–58; 359–62; 363–66; 367–70; 371–74. Five of these passages employ the verb moustrer to introduce the moral sense. After the expulsion Adam ‘bas siet sans vertu et sans sens’ (380), insensitive to virtue and suffering, he has lost his nobility on returning to earthly existence. Elsewhere there are elaborations of athletic performance at Olympus (7122ff ) and of the movements of the sun in the story of Phaeton (7560ff ). The debate, based on the juxtaposition of classical myths and Old Testament stories in terms of complementarity and contrast, now ends and the commentator ignores the Latin quatrains which follow in the original [285–344].

‘Fable’ and ‘histoire’

39

‘Fable’ and ‘histoire’ The junctions of translation and gloss follow consistently applied formulae according to whether the subject is classical or biblical. In the case of the former, fable is used58 in conjunction with a verb referring to interpretation: ‘Qui voelt ceste fable sçavoir / pour mieulx entendre aprés le voir’ (131f ); ‘Ceste fable chi appartient / A la premiere qui maintient / Que Saturnus qui fu si grans / Disposa le siècle et le tamps / Tout d’or, mais Jupiter …’ (301); ‘Pour mieulx ceste fable exposer’ (539); ‘Ceste fable en petit de vers / nous moustre …’ (839–40); ‘Pour ceste fable entendre mieulx’ (1011); ‘Qui voelt ceste fable a le lettre / exposer bien on y puelt metre / sens de vraie significance’ (1035–7); ‘Ceste fable moustre en ses dis’ (1149); ‘Pour ceste fable mieulx sçavoir’ (1327). What can seem to be of no value, may contain a moral truth, as in the story of Asclepius: Se fable puelt verité dire, Nulz ne doit son compte desdire, Car cil samble au fait de forain Qu’il n’ait en luy riens de certain, Et qu’il entente en verité, Pour ce doibt estre recité Et aussi le doit om oïr, Car il aprent maulx a haÿr. (1407–14)

The exposition is important, as in the case of the story of Icarus: Ceste fable pour estre aprise Voelt plus clerement estre mise59 … La fable ne dist faulx ne gas. (1587–8, 1610)

Through interpretation the fable may yield truth, that is, it may prove to be veritable (the rhyme proved irresistible, see 3919f, 5623f, 6583f ). Hence the difference between fable and hystoire, normally reserved for classical fable and biblical narrative respectively, may be elided. In the story of Diomedes’s assault on Venus, we read: Ceste hystoire briefment chi mise Ung fait mervilleux nous devise … 58 Cf. also exemple (7831, 8657). 59 Cf. 2315–18.

40

Introduction

Eneas, seloncq ceste fable … Ainssi est faitte veritable Ceste aventure et ceste fable. (2191f, 2195, 2211f ) Ce compte [the story of Demophon and Phyllis] chi n’est mie fable Ains est l’istoire veritable (1895f )

Of course the various meanings must be elicited by careful interpretation: Ceste fable aroit mestier De plus clerement expliquier Pour mieulx entendre tous les sens Qui sont contenu par dedens. (2315ff ) Pour ce est la fable trouvee Vraie, quant elle est exposee (7433f ) Or est bien dont vraie trouve La fable qui est recordee (7851f )

Interpretation must follow careful attention to the letter of the text: Qui voelt ceste fable a la lettre Prendre, il doit s’entente metre A sçavoir sur quoy est fondee Par quoy puist mieulx estre exposee (3363ff )

The sense may be obscure at first,60 conveyed through the ‘integumentum’: Ceste fable ci a la lettre Nous voelt par couvreture mettre (3847f )

Elsewhere the word mistere is used: Ailleurs voeil tourner mon affaire Et laissier ci la fable ester Pour mieulx au mistere penser. Ceste fable a la verité N’est mie toutte en faulseté (7788–92)

60  4105f, 5913, 6203f, 9089.

‘Fable’ and ‘histoire’

41

As in the case of fable / veritable, a common rhyme (lettre / metre 3363f, 5623f, 6585f ) introduces the motif of interpretation, and a recognition of multiple meanings; Se ceste fable puelt voir dire Qu’on a volu en livre escripre, Ore est le sens dont de ces vers Selon ceste fable divers (6249–52)

The meaning may be conveyed by a symbol (signe): Mais ce que Philis fu muee En corre pour la demoree Par signe nous donne a entendre Que pour luy Philis se volt pendre A ung arbre qui corre estoit Qui pour le fais bas se ploioit (1903–08)61

Actions and motifs may be explained by the word signifie, rather in the manner of the exegete (cf. 2710, 3685, 3727). Thus the evidence for the classical myths is that the commentator is consistent in introducing the ‘gloze’ with words indicating three components: the fable, truth and understanding. Where he does not do this at the outset there is usually such a formula included later within the gloss. Occasionally he employs a reference to the ‘histoire’, normally reserved for the biblical narratives, and also to ‘exemple’. Although the biblical narratives usually attract the generic marker histoire, the opening of the poem refers, as in the case of fables, to the importance of explanation and true meaning: Ceste hystoire est ja racontee Et de mot a mot exposee (325f ) Les vers contiennent une hystoire Qui est tres digne de memoire Pour le vray sens qu’elle contient (1699f )

61 cf. signe 2333, 3102, 3169, 3177, 3187, 3192; 4622/28, 8598 [physical];6531.

42

Introduction

Sometimes motifs which normally introduce separately the fables and the hystoires are combined: Cette hystoire n’est mie fable … Pour ce l’istoire au cler dirons Et puis la lettre exposerons (4261/4265f )

Pour ceste histoire mieulx entendre, Qu’on y puist mieulx le vray sens prendre (4945f )

The location of the story is normally indicated by the expression en ces (.xii.) vers (2734, 5735, 5959, 6291, 6432, 6651, 6889, 7179, 7541, 7643, 7875, 8729, 9127). Literary Style The clerical author of the Tiaudelet has a fondness for etymologies: cherubin (482–83), Babilone (1259–60), Archos (1681–2), Moses (2983–6), Pluto (5285– 87), Solomon (5981–86), Aurore (6812–16), Pasque (7255), Latona (8095–6), Dyane (8117–19, 8125–28). He is sparing in his use of first-person (singular and plural) formulations62 and preserves a sober, relatively impersonal style. From time to time metaphors and similes are introduced to elaborate a point. For example, in the treatment of Adam’s expulsion from Paradise we are told that earth is indicated by cinder ‘Car tout ainssi que ne puelt rendre / Feu fors cendre de ce qu’il art, / Laquelle a fort vent tost s’espart. / Secche est que ne poelt fruit porter, /Laide ne puelt jus deporter, / Amere, pesans jus se tient, / Tels est homs qui a le mort vient. / Feu de mauvais desir l’a ars, / Pour che est a la mort espars.’ (404–12). The epithets are echoed at ll. 417, 419, 421. From Gen.13, 16 is drawn ‘Car nient plus c’on ne puelt compter / La pourre que vent fait voler’ (1505f ), and from Gen. 22, 17 ‘Que nient plus c’on ne puelt compter / Estoilez, ou gravelle en mer, / Nient plus nulz homs ne conteroit / Le peuple qui de lui venoit’ (1761–4). Samson’s slaying of the lion draws a simile from Judges 14, 6: ‘Le saint Espir luy donna force, / Tantost tout ainsi qu’on escorche / Ung cheveriel quant on l’occist, /Ainssi le lyon a mort mist’ (4981–84), a modification of Judges 16, 9 in ‘Ses liiens ront, ainssi que fust / Fil fait d’estoupez ou d’estain / Quant on le file a la main.’ (5104f ), and a personal addition in ‘Car tout ainssi que fu ardoir / Fait laigne et luy tot son pooir, / Ainssi tost ses liiens rompi [sc. Samson]’ (5009–11). The Holy Trinity is compared with three rivers feeding 62  First-person references are found in the prologue at lines 17, 105, 115, 117, 125, 127, 128 and in the main text 116, 393f, 774, 1132, 3625f, 3682, 4107, 5747, 6696, 7146, 7171, 7787f, 7839, 8649f, 9173.

Literary Style

43

into a fountain and attracts a series of similes introduced by ‘ainssi que … ainssi’ (5377–5406). Love (of Scylla for Minos) is compared with a firebrand: ‘Si fort fu d’amour entreprise / Que tison art ou secque prise / N’est mie si fort embrasee / Que Scilla fu d’amour temptee’ (9065–68). The commentary makes some use of annominatio. Adam has experienced death (mort 397, 410, 412, 414, 416, 420), and lost his lordship (seignourie): ‘Le morsel luy est trop amer / De la mort plus que ne soit mer’ (419–20). Later we read: ‘le serpent qui les avoit mors / Et leurs corps mordoit a grans mors’ (2791–92). Similar cases centre on ‘porter’: ‘Le boef le lieve et celle porte, / Celle sur le boef se deporte. / Si loing des aultres le porta / Que celle qui se deporta / Vint a la mer en deportant / Sur le boef qui l’aloit portant’ (3333–38) and ‘tourner’: ‘Elle eubt peur, si se destourna, / Car au camp toutte se tourna. / Cil pour l’anesse retourner / Qu’il veoit ens ou camp tourner / Batoit celuy en retournant. / Et elle s’aloit destournant (4327–32 cf. 2327–2334). On the whole the author makes only a modest use of rhetorical devices such as repetition: ‘sans … sans … sans …’ (1855–6, 4078), repetition of ‘est vie’ following the subjects: 441 tout ce que par luy est fait, 445 sa grace [… et sa foy], 447 sa foy [… et sa clartė], 449 son amour [… et son sarrement], 451 sa predication. In 2325–2336 lines which rhyme derivatives of tourner / retourner are framed by lines which repeat the same information in similar terms: ‘Pour ochire Minostaurum. / Et adonc luy commanda on’ (2325–6) and ‘Cil fist ce qu’on luy commanda, / Minostaurum adont tua’ (2335–6). There is also here an embellished meditation on the fruit of life (the sacrifice of Christ) contrasted to the apple (431–32, 436, 439, 465–66, 476). There are particularly extensive ‘glozes’ devoted to the Christian God 5315ff (note the final request, 5326), and an ample digression on the Christian God (5327–5610) apropos Eclog. 185–88 together with an extended passage on the penance of souls in Hell and Purgatory, also instigated by Eclog. 181–84 and 185–88. Source references are to ‘Escripture’ (5753, 7188, 7661, 7830) and ‘en escript’ (2423, 5967, 6059, 7071, 8644, 8740) and the indeterminate ‘ce dist on’ (581, 735, 1127, 1443, 1676, 1863, 2879, 7071, 8012, 8644) and ‘selon ce qu’on list’ (541). There is a single reference to ‘la Bible’ (7884). The author exhibits a certain penchant for moralising through generalising sententious remarks. Narrating the story of Paeon and Hippolytus, he comments ‘et aussi le doit om oïr, / car cil aprent maulx a haÿr’ (1413–14). Similarly, moral observations surface from time to time: ‘Mais pour ce que grant habondanche / souvent fait venir destembranche …’ (1947–8). More energetically the commentator inveighs against the power of money and greed (3859–60, 3877–92, 7827ff and note). He is consistent in preaching the loyalty of God to those who recognize Him: ‘Car nulz ne poelt celuy grever / que Dieus voelt de tous pris [= perils] jecter’ (4277–8) Ainssi va Dieu obeïssant / a cheulx qui croient fermement / en luy et l’aiment loyaument, / et leur donne puissant victoire / dont cascun puelt avoir memoire’ (4688–92)

44

Introduction

Et Dieu qui ne laisse perir / cheulx qu’il voit sans raison souffrir, / qui sauve cheulx qui bien lui prient / et qui de coer en luy se fient. (8465–66) En ce fait puelt cascun aprendre / Quel loiier en foy on poelt prendre. (4541–4542)

On the other hand, the ‘moral’ which concludes the story of Orpheus and Eurydice (5715–22) is unexpected and rather forced. The comments on sin, hell and purgatory (5296–5314) are not without a reminiscence of Aucassin et Nicolette and proclaim the author’s orthodoxy. Similarly, those on the Trinity and pagan idols (3682–706) reveal the voice of the preacher. Indeed, there is nothing in the content and writing of the Tiaudelet which is not consonant with the view that the author, be he Jacquemon Bochet or not, is a cleric. When it came to writing verse the author had to come to grips with the basic constructional features of the Old French octosyllable. As a versifier he has a notable fondness for enjambement, with a number of striking rejets and contre-rejets. He makes normal use of binomials (including, more strictly, synonymic pairs) and binary phrases, and trinomial constructions and ternary phrases are not rare. A sort of etymological annominatio, often of a rather obvious and unadventurous kind i.e the repetition of words derived from the same stem, is sometimes found, and can scarcely be called elegant. In the Tiaudelet the Old French writer has learned his trade, but he is rarely inspired and seldom achieves stylistic distinction. His importance lies in the transmission of knowledge of both classical and biblical culture through the medium of a lively debate in which Theodolus’s original receives both conservation (through the largely accurate huitains) and renovation (through supplementation by an ample commentary). It is the most ambitious piece in a manuscript which represents a milestone in the evolution of the ‘Liber Catonianus’. Editorial procedures In accordance with standard modern practice I have distinguished c and ç, i and j, u and v, e and é. Concerning the scribe’s regular lack of distinction between c and t, I have intervened where confusion might arise, but preserved the scribe’s regular spelling donc for dont. I have also followed the scribe’s predominant practice of separating the elements of the relative adjective and pronoun lequel, laquelle etc.63 Sparing use has been made of the tréma, in accordance with the recommendations

63  On the potential interest of word-division, and of recording it, see K.  Busby, Codex and Context. Reading Old French Verse Narrative in Manuscript vol. 1 (Amsterdam / New York, 2002), pp. 142–55.

Bibliography

45

of Meyer, Speer and Lepage.64 As I assume a sound knowledge of medieval French orthography, I reserve the tréma principally for metrical purposes, to alert the reader to syllable count where it is unexpected65 and thus to facilitate the reading aloud of the text in accordance with standard medieval practice. Metre has been invoked to defend minor, cosmetic, emendations, leaving untouched some eleven hypermetric lines and three hypometric ones which are all clearly indicated in the notes. I do not employ the tréma in cases of the imperfect subjunctive, where the Picard forms are clearly recognizable. The syllabic value of Proper names (the case of Moyse(s offers a number of possibilities) is indicated in the glossary, but not in the text itself. Biblical references are given according to the AV: hence 1 Kings and 2 Kings = Vulgate 1 Sam. and 2 Sam. Bibliography A.E.A. Beck, Theoduli Eclogam e codicibus Parisinis et Marburgensi recensuit et prolegomenis instruxit (Sangerhusiae, 1836) Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, nova editio … A.  Colunga O.P. et L. Turrado [quarta editio] (Madrid, 1965) R. Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Reading Myth. Classical Mythology and its Interpretations in Medieval French Literature (Stanford, 1997) G.H. Bode, Scriptores rerum mythicarum Latini tres Romae nuper reperti 2 vols (Celle, 1834; repr. Hildesheim, 1968) C. de Boer (ed.), Ovide moralisé, poème du commencement du quatorzième siècle, 5 vol. (Amsterdam, 1925–38) —, Ovide moralisé en prose (texte du quinzième siècle), (Amsterdam, 1954) B. Weiden Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid (Leiden, 2002) H. Brinkmann, “Die Ecloga Theodoli in der Erklärung Bernhards von Utrecht” in id., Mittelalterliche Hermeneutik (Tübingen, 1980), pp. 348–401 W. Bühler, “‘Theodolus’ Ecloga and Mythographus Vaticanus 1”, Californian Studies in Classical Antiquity 1 (1968), 65–71 A. Cameron, Greek Mythography in the Roman World (Oxford, 2004) H. Campangne, Mythologie et Rhétorique aux XVe et XVIe siècles en France (Paris, 1996) J. Chance, Medieval Mythography 1, From Roman North Africa to the School of Chartres A.D. 433–1177 (Gainesville etc., 1994)

64  P. Meyer, “Instruction pour la publication des anciens textes”, Bulletin de la SATF 35(1909), pp. 64– 79; A. Foulet and M.B. Speer, On Editing Old French Texts (Lawrence, Kansas, 1979); Y.G. Lepage, Guide de l’Édition de Textes en ancien français (Paris, 2001). 65  For the coexistence of hiatus and reduced forms see Ch. Marchello-Nizia, La Langue française aux XIVe et XVe siècles (Paris, 1997), p. 69.

46

Introduction

P.M. Clogan, “Literary Genres in a Medieval Textbook”, Medievalia et Humanistica, N.S. 11 (1982), 199–209 F.T. Coulson & B. Roy, Incipitarium Ovidianum. A Finding Guide for Texts in Latin Related to the Study of Ovid in the Middle Ages and Renaissance (Turnhout, 2000) F.T.  Coulson, “Ovid’s Transformations in Medieval France (ca.1100-ca.1350)” in A. Keith & S. Rupp, Metamorphosis. The Changing Face of Ovid in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Toronto, 2007), pp. 33–60 Ph. Dain, Mythographe de Vatican 1: Traduction et commentaire (Paris, 1995) L.W. & B.A. Daly, Summa Britonis sive Guillelmi Britonis Expositiones Vocabulorum Biblie 1 (Padova, 1975) P. Demats, Fabula. Trois Études de Mythographie antique et médiévale (Genève, 1973) A. Faems et al. (eds), Les Translations d’Ovide au Moyen Âge (Louvain-la-Neuve, 2011) R.M.  Frazer, The Poems of Hesiod with Introduction and Comments (Norman, Oklahoma, 1983) J.B. Friedman, Orpheus in the Middle Ages (Cambr., Mass., 1970; Syracuse, N.Y., 2000) J.C. Fumo, “Apollo as Human God: Ovid and Medieval Ovidianism” in eadem, The Legacy of Apollo: Antiquity, Authority and Chaucerian Poetics (Toronto, 2010), pp. 23–75 and eadem, “The Medieval Apollo; Classical Authority and Christian Hermeneutics”, ibid., pp. 76–123 C.T. Gossen, Grammaire de l’ancien picard, réimpression de l’édition de 1970 avec quelques retouches et additions (Paris, 1976) R.P.H. Green, Seven Versions of Carolingian Pastoral, Reading University, Medieval and Renaissance Latin Texts (Reading, 1980) —, “The Genesis of a Medieval Textbook. The Models and Sources of the Ecloga Theoduli”, Viator 13 (1982), 49–106 P. Grimal, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology (Oxford, 1986) G.L. Hamilton, “Theodulus: A Medieval Textbook”, Modern Philology 7 (1909), 169–86 N.G.L. Hammond & H.H. Scullard, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1970) J.H. Hanford, “Classical Eclogue and Medieval Debate”, Romanic Review 2 (1911), 16–31, 129–43 L. Harf-Lancner et al., Ovide métamorphosé: les lecteurs médiévaux d’Ovide (Paris, 2009) G. Hasenohr, “Tradition du texte et tradition de l’image: à propos d’un programme d’illustration du Theodelet” in P. Cockshaw et al. (eds), Miscellanea codicologica F. Masai dicata MCMLXXIX vol. 2 (Gand, 1979), pp. 451–67 B.N. Hedberg, “The Bucolics and the Medieval Poetical Debate”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 75 (1944), 47–67 H.  Henkel, “Die ‘Ecloga Theoduli’ und ihre literarischen Gegenkonzeptionen”, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 24/25 (1989–90), 151–62

Bibliography

47

M.  Herren, “Reflections on the Meaning of the Ecloga Theoduli: Where is the Authorial Voice?” in W. Otten & K. Pollmann, Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin Christianity. The Encounter between Classical and Christian Strategies of Interpretation, Vigiliae Christianae suppl. 87 (Leiden, 2007), pp. 199–230 R.  Hexter, “Latinitas in the Middle Ages: Horizons and Perspectives”, Helios 14 (1987) 69–92 M.C. Howatson, The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1989) A. Hulubei, L’Eglogue en France au XVIe siècle: époque des Valois (1515–1589) (Paris, 1938) —, Répertoire des églogues en France au XVIe siècle (époque des Valois, 1515–1589) (Paris, 1939) T. Hunt, Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth-Century England 1 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 67–79 (ed.), Les Paraboles Maistre Alain en françoys, MHRA Critical Texts 2 (London, 2005) (ed.), Thomas Maillet (?), Les Proverbez d’Alain, CFMA 151 (Paris, 2007), pp. 7–30 Miraculous Rhymes. The Writing of Gautier de Coinci (Cambridge, 2007) (ed.), Ovide, du remede d’amours, MHRA Critical Texts 15 (London, 2008) R.B.C. Huygens, Accessus ad auctores, Bernard d’Utrecht, Conrad d’Hirsau: Dialogus super auctores (Leiden, 1970) —, Bernard d’Utrecht, Commentum in Theodolum (1076–1099) (Spoleto, 1977) E. Jeauneau, Lectio philosophorum: Recherches sur l’école de Chartres (Amsterdam, 1973) M-R. Jung, “Ovide, texte, translateur et gloses dans les manuscrits de l’Ovide moralisé” in D. Kelly (ed.), The Medieval Opus. Imitation, Rewriting, and Transmission in the French Tradition (Amsterdam / Atlanta, GA, 1996), pp. 75–98 E.  Kegel-Brinkgreve, The Echoing Woods: bucolic and pastoral from Theocritus to Wordsworth (Amsterdam, 1990) A. Keith & S. Rupp, “After Ovid: Classical, Medieval, and Early Modern Receptions of the Metamorphoses” in A. Keith & S. Rupp (eds), Metamorphosis. The Changing Face of Ovid in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Toronto, 2007), pp. 15–28 P. Kulcsár, Mythographi Vaticani I et II, CC ser. Lat. XCIC (Turnholti, 1987) Lectures et usages d’Ovide (XIIIe-XVe siècles), Cahiers de Recherches Médiévales (XIIIe-XVe s.) IX (2002), pp. 1–175 R.  Levine, “Exploiting Ovid: Medieval Allegorizations of the Metamorphoses”, Medioevo Romanzo 14 (1989), 197–213 Macé de la Charité, Bible ed. J.R. Smeets et al., 7 vols (Leiden, 1964–86) A. Mai, Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum t. 3 (Roma, 1831) M.A.  Malamud, The Origin of Sin: an English Translation of the Hamartigenia (Ithaca / London, 1989) C. Marchello-Nizia, La Langue française aux XIVe et XVe siècles (Paris, 1997) F. Mosetti Casaretto, “É ‘Teodolo’ il poeta dell’‘Ecloga Theodoli’?, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 30 (1995), 11–38

48

Introduction

—, Teodolo, Ecloga. Il canto della verità e della menzogna (Firenze, 1997) O. Odelain & R. Séguineau, Dictionary of Proper Names and Places in the Bible, transl. & adapt. by M.J. O’Connell (London, 1982) A.P. Orbán, ‘Anonymi Teutonici commentum in Theodoli eclogam e codice Utrecht, U.B. 292 editum’, Vivarium 11 (1973), 1–42; 12 (1974), 133–45; 13 (1975), 77–88; 14 (1976), 50–61; 15 (1977), 143–58; 17 (1979), 116–33; 19 (1981), 59–69 N.  Orme, Medieval Schools: from Roman Britain to Renaissance England (New Haven / London, 2006), pp. 98–102 J. Osternacher, Theoduli eclogam recensuit et prolegomenis instruxit … (Ripariae prope Lentiam, 1902) —, Quos auctores Latinos et sacrorum Bibliorum locos Theodulus imitatus esse videatur (Urfahr-Linz, 1907) —, Die Ueberlieferung der Ecloga Theoduli, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 40, vii (1916), pp. 329–76 A. Pairet, Les Mutacions des Fables. Figures de la métamorphose dans la littérature française du Moyen Âge (Paris, 2002) A. Parducci, “Le Tiaudelet, traduction française en vers du Theodulus”, Romania 44 (1915–17), 37–54 N. Pasero, Metamorfosi di Dan Denier e altri saggi di sociologia del testo medieval (Parma, 1990) R.E. Pepin, The English Translation of Auctores Octo, a Medieval Reader (Lewiston etc., 1999), pp. 25–40 —, The Vatican Mythographers (New York, 2008) B.N. Quinn, “ps-Theodolus” in P.O. Kristeller & F.E. Cranz (eds), Catalogus translationum et commentariorum 2 (Washington, D.C., 1971), pp. 383–408 J.D. Reid, The Oxford Guide to Classical Mythology in the Arts, 1300–1990s 2 vols (Oxford, 1933) G.  Rigg, The Eclogue of Theodulus (medieval.utoronto.ca/ylias/web-content/ Theoduli.html) A.B. Rooth, The Raven and the Carcass. An Investigation of a Motif in the Deluge Myth in Europe, Asia and North America (Helsinki, 1962) C.  Schmitt, “Zum Kanon eines bisher uneditierten Theoduluskommentars”, Germanisch-Romanische Monatschrift N.F. 24 (1974), 1–12 G.A. Shea, The Poems of Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus (Tempe, Arizona, 1997) A. Soons, “The Didactic Quality of the Theoduli Ecloga”, Orpheus 20 (1973), 149–61 J.M.  Steadman, “The Ecloga Theodoli, the General Estoria, and the PerseusBellerophon myth”, Mediaeval Studies 24 (1962), 384–87 I. Thomson and L. Perraud, Ten Latin Schooltexts of the Later Middle Ages. Translated Selections (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter, 1990) H. Vredefeld, “Pagan and Christian Echoes in the ‘Ecloga Theoduli’”, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 22 (1987), 101–13

Bibliography

49

H. Walther, Das Streitgedicht in der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, Mit einem Vorwort, Nachträgen und Registern von Paul Gerhardt Schmidt (Hildesheim, 1984) (on Theodulus, pp. 93–98) W. Wetherbee, Platonism and Poetry in the Twelfth Century (Princeton NJ, 1972) “Philosophy, Commentary and Mythic Narrative in Twelfth-Century France”, in J. Whitman (ed.), Interpretation and Allegory: Antiquity to the Modern Period (Leiden, 2000), pp. 211–29 N. Zorzetti & J. Berlioz, Le Premier Mythographe du Vatican (Paris, 1995)

THE LANGUAGE OF TIAUDELET Tiaudelet is written in a Franco-Picard scripta, displaying, as is normal, a composite of standard Francien forms with unmistakably Picard features.1 Its main linguistic traits may be easily identified from C.T. Gossen’s authoritative manual,2 to which reference is made below using the letter G followed by a paragraph number. It is appropriate to repeat here Gossen’s monitory statement “Ce que nous exposerons au cours des chapitres suivants sera donc l’élément picard de la scripta franco-picarde et non ‘le dialecte picard du moyen âge’” (p. 45), as also the following: “En lisant une charte ou une oeuvre littéraire d’origine picarde, le lecteur constatera bientȏt qu’un texte d’une picardité intégrale, telle qu’elle se résume dans les exemples ci-dessus, n’existe pas. Il trouvera une alternance de graphies d’une variété souvent extraordinaire. Comment interpréter ces graphies? Qu’on se rappelle, une fois de plus, le caractère composite de la scripta franco-picarde et qu’on se garde de formuler des lois phonétiques se fondant sur des équivalences graphiques” (p. 95). Franco-Picard texts hence display linguistic features which are not distinctively Picard as well as characteristics which certainly are. Recognizing the essentially composite character of the language, I have followed Gossen in seeking to illustrate a range of forms. The account below aims simply to illustrate the Franco-Picard features of the language of Tiaudelet. I refer for other linguistic features to Christiane Marchello-Nizia, La Langue française aux XIVe et XVe siècles (Paris, 1997) (hereafter M-N) who observes (p. 111) that “C’est certainement par les divergences qu’elle montre dans le traitement des palatales, que la scripta picarde se distingue le plus de la scripta d’Ȋle-de-France.” Orthography Doubling of consonants is frequent, occurring in a wide variety of words: tollir, phillastre, parolle, frivolle, ammonnestant, romman, unne, rancunne, appertement, desirrer, ditté, ottriier, ottriant, parfaitte, toutte (‘toute’ is absent), radotté. On –s- and –ss- (e.g. pluisseurs, 63, 1394, 2130, 2253 etc) see G§ 49.

1  Essential reading is now provided by S. Lusignan, Essai d’histoire sociolinguistique: le français picard au Moyen Âge (Paris, 2012) who writes (p. 26) of the ‘intercompréhension entre toutes les scriptae.’ For his discussion of Gossen’s work see pp. 54–59. 2 C.T. Gossen, Grammaire de l’ancien picard, réimpression de l’édition de 1970 avec quelques retouches et additions (Paris, 1976). Note should also be taken of Cl. Régnier, “Quelques problèmes de l’ancien picard”, RPh 14 (1961), 255–72 who records the substance of early reviews.

52

THE LANGUAGE OF TIAUDELET

Etymological letters, particularly b, c, p and r, are commonly inserted: soubtieutez, soubtieux, soubtil, il eubt, eubt (p.p.), eubrent, abstinence, soubmis, coubte, desoubs, subgiroit, subgis, submist, debvenroie, sancg, fruicts, sceut, scavoit, scet, adcomplirent, adventure, advenant, advent, cognut, faingt, rechepvoir, rechups, nepveu, rechups, conchupt, decepvant, rechups, escripre, descripsent, escript, dechupte: perchupte,3 equal(ité). Consonantal l is commonly retained beside its vocalisation to u – aultre, haulte, cault, chault, chauld, royaulté, oultre, faulseté . Learned influence is found in disputer and derivatives (prol.71;43, 76, 109), and in virtue(l)x (776, 781, 5336, 5866, 6196). a for e is found in rassacca (3110), rapressa (8184). Prepositional a very often appears as ad (93, 142, 181, 188, 283, 538, 569, 909, 1931, 2724, 2765, 3088, 3700, 4189, 4296, 4465, 4778, 5423, 6247, 6362, 6483, 7103, 7644, 7746, 8033, 8033, 8155, 8629, 9172, 9392). ch often alternates with c to represent the product of c + e, c + yod, t + yod> ć [G§ 38] (M-N, pp. 111–12), as in adrechier, forche, doucheur, fache, puissanche, samblanches, abstinence, ordonnanche, cha (for ça), puche, ochire, commencha, chinquantisme etc. and, inversely, s’aprocassent (3599). Note Cherubin (482, 6131), Chimera (6555), Cimere (6583). -d for –t occurs in respond (prol. 89; 51), parfond (Prol. 104), deserd: serd (273– 74), jurand (6971), fuiand (6974). g/j congoÿ (101) (G§ 42a). g for ge (G§ 42) appears in songa (137, 2437, 2449, 2517), assega (9060), canga (295), mengast (551), venga (695, 888, 1320, 1393, 1934, 3426, 3841), revenga (1319), forgoit (1172), forgassent (1383), cherga (1725, 3390, 3734, 4241, 5832, 8597), charga (2255, 2691, 4167, 6237), nagant (2346), songant (2584), encherga (3098, 4876, 4891), bourgois (2875, 9125), naga (3393), vengassent (3600), alegant (3244, 4244), descherga (5074), mengoit (6317), menga (6692, 8619), mengons (2717), alongast (6884), songa (7491), sergant (7959), engranga (7812), vengance (8003). Note also larguesche (1222) and largeche (955).

3  See M-N, pp. 115f.

Orthography

53

non-Germanic h appears in thor, prologhe, longhement, throne, Sathan, panthere, Crethe, cathena, langheur, Jherusalem, Jhezabel. i commonly alternates with y. k appears irregularly in caukié (256), kieche (260), keuwe (4235 etc.), enkaienerent (5192), ke (6760,) keux (9166). cq for c occurs in seloncq (134, 4136), avouecque(s/z) (136, 751, 777, 1040, 1522, 3822 etc.), flecqui (1802), chincq (1945), sacquier (2016), avoecq (2044, 3967), blancq (2328, 2350), becquoient (2605), becq (2606), estocq (2642), loncq tamps (3055). l appears alongside its vocalised form (see under etymological letters, above). lat. longitanum is represented by long for loing (2465, 3188, 6798) and loing ( au (G§ 2): pau (77, 278, 387, 5070); clau (5140, 5147). ar> er before consonant, and vice versa (G§ 3): chergie/ -ié (334, 3504), appertient (597), disparsion (1185; cf. dispersion 1306), cherga (1725, 3390, 4240, 4294), garbez (2440), encherga (3098),(en)chergier (3936, 8767), descherga (5074).

Phonology

55

-alis> -eus (G§ 5): temporeulx (704), deux: morteulx (929–30), honteux: teulx (2555–6), morteulx: teulx (4081–2), deus: teuls 4225–6; morteulx (4679); religieux: teulx (5891–2); queulx (6038); teulx: leux (7007–8); teulx: somilleux (7491–2). a + yod monophthongized to a (G§ 6): mal: traval (1747–8), aval: traval 2787–8), note traveil (3092, 4427). -ticu> aige (graphy) (G§ 7): usaige (1436), sauvaige (4237). yod + ata> -ie (G§ 8): lignie: envie (257–58), lignie: vie (1697–8), lignie: seignourie (3297–8), lignie (3423, 3951, 7998), lignie: mie (3601–2, 4269–70, 6961–2); felonnie: maisnie (1489–90), maisnie: vie (2145–6), maisnie: cangie (2183–4), maisnie (2550), maisnie: esmarie (8323–4); laissie: couchie (2405–6); eslongie: ravie (2841–2); quignie (6113); ottriie: ravie (6653–4); segnefie: controversie (3727–8); seignourie: chergie (333–34), seignourie: prisie (361–62); mengie (423); fie: haschie (267–68); vie: hasquie (683–84), Ezechie: hasquie (7005–6), cachie: haschie (9005–6); lie: moult traveillie (4165–6). free open e> ieu in forms of sӗquere (G§ 9): sieut (738, 1655: dieut, 7572), sievoient (2642, 5707); aconsievi (2858, 2863), sievir (1698, 2864, 3233), poursievy (313, 2760), ensievit (807, 1577), sievoit (2642). monophthongization of ie ie (G§ 11): pastouriel (prol.81), chalemiel (16), oisiel (912, 2609), jovenchiel (2399, 8305, 8364, 8375, 8398, 8433), vaissiel (6686). Cf. cheviel (7873, 7953). ĕ, ĭ + blocked l or ļ (G§ 12): ecce-illos> chiaus 2025–6 (jovenchiaux: cheaux), 6665 (ciaulx: faulx), 4507–08 faonchiaux: chiaulx (cf. Cheuls, 465, cheulx obj. 4568, 4658, 4689, 4696); -ĭliu + s consaulx (6566, 8873); solĭculu + s> solaux (7563); vĕllere> viaurre (8671, 8682, 8688) and see fretiau, chalemiau, oisiaulx, viau(lx, isniaux, bouchiaux, cheviaux, postiaux, castiaus, biau, cheveriaulx, rainsiaulx etc. Cf. ĭllos> yau(l)x (246, 3440, 8221), eaulx (: consaulx) (4629), eulx (4633, 4634, 4644, 4654), eux (4638) .

56

THE LANGUAGE OF TIAUDELET

open e + nasal + cons. (G§ 15, M-N p. 95): grans: tamps (303–04, 1899–1900, 2907–8, 3055–6, 5837–8, 6023–4, 6159–60, 6747–8, 7053–4); engrans: tamps (1865–66), and frequently with pres. parts. in –ans (plaisans, vivans, puissans, advenans); tamps: ans (4913–4, 5771–2, 6039–40, 6333–4, 7671–2, 8215–6), tamps: glans (6267–8). vidēre> vidire: vir (G§ 17, M-N, p. 81): 779, 800, 994, 1064, 1080, 1219, 1228, 1345, 1516, 2943, 2996, 3511, 4180, 4435, 5688, 6463, 6465, 6494, 6698, 6751, 6765, 6494, 7125, 7147, 7150, 8286, 8451, 8702, 9164. Cf. pourvir (2209, 4376, 7009); sir bos (G§ 24, p. 77): bos (733, 737, 741, 926). lŏcu> liu (G§ 25): liu (952, 2039, 5508). lupu> leu (G§ 26): 696, 736, 737, 7008 (teulx: leux); 7012 ‘lupus’, disease. ọ + yod> ou, oi, ui (G§ 27): angouisseuse (2113, 2503, 3870), angouisseux (2179), angousseuse (2165), angouisse (4238), angouissez (4452, 8311); protonic o + yod> ui: fuison ( oi / i (G§ 32): concurrence of –oier –i(i)er esp. in ottroier / ottriier, proier – pri(i)er, loier – liier; -oier forms are rare but see ottroia (92, 8761), ottroierent (1533, 2061), ottroiier (2015) (cf. ottriie in 127, 6653); there is no example of proier (for prier see 101, 2276, 5609, 6060, 8848, 8855, 8927, 9285, 9387, prie (prol. 134), prié (2615)), but note priier (101) and priiere (1533, 5411); loie: raloie (448), aloiez (1923), desloiier (1663, loiié 2711), liierent (5003), liiens (5011, 5104, 5107), liier (5091, 5120); hostïer: aidïer (1791–2), baisier: festiier (1889–90). reduction of romance protonic ei before s to i (G§ 33): pissons (2384, 9106); comparison (2291); cognis(s)anc(h)e (3157, 4083, 4281, 4623, 5083, 5530, 7191), (cognissiez 8387, cognissiés 8410); orison (6182, 6985, 8857); demiselle (4120); missonneurs (7939 cf. messonnoient 2440, messonnoit 2442); disputison (8140), chetivison (9122). reduction of initial and protonic e + ļ, ņ> i, ei, e (G§ 34): milleur (385, 456, 617, 629, 1590, 1937, 2485, 3927, 7126); travilla (713, 2450, 4168), travillier (3143), travillie (4094), travillié (5723), travilloit(5833); apparillier (767, 1537, 3379), s’apparillerent (3833), apparillie (8861), apparrillier (9300); mervilleuse (1219, 8730 [note merveille: traveille 1829–30; traveillie 4166], mervilleux (993, 2096, 5406, 6446, 9163), mervilleusement (9272); boutillier (1007, 1030, 2571, 2583, 2613, 2649); s’esvilla: sommilla (2639–40), esvillier (2644, 4227, 6680), esvilliés (6681), villier (5061); consilla (2803); sommillier (4222), sommilloit (4224); familleux (6195, 6238, 7990); batillier (7316). segnefie (3727) displays dissimilation of i to e (G§ 37): cf. segnifia (3769), segnifie (1262, 2173, 2187, 5715, 6253, 7441, 8118), segnifient (7586), but note signifie (2203, 2710, 7855, 8085) and signifioient (2661); dissimilation of i in medi (8227), visetee (1814), viseteurs (5559), deshireté (G§ 35)(2229); dissimilation of o to e: gloutenie (554, cf. gloutrenie 1062), armenie (5630), serour (2522, 8558, 8561, 8609; serourge (8589)). 5  Gossen, p. 86 “D’une façon générale on peut donc dire que, dans la scripta picarde, e sourd en hiatus tend à tomber dès le début du XIIIe siècle … mais que, dans la plupart des textes litt., il est conservé avec sa valeur syllabique et que, dans les chartes, les scribes le notent habituellement.”

58

THE LANGUAGE OF TIAUDELET

suppression of unstressed e (G§ 37): preche (259, 7290; precheux 9170); courchiés (903, 1118, 1829, 2141, 2562, 3120, 3593, 4184, 4249, 4643, 5709, 6545, 7416, 7445, 7771, 7974, 9117, 9189, 9367, 9383), courcherent (1323, 2569), courchier (232, 8489), corcié(s, (2229, 8548); pril (1752, 2686, 2884, 2913*edited, 2934, 4458, 4470, 4471, 4478, 4516, 5220, 6070, 6232* edited, 6429), prilz (1844, 2690, 3386, 4876, 5873), prilleux (3970), pris (pl.) (4278), prieux (3814) prieulx (5262, 6241); prieux (= perilleux) (6605), prilleusement (1848). Cf. syncope of ferir to frir (524, 8143), fry (576, 580, 4662), turoie (4350) for tueroie. initial c + a, and internal after a consonant, >[k] (G§ 41): cascun, ne li caut, cachiés, cathena, caukiés(256), kieche, racater, encacha, escachié, cangiés, pourcache, caritable, carité, caste, caste, cose, carneulx, canel, carpentage, canel, carogne, capel, carpentier, carnelement, car, catenant, carme, calengier, canchon, camber, camp, cambrelenc, calengier, cault. Note also busquier: huquier (2023– 24, 4843), busquier (4843), hucquier(7243), hucca (3959) (G§ 41 p. 96 2aa).6 -cw- w (G§ 43): the usual reflex of aqua is yauwe. Insertion of svarabhaktic e in group -pr- (G§ 44): esperit (1573, 3702, 5366, 5813, 6648, 6747, 7887), esperitueulx (673 cf. learned influence in spiritueulx 1571). Metathesis (G§ 57): Metathesized forms of gouvrener occur 18 times, whilst the unmetathesized forms number no more than 8. See also deffremez (700, 5064), desfrema (972, 4355), confremerent (3742), confremer (8146), fremerent (8295, but note fermerent 8362), fremer (8797); bregier (1326, 3045); tourblerent (2626), couvreture (3287, 3384, 3848, 8096), pourfit and its derivatives (prol. 1; 218, 2830, 2638, 2677, 2887, 3638, 8126), pourpos (2866, 4647). fall of l in group a + l + conson. (G§ 58): royame (5768). Final n+ yod> -n (G§ 60): fame: compaigne (203–04). Lack of glide cons. in groups l’r, n’r, m’l (G§ 61): torroit (= tolroit = toldroit) (140), pourre (1506, 1993, 3190, 3585); volray (4032, 4317, 8767), volroit (923, 2978, 6006, 7019, 8757, 9224), volrent 2015 (= pret.6); tenra (4910, 5438), tenroit (97, 970, 1816, 3744, 5139); convenra (116, 2458), venroit (1760, 1764, 1978, 3102), 6  Gossen, p. 96 comments “Ces variantes [c, ke, qu for k] apparaissent sans aucune règle, de sorte qu’il est impossible d’en dégager une loi quelconque. L’alternance étant due avant tout au caprice des scribes, il est inutile de vouloir dresser une liste des mots qui, probablement par hasard, ne sont jamais écrits avec ch-. Quant à la valeur phonétique de ch- à l’initiale, nous n’avons, vu sa position, aucun moyen de la définir.”

Morphology

59

venra (757, 2670, 8907), venront (2673), revenront (1724), revenroit (1813), [re] venroient (867, 2807), convenroit (2045), vinrent (8964), venroit (1760, 1764, 1978, 3102), venra (757, 2670), venront (2673), revenront (1724), revenroit (1813), [re]venroient (867, 2807), debvenroie (2855), devenrés (5136), venroient: maintenroient (5897–8); engenrure (128, cf. engendrure 5362), engenra (1430, 1619, 3344, 4442), genrez (= gendres) (2047, 3787), engenré (1137, 2321, 2472, 8503 cf. engendré(s 5363, 5417, 8213, 8612), engendrer 5367, engendra 7785); amenroient (5824), amenrissant (2077); tenrieux (3556), tenrement (2739, 2938, 3302, 5894, 6956, 7762, 8386). Morphology Definite article: the fem. def. art., subject and object, frequently appears as le [G§ 63] (prol.35;6, 183, 410, 671, 706, 1035, 1242, 1339, 1629, 1816, 2340, 2429, 2441, 2491, 2530, 3030, 3125, 3287, 4166, 4337, 4757, 4801, 5205, 6184, 6282, 6465, 6560, 6859, 6977, 7031, 7375, 7665, 8015, 8047, 8083, 8219, 8326, 8342, 8348, 8567, 8604, 9296, 9359) and as obj. pron. in 205, 230, 1802, 1816, 1859, 1871, 1880 (puis prist la corre, si le baise), 1936–7 (… terre … / la milleur et le plus rendant), 2075, 2076, 2368, 2408, 2744, 2773, 3318, 4121, 4134, 4167–8, 4192, 4246, 4451, 4498, 4894, 5620, 5643, 5655–6, 5677, 5691, 5697, 6213, 6214, 6215, 6612, 7751–2, 8040 (Danem le pere le nomma / Et songneusement la garda), 8017, 8019, 8021, 8040, 8340, 8343, 8344, 8487, 8599, 8603, 8872, 8912, 8917, 9309, 9311–13). Gender: 1025 ung aigle puissant et isnele (: selle) (aigle may be masc. or fem.); amour is fem. 1057/58, 1893f, 2367, 2414, 2768, 4124, 4430, 5376, 5711, 6615, 8233, 8263, 8723; langage fem. (telle) at 1248–9; voile (= sail) masc. at 2192; ongle masc. at 2201; serpent fem. at 6561. Labor can be masc. or fem.(le) at 5022. Personal pronouns: reflexes of ego (G§ 64) = je (prol. 125;85, 87, 89 etc), ge (1749), g’(iray (2967), and jou (prol. 105; 82, 393, 1685, 2601, 4346). See too ecce-hoc> chou (412, 1685). Tonic personal pronoun ti (G§ 65) ‘ty’ (8259), and mi, pour my (1751), par my (7962), He my! (8632). For the use of the atonic obl. pers. pron. me after an affirmative imperative see laissie me ester (3553), laissie me … a taster (5215). Cases of qui for qu’il (446, 4905, 5262, 5824, 6074, 7975) and qui for que (2707, 4161, 4347, 7524). Possessive adjectives: oblique masc. poss. adj. sen (G§ 66): sen fil (8618), sen regard (8913); se for sen (G p. 126): se coer (4698); fem. poss. adj., subject and

60

THE LANGUAGE OF TIAUDELET

oblique se (G§ 67): se serour (8609), se belle amie (8690). Weakened forms of the possessive adj. (G§ 68): no (71, 76, 2850, 3536, 4595, 4615, 4619, 5402, 6959), vo (48, 77, 1645, 1647, 1650, 2969, 3011, 3558, 3562, 3565, 4021, 4216, 4596, 5154, 8409, 8553). Epicene adjectives are sometimes declined e.g. grand/t> grande. There are 12 cases of grande evenly divided between pre- and post- position (M-N, pp. 125–28) and nine cases of forte. Tel