The Alliterative Morte Arthure: A Reassessment of the Poem

ARTHURIAIV STUDIES f I

T H E ALLITERATIVE MORTE ARTHURE

ARTHURIAN STUDIES I ASPECTS OF MALORY ed. T. Takamiya and D. Brewer I11 THE ARTHURIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY I: AUTHOR LISTING

ed. C. E. Pickford and R. Last

THE

Alliterative Morte Arthure A REASSESSMENT OF THE POELM

Edited by Karl Heins Gazer

D. S. BREWER

0 Contributors 1994

All Rights Resewed. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner

First published 1994 by D. S. Brewer Transferred to digital printing ISBN 9784-85991-075-0 D. S. Brewer is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IPl2 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA website: www.boydeIlandbrewer.com A CiP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

This publication is printed on acid-free paper

Contents

T h e Dream of the Wheel of Fortune

Kevin Crosslty-Holland

A Summary of Research

Karl Heinz GiiEler

Reality versus Romance: A Reassessment of the Alliterative Morte Arthur

Karl Heinz Giiller

The Poem in the Tradition of Arthurian Literature

Maureen Fries

T h e Audience

Jutta Wurster

The Language and Style: The Paradox of Heroic Poetry

Manfred Markus

Formulaic hlicrostructure: The Cluster

Jean Ritrke-Rutherford

FormuIaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle

Jean Ritzke-Rutheford

Armorial Bearings and their Meaning

Karl LiMe

The Figure of Sir Gawain

Jorg 0 . Fichte

T h e Laments for the Dead

Renate Haas

The Dream of the Dragon and Bear

Karl Heine GolEer

T h e Dream of the Wheel of Fortune

Anke Jan~sen

Notes

Preface

The following colIection of essays on the Alliterative Morte Arthure grew out of a series of lectures given by participants from the Regensburg University Department of English at the ~ 1 1 t hInternational Arthurian Conference, which took pface at Regensburg in August, 1979. It was felt that a reassessment of this unique and previously negIected poem was necessary, The present essays are the result of a joint effort by members of the English Department and colleagues from abroad who shared our view of the poem. The articles are meant to form an integrated whole, whereby each contribution deals with a particular aspect of the same problem. Thanks are due to the native speakers of the English Department who helped polish up the English of the following essays. All of us owe a special debt of gratitude to Jean Ritzke-Rutherford who invested a generous amount of time in our project. For her as for all other members of the team, work on the Alliteratiz'veMarte Arthure (endearingly referred to as AMA by the contributors) was a labour of love and an imperative. Further thanks are due to the publishing firm, in particular to Richard Barber, Marcia Vale and Derek S. Brewer for their continued support.

K.H.G.

The Dream ofthe Wheel of Fortune

KEVIN CROSSLEY-HOLLAND

3218 Then this handsome king, as chronicles tell. Quickly and gaily gets ready for bed; Adroitly he strips and slackens his girdle And fatigue overcomes him, he falls asleep. But one hour after midnight his mood entirely altered; In the early hours he met wondrous dreams! And when his dreadful dream had drifted past and finished, The king trembles for fear as if afraid for his life; He calls for his wise men and tells of his terror: 'Truly, since I was born, I have never been so afraid! Apply yourselves with a11 speed, explain my dream to me, As I shall rehearse it to you, readily and fully. 3230 I thought I was in a wood, lost and alone, And had no idea which way to turn Because of wolves and wild boar and evil creatures; They walked in that wilderness, looking for trouble; The most loathsome lions licked their lips there, Longing to lap up the blood of my loyal knights! I fled through that forest, where flowers grew tall, T o find a hiding-place from those horrible beasts; I came to a meadow surrounded by mountains. The most delightful on rniddIe-earth ever seen by men! 3240 The entire close was encompassed and surrounded, Covered with clover and colourful small flowers; That valley was encircled by vines of silver That bore grapes of gold (more succulent Than any other) and friezed by furzes and all kinds of trees Herdsmen were standing amongst splendid pastures; Every fruit that grows on earth flourished there O n fine boughs, in a well-fenced orchard; There was no dampness of dew to injure anything, All the flowers were dry with the day's dryness.

3250 Then down from the clouds. and into that valley, a duchess Descends, richly dressed in damasked clothing,

A subtly-coloured surcoat of silk

2

3260

3270

3280

3290

Kevin Crosslq-Holland Overlaid with otter-fur right down to the hem, And a ladylike train a yard long. All its edges trimmed with ribbons of gold; Brooches and bezants and many bright stones Were pinned all over her back and her breast. She wore a caul crowned with a golden chaplet, And no woman's complexion was ever so clear! She whirled a wheel with her white hands. Spun it most skilfully as she had to do; This wheel was wrought of red gold and precious stones, Adorned with riches and many a ruby; T h e spokes were inlaid with splinters of silver. Each springing a spear-length from the hub; O n the wheel was a chair of chalk-white silver. Chequered with carbuncle of ever-changing hue; A row of kings clung to the rim, Their gleaming gojd crowns were cracking apart. Then one after another six of them suddenly Fell from on high. each repeating these words: "That ever I reigned on this wheel I rue for ever! No ruler on earth was so rich as I! When I rode with my company, I cared for nothing But hunting by the river, revelry, extortion! For as long as I lived this was my life-style And so I a m damned utterly and forever!" T h e first man spreadeagled under the wheel was a little fellow, His loins were skinny and loathsome to look at. His locks were grey and a yard long, His face and body were badly diseased; O n e of his eyes winked brighter than silver, T h e other was yellower than the yolk of an egg. "I was lord", said the man, "of many a land. And all men on earth did me obeisance; Not one rag remains now with which to cover my corpse, But all at once I a m lost, let each man recognize it!" Certainly the second lord who spun off the wheel Looked to me more steadfast and more mighty in war; Between his deep sighs he spoke these words: "I sat on that throne there as sovereign and lord, And ladies loved to enfold me in their arms, And my estate is lost now, laid Iow for ever!" T h e third was very fierce, with thickset shoulders, A fearsome man to fight with, even thirty to one; His crown, adorned with cut stones And inlaid with diamonds, had dropped to the earth;

The Dream ofthe Wheal of Fortune

3300

3310

3320

3330

3340

3

"In my time", he said. "I was the terror of many a kingdom. And now. damned to die, my sorrow is all the greater!" T h e fourth was handsome and strong in arms, With more fair a figure than any man before! "My faith", he said, "was resolute while I reigned the world, Famed in far-off lands, flower of all kings; Now my face is ashen. foul things engulf me. For I a m sunk so low and left friendless." T h e fifth was a finer man than many of these others. Powerful and fierce and foaming at the mouth; H e gripped the rim tightly and wound his arms around it But failed notwithstanding and fell fifty f e ~ off: t Even so he sprang up, sprinted, and spread his arms, And bv the spear-length spokes he speaks these words: "I was a lord in Syria, and ruled there alone As sovereign and seigneur over sundry demesnes; Now, from such pleasure, I am suddenly toppled, And because of my sin I rue I sat in that seat!" T h e sixth had a psalter. superbly bound With carefully stitched covers of silk, A harp and handsling with nuggets of flint; Soon he speaks of what sorrows he has suffered: "In my time", he said, "men took me to be As active at arms as any man alive; But on earth I was injured when I was most strong By this maiden so meek who moves us all." Two kings were climbing and clawing their way up. Anxious to reach the top of the wheel. "And then", said both, "chosen on earth As two of the foremost, we will lay claim to this carbuncle chair!" T h e men were chalk-white, cheeks and alI, But neither achieved the goal above him: T h e first looked noble and had a fine forehead, Fairer of face than any man before; And he was dressed in rich royal blue, Covered with a flourish of gold Reur-de-lys; T h e other wore a coat made completely of silver And a fine gold cross - four finely-wrought Small crosses nestled around the crucifix. Whereby I knew that king. who seemed to have been christened. Then I approached that proud woman and greeted her warmly, And she replied, "Welcome! You d o right to come now: O f a11 the valiant men that ever lived on earth, You ought to honour my will, as you well know how; For a11 your fame in war was won because of me;

4

3350

3360

3370

3380

Kevin Crassley-Holland

I have been your friend and a foe to others; You and your followers found that out, indeed, When I felled Sir Frolle and his evil knights; Because of that, all the bounty of France is yours to command. You will attain the chair. I choose you myself Above all the leaders acclaimed on earth." She lifted me up lightly with her slender hands, Set me gently in the seat, and gave me T h e sceptre; skilfully she combed my hair So that my head was ringed by curling locks; She adorned me with a dazzling diadem. Then proffers me an orb studded with precious stones And enamelled with azure, the earth depicted on it Encircled by the salt sea on a11 sides As a sign that I truly was sovereign on earth. Then she handed me a sword with a gleaming hilt And bade me brandish the blade: "The sword is my own, Its stroke has drained the lifeblood of many young men; For white you worked with that blade, it never betrayed you." 'Then, pausing as it pleased her, she peacefully walked over T o the edge of the orchard -never was one finer O r planted better by princes on earth. And none so splendidly dressed save in paradisc alone. She bade the boughs stoop, and set in my hands T h e best that they bore on their soaring branches; Then, I telI you truly, they all bowed to her command, Even the highest in each copse, completely and utterly: She told me not to hesitate but try whatever I liked. "Triumphant man, try the most tasty, Reach for the ripest and enjoy yourselfl Rest, royal king, for Rome is your own! And I shall readily whir1 the wheel as fast as I can And draw you rich wine in rinsed cups." Then she walked to the well a t the edge of the wood, A wonder that bubbled and streamed with wine; She caught up a cupful and covered it properly; She bade me sweetly take a draught, and drink to herself. And thus for one hour she led me around With all the liking and love any man could hope for. But a t midday exactly her mood changed entirely, And she began to menace me with threat upon threat; When I begged her to stop. she knitted her brows: "King, by Christ that made me, your carping is useless! You will forfeit these pleasures. and your life afterwards. You have enjoyed comforts and kingdoms enough!"

The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune

3390

3400

3410

3420

3430

5

She whirls the wheel and whirls me off and under So that my four quarters were crushed and broken into pieces! And my spine was chopped into two by that chair! And I have shivered for cold since all this happened to me. Then, truly, I awoke worn out by my dream, And now you know my sorrow, speak as you think fit.' 'Man', says the wise man, 'your Fortune has left you! You will find her your foe now; test it when you like! You are a t the height of your powers, I tell you truly! Whatever you essay, you will achieve it no longer! You have shed much blood and, in your arrogance, Killed innocent men in many kings' lands: Confess your guilt and prepare for your end! Take heed of your warning, my lord. if you are pleased to, For you will fall headlong within five winters! Found abbeys in France (you will reap the benefit) For Frolle and Feraunt and their fierce knights Whom you, a stranger in that country. killed in battle: Take heed now of other kings -remember T h a t they were bold conquerors, crowned on earth: T h e oldest was Alexander, the whole earth bowed before him; T h e second, so chivalrous. was Hector of Troy; T h e third Julius Caesar, a giant of a man. Judged by lords to be gentle in each undertaking; T h e fourth Sir Judas, noblest of jousters, T h e masterful Maccabee, strongest of all men; T h e fifth was Joshua. that stout-hearted leader, Whose army enjoyed such success in .Jerusalem; T h e sixth was David, dearly beloved, Deemed to be one of the bravest kings ever crowned. For with a sling (and skilful aim) he slew T h e giant Goliath, the grimmest man on earth; I n later years, he composed all the psalms. T h e dear distinctive words inscribed in the psalter. One of the climbing kings. I know it for certain, Will be called Carolus, the king of France's son; He will be fierce and cruel, hailed as conqueror, And by force overcome many a country; H e will capture the crown that Christ Himself wore, And the same lance that leaped to His heart, When H e was crucified on the Cross, and that knight will win All the sharp nails to be held by Christian men. T h e other will be Godfrey; and on Good Friday God will take revenge on him and his brave knights; H e will be lord of Lorraine, by leave of his father,

6

Kevin Crossly-Holland

And later enjoy great success in Jerusafem For. by feats of arms, he will recover the Cross And then be crowned king. anointed with chrism; Yet no duke in his days will endure such a destiny Nor suffer such trials, when put to truth's test! Therefore Fortune fetches you to complete the numberNinth of the men named as noblest on earth. This will be read in romances by noble knights, 3440 Told and praised by joyful kings And on domesday judged a feat of arms Unsurpassed by any man that ever lived on earth: Thus countless kings and scholars wilI celebrate your deeds And record for all time your conquests in chronicles! But the wolves in the wood. and the wild beasts. Are certain wicked men -aliens and armies From other countries-arrived in vour absence T o attack your people and make war on your Iands. 3450 FYithin ten days I believe you will be told That some harm has happened since you left home; I advise you to count and confess your errors Before you swiftly repent all your ruinous deeds! Man, mend your ways before you meet with disaster, And humbly beg mercy for the saving of your soul!'

A Summary of Research

KARL H E I S Z GOLLER

T h e text of the Alliterative Morte Arthum' (henceforth AMA) is now available in several adequate editions. D. S. Brewer and A. E. B. Owen have published a facsimile edition of the Thornton manuscript together with a useful analysis of its characteristic features.' I n 1865 G. G. Perry edited the text for the Early English Text Society, as did Edrnund Brock in 1871. both under the number 0.S.8.3In 1900 Mary M. Banks supervised a new edition of the poem, which Erik Bjijrkman used in 1915 in his edition of the AMA in the series Alt- und Mittelenglische T e ~ t e . ~ Bjorkman's edition was regarded as the standard text of the poem for many decades. It contains, however, hundreds of unnecessary emendations. most of which are based on the work of the Bonn School of Metrics (e.g. Trautmann and Mennicken). Thus Bjijrkman's edition was already out of date a t the time of its appearance. T h e discovery of the FYinchester MS. of Malory's Morte d'Arthur (1934) made a new edition of the AMA imperative.' I t was promised by O'Loughlin in 1935.6 In I959 the prospective editor announced that the new edition was 'nearly ready'.' In the meantime several other editors have stolen the march on him. John Finlayson edited an abridged study edition in 1967 (York Medieval Texts).' In 1972 this was followed by S. D. Spangehl's edition, an as yet unpublished dissertation for the University of Pennsylvania? In 1974 Larry D. Benson presented a simplified version 'for readers who have had little or no training in Middle English'." T h e best edition of the AMA-in spite of its shortcomings -is Valerie Krishna's. which appeared in 1976; i t contains an extensive introduction, a complete glossary, and a separate commentary which has taken the entire spectrum of research into account. I n a surprising consensus of opinion, nearly all critics agree that the AMA is one of the most significant works of the Alliterative Revival, or even, possibly, of Middle English literature. Helaine Newstead has called the poem 'one of the most powerful and original treatments of the Arthurian tradition'." John Gardner once termed it 'a major poetic a ~ h i e v e m e n t ' , ' ~and John Stevens, 'one of the best poems of the Alliterative Movement'.13 T h e pathos, humour and realism of the AMA have been stressed by both the histories of literature and encyclopedia^.'^

T h e connection of the AMA with the B r u ~tradition was seen by the first schoIars who dealt with the poem." In regard to further sources beyond this tradition, a major contribution was made by B r a n s ~ h e i d . ' ~ Matthews hvpothesised a fourteenth-century French source, and traced the influence of certain Alexander-romances." Finlayson suggested the connection of the poem to Sir Firurnbras. Destruction of Troy, and further works. as for instance Vows of the Heron." The relationship to the French chansons de geste has been mentioned a number of timesgQIt would seem that determination of the genre of the AMA depends on the sources postulated for the poem.'O More recent critics dispense with attempts to assign the poem to a certain genre. Instead, they note differences in form and content from other 1i;erar-y traditions of England and, more often, of the Continent. M.'. R. J. Barron identifies realistic elements, but also a certain degree of national consciousness which he sees as typical of the Alliterative Revival (including Layamon's Brut). H e regards the dynastic theme centred on the figure of Arthur as the basis of the poem." Whereas the epic-heroic character of the AMA was emphasised by the older generation of critics. it is now, in concordance with Matthews, considered a medieval tragedy of fortune." And yet even today there is still disagreement as to the message of the poem. Particularly controversial is the question of whether the poet describes the rise of a morally blameless Arthur during the first part of the poem, or whether he presents the king as corrupt and evil from the very beginning.23 In this respect, critical opinions contradict each other to such an extent that one has the feeling the critics are not even speaking of the same work. Roger Sherman Loomis, for instance, denies that the poet attributed any guilt to King Arthur.24 Similarly, Helaine Newstead refutes the idea of retribution, and sees the poem as an affirmation of Arthur's greatness.25 Matthews, on the other hand. claims that Arthur was sinful from the start." Most critics, however, take the middle road. D. S. Brewer speaks of the upward and downward movement of Fortune's wheel, thus taking the traditional concept of tragedy as his point of departure." A similar position is voiced by Finlayson in several major contributions to the study of the poem." Even a cursory glance a t critical evaluations of the AMA makes it clear that essential problems have not yet been solved. Thus there has been no close analysis of the dream of the Dragon and Bear, although it contains significant clues to the intention of the poet.29 T h e dream of Fortune, however, has often been treated, usually in connection with the problem of genre.30 T h e topos of the Nine IVorthies, its derivation, and function has also been the subject of extensive treatment. H. Schroeder's major work on the topos, however, has been completely overlooked by Anglo-Saxon critics, although it must be regarded as the standard work on the subject; similarly. other important

A Summap of Research

9

research articles written in German have been i g n ~ r e d . ~ ' Closely connected with the problem of how Arthur is to be judged, is the role his knights play in the poem. T o some extent they have been seen as contrasting figures and foils for the King. This is particularly true o f c a w a i n . Opinions on his character are no less contradictory than those on King A r t h ~ r . O ~ 'n the one hand he is seen as an embodiment of the entire gamut of courtly virtues. and on the other. as a projection of Arthur's ambition,33Mordred presents a unique problem. O'Loughlin is convinced that Arthur's fall in the AMA 'is brought about by the Aristotelian hamartia of his begetting h l ~ r d r e d ' , , 'while ~ Charles Regan finds no sign in the poem that the traitor is Arthur's son, 'not as much as a hint from either the poet or a c h a r a ~ t e r . 'Naturally ~~ these positions are mutually exclusive, but the text itself contains sufficient evidence for the solution of the problem. A number of questions have hardly been treated by the critics, or remain to be dealt with adequately. There is. for example, the poet's unique brand of h ~ r n o u r . 'his ~ tendency towards irony and parody, and above all his subtle use of indirect connotation and innuendo. which ultimately contribute to indirect characterisation of the figures. Some authors recognise ambiguities in the A M L ~ ,and ~ ' deduce that the poet has a n ironic, o r a t least ambivalent attitude towards Arthur and his Barnie speaks of 'unresolved ambiguity in the poet's attitude towards A r t h ~ r ' . ? Other ~ critics focus on the degeneration of the protagonist from the majestic champion of Christianity to a brutal conqueror.'"' T h e formulaic character of the AMA was recognised and dealt with very early, particularly in connection with the Huchown question. O n the basis of language, metre and verse formation. several critics attempted to prove that the same poet had written several alliterative works, including the AMA.4' A refutation of the theory is no longer necessary. For quite a number of years it has been clear that nearIv all so-called 'parallels' were 'accidents of convention in the alliterative type'.42 T h e conclusions drawn by the same school on the basis of metre were equally tenuous. Trautmann and hlennicken claimed that the alliterative long-line of the AMA was to be read with seven stresses, and that emendation was needed wherever a line did not comply with this r e q ~ i r e m e n t hlennicken .~~ sometimes resorted to desperate measures to achieve his goal. as for instance by sounding the end -e, even before a folIowing which is contradictor); to the historical evidence as shown by Luick."'J. L. X. O'Loughlin has pointed out that irreGguIarities in metre and alliteration follow a certain pattern, and that the stress a n d rhythm of the poem were not half as rigid as had been claimed.46 In the meantime a new approach has been taken to the problem of metrics in the poem. Duggan and Vaughan have argued that runs

I0

Karl Heinr G&ller

of alliteration indicate four-line strophic str~cture.~' What has given rise to difficulty is the fact that the metric criteria drawn from Old English cannot be appIied without alteration to the contingencies of Middle English because of the greater flexibility of long-line in the latter. LVith the application of the so-called 'oral formulaic theory' to Old and Middle English, the phenomenon of repetition in medieval paetry was seen in a new light. It soon became apparent that there was more to the formula than a mere syntactical pattern or 'mould', and that meaning and function had to be taken into consideration as well. Finlayson and those after him thus rightly objected to Waldron's formalistic a p p r ~ a c h : ~but ' Lawrence later defended its usefulness when applied in conjunction with the ustial techniques of orat formulaic a n a l y s i ~ . ~Although " there have been some attempts to formulate consistent and adequate definitions of the oral formulaic eIements as used in Middle these have generally been disregarded by critics dealing with the AMA. The lack of progress in this direction has led to recent negative statements, such as Tonsfeldt's contention that verbal style and formulaism in the AMA are far less interesting than the narrative formulaic elements it contain^,^' or that of Turville-Perre, whose recent book on the Alliterative Revival states polemically: 'Fourteenth-century altiterative poetry cannot . . . be described as formulaic in any meaningful sense . . .'." Many scholars writing before Turville-Petre have chosen to describe verbal repetition in Middle English alliterative poetry in terms of word c o l l o c a t i ~ nbut , ~ ~few except Finlay son have seen a connection between this phenomenon and the oral formulaic theory of Parry and Lord. Only Finlayson and Turville-Petre have dealt with coilocations of more than two words or those extending beyond two lines in length. Most who have dealt with the AMA have noted areas where formulas and verbal repetition are heavily concentrated in contrast to the rest of the poem,54 and a connection between these and the so-called 'runs' of alliteration on the same letters has been noted, although no causal relationship was postulated .55 Most scholars agree that the AMA and many other middle English poems were meant to be recited, and thus made use of and were influenced by the style and conventions of oral popular poetry, even though they were composed in writing.56 Thus some inconsistencies in the AMA, such as the fact that Lucius apparently dies twice, have been attributed to the process of oral c o r n p o s i t i ~ n . ~ ~ More controversial than the question of oral or written composition in Middle English is that of the metrical function of the formula. Much early research on formulaism in the AMA made a distinction between formulas of the first haff-line, and those of the second.s8 One recent definition of the Middle English formufa requires. among other things,

A Summary of Research

11

that it be repeated 'in similar contexts and in the same metrical position'.59 This is, however, true neither of Old English poetry nor of Middle English. Many formulas do occur in both half-lines and in various contexts. In addition, there is no economy in the older sense of that word6' (namely that a given idea was always expressed in the same way), although one recent author has claimed the ~ o n t r a r y . ~ ' A major step in formulaic research was the recognition that the interpretative value of formulaism rested in the function and meaning of formulas and formulaic elements in the context of the whole. Here. too lay the answer to the question of poetic creativity and originality within the framework of stereotyped convention. Parallel to a shift of interest to such matters in Old English research. a call was issued for more attention to the meaning and function of formulaic expressions as a key to our understanding of the text and of the work of the poet. Examples from the A M A made it evident that a hierarchy of values could be observed: semantic meaning might be sacrified to fulfil metric contingencies (alliteration). while metric correctness, in turn, might be sacrified in order to retain the habitual wording of the f ~ r r n u l a . " ~ O t h e r studies of individual formulas and their significance followed. emphasising the originality and individual achievement of the poet to a ~ ~ Gross greater degree than earlier critics, such as F i r ~ l a y s o n .Laila analysed the use of the word ' r i o t ' i n formulas and elsewhere, postulating that formulaic occurrences of the word would exhibit little o r no change of meaning.64 T h e individual and creative use of formulas placed in an alien context was pointed out by Tuwille-Petre, who noted that the two-word coI1ocation 'king' and 'crown' generally used for Arthur is significantly applied to Gawain at the end of the poem.65 LZ similar phenomenon has been mentioned by Grenier. namei? the reversal of a stock motif, 'exultation over a fallen foe'. Both Frederick and Mordred lament the death of' Gawain rather than. as usual. taunting the fallen foe.66 Little work has been done on formulaic themes in the poem. Finlayson concentrated on battle and knighthood in his 1963 article, and his work has been extended by T~nsfeldt.~'Johnsonhas attempted to prove the occurrence of an Old English 'theme' called 'The-Hero-on-the-Beach' in the In short. i t is evident that work on the creative use of formulaic style in the A M A has only begun. T h e date of composition of the AMA has been a matter of controversy since its first publication. The manuscript can be dated at about 1440. since the name of the compiler, Robert Thornton. and his biographical details have come down to us.69 The date of the text is more difficult to determine; critics have had to turn to intrinsic indications in the poem itself. The first historical interpretation of the AMA was offered by G. Neilson in his book on Huchown of the Awle Ryale." Neilson made

Huchown the author of nearly a11 extant Middle English alliterative verse, a supposition which proved much more tenuous than his very interesting study of historical parallels, which even today has to be given careful consideration. According to Keilson, the battle of Sessoyne is CrGcy, the Sea Battle is Winchelsea, Mordred is Mortimer, and the ?'iscount of Rome is the Miknese V i ~ c o n t i . This ~ ' would place the date of the text at about 1365. Inman pointed out that allusions to Edward 111's reign d o not necessarily mean that the poem originated during Edward's lifetime.72 T h e first attempt to use the description of costume as a criterion for dating was by H. E a g l e ~ o n .In ~ ~the long sleeves (lappes} of Lady Fortune, he saw a parallel to feminine dress of Edward III's period. J. L. N.O'Loughlin noted a resemblance to a description in Wynnere and Wastoure ('slabbande sleues sleght to be grounde', 41 1). and therefore concluded that the AMA must have originated shortly after that poem, which was written in the winter of 1352-53.74 The doubtfulness of this kind of argument became apparent when E. Schroder tried to demonstrate that Wynnere and Wastoure was dependent on the AMA. thus arguing for a n even earlier date of the T h e element of the pilgrimage to Rome was brought into the discussion by G. B. Parks.76 He takes the view that the author of the AMA himself made a pilgrimage to Rome. probably in the Holy Year of 1350. His arguments are based on the author's intimate knowledge of details of the route to Rome. A further criterion for the dating of the poem was seen in the vows the Arthurian knights made on the vernacle, a n emblem of the veil of Veronica, which was worn by pilgrims to Rome in the fourteenth Other critics commented on the connection between historical conditions and the realistic description of battle in the poem. T h e first to point out the uncourtly character of King Arthur a n d his knights was Dorothy Everett in 1955; her seminal article initiated a new line of thought in regard to the poem." I n his book on the Tragedy ofArthur (1960)- William hfatthews argues for a date 'soon after 1375. . . when the ordinary Englishman was weary of the tragic futility of his rulers' imperial conquest^'.^^ Larry Benson accepts Matthews' view that the poem truly portrays the fourteenthcentury attitude toward3 warfare. At the same time, however, he warns against drawing a concrete parallel between the treason of Guinevere and Mordred and that of Isabella and Mortimer. Benson also remains unconvinced that the poet drew 'a portrait of Arthur in the likeness of Edward III'.'O Another critic who followed in the footsteps of G. Neilson in looking for historical parallels was Roger Sherman Loomis. who recognised in the AMA the spirit of the fifties.'l In his opinion, the poem is a panegyric on Edward 111's exploits on the Continent. Later. even Benson. following Dorothy Everett's lead, came to recognise historical parallels

A Summary of Research

13

which made the AMA a poem of its own place and period.82Thus. for example, he perceived in Arthur's grim humour a parallel to the character of the Black Prince. Finlayson, on the other hand, remained sceptical towards historical parallels. The description of Fortune's lappes is in his opinion too vague to suggest a particular date. He would deny nearly a11 of Neilson's parallels. with the one exception of the Battle of Lt'inchelsea. Although he admits that the poem reflects the reign of Edward 111 in a general way. he rejects the idea of a roman ci

~1~6'~

In his modern English translation John Gardner takes up Seilson's and hlatthews' historical parallels, although he himself is not convinced that the poetic power of the poem lies 'chiefly in what may ha1.e been its immediate political purpo~e'.'~Gardner emphasises 'that the reader who enters into the situation behind the poem will appreciate more than the reader who does LIlop-sided view of the historical parallels was presented by G. Keiser. who dismisses the entire palette of allegcd topical allusions: 'The complete uncertainty about the authorship and the dating of the poem as well as the circumstances in which the poem was written would seem an unsurmountable problem for those who would find a pattern of " c ~ p t i c "allu~ions.''~ A more balanced view of' the problem is presented by .J. Barnie in his book on IVar in Mediem1 Society. He sees the poem as far too subtle to be regarded as a mere catalogue of topical allusions and political parallels. Contrary to his own premises and promises, he only deals with the AMA in an appendix, thus indicating his doubts as to the historical source value of works of this kind." Investigation of the historical and political background of the poem will no doubt continue. Larry D. Benson's articre of 1976 has focussed on the year 1400, in view of the fact that no derailed description of the travel route to Rome was a\-ailable prior to 1402 fiom which the poet could have drawn the Italian place-names. Though he recognises Richard I1 in Mordred and Henry IV in Arthur. Renson. too. rqjects the idea that the poem is a roman ci cleJ8'J. \'ale. as well. is con\-inced that contemporary conditions are reflected realistically in the AiZfA. and that 'it provides a remarkable insight into the attitudes and preoccupations of a diplomat and administrator in the second half of'the reign of' Edward III.'89 According to this theor).., the author of the ALMA may have been a public senant at the court of King Edward t IT. Promising conclusions and affirmation of the necessity of taking the historical and political background into account may be expected fi-om the forthcoming book by Beate Schmolke-Hasselrnann entitled Der arthurische

Versroman uon Chrestzen bis F r o i s s a ~ t . ~ ~ Modern literary criticism now tends to take literan works of art. including the romances. far more seriously - not onl) as sources of historical facts, but also as comments on and even interpretations of the

Karl Heznz Goller course of contemporary events by those who were in a position to understand them. In this sense literature is a reflection of what people thought, feared and hoped, Works such as the AMA are even more outspoken in this respect than the chronicles, and the picture presented is more comprehensive. But it is subtly encoded in the form of literary devices and thus in need of interpretation by the literary critic. It is the aim of the authors of the following essays to contribute to this goal.

Reality uersus Romance A Reassessment of the Alliterative Morte Arthure KARL HEINZ GOLLER in co-operation with R. GleiRner and M . Mennicken

The AMA has been classified by literary critics as a romance, an epic, and a chanson de geste. as well as a tragedy, an exemplum of the virtue of fortitude, and a Furstenspiegel. There are sound arguments for each of these categories, and this alone is proof of the fact that it is impossible to ascribe the poem to a single literary genre. Like many other masterpieces of world literature, the A M A defies neat pigeon-holing. It was almost inevitable that a new, detailed study of the A M A and its relation to contemporary chronicles. history, and literature would lead to a reassessment of this many-faceted work of art. A historian recently called the poem 'quite unique in fourteenthcentury English romance'.' If it could at all be called a romance. it is one with a very peculiar twist to it. The A M A has outgrown its genre historically. While still clinging to its traditional framework, stock characters and themes, it has become its own opposite. This is particularly evident in the light of its contemporary near relation, the so-called stanzaic Morte Arthur. with its love story and pure romance character. When compared with works of this kind, the A M A can and should be called an anti-romance. This term. of course, is not meant to designate a new literary genre, an undertaking which would be more than difficult. Even the problem of defining romance. with its immense spectrum of applications. has never been satisfactorily ~ o l v e dSuffice .~ it to say that 'romance' is generally regarded as 'a fictitious narrative . . . of which the scene and incidents are very remote from those of ordinary life.'3 In the case of the AMA the figures and events are taken from a literary tradition which was at the time and even is today connected with what could be called prototypical romance. But this is only a very thin veneer. a kind of historical drapery. which - for large portions of the poem is insufficient to disguise the contemporaneity of the main characters and their actions. Since Neilson there has been general agreement that in the AMA familiar literary figures are used to represent contemporary rulers and the problems of the time; the degree and scope of this reciprocal relationship, however, have remained controver~ial.~

16 Karl Hez'nz GEiller in co-operation with R. Glegner and M. Mennicken At the same time. familiar literary genres of romance are criticised or even satirised. having become nothing more than empty clich&s,widely divorced from any historical o r contemporary reality. The poet seems particularly interested in unmasking the trivialised and romanticised fbrm of literary portrayal of war and heroism. by confronting it with the moral and physical results of real war. Thus the AMA is in two respects a n anti-romance: it ushers in personalities and problems of contemporary Iife in the costume of distant centuries: but even more important, it destroys commonplaces of chivalry and knightly warfare through inversion, irony and black humour. T h e figures and events are traditionally familiar but they have undergone a sea-change. Arthur is still the admired head ofstate, but is shown to be morally corrupted by his growing power, Lancelot is no longer the most prominent and best knight of the Round Table; instead he is placed on a par with L'alyant. Ewayn and Loth, and there is no love intrigue with Guinevere. Gawain is the leading figure among the knights. but he is far from being a perfect model of knighthood. He is arrogant and frivolous. acts rashly and impetuously. usurps command and oversteps his power. His metaphors are hardly courteous, for he promises to subdue the enemy to a state of meekness likened to the 'bouuxom' willingness of a bride in bed (2858). In the AMA, the opening boudoir scene of' the stanzaic Morte Arthur (Arthur and Guinevere lie in bed, chatting about bygone adventures) has been replaced by the battlefield. A tragic parting before the king leaves for war marks Arthur's relationship with his wife. Guinevere in her turn w~ickedlc conspires with Mordred and even bears him two children although she is usually represented as barren. Mordred is no simple traitor. H e regards himself as a rightful pretender to the crown; in the final battle he changes his arms accordingly and wears the three leopards of England. I n the AMA the reality of war in all its gruesomeness and the contemporaneitv of the fourteenth century clash heavily with the world of romance. Nearly ail the stereotype scenes of courtly literature are recognisable. but they are embedded in new contexts and ridiculed either by comic-ironic parody or by confrontation with the historical reality of the fourteenth century. Indeed the burden of topical allusion weighs so heavily that Arthur appears almost as a contemporary fourteenth century king. Even those episodes which up to the present have been seen as pure romance, e.g. the Priamus episode (2501-27151, achieve, by virtue ofthe poet's subtle use of irony and inversion of traditional motifs. the very opposite effect. Romance is negated and even reduced to absurdity. O f overall importance is the poet's attitude towards war. 'Two souls dwell in his breast. for he is simultaneously a patriot and an opponent of war - a t times holding positions that would nowadays be called

A Reassessmenf ofthe Alliterative Morte Arthure

17

pacifist. This dichotomy is responsible for the ambivalence of the poem in matters Arthurian. T h e king is at one and the same time the greatest ruler that has ever Iived on earth and yet a doomed soul.

T h e overall message of the poem can only be seen against the background of Arthurian tradition as a whole. From the very beginning the figure of King Arthur had strong political implications. This was already true of Geoffrey of hilonmouth's Historia Regum Britannia. which saw King Arthur as an incarnation of the idea of the Empire.' Most English kings after the conquest have regarded themselves as lawful heirs and successors of King Arthur. An entire series of kings had no objections against being styled as Arturns rediuiuus. Henry 111 led his troops under the Arthurian banner of the dragon.' Edward I was an 'Arthurian enthusiast' and held jousts and tournaments which he called 'Table Rounds'.' T h e same is true of Edward 111. the founder of the O r d e r of the Garter: [he] toke pleasure to newe reedefy the Castell o f Wyndsore, the whiche was begonne by kyng Arthure; and thpr firste beganne the Table Rounde, wherby sprange the fame of so many noble knightes throughout all the w~rlde.~ John Lydgate called Henry V 'of knyhthode Lodesterre. . . . Able to stond among the worthy nyne', which recalls King Arthur as the most famous of the wort hie^.^ Particularly the Tudor and Stuart kings were connected with King Arthur. Henry VII called his first-born son Arthur. I n the seventeenth century the designation 'Arthurian' was practically synonymous with ' r o y a l i ~ t ' . 'Thus ~ Arthurian literature always had a political cast, whatever the period. It follows that during the fourteenth century and after, the audience of the A M A would have expected topical allusions to the reigning English monarch. T h u s it also seems quite likely that Arthurian poets, and among them almost certainly the author of the A M A . used their work as a vehicle for political instruction, as a 'mirror for magistrates' or Furstenspiegel. This should not tempt us to read the A M A as a roman 2 cEq% or to draw a oneto-one relationship between specific historical personalities and major figures in the poem. T h e poem is a literary work which illustrates parallels and analogies to historical persons and events by means of an imaginative story (parable). T h e events of the Hundred Years War obviously form the background of the poem, but fourteenth century disillusionment with royal war and its consequences has been transferred to a faraway and fictitious world usually having romantic associations, and therefore

I8 Karl Heine Goller in co-operation with R. GleiJher and M . Mennicken well suited to make the miseries of the age stand out in relief. Even as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century, chronicIers regarded the idea of a society based on chivalry as no more than a fiction. The ideaIs of the poets and the moralists became more and more remote from reality, and, conversely, the code of chivalry was increasingly reduced to a mere alibi -to a literary bauble and a socia1 game. Thus in 1344 King Edward 111 vowed to found an Order of knights based on the code of honour of King Arthur and his Round Table, although. only two years earlier, French propaganda had accused him of raping the Countess of Salisbury in a most uncourteous fashion." In various passages historical persons and events are reflected in a recognisable way. Thus the author mentions that Arthur holds a large council before his decision to wage war, just as English kings were accustomed to do. The response of Arthur's councillors in this matter is described in a way similar to political discussions in England preceding the Hundred Years CZ'ar, where the idea of war was greeted enthusiasti~ally.'~ The mention of the Commons (274) is of particular note in this connection. Arthur refuses to recognise Lucius' demand for tribute because the alleged rights of this Roman Emperor cannot be based on treaties with English kings: on the contrary, they have been granted the Romans by the 'comons': They 'couerd it of comons, as cronicles teHes.' (274) The word comons, in this context, refers to the representatives of the shires and the boroughs. Thus English parliamentary history is reflected here. During the fourteenth century the commons gained more and more power over king and nobles in the approval of tax levies not, of course, without resistance on the part of the king.13 This is also evident in King Arthur's incriminating remark on the commons, which must be seen as a reflex of the tensions between the king and nobility on the one hand and the commons on the other. Further details support the conclusion that the poet used concrete events of the fourteenth century to give the work a contemporary veneer. Thus he states that Arthur's ceremonial sword Clarent was kept in iYaIlingford Castle. a place which is not mentioned anywhere else in Arthurian literature. There may be no traditional connection of Arthur (or Guinevere) with Wallingford, but there certainly is one with the royal family, since it belonged to the Black Prince from 1337 onwards. Various ladies of the royal house were quartered in Wallingford Castle during the fourteenth century, as for instance Edward 111's mother Isabella; the wife of the Black Prince, Joan of Kent; and Richard 11's second wife, Isabella of France.I4 It is therefore not surprising that Guinevere, King Arthur's wife, is connected with Wallingford in the poem. Arthur's wardrobe was located there, and it was in this castle that Guinevere took unlawful possession of Arthur's sword Clarent

A Reassesment of the Alliterative Morte Arthure

19

a n d passed it to Mordred. A similar connection to historical events can be seen in the cryptic formulation of the poet that the Duchess of Brittany who had been abducted by the giant of Mont St Michel is a relative of Arthur's wife ('thy wyfes cosyn', 864). Geoffrey and Wace refer to the giant's having ravished Helen. the niece of Arthur's kinsman. Howel. Layamon describes the abducted lady as the daughter of Howel, a nobleman of Brittany. It is highly probable that the poet of the AMA is alluding to the Duchess of Brittany and that the contemporary audience would have interpreted his words as an allusion. She is referred to as the king's 'wyfes cosvn' and the poet emphasises this relationship by the special tag, 'knowe it if be iykez.' (864). Neilson tried to establish a relationship between Philippa of Hainault, Edward 111's wife, andJean de Montfort, one of the claimants to the Duchy of Brittany, but he had to admit that 'Pedigrees are troublesome things. and I do not profess them."' Xeilson overlooked the fact that there were two claimants to the Duchy in the fourteenth century. T h e problem of succession in Brittany was a matter of bitter dispute which marked the beginning of the wars between France and England. In the eyes of the French. Jeanne de PenthiPvre was the true Duchess of Brittany and she was actually related to Philippa by her marriage to Charles de Blois.16 Edward 111 supported Jean d e Montfort, while Philip, king of France, went to the aid ofJeanne d e Penthievre. T h e poet's explicit reference to the Duchess of Britanny a s a relative of Arthur" wife is probably an indication that he intended to allude to Edward 111's involvement in Brittany. T h e detailed description of warfare in the AMA is a significant feature with a close connection to the historical background of the period. Contemporary methods of waging war are recognisable in i great number of passages. Thus, for instance, Arthur's tactics in the battle of Sessoyne have been viewed as parallels to the commands and the strategy of Edward 111 a t the battle of Cricy, for instance the development of bowmen, which in the period was both revolutionary and decisive for the outcome of a battle. Some passages have given rise to speculation that Arthur had his knights dismount, as Edward had done a t the battle of Cricy. Similarities have also been seen in the battlearray of Arthur's troops. T h e great sea battle at the end of the poem has been compared to the sea battle of FVinchelsea, a t which Edward conquered a Spanish fleet. The author of the AMA says quite unexpectedly that Spaniards ('Spanyolis', 3700) went overboard, when he should have spoken of the Danes who were Mordred's mariners (3610, 3694). These, in turn. have been associated with the Danish plunderers who ravaged the English coast during the Hundred Years bVar.I7 T h e poet of the AMA gives evidence of his knowledge of the martial laws of his time. T h e conditions under which the Roman ambassadors

20 Karl Heinr GdZer in co-operation with R. Glegner and M . Mennicken are guaranteed their safety and granted free passage are much the same as those given to historical embassies during the fourteenth c e n t ~ r y . ' ~ When Arthur promises the Duchess of Lorraine a dowry for herself and her children from the revenues of the estates of her husband, who himself will have to remain a prisoner until the end of his Iife, he is implementing a common pi-actice of the time (308&9).19 This is very similar to the situation which arose after Edward 111 had given his daughter away in marriage to Enguerrand de Coucy in return for his promise of absolute loyalty. As a dowry the couple were given a number of estates in England. When Coucy went over to the French king in 1379, Isabella was given his English estates to provide for her and her The personal names of the figures also remind the reader of historical personages. Among the companions of Gawain are men called Montagu ('Mownttagus', 3773). This family played a dominant r6le during the reigns of all three Edwards. W;illiam Montagu, second earl of Salisbury, fought at the battles of Crecy and Poitiers and was one of the original Knights of the Garter." In conclusion it can be said that there is a close relationship between historical persons and events and their reflection in the poem. In addition to these direct allusions to figures and events, which were more or less undisguised and thus easily recognisable to a contemporary audience, there are indirect allusions and references which are communicated by means of irony and other literary devices, some of them very sophisticated and subtle. Since appreciation of such passages is onIy possible in the light of the historical background of the time, modern readers are no longer in a position to recognise the significance of all the veiled or ironic allusions made by the poet. An obvious example of this kind of irony occurs when Arthur receives the senators from Rome and a banquet is prepared for them which Arthur claims is but 'feble' fare (226). From the exceedingly detailed description of the actual meal served, it is obvious that Arthur's understatement is intentional. The senator says that Arthur is the 'lordlyeste lede pat euer I one lukyde' ( 138).Through the long list of dishes served at the feast the poet highlights Arthur's weakness for luxury and pomp, a fact ofparticular significance in the light ofcontemporary prohibitions. Edward 111 had passed a law limiting the number of courses with the object of reducing expenditure on rich food: 'no man, of what estate or condition soever he be, shall cause himself to be served in his house or elsewhere, at dinner, meal, or supper, or at any other time, with more than two courses, and each mess of two sorts of victuals at the utmost, be it of flesh or fish, with the common sorts of pottage, without sauce or other sort of victuals . . .'." In the light of this Statute, the king's banquet was highly immoderate and even illegal, an allusion which a contemporary audience would most certainly have understood. Almost

A Reassessment of the Alliterative Morte Arthure

21

the same meal is put on the Waster's table in H$nnere and was tour^. so that there can be little doubt that the king, be it Arthur or Edward, was considered a glutton and a waster par excellence. T h e poet's descriptions of the king's rich dress are in all likelihood a form of covert irony intended to reveal his disapproval of the sumptious fashions of the time. Although King Edward himself had passed one law in 1336 and a second one in 1363 relating to 'the outrageous and excessive apparel of divers people against their estate and degree to the qreat destruction and impoverishment of all the land'. he failed to moderate his own dress.23 T h e Monk of Mafmesbury criticised this extravagant fashion in his Chronicle, denouncing i t as more fit for women than men.24 After Arthur's dream of the Wheel of Fortune, there is a detailed description of his marvellous clothes. The poet admires them only on a superficial level. After Arthur's fall from the Wheel. when he has been told to repent. they appear in a negative light in comparison with those af the pilgrim, Cradoke, who scathingly comments to Arthur. whom he does not recognise: whoever you think you are. for all your rich clothes and finery, you cannot stop me from going on my pilgrimage to Rome. despite the war that is going on (cf. 3492-6). A strange comparison between war and pilgrimage runs in the form of a n undercurrent through the whole work. At the beginning of the poem, Arthur's knights all swear by the vernicle, the kerchief of St Veronica, that they will wage war in Italy and kill Lucius. Obviously there is a connection between Italy and St Veronica's veil because it was displayed in St Peter's at Rome. At the same time the vernicle was the symbol of those who made the pilgrimage to Rome." The overt irony of the vernicle motif lies in the fact that Arthur's knights all swear a'sacred oath, as if they were going on a pilgrimage, but their true intent is slaughter. I n the light of Cradoke's later mention of a pilgrimage to Rome despite war, and in view of the irony of the sham-pilgrimage in the episode of Mont St Michel, topical allusions seem highly probable. e.g. to the exposition of Veronica's veil in 1350, or to the fact that King Edward I11 forbade his subjects to go to Rome for theJubilee because of the war.26

I n spite of what has been said by Benson concerning the relationship of romance and reality in the fifteenth century, it is safe to say that the idea of warfare based on chivalric laws was recognised as outdated by the fourteenth ~ e n t u r y . 'War ~ had developed its own laws which were no longer compatible with the lofty sentiments of idealistic dreamer-poets.

22 Karl Hein2 Giiller in co-operation with R. GLeiJner and M. Mennicken T h e author of the AMA is certainly not one ofthem as becomes evident In his conscious departure from the traditional motifs, stylistic devices and stereotypes of classical and post-classical Arthurian romance, whenever these stand in the way of his intention to expose and even explode the myths of romance. He makes use of older literary traditions, e.q. the chansorl de geste, in which he apparently sensed the presence o t 8 kindred spirit.28Art outward s i , p of this is his use of the alliterative long line. which differs from that found in other Arthurian works of the alliterative revival. Even the criteria of language, e.g. vocabulary, metre, and stylistic devices. seem intended to convey a certain message. This is true even if the aIliterative mode was not chosen to express resentment against the court of London and its French bias, as has been suggested. The alliterative long line is a n unsriitable vehicle for the gentler tone of the typical romance. For the same reasons the author has abandoned the auenture structure which is an essential feature of other Arthurian prose and verse romances. Only two episodes of this kind remain. and they must be completely redefined, namely Arthur's battle with the Giant of hlont St Michel (840-1 221 ) and the Priamus episode (2501-27 15). T h e battle of Arthur with the giant of hfont St Michel has been called a 'purely romantic element in the story'.z9 It is certainly the poet's major expansion of the episode as recounted by Geoffrey. FYace and Layamon a n d is a n entertaining mock auenture which serves something of the purpose of the inversion or even parody of a knightly combat. There is the traditional setting, a locus amoenus, Arthur's arming, and the romance situation of a damsel in distress to be rescued. But neither the damsel, nor the giant are true to orthodox romance. The giant is a preposterousIy grotesque monster whose body is a weird conglomeration of parts drawn from twelve different animals. ranging from a boar to a badger. Obscenity was taboo in medieval courtly literature, yet the poet describes the giant's unshapely loins and does not omit the fact that he was not wearing breeches. reminding us of the devits in medieval mystery plays. In the fight Arthur severs this 'myx's' (cf. 989) genitals with his sword. After a rough-and-tumble wrestling match which is very far removed from chivalric battle. he eventually succeeds in subduing his opponent. Arthur does not even strike the final and fatal blow himself. Instead he asks Bedever to stab the giant to the heart. T h e damsel is no less a personage than the Duchess ofBrittany herself whom the giant abducted while she was out riding near Rennes (853). T h e duchess in the poem is not rescued in true Arthurian spirit, and the poet spares us no details when he explains that the giant 'slewe hir vnslely a n d slitt hir to be nauvll'. (979). T h e battle with the giant of Mont St Michel is certainly a very twisted 'romantic element in the story'. Arthur's humour and irony, the emphasis on bawdy and grotesqueness, all this turns the episode into a burlesque auenture.

A Reassessment oJthe Alliterative Morte Arthure

23

As far a s the Priamus episode is concerned, the poet has set it between two grim battles, and the result is what may be called 'structural irony.'30 His purpose is obvious. He wants to highlight the frivolity and triviality of knightly combat in order to use it as a foil for the brutality of' war. I n the episode, even the wound that Gawain inflicts upon Priamus is highly fantastic and bears no comparison with those of the battlefield. Gawain splits the knight's shield in two and wounds him so seriously that his liver is exposed to the sunlight (2560-1). Cawain. on the other hand, has no drop of blood left in his veins (2697). \..\'hen Gawain and Priamus clash swords, flames flash from their weapons and their helmets. Priamus' and Gawain's wounds are treated with the magic water of Paradise which Priamus carries with him in a golden phial and the knight is as fit as a fish ('fische-halle', 2709) after four hours. By bringing romantic fiction into a strongly realistic context. the author is confronting the audience with the idea that chivalricjousting was nothing more than a ridiculous game. Finlayson seems to have had something similar in mind when he spoke of an implied 'detrimental judgement on this particular form of chivalric action.'" By inserting this romantic aventure. the poet relativises the whole concept of romance. setting it in a world of reality. Romance as a literary genre is ironised by its use as a foil juxtaposed to hard facts. But not only structural irony is instrumental in debunking- the cliches of romance; the poet's descriptional mannerisms also sewe purposes which differ greatly from those of the usual portrayal of knightly combat. T h e way which the poet chose to describe the actual fighting on the battlefield evokes disgust in the reader today. The hideous details have little to d o with knightly courtoisie. \Var historians have pointed out that battle strategy had basically changed in the fourteenth centurt. and that chivalric singIe combat had been replaced by mass battle in which the old norms of conduct barely played a part. Revolting and disgusting injuries to the human body are described in detail. IVhen Sir Floridas kills Feraunt's kinsman, a mixture of entrails and excrement falls at the horse's feet (2780-3). T h e liver and lungs of a foe remain on the lance when it is pulled out of his body (2168). The ground is red and slippery with the blood of the dead. The dying lie torn open, while others writhe in agony on their horses (2143-7). It is notable that the author seems to have been mildly obsessed with wounds 'below the belt'. As has already been noted, Arthur enrages the Giant of Mont St Michel by slicing his genitals off. kCl'hen he kills the Viscount of Valence, the place of injury is described by using the pubic region as a point of orientation. even though it seems superfluous to d o so: T h e spear penetrates the short ribs one span above the genitals (2060-1). In view of this little idiosyncrasy of the poet's, mention of a knight named 'Ienitall' ( 2 1 12) need not necessarily be regarded as a slip of the pen in want of emendation. hlany editors have proposed

24 Karl Heinz GiiEler in co-operation with R. Glnyner and M . Mennicken corrections, and Krishna changes 'Ienitall' to 'Ionathal'. Most likely 'IenitaH' was a highly telling name, or a Freudian slip on the part of either the author, or the scribe. The terrible descriptions of death are not to be found in the sources or forerunners of the AMA. although Old Xorse Tales, French chansons de geste and English chronicles (e.g. Layamon's Brut) are not exactly squeamish when describing combat and bloodshed. The purpose of such descriptions in the AMA seems evident. Obviouslv they enhance the heroism of Arthur's men. The greater the opponent, the worse a death he deserves. Revenge mobifises the knights' last atom of strength. In literature as on the battlefield, the death of a foe was a source of pleasure for a fourteenth-century knight. In his Chronicle, Geoffrey le Baker of Swinbroke describes how the Black Prince, then a sixteen-year old boy, w-on his first honours at Cricy, sewing as an example of chivalry to his comrades by brutally killing the enemy.32 The audience is, however. confronted not only with the heroism of Arthur's men, but also with their tragic death. Lines 2146-52 are a lament for all those killed in war: Fair faces are disfigured, and bloodstained dying men lie sprawling on the ground; others, mortally wounded, are carried off by their galloping mounts. Gawain, 'the gude man of armes' (3858). is killed by Mordred, who stabs a knife into his brain (385fi-7). Sir Lionel's skull is split open, the wound is as large as the breadth of a hand (2229). Sir Kay is killed from behind by a cowardly knight who pierces his flanks with a spear. breaking open his bowels and spilling his en trails (217 1-43). O n e further feature which, among others, is responsible for the antiromantic character of the AMA is the poet's peculiar brand of humour which at times approaches a form similar to what we now call black humour. This term is applied to a technique in which 'grotesque or horrifying elements are sharply juxtaposed with humorous or farcical a literary feature that is by no means a modern phenomenon. As B. J. Friedman put it: 'I have a hunch Black Humor has probably always been around, always will."' According to Mathew Winston, who draws a line between the absurd and grotesque shades of the technique, the grotesque form of black humour is 'obsessed with the human body. with the ways in which it can be distorted, separated into its component parts, mutilated, and abused.'35 It is this very obsession with the human body and the ways it can be mutilated and distorted which forms one of the characteristics of the poet's narrative. A farcical element is introduced when the mutilation is ludicrously improbable. When Arthur kills the ExrIzg secg manig

ofer scild scoten. JCD 304: scildburh sczron sceotendra fvll GEN 2062-64: sqlda and sceafta sceotendra fyll

....

under sceat werum scar@ garas There are many such clusters to be found, which lead directIy back from Middle English alliterative poetry through the writing of intervening periods to Old English, e.g. hewnheathens, helm-headnhard, bright-bynzie-beom, etc. The size of the cluster precludes the argument that they merely survived because they were figures of common speech, such as the two-word or doublet formulas. The concept of the cluster thus offers new possibilities in the search for linguistic evidence pertinent to the question of Alliterative Survival versus Revival. Whereas formulas and formulaic systems were subject to rigid formal restrictions and may easily have been lost in the process of language change, the cluster could easily have been more durable, surviving and adapting to new conditions and to the addition of new vocabulary, whether native or foreign. The clusters demonstrated above evidently correspond to similar ones in Old English poetry, and may well have survived through alliterative prose writing, or even through oral tradition. Formulaic poetic techniques were easily capable of assimilating new words and concepts into the body of older tradition, as has been shown in the case of the Old English adaptation of Christian vocabulary and motifs.23 Thus it is not surprising that a number of major clusters, particularly those connected with chivalry and courtly life, are based on words of French derivation. A far Iarger cluster than those aIready mentioned is to be found in connection with the essential idea of battle with a giant. The words for 'giant', 'jolly', 'gentle', 'jagged" and 'genital', recur as a group some fourteen times in the poem (two briefer examples are omitted below). The force of word association is so strong that it even leads to the coining of a highly unusual and hitherto unexplained name - that of Sir Ienitalle in Example 8." What is remarkable is the discernible progression towards Iarger groups of lines with the same alliteration seen, for instance, in Examples 2, 10, and 12. This is a phenomenon which makes the AMA distinct from other

79

Formulaic Micl-ostructure: The Cluster

alliterative poems of the same period, but a similar tendency is noticeable t o a minor degree in some poems towards the end of the Old English period. I t seems likely that 'runs' of the same alliteration a r e traceable to clusters that have grown in the course of their use within a particular tradition, whether O l d o r Middle English, and that the AMA is evidently o n e of the late products of such a development. T h e cluster examples shown below represent most of the occurrences in the poem:

I. T o the geauntes toure ioli(y he wendes With justzce< and iu,ggez, and ,gentill knyghtes

(245-6)

+

2. I salt be at journie, with gentill knyghres. On a 'ambv stede full jolyly graythide. r any journie begane to jwte with hym selfen. Emange alle his ,yaun& Genyuers and oPer (372-5)

3. Sexty - - - - geauntes before. engenderide with fendez (612) 4. The gentiieste jowell

ajugrqedewith lordes

(862)

5. Abouen pat a jesseraunt of jenp/l maylez. A jupon of Ierodyn jaggede in schredez (904-5)

6. Ewyn into iumette the gyaunt he hyttez, Iust to be genitales.

and jaggede ham -in- sondre. -----

( 1 122-3)

7. Enjoynede with a geaunf and jagyede hym thorowe; Johly this gentill forjustede anober

(20874))

8. And all theis geaunlez before. engenderide with fendez, Ic@ei-&-Si? I=!/.* and gentill knyghtez (21 1 1-12) 9. And thus at thejoygnge the geauntez are distroyede, And at Pat journey forjustede with gentill ----lordez f 2 1334) !

10. Bot one Iolyan of Iene. a geante full how~e, Has jonede on Sir lerante. a justis of LValis: Thorowe a jerownde schelde he jogqes him thorowe, And a fvn gesserawnte of ,gentill mavles Ioynter and gemows, h ~ j q ~ it~o&yr_e~ ~es On a jambe stede thisjurnee he makes Thus is be geante forjuste, that errawnte lewe. And Gerard es jocundr. and jqves him be more. (2889-96) 11. Gvawntis forjustede with gentill knvghtes.

Thorowe gesserawnles of Iene ja' qgede to be herte. -

(2908-9)

- - - - - w e -

!

12. The thirde .Julyus Cesare. bat ,geant was holden, In iche joum'jenfill. njuggede with lordes The ferthe was Sir Iudas. a-justere full nobill. L -

...

The fvfte was Iosue. pat jo!v mane of-armes. That in Ierusatem oste fill1 myche jaye Iymppede; (34Itk15) * Krishna's rmrndation to Sir Ionathal is unnrcessar).

80

Jean Ritzke-Rutherford

In Old English. semantic and alIiterative clusters seem to form underlying structures for the other verbal elements of formulaic composition (the fbrmula and the formulaic system), and often determine which formulas and systems are chosen. In other words, repeated use of the cluster seems to generate particular formulas and formulaic systems. T h e same phenomenon can'be observed in Middle English in the AMA, fbr instance in one of the most frequent clusters in the poem. Here the words for 'chief. 'chieftain', 'chivalry' (= cavalry). 'chase', 'chop down', and 'charge' are used to describe the swift action of mass mtl6e. T h e cluster appears a t least seventeen times in the course of the poem (again three briefer examples are omitted here). Particularly of note is the progression towards more rigidity; as the poet gains skill in using this particular cluster, we have an increasing incidence of formulas connected with it, some of which d o not occur elsewhere in the poem. We can conclude that use of the cluster has led the poet to create formulas and systems, and that the poet's continual use of a group of words leads to the formation ofsmaller and more rigid phrasal elements. T h u s our understanding of the individual formula is deepened by our knowledge of the formulaic system to which it belongs. And both the formula and the formulaic system and their use by the poet become clearer when seen in the light of the cluster which contains them. In other words, a formulaic unit must be viewed in terms of the larger context of which it is a part, as well in terms of the individual poetic context in which it occurs. T h e phenomenon of new formulas is marked in the following examples of the cluster by an exclamation point. I . Rot thare chase< on oure men cheuallrow knyghtez.

( 1399)

2. Of the cheualve cheefe of the kyngez chambyre. Seese them chase oure mene and changen hire horsez. And choppe doun cheftynes that they moste charsyde. 114046)

3. Of tha cheuaErous men that chayede thy pople. The cheefe chaunchelere of Rome. a ch@ayne full noble. (1540-1) 4. And for the cheefe chauncelere. the cheuafere noble, ( 1551)

5. Tolvardez Chartris the! chese, thes chatalrous knvghttez (1619)

6. Thus he chaces the childire of be Kyngez chamhire. And kitlei? in Pe champanyse c z . \.Vith a chasyng spere he choppes doun many. (18'2 1-3) 7. \i.hen be cheualv saw theire chej'tanes were nommen. To a cheefi foreste they chesen theire wayes, (1872-3)

8. Forthi the Kynq charger hym. what chaunce so befall Cheftqyne of the cheekke. with chetlalrous knyghttez. ( 198M)

Funnulaic Microstructure: The Cluster 9. Fare they see paire cheftape be chauffede so sore, They chase and choppe doun - oure - cheualrous knvghttes. (2236-7)

10. Thare myghte men see &$tapes on chalke-whitte stedez C h o ~ doun e in the cham cheualrye noble; (2268-9) ne cheftaynes noper, downn in the chasse, syche chawnse es befallen

1 1. Eschappide there ne cheuallrye,

Bott c&ede

(2367-81

12. He was chosen and chacgegide in chambire of be Kyng, Clr$ta_~neof pis journie with cheua/?ye noble; (2731-2) 13. Cheses to Sir CheIdrike. a cheftape noble, With a chavnx [spere] he chokkes him thurghe!

(2954-5)

14. bane oure cheualrous --- men changen theire horsez, Chases and choppeerdourn cheftqnes noble. (2989-90)

This study has suggested that the next step in Middle English formulaic research must be a systematisation of the concepts involved and their applicability, and has introduced a new concept called the formulaic duster. We have seen that clusters can often be identified with those found in OId English poetry, whereas half-line formulas or formulaic systems cannot. Thus they provide linguistic evidence for the connection of the battle scenes in the A M A with those of older alliterative poetry; above all, such clusters may be traceable through Earlv Middle English prose as well as (or possibly instead of) poetry as proof of the continuity of the alliterative style. Clusters tend to develop with use, a fact which ofTers a new explanation for the grouping of consecutive lines with the same alliteration in the poem. The continued use of a particular cluster also seems to determine the character of smaller formulas and systems, and to lead towards the formation of new ones which consist of elements once used separately. The concept of the cluster and its integration into formulaic theory makes it possible to show that the A M A is firmly rooted in earlier literary tradition, and that the poem reveals strong similarities in compositional structures to far earlier works dating back to the Old English period. At the same time, formulaic elements based on French vocabulary are used which are exclusively attributable to the Middle English period. Most important of all is that formulaic convention can only be fully understood in terms of the larger context in which it is embedded. and it is there that we must look for the key to the meaning of the poem. In late Old English poetry. the cluster is often consciously employed by the poet to reinforce the meaning of the poem. Certainly in the AMA the central motifs of mass warfare, the Round Table, king and crown, fortune, fate and destiny, death and destruction, to name only a few, are marked by extensive and frequent use of clusters.

Jean Rittke-Rutheford T h e basic principle that the larger context of formulaic usage colours and shapes the meaning of the smaller compositional unit is important for the aesthetic evaluation of formulaic style. The single occurrence of only one or two words of a cluster, such as ~ ~ h t e n - i e ,~he~all~e~ch(1sse, or ,geaunt-job evokes associations and audience responses which have been conditioned by repeated use of the cluster. In our case, the formulaic patterns of language in the theme of battle -even down to the tenor of a single word such asfage -set the heroic tone of the poem, and embed i t firmly in the older tradition of English alliterative style. That the poet utilises the full weight of formulaic convention to achieve effects that are both creative and innovative can be demonstrated using both formulaic patterns of language, and those of narrative. What we have seen thus far is only the surface structure of formulaic repetition; oral formulaic research can go far deeper to provide the key to the aesthetic achievement of a literary work of art like the AMA. To do so necessitates an investigation of the poetic and narrative function of the formulaic elements, both within the context of the work in question, and within the context of the school of which it is a part.

Fornulaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle

JE.4X RITZKE-RUTHERFORD

O n e of the weaknesses of oral formulaic research has been its tendency to establish the use of traditional patterning and repetition without going the necessary step further to inquire as to its function within the artistic framework of the poem. In work done thus far on the treatment in the AMA of formulaic elements of content - that is to say, the theme, type-scene and motif- most critics have emphasised poetic convention rather than innovation. Finlayson, for example, characterises the poem's treatment of the theme of battle as follows: What the poet is doing is putting Ioosely together a number of ready-made shapes to form a design or pattern which his audience would recognise, through familiarity, as a pattern of a particular sort, in this case, of battle. He is not endeavouring. as a more modern and 'literary' artist would be, to create his own original shapes and form, his own original pattern. He is not concerned to show the battle in a new way, from a difyerent angle. and thus contribute something new to his audience's reatisation of what battle is. . . .' This might apply to some examples of formulaic composition, but not necessarily to those of high quality and certainly not -as we shall see - to the AMA. As has been amply shown in Old English studies, the aesthetic creativity of the formulaic mode lies in its conscious manipulation by the poet -in the dialectical tension between the restrictions of compositional convention and the poet's attempt to transcend them through innovation in form, content, or contextual placement. This principle was originally defined by Stanley B. Greenfield in 1957: the art of the formula and its aesthetic effect rest 'in the degree of tension between the inherited body of meanings of a formula . . . and the specific meaning . ~ recurrent use a formula of that formula in its individual ~ o n t e x t 'With o r formulaic element accumulates certain associations in the consciousness of both poet and audience. Such associations form the basis for the appreciation of individual use of that same element in a particular instance. Recognition of the familiar and delight in the novel are two aspects of audience response which the creative poet can manipulate in formulaic composition. T h e same principle can be applied not only to the half- o r whole-line formula or system, but to all elements of

84

Jean Rit~ke-Rutherford

formulaic composition, including those which form the patterns of narrative - the theme, the type-scene, and the motif.3 In other words, artistic creativity in formulaic composition rests in the individual and concrete realisation of familiar formulaic patterns inherited from the literary tradition in new or even unfamiliar contexts. Application of the above principle to treatment of the Theme of Battle in the AMA shows that the poet makes subtIe and ingenious use of the conventional narrative patterns of older tradition in a twofold manner. First, he estranges familiar patterns by transformation of the traditional elements or by their placement in unusual contexts. Here the resultant function ofthe formulaic pattern is to draw attention to the medium and its character as literary fiction rather than as a reflection of reality. Secondly, he uses formulaic patterns to provide the structure of the poem, both of individual episodes and of the entire framework in which they are embedded. The whole forms a pattern of intricate design, one whose purpose is. as we shall see, '. . . to show the battle in a new way, from a different angle, and thus contribute something new to his audience's realisation of what battle is. . . .'4 The manner in which the conventional theme of battle is treated in the AMA can tell us a great deal about the poem. A number of articles have stressed the fact that battle scenes in Middle English are stereotyped. Baugh listed some forty-nine difrerent sctions or motifs for the depiction of battle in the romances: and others such as Rychner and Hitze have written entire books on the same topic in the Chanson de G e ~ t eSimilar .~ work has been done on early Germanic poetry, and on Old English.' But the battle scenes of Middle English alliterative poetry, and particularly those of the AMA have yet to be subjected to the same systematic study.' From the very beginning there have been two basic types of battle description- the one is single combat (often against a gigantic monster, as in Beowulfj, the other is mass combat or warfare (as in Judith). The latter subject can be portrayed as a series of single combats (as in the case of The Battle of Maldon), or as a panorama in which the action is expressed in terms of massed numbers and general bloodshed (as in The Battle of Brunanbzrrh). The courtly romances largely feature the singIe combat in which the knightly protagonist demonstrates his prowess as a hero. The so-called 'war poems' of the Alliterative Revival, such as the Wars of Alexander and Destruction of Troy give more attention to tendency no doubt the mass mCl6e and to the conduct of war-a reinforced by the manner in which medieval warfare had changed in reality. In the AMA the Theme of Battle determines the structure of the poem. which consists of a series of the same stereotyped narrative pattern (type-scene) of larger dimensions, composed of a number of smaller type-scenes and motifs whose number and sequence can vary

Fonnulaic Macl-ostmcture: The Theme of Battle

85

(an element can be doubled o r repeated, or even omitted, a t any point in the sequence). T h e repeated pattern is remarkably close to that found in Old English. O n e might argue that this is because it derives from the actual sequence of events in real war, but this seems less likely in view of the fact that the pattern found in the AMA also differs widely from that found in other Middle English alliterative poems. Reduced to an abstract system, the elements of the pattern are as follows: challenge or message (often in connection with a feast) strong emotion (rage or grief), council, vows; preparations or arming for battle. departure: dawn or a flashing light, or locus amomus; arraying of trwps. or takinq up of stance: exhortations (flyting, challenges, oaths or prayers); the exchange of blows; wounding, or death and fall: dying prayers. taunts for the fallen; grief or anger, laments and vows of revenge: renewed fighting, repetition of the above elements; victory and aftermath. prayer of thanksqiving. With only one exception - a significant one a t that -all the battles in the poem conform to the above pattern. There is cumulative evidence that the poet has made conscious use of an archaic and traditional theme.' Both in the micro-structure of individual episodes, and in the macro-structure of the poem as a whole, his approach is an innovative one. By placing the formulaic element in a new and startling context, he transcends the usual audience response, forcing a mental confrontation with both the formulaic device as a medium and with the message it traditionally conveyed. T h e structure of the poem is based on careful counter-balance of the scenes of single combat and mass warfare. The poem pivots on two major episodes of single combat, the first being Arthur's battle with the giant of Mont St Michel. Here we find the same elements as those listed for the conventional description of mass warfare. But there is abundant indication that convention here has been transmogrified. element by element. In each instance the context differs significantly from the traditional one, so that the whoIe emerges as a kind of mock-heroic parody of the original formulaic type-scene. For instance, we have the usual opening with a messenger, who tells Arthur of the death of a young relative, giving rise to Arthur's emotional outburst of grief and vow of revenge (840-79). But the messenger is a Templar, one of a n order of knights stilI notorious for their condemnation on charges of alleged heinous sexual and religious offences.'O And the death is not the usual loss of a young knight in battle, but rather the ignominious rape of a young girl, who is later described as having been 'slit to the navel'. Thus the first two elements of the type-scene have

86

Jean Ritrke-Ruthefo~d

been given an overtly sexual cast not present in the sources." Then Arthur makes his preparations, arms himself and departs (888-919). But the scene is ambiguous and open to double interpretation. The King departs under the pretence of making a pilgrimage to St Michael, a device which gives rise to later jests. The account of Arthur's arming rivals that of Sir Thopas in its elaborate detail, while the dazzling splendour of the armour makes its functionality questionable. The way to the giant leads through an idyllic garden, encIosed with trees, graced by a running brook, flowers and wild game, and thousands of birds in full song. L o w amoenus is used in its classic form three times in the poem. Here, as in the other two instances of the Priamus episode and the Dream of the Wheel of Fortune, it signals that something out of the ordinary is about to occur, something which lifts us above the plane of the purely natural." Further on, Arthur is guided by the (flashing) light of fires burning on the mountain-side (942-8). Then we have a repeat of the elements, a common procedure which is liable to be used at any point in the sequence. Here the elements of strong grief, lament and vow, are repeated; then Arthur takes counsel on the strategy to be used, before departing again to do battle with the giant, who is to be found by the light of a second fire (949-1040). When Arthur finds the foster mother of the dead girl at the top of the mountain, we have an echo of Arthur's death lament, but here the potential for pathos used, for instance, by Layamon, remains undeveloped. Instead the scene is made slightly ludicrous by the woman's brutal frankness in retelling the girl's manner of death and the sexual habits of the giant. After her lament the woman vows not to leave the spot for the rest of her life. Whereas in the sources Arthur took counsel with his faithful knight Beduer on the strategy to be used against the giant, here he takes counsel with the woman. and the scene is heightened by her condescending manner, and by the word play produced by Arthur's hidden identity, when he assures here that he has brought the giant the beard of Arthur as a gift f 1033-4). T h e motif sequence continues with a further repeat of several elements: Arthur, like a messenger, finds the giant at a feast and issues his challenge there. The emotional reaction to the challenge is shown and there is a kind of 'description of arms' as the giant rises and takes his stance to d o battle. In this case, however, nearly all of the elements are used in a completely different manner: the scene seems a direct inversion of the great feast of Arthur at the beginning of the poem. There the messengers approached from the fore, to challenge a noble king in rich attire, seated on the high dais. Arthur approaches from the rear, while the giant lies outstretched on the ground -apparently naked 'breklesse hym semede', (1048). In place of exotic fare, the feast is a gruesome mixed grill of human and animal flesh, and during Arthur's challenge the giant gnaws on a human thigh bone. In keeping with his

Fornulaic Macrostmcture: The T h m e of Battle character as mock warrior, the giant's only answer to the challenge is an inarticulate gnashing of teeth (in the sources there is a word exchange at some point in the battle). As the giant rises to his full height of five fathoms and takes his stance, there is a detailed catalogue of his horrid appearance, carried out in the traditional sequence used for knights and fair ladies -a progression from top to toe (1049-1 103). As usual there is an exchange of blows, and the final outcome is decided by a fatal wound and fall. In the aftermath there are taunts for the fallen foe, the spoils are divided, and the victor utters a prayer of thanksgiving ( 1 104-1 2 17). Here, however, the exchange of blows has an entirely different character. Although some of the blows struck are similar to those in the sources, they do not have the same effect. The hyperbole is boundless. When Arthur runs his sword through the giant's brain, the final coup degriice in M'ace, the monster merely wipes the blood from his face, and even when he strikes the giant in the thigh, as in Layamon, cutting through his entire abdomen in the process and severing the genitals, the monster fights on. Again the overt sexuality of the description in the AMA is striking. As in Layamon, the battle concludes with a blatant humour that borders on slap-stick. Not only the wounding, but also the fall of the giant exceeds all bounds of the natural. After a wild wrestling match, man and monster are shown tumbling down the entire length of the mountain in a clinch. They land at the bottom where Arthur's companions were told to wait - a 'fall' in the fullest sense of the word. The king's miraculous escape from major injury is greeted by his knights with jests on his 'pilgrimage' and the nature of the saint. A prayer of thanksgiving and a two-fold division of the spoils before and after the prayer mark the close of the episode. T h e element of buffoonery here is clearly far stronger than it is in those sources known to us. At the same time, the episode in the AMA is markedly different from the usual late Middle English performance of the giant." And while it is evident that the author of the poem has used the same conventional framework as the one he employs in the mass battle scenes, the formulaic elements have been integrated into a new context, thus giving an impression which approaches burlesque travesty of the original literary stereotype. Elsewhere the term 'mock-heroic' has been used for such treatments, and here it seems particularly apt.I4 Use of the formulaic narrative pattern for mass warfare in a scene of single combat suggests, however, that the author intended the episode to be linked to the other scenes of mass battle in the poem. The battle of Mont St Michel must be seen in close connection with the second major episode based on single combat; that of Priamus the noble pagan, and Gawain the good knight. Both episodes are introduced but the Priamus episode is set off by descriptions of a locus arnoen~s,'~ from the rest of the poem by its use of a different formulaic narrative pattern or type-scene, one taken directly from the conventions of

88

Jean Rittke-Rutherford

classical romance. The motif sequence differs from that of mass warfare,I6 and the contrast is intentional. Both the position of the episode in the climactic central section of the poem, and the episode's elaborate length: indicate that it was clearly intended as a foil for the rest of the work -a perfect picture of the chivalric single combat taken from the fictive world of Romance. In the midst of Arthur's siege of Metz, a mass-battle scene which occupies the centre of the poem, Gawain is sent off with a small party of knights to forage for supplies. On the way he encounters an unknown knight with a mysterious coat of arms. Again, as in the case ofthe battle of Mont St Michel, the motif of locus amoenus, this time incomplete, signals that something out of the ordinary, something not of this world, is to take ptace. Indeed, the battle is far removed from reality: the opponents clash with flaming swords and fire blazes from their helmets -a common image in older poetry and in the sources, but one used only once to this extent in the AMA. Both heroes are gravely wounded, but in the case of Gawain the description of the blow is retarded, striking as in slow motion through layers of rich, ornate clothing, listed i&rn by item. Here the timelessness of romance gives the action an almost dream-like quality greatly in contrast to the rapid cut and thrust of other battle scenes in the poem. At the close, Gawain has not a drop of blood left in his body, and Priamus' liver can be seen by the light of the sun. In this condition they exchange names and knightly courtesies in leisurely fashion. Priamus promises to become a Christian and heals both their wounds with miraculous water drawn from the four rivers of Paradise. All in all, the stereotype is just as overdrawn as that of the battle of Mont St klichel. What makes this apparent is the crucial placement of the episode at the turning point of the poem, when Arthur's campaign is transformed from a semi-justifiable war of defence into one motivated by vainglory and greed for power. Throughout the rest of the poem the description of battle in the AMA is characterised by its gory brutality. Thus, the juxtaposition of the highly romantic Priamus episode situated in a locus amoaus and the harsh bloodshed of mass warfare represent a clear opposition of two elements that might be termed, with due resen~ations,romance and reality. The effect, here again, is to estrange the familiar stereotype and to cause the audience to view it with new eyes. The formulaic function is one of alienation, and forces the audience to respond consciously rather than automatically and intuitively to the poetic device. T h e same technique of estrangement is employed in connection with the smaller unit of the motif. At the height of Arthur's power, he has a prophetic dream of Fortune and her Wheel, a dream distinguished by the employment of the true locus amomus, a walled or enclosed garden that rivals the enchanted one of Le Rmaunt de la Rose. Here, as at the

Formulaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle

89

beginning of the battle of Mont St Michel and of the Priamus episode, the motif signaIs the transition from the larger matrix of mass warfare to the realm of romance and the otherworldly. But the Priamus episode is both preceded and followed by other instances in which the conventional motif and its connotations are transformed and estranged from their usual context. The resulting effect is, again, one of alienation. Preceding the episode, we have a mention of 'one of the fairest spots on earth ever devised'; it is being trampled by blood-crazed warring knights on horseback, gruesome in their disfigurement and in their utter lack of consciousness of their surroundings (2 148-53). Similarly, when Priamus and Gawain return from their idyllic combat to the idyllic spot they set out from, their companions lie in the midst of natural beauty -weary and sated from 'the slaughter of the people' (2675).17 T h e real world of war intrudes on the idyli with a jarring note in both instances, and a little later the pastoral setting is exploited and itself reduced to an instrument ofwar, when it is used as a decoy for ambush (3120-7). With joy made ironic by the circumstances, simple people and shepherd boys stroll out of the besieged city with permission to tend their pigs and other livestock. The emerging pastoral scene is only an illusion, brought to an abrupt end by the violence of the ambush. Again, the familiar motif of nature's idyli has been shown to be misleading and illusory. Thus formulaic type-scenes, motifs, and even verbal formulas have been turned to purposes that are all but stereotyped in their implications. The phenomenon of contextual estrangement is a distinguishing feature of the poet's use of both patterns of narrative and patterns of language. Arthur's romantic-heroic single combat with the giant of Mont St Michel is transformed into a mock-heroic parody of the conventional type-scene, and is, at the same time, a mirror of the type-scene structure of mass warfare used elsewhere in the poem. Gawain's romantic single combat with Priamus is embedded in a setting of mass warfare and siege; and the idyllic motif of locus amoenus is punctured by the brutality of war. Thus, formulaic narrative conventions are reduced ad absurdurn by subtle manipulation of the context in which they are placed, and their iifusory and fictive quality is made transparent. The poet forces his audience to look twice. and to reconsider the intrinsic value of the stereotype. The theme of battle is not only important as one of the major elements in the poem - it also determines the entire structure of the AMA. The underlying principle is the opposition between the ideal and the real, or the single combat of romance and the mass combat of real warfare. The result is a symmetrical pattern of parallel episodes and figures. The romantic Priamus episode incorporates the old ideal, and the literary convention which was its idiom. It occupies the centre of the poem and forms its pivotal point, a view which reveals a number of parallels and analogies

90

Jean Rittke- Rutherford

otherwise unrecognisable, They support the argument that the poet has used the structure of a casus, one which can be viewed as a pyramid, with a rising and a falling of the action." Not only is the Priamus episode framed by the brutal siege of Metz and conquest of Lorraine. It is. at the same time, separated from its realism by double occurrences of locus amomus (2506-12 and 2670-7). Further down the pyramid, parallel use of locus arnoenus robs the motif of its idyllic quality by associating it with the cruelties of war, as pointed out in connection with contextual estrangement of stereotype elements (cf. 2 148-5 I and 3 1 16-27). These are quite in keeping with the tenor of the conquest of Lorraine and siege of Metz which frame the Priamus episode. The signs of aggression and unjust war are clearly marked in 2396-2401, where Arthur states that he 'covets' to know the lord of Lorraine and to have possession of his lovely lands, and in 3038-43, where Arthur's mercilessness in the siege of the city spares neither Church property nor the innocent: 'The pyne of f>epopIe was pet6 for to here.' The parallel serves as a larger frame for the whole, one which like the Priamus episode itself is based on the contrast between the ideal of knighthood and the reality of fourteenth century warfare. Thus the Priamus episode is significantly marked by the manner in which it is framed in double and contrasting passages which highlight the difference between the real and the ideal. The internal structure of the episode reflects the same principle: it actually falls into two parts. There is the romantic scene of single combat between Gawain and Priamus in the centre of the poem. but it is immediately followed by a view of the same two heroes in mass warfare, pitched against superior forces. Whereas they had just been seen at their knightliest, with not a thought for earthly needs, they are now strongly connected with pecuniary matters and the vulgar side of death. Priamus and his men desert their leader for lack of several years' pay (29 16-33), something entirely alien to the code of feudal loyalty. but probably common at the time the poem was written. Priamus' shield bears the 'changeable carbuncle', symbolic of the unreliabilitv of such mercenary troops as those he leads. At the same time it anticipates the changeable carbuncle mounted in the wheel of Fortune.19 T h e Priamus episode exhibits the same Janus-like ambiguity as the Dream of the Dragon, for both Priamus and Gawain are linked structurally with the figure of Arthur. As Matthews has pointed out, the long pedigree which Priamus recites identifies him with Alexander, while Arthur himself is also connected with Alexander several times in the poem, most notably in the Dream of Fortune. Although it is true that he placed too much emphasis on the importance of this, there is no denying that Alexander is the prototype of the proud conqueror, whose Priamus' main fault is, by his own hubris leads to his d~wnfalI.~* admission, his haughtiness (26 12-1 3), and his close connection with

Formulaic Macrostructure: The Theme of Battle

91

Arthur is indicated again in the last lines of the poem, when we hear that: 'Thus endis Kyng Arthure, as auctors alegges, / That was of Ectores blude, the kynge son of Troye. / And of Sir Pryamous, the prynce, praysede in erthe' (4342-4). But Gawain likewise functions as a proxy for Arthur. In the course of the rising action during the French campaign. as well as in the course of the falling action during the English campaign. we have the same sequence of action: first an instance of rash conduct in battle which is successful (Gawain against Lucius, and later Arthur against Mordred's troops in the sea battle), then an instance of rash conduct which incurs disaster and death (Cador against Lucius. and later Gawain against Mordred). Both are followed by Arthur's success in battle against the enemv where Gawain has failed (in each case it is Arthur who finally kills the enemy: first Lucius, and then Mordred). The pairing ofGawain and Arthur is further reinforced by conscious verbal devices. Thus the cluster crownr?kinp used so often for Arthur in the poem is suddenly applied to Gawain after his death, when Arthur praises him as the ideal knight." T h e structural symmetry caused by this 'doubling' of the major figures in the poem finds its explanation in the Priamus episode: the hubris of Alexander and Priamus, as we11 as the rashness of Gawain and Cador are epitomised in the episode, and are subsequently revealed in the second half of the poem, where they lead to Arthur's downfall and to that of the world he stood for. Structural use o f a further motif reinforces this conclusion: both Arthur (in 1 19 and 139) and Gawain (in 3831 and 3881) are compared to but the only other significant occurrence of the lion symbol in a non-heraldic context is in the Dream of Fortune. where Arthur envisions lions lapping up the blood of his knights. Indeed, the wasteful loss of Arthur's knights expressed throughout the poem (esp. in 3990) in terms of the image of blood, is brought about by the twin flaws of both ambitious pride (seen in the figures ofArthur and Priamus) and rashness (seen in the figures of Gawain and Cador), and the two motifs are skilfully interwoven in the structure of the poem. Such symmetrical repetition of both figure and incident extends to the structure of the entire poem. The ceremonial pomp of the oprning feast is mirrored in the solemn rite of the funeral which marks the conclusion of the poem. At the same time, however, another parallel is drawn through double occurrence of the formula with myrthis and melo+e. I n both instances the Romans attend a feast as Arthur's guests, but in the first instance (242) they have just approached him with a haughty challenge from their sovereign position as rulers of the continent. I n the second instance they humbly beg him to spare Rome (3174), and positions are reversed: Arthur is now sovereign. The connection is reinforced by further verbal echoes between the two passages (e.g. the formula 'with selcouthe metes' (75 and 3196). In a

Jean Ritzke-Ruthe~ford

similar manner the single combat with the giant of Mont St Michel is echoed in the final single combat with Mordred. And the widow's words to Arthur that he is no 'Wade or M'awayn' (964), and that he shall be 'fay' (971) are later echoed in the poem in Arthur's lament for Gawain and the epithet 'fey' which echoes throughout the poem in other contexts, only to be applied at last to the king. The cruellest instance of doubling and parallelism, perhaps. is that of the two swords. When Arthur catches sight of the second sword now carried by Mordred, he becomes aware of the full measure of Guinevere's betrayal. The irony lies in the fact that Arthur's death is caused by the very royal insignia Frolio's sword of France - that he had so eagerly strived to attain, and that royal wielding of the sword brings England very close to destruction. Further structural doubling is used to mark the two halves of the poem: just as a dream and its fulfilment open the rising action (the Dream of the Dragon and the battle of Mont St Michel), so, too, a dream and its fulfilment mark the beginning of Arthur's downward descent to death (the Dream of Fortune and Arthur's subsequent campaign against Mordred). In both instances. the motif of pilgrimage is involved, as many have pointed out. but in the first instance Arthur is no more than a sham-pilgrim. and in the second instance a true pilgrim is involved.23 At this point in the poem the doubled strands connected with the pilgrimage motif coalesce, and the contrast afforded by clothing, language, and behaviour underlines the structural significance of the scene. The fact that most of the elements discussed above were not included in the known sources makes it clear how carefully and subtly the poet has added details to achieve the intricate structure of the poem. In addition to the clearly symmetrical structure of the poem, there is a further principle at work. A recent article has suggested that the arrival of a messenger seems to mark the opening of the major sections of the poem, but this is only symptomatic of a far larger phen~menon.'~ As we have seen. the arrival of a messenger is the initial element in the type-scene of mass combat, and it is the repeated use of the type-scene, with its set sequence of certain motifs, that determines the shape of the poem as a whole. In other words, the theme of battle provides the structure. not only of the individual episodes of the poem, but also of their relationship to one another. T h e poem can be divided into five sections, each of which concurs with five major battles: the Dream of the Dragon and battle of Mont St Michel; the French campaign against Lucius, culminating in the battle of Sessoyne; the siege of ~Metzand Priamus episode; the Roman campaign and Dream of Fortune; and the English campaign against Mordred. In each case (with the exception of the Priamus encounter) the basic structure of the action derives from the same sequence of motifs that form the type-scene of mass warfare listed earlier.

Formulate Mmostmcture: The Theme of Battle

93

T h e same sequence also forms an envelope or frame for the entire poem, beginning with the feast on New Year's Day, the arrival of the messengers and their challenge, Arthur's reaction and the council with vows ( 7 8 4 12). In this case, the feast motif is repeated ( 166-230 and 288-7551, as is the motif of preparation and departure. In the latter case, the poet focusses first on the movements of Arthur's men, and then on those of the enemy (570-755). The prophetic Dream of the Dragon is woven into the departure motif; the interpretation of the sages functions nearly like a chorus in setting the stage for the coming action. In this first section of the poem, the battle with the giant of Mont St Michel shows the old heroic literary stereotype ofsingle combat with tongue in cheek. At the same time, the scene is linked to the others of mass warfare by use of the same type-scene structure. We are introduced to a heroic Arthur who acts 'for rewthe of be pople' (888), but are warned that he is not all that he appears. T h e second section of the poem. the French campaign against Lucius, shows Arthu~*'sfurther rise in power, again for the sake of the people who are being victimised by the Romans, but there is a new note to the formula drawn from the same system as the first one. This time he acts 'fore mendement o f . . . [hvs] pople' (1236). The stark reality of mass warfare is presented in a series of type scenes, and a tri-partite division of the action contrasts the king with his liege-men. Gawain and Cador, to show that Arthur is still 'the best of knights'. The culmination of the campaign in the Battle of Sessoyne evidences unusual mastery of the stereotype; the action is split into two different perspectives. that of Arthur's side and that of the enemy camp. and descriptive technique alternates between close-up and panorama with an effect comparable to that of the modern film cameram2$ T h e third section of the poem, with its double framework of mass warfare (the conquest of Lorraine and the siege of Metz) about a central type-scene of single combat lifted straight from romance has already been discussed in detail. T h e two-part Priamus episode shows us Gawain first as the traditional ideal of the knight, when his humility is contrasted with the haughtiness of Priamus. Shortly afterwards, when Gawain and Priamus engage in mass combat, the mercenary reality of contemporary knighthood takes precedence. The change anticipates that of Arthur, who now spares neither churches nor monasteries, and causes T h e pyne of be pople' (3043). Arthur has developed from a protector of his people into a wager of aggressive and merciless territorial warfare, one no longer conducted for reasons of knightly honour, but for purely mercenary considerations. T h e fourth section of the poem portrays Arthur's Italian campaign, a n d his further departure from the knightly ideal symboIised by the Priamus episode as demonstrated in a series of bloody battles and sieges in which the king emerges as a merciless tyrant 'who tourmenrtez be

94

Jean Ritzke-Rutherford

pople' (3153). The prophetic Dream of Fortune interrupts a motif sequence of the usual type-scene structure. and. as before, is embedded in the motif of departure. The sage who interprets the dream comments and sets the tone for the coming action, again much like a chorus. The type-scene continues with the motifs of arming (Arthur dresses royally), departure (he leaves the camp), and dawn. This section with its sudden turn of Fortune orpe7ipeteza leads directly into a continuation of the motif sequence with messenger, counciI, and preparations for departure. BattIe, here, provides the underlying structure of this section, but accounts of the action are reduced to their essence and kept in the background, a device that focusses attention on the significance of the dream and the king's confrontation with the pilgrim. The fifth and last section of the poem contains the English campaign, and the final battle against Mordred. Again there is a tripartite division of the action. This time Gawain's rashness costs him his life. Indirectly, it is Arthur who is responsible, for it is his sin of pride and of greed for power that brings about both his downfall and that of the knights of his Round Table. Arthur, and even Mordred, see in Gawain the ideal of knighthood, a role reinforced by Gawain's performance in the Priamus episode at the centre of the poem, by the fact that he fights as a proxy for Arthur, first against the Romans, then against Mordred, and -above all -by Arthur's long lament for Gawain. Not only a beloved knight, but the romantic ideal of knighthood and the decline of an entire way of life -are mourned here. And yet Arthur's comparison of Gawain with Christ shows that Arthur and Mordred are blind to the flaws of the ideal they would like to see in him. The action carries on to the final confrontation of Arthur and hlordred in single combat, a para1leI to the single combat with which the rising action of the poem opened. Final wounding and fall, the poet's lament and the final prayer of the king continue the normal type-scene sequence, completing the larger frame which circumscribed the action of the poem, and concluding the whole with a scene of funerary pomp which matches the feast as a parade of royal prerogative. Thus the theme of battle provides the structure of the poem, which must be seen as a series of interlocking and carefully positioned type-scenes. But beyond the resultant form of a medieval tragedy of Fortune, there are startling resemblances to the form of classical tragedy.26A long prologue is incorporated into the first section which leads us medias in res, there is a slow rise in action during the first three sections, climaxing in a blatantly fictional play within a play whose outcome is reported indirectly and at length by a messenger (teichoskopia); this is followed by a short fourth act with peripeteia and a rapid fall to the final catastrophe, It is quite possible that the poet was familiar with these features of the Senecan model of tragedy, or Italian adaptations of it. A translation was made in Italy at the beginning of the

Fonnulaic Maerost7ucture: The Theme of Battte

95

fourteenth century, and the poet's unusual familiarity with Italian place names and the route to Rome has long been recognised as being significant. It is worth noting that Lydgate. the poet's near contemporary, was an admirer of Seneca as a writer of tragedy." The AMA might even be the first reflex of truly classical tragedy in English literature; but in spite of cogent arguments, this remains no more than a supposition. The poet has used formulaic tradition to achieve surprisingly modern ends. Ancient conventions, such as the formulaic type-scene of battle, are reduced ad absurdurn by techniques of burlesque or contextual estrangement, but at the same time are deployed in a careful and elaborate design that recalIs the intricate structures characteristic of the best poems of the Ricardian era, such as Gawain and the Green Knight and Pearl. The Theme of Battle not only provides the overall structure of the poem; it also determines structures within structures. And yet, the conventional use of the theme was to glorify war and the knightly hero, and to stimulate the pleasurable identification of the audience with the action and its protagonist. The poet of the AMA, quite on the contrary, takes up that tradition and turns it to other purposes, embuing the same medium with a new message: war as an instrument of corruption and thing of growing horror, a law unto itself. The poet has constructed a war poem with an anti-war bias -and, above all, has hoisted the formulaic theme of battle on its own petard.

A mzoriat Bearincgs and their Meaning

KrZRI, LIPPE

Throughout the Middle Ages heraldry played a great part in the everyday life of the high nobility and the gentry. It was a reality which gradually made its way into the world of fiction. Historical heraldry deveIoped into an art or science with a set of strict rules, while in literature heraldic emblems were used side by side with other literary symbols. The descriptions of coats of arms were often incomplete or even incorrect, as if the shield were merely an ornament. adding colour to a jousting match or a battle scene. In literary heraldic descriptions there are various types of shields, for example the monochrome coats of arms of the 'Red, Green and Black Knights', which occurred only rarely in reality. There were also many svmbolic shields, such as those displaying boars, lions or gryphons. Each of these charges may indicate that its bearer possessed a certain property: valour, strength or villainy. These coats of arms are not used in the strict heraldic sense, but function as a kind of rebus. requiring interpretation. But this in its turn contributes to the understanding of the whole work in which they appear. There are, however, numerous descriptions of shieIds in literature which are heraldically correct. Sometimes these shields are so simple that thev d o not allow any conclusion as to historical bearers. In some instances complex shields can, however, be ascribed to historical personages and thus yield valuable information about the sources and original locality of the work in question, and also about the author's patrons. Unlike other Middle English romances the AMA gives a considerable number of descriptions of shields of arms, which are continually strewn through the narrative, from the beginning of the first fights till the last and final battle between Arthur and Mordred. In particular there are the following passages in which shields of arms appear: (I)

1374-5: a pagan from Persia Pane prescz a preker in, full proudely arayede, That beres all of' pourpour, palyde with syluer Then a lanceman presses in. all proudty arrayed; he bears [a shield] all of' purple paly of silver

Annorial Bean'n,gs and their Meaning (2)

1817 4 : the King of Libya The Kyng of Lehe has laughte a stede pat hyrn Iykede, And comes in iordely, in lyonez of sifuere The King of Libya has taken a steed that pleased him and comes in lordly: [his shield] shows lions ol'sitver

(3)

2050-7: the Viscount of Valence Thane the Vyscownte valiante, with a voute noble, Auoyeddyde the avawewarde, enuerounde his horse; He driss~dein a derk schelde. endenttyd kith sahlt. With a dragone engowschede, dredfull to schewe, Deuorande a dolphyn with dolefull Iates, In seyne that oure soueraygne sulde be distroyde. And all don of dawez with dynttez ofswerddezFor thare es noghte hot dede thare the dragone es raissede. The brave viscount, with a noble mien, left the vanguard behind and turned his horse round, He lifted a strong shield, endented with sable, with a dragon 'engowschede', dreadful to see, devouring a dolphin with painstricken face as a si?gnthat our sovereign should be destroyed, and his days should be ended by blows of the sword. For there is nothing but death wherever the dragon is raised

(4)

25214: Sir Priamus He bare gessande in golde thre grayhondes of sable, With chapes and cheynes of chalke-whytte slvuer [sic!], A charebocle in be cheefe, chawngawnde of hewes. And a cheefe anterous, chalange who lykes. He bore in a golden field three greyhounds of sable with collars and chains of chalk-white silver. O n the chief was a carbuncle of changing hues. The knight was an adventurous lord, challenge him whoever Iikes to.

(5)

2889-91 : Golyan of Genoa Bot one Iolyan of Iene. a geante full howge, Has jonede on Sir Ierant, a justis of M'alis; Thorowe a jerownde schelde he jogges hyrn thorowe But a certain Golian of Genoa, a verv huxe giant, encounters Sir Jerant, a justice of Wales; he stabs [the giant] through his ,pryrony shield

(6) 3332-7: Charlemagne and Geoffrey of Bouillon And he was buskede in a blee of blewe noble, With flourdelice of golde floreschede a1 ouer;

Karl Lippe T h e toper was cledde in a cote all of clene siYuer, M'ith a comliche crosse coruen of golde, Fowre crosselettes krafty by @ crosse ristes, And therby knewr I the kyng. pat cnstnede hym semyde And he was clad in [a coat of] royal blue, semP offleurs-de-lis of gold; the other was clad in a coat of pure silver, on it was a comely cross carved of fine gold, fbur crosslets rested by the cross. skilfully arrayed. Hereby I knew the King, who seemed to have been christened.

(7)

3646-5 1: King Arthur Buskes baners one brode, betyn of gowles, With corowns of clere golde, clenliche arraiede; Bot bare was chosen in be chefe a chalke-whitte Mayden, And a Childe in hir arme, pat Chefe es of Hewne; PVithowtten chane auenaunt, cluhylls he in erthe lengede He runs up banners of gules, lets them wave in the air, with crowns on them of clear gold, carefully arrayed. But on the chief he had chosen a chalk-white Maiden, with a child in her arms that is chief in heaven; these were the main arms of Arthur. the noble; he never changed them under threat, while he lived on earth.

(8)

3759: the King of Cotland Pat bare of gowfes full gaye with gowtes of syluere He bore [a shield of] splendid gules with silver drops [on the field]

(9)

386G9: Gawain Qwat gome was he this with the gaye armes, CVith bis gryffoune of golde, pat es one growfTe falIyn? What man was he, the one with the gay arms, with this gryphon of gold. who is fallen face downwards.

Bot the churles chekyn hade chaungyde his armes: He had sotheiy forsaken pa sawturoure engrelede, And laughte vpe thre lyons of whitte siluyre, Passande in purpre of perrie full riche, For be Kyng sulde noghte knawe cawtelous wriche; Because of his cowardys he keste of his atyre.

Annorial Bearings and their Meaning But the churlish man had changrd his arms: He had truly forsaken the saltire engrailed and taken up three lions of shining silver, passant on purple. adorned with preciot~sstones that the king might not know the crafty wwtch. who. because of cowardice. had giwn up his arms. Those familiar with English heraldry in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries will immediately recognise the then current terms, which can also be found in the rolts of arms of the period, Expressions such as palyde 'impaled' (OF paler), endenttyd 'endented' (OF endenter), engrelede 'engrailed' (OF engreskr) and moreover the designations of colours, e.g. gowles 'red' ( O F goules), sable 'black' (OF sable) are part of the technical vocabulary of heraldry; since the earliest English rolls of arms dating from around 1250, this language, called blazoning, has been used for the exact description of coats of arms according to the rules of heraldry. Among these technical terms: however, or 'gold' and argent 'silver' are not to be found in the AMA: instead we find gold and silver. This might either be a reflection of the heraldry of the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, which preferred the German names for the two metals, but it could also be due to the requirements of alliteration.' As the author of this text obviously had a profound knowledge of the technical terms, we may assume that he was familiar with the heraldry of his time, and that he had even an insight into the esoteric art of the heralds. On closer examination, however, one finds that there are also deviations from the strict regularity and matter-of-factness of heraldry, which should be credited to the poet whose aim was to write a literary work of art and not a dissertation on heraldry. The heraldic ambitions of the author were, of course, subservient to his intentions -a factor that has to be taken into consideration when interpreting the text. Historical heraldry does not employ, for example, ornamental epithets such as 'chalke-whytte siluer' ('silver as white as chalk'), 'a blewe noble'('nob1e blue'), 'clere gold' ('shining gold'), but is content with mentioning the tincture or the metal of the field, and the charge. The literary critic is, of course, prepared to overlook this neglect of the rules and to grant a good deal of licence to the poet, who is forced by the alliterative long line to observe the necessary number of staves and stresses. The fact that the descriptions of many of the shields of arms before us are incomplete or inexact causes graver problems, and casts doubt on the heraldic competence of the author. To give a few examples from the passages above: for the shield of Jolyan of lene ( 5 ) and for Mordred's saltire (10) no tinctures are mentioned. As regards the shield of the King of Libya (2) and the shieId of Gawain, only the colours of the charge are indicated, but not those of the field. The description of the arms of the Viscount of Valence (3) is equally inexact, as far as the

colours are concerned. Furthermore, the author does not mention the number of lions in (2). nor the number of pales in the shield ofthe pagan from Persia ( 1 ) . The shield of Priamus, however, is described almost completeiy; only the position of the carbuncle is uncertain: 'in cheefe' does not necessarily mean 'on the chief'. for it could also be located 'in the middte of the upper third'. As there is no tincture given for the chief, we should probably prefer the latter p~ssibility.~ The arms of the two Christian Worthies (6), Arthur's shield (7) and that of the King of Gotland (8).are described correctly. If 'in be cheefe' is interpreted as suggested above, the AMA contains five compIeteIy described shields of arms: in this respect the work exceeds most of the other Middle English romances, Like the shields of Priamus and hlordred. that of the Viscount of Valence does not belong to the tradition of Arthurian arms. This was probably the reason why it attracted the attention of scholars and played a not unimportant part in the discussion on the date of the AMA. As early as 1902, G. Neilson maintained that this shield of arms was an allusion to the Visconti family, the Dukes of Milan.3 This idea was taken up again by L. D. Benson and used to date the poem as having been written between the years 1399 and 1402.4 A comparison of this shield (a dragon devouring a dolphin) with the historical Visconti shield (argent. a curled snake palewise azure, devouring a man gules) shows that in spite of surprising similarities the shields differ considerably. Here a dolphin is devoured by a dragon, there a man is devoured by a snake. Although one can argue that 'snake' and 'dragon' are used indiscriminately, various reasons for such alterations can be suggested: either the author did not know the historically correct arms, he wanted to avoid an allusion which he felt was too pointed, or he wanted to ensure a particular interpretation, as is the case here. In this instance the charge functions as a symbol which means 'that our sovereign was to be destroyed'. In the fourteenth century it was common knowledge that the dolphin was the heraldic symbol of the Dauphin, the heir to the throne of France. 'Our sovereign' is thus a direct reference to someone with a legal claim to the sovereignty of that country. Arthur certainly sees himself in this role when he answers the call fbr help against the Romans who have invaded the land (1235ff.) But the audience of the poem would automatically have been reminded of Edward 111, who aspired to the title of 'King of France'. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Edward envisioned himself as a second Arthur and made the Round TabIe the emblem of his court. The shield, in the interpretation suggested by the poet, symbolises a threat to the Ring and his claim to France. But this means that the shield is not used here in the strict heraldic sense; indirect allusion and intentional ambiguity mark it as

Annorial Bearings and their Meaning

101

a literary symbol in need of interpretation. There have been attempts to date the work based on considerations as to when the Visconti family was in such bad repute all over Europe that a member of this family - recognisabie by his coat of arms -might have served as the model for a negatively portrayed character. These attempts are certainly misguided, based. as they are. on such meagre evidence. Perhaps the most puzzling shield in this text is that belonging to Priamus. Because of its composition, it is very unlikely that we have to deal with a shield that is purely fictitious. As there is no possibility of a symbolic interpretation either, we must assume that a historical shield of arms is represented here, even if it has not yet been identified.' The assumption that this shield of arms was known to the audience of the AMA is supported by the fact that the bearer's name is only revealed a long time after the description of the shield, thus giving the listeners the freedom to form their own picture of the hero beforehand. Furthermore, Priamus is basically a positive character, aIthough in the beginning he is one of Arthur's enemies. In the supposed source of the Priamus episode there are no descriptions of arms, so this detail must be considered an addition by the author himself, or it may go back to another, as yet undiscovered, ~ o u r c e . ~ In Malory's Morte Darthur Priamus' shield does not display three greyhounds, but three g r y p h o n ~ It . ~ has been pointed out that kfalory used a version of the alliterative Morte Arthur different from that of the Thornton Manuscript. E. Vinaver thought that Malory's source was more complete and closcr to the original version.' But even if we take three gryphons to be the correct reading, we cannot attribute these arms to a historical person. They remain a problem which might be solved by chance one day.9 The last shield of arms in this text which is not part of the tradition of Arthurian arms is that of Mordred the traitor. His saltire and also his red shield with the three silver lions do not belong to Mordred's original arrns.Ia Apart from the AMA this saltire engrailed can only be found as Mordred's shield in The Awntyrs ofArthure. We have to assume that the author of the latter work knew the AMA and adopted Mordred's arms from that poem." The saltire or St Andrew's Cross, and also the saltire engrailed are connected with Scotland.'' Its historical origin is to be found in the traditional death of the Scottish national saint, St Andrew, a s well as in the shield of arms of the Bruce family, whose members at times used to bear 'a saltire engrailed' in their coat of arms.I3 The fact that Mordred has a Scottish shield of arms might be an instance of a tendency, traceable in Scottish chronography, to present Mordred as the rightful heir to the English throne. Particularly in Bower's chronicle, Mordred is presented as the first-born son of King Loth of Lothian, and as the rightful heir to the throne without the slur of illegitimate

I02

Karl Lzppe

birth upon his name.'4 This explains Mordred's change of arms in the AMA. He gives up his hereditary Scottish shield 'because of cowardice', as the poet has it, and this is in sharp contrast to Arthur who never abandons his shield of arms. K. H. Goller has suggested the plausible theory that the reproach of cowardice, which finds no support in any other Arthurian poem, is probably due to a misunderstanding of a 'subtle trait' in the author's s ~ u r c e . Mordred '~ uses a red shield with silver lions on it for protection. He deliberately takes up a shield which closely resembles the English royal arms. As such a difference in the choice of metal was often used to mark cadency, the traitor thus openly declares his claim to the English throne.16 From other Arthurian literature we know that Mordred is Arthur's natural son, the result of an incestuous relationship with his sister. In the AMA Mordred is called 'the MaIebranche' (e.g. 4062) which obviously hints at his bastardy." Another sign of Mordred's doubtful birth can be seen in Gawain's remark 'of siche a engendure full IittylI joye happyns' (3743) 'from such an engendering comes no joy at all'. Several lines later Gawain again touches upon LMordred's illegitimacy: 'Fals fosterde foode, the Fende haue thy bonys!' (3776) 'perfidious bastard, the fiend have thy bones!'18 As Arthur receives his mortal wounds from Mordred's sword blows, we can rightly say that he is killed by the fruit of his own sinful deed. This is an example of the medieval concept of cotetrapasso, according to which everyone is punished with the outcome of his sins. G. Neilson thought that Mordred's lion shield was an allusion to the arms of the Earls of March, particularly to those of the first Earl, Roger Mortimer, who, having been the lover of Edward 111's mother and a traitor to his king, was the historical model for Mordred in this poem.'* From the heraldic point of view, this position has to be rejected, as the Earls of March used to bear one silver lion, probably rampant. and not passant, instead of three on a red field; Neilson himself was well aware of this." T o see in Mordred's shield a parallel or an allusion to these historical arms would require us to force the historical facts into a preconceived system and to deprive heraldry of any other power of suggestion. Generally speaking, one has to assume that an author who wishes to hint at historical persons by means of heraldic material would describe the shield in his work in such a manner that it was recognisable for his contemporaries, and thus it should be identifiable for us with the aid of heraldic rolls of the author's time. This would not be possible in this case, particularly as Mordred's shield is identical with that of Northwales (gules, three lions passant in pale argent).2' This shield, however, is also a variation of the English royal arms, where a change of metal also implies a loss of rank.22In any case, Mordred's shield is not that of the Earldom of March - that much can be said -but rather an allusion to the English royal shield which is significant for the meaning of the AMA.

Armorial Bearings and their Meaning

103

The other shields of arms described in the text are each part of a certain tradition of Arthurian arms. Gawain bears a golden gryphon; from the Awntyrs off Arthecre (508-lo), we can conclude that the field of his shield was green. The author in this instance does not make use of one of the typical Gawain shields familiar from French works, but, just as in the case of Mordred. shows himself influenced by another tradition, which can be ascertained by reference to rolls of arms and to descriptions in romance.z3 In the 'short romance', Libeaus Desconzcs, for instance, King Arthur grants the hero a golden shield on which a qryphon is d e p i ~ t e d . 'As ~ soon as we know that Libeaus Desconus is ~ a w a i n ' sson (cf. lines 8 and 82f. of MS. Cotton Caligula A.11) this passage attracts our interest: the hero is given the shield of his father. Also, Gawain himself appears in this romance bearing a gryphon (cf. lines 229-3 1 of the same MS.).2S In the AMA as well as in Libeaus Desconus the same shield is assigned to Gawain, although there is no proof of direct relationship between the two texts. This evidence raises the question as to how the authors of different romances managed to give the same shield of arms to the same hero. Without doubt, the Arthurian rolls of arms, collections of shields attributed to King Arthur's knights, must have played an important role in this practice. Often such collections of arms were incorporated into historical rolls of arms, e-g. into MS. Harley 2169, fo!. 4b, where 'Gawayne, the good knight' bears a shield 'vert, three gryphons passant or'.26 Clearly, the author of the A M A was indebted to this tradition in his choice of Gawain's arms, although their origin or propagation have not as vet been discovered. T h e Nine Worthies are a different case altogether. The histor), of this motif, both in literature and in the fine arts, has been the subject of many The first reference to them which can be proved is in the Voeux du Paon ( 1 3 10) by Jacques de Longuyon. An account of a pageant performed in Arras in I336 mentions that the nine heroes carried shields of arms. But already in the supposedly earliest pictorial representation of them in the town hall in Cologne (circa 1320-30) coats of arms are attributed to the nine kings and conquerors. King Arthur's shield shows three crowns (2: 1); and Charlemagne's escutcheon, the eagle of the Roman Empire impaling the fleurs-de-lis of France. In Arthur's dream of Fortune (3218-55) in the A M A two coats of arms of the Nine Worthies are described. Geoffrey of Bouillon as King of Jerusalem bears the shield of his kingdom and Charlemagne the so-called 'France ancient' shield. The first shield, which can be traced back to the twelfth century, is a rarity in heraldry as it violates one of the basic heraldic rules stating that two metals should never be joined together on one field. This particular exception to the rule has been explained in different ways. The use of the two noble metals, gold and silver, might indicate the very high prestige of the Kingdom of

104

Karl Lippe

Jerusalem among all the other realms. This view is supported by the fact that in some rolls of arms the shield ofJerusalem is listed first, even taking precedence over the arms cif the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire." O n the other hand the arms of the Kingdom 0f:Jerusalem may very well be older than this particular heraldic rule.29 From 1275 onwards, the large cross is depicted as 'cross potent', which some scholars thought to be an I overlying an H. the first two letters of the Greek word ' r t i ~ o Others interpret the five crosses on the shield a s being a n allusion to the five wounds of Christa3' T h e second shield of arms portrays Charlemagne as King of France. He bears the 'France ancient' (azure, semy of fleurs-de-lis or) as was common among the French kings and also, from Edward 111's time onwards, among the English kings until the beginning of the fifteenth century.32 Around 1375, Charles V introduced the so-called 'France modern' (azure, three (2: I ) fleurs-de-lis or). According to his own interpretation, the three fleurs-de-lis (or lilies) were intended to symbolise the Holy Trinity.33 The English kings followed his example (from Henry IV) and so did the figurative representations, miniatures, paintings and sculpture^.^^ From this evidence the source for this episode of the AMA probably has to be dated earlier than 1400. Finally, King Arthur's shield, or rather banner. is significant in terms of the poem. As presented in the AMA two of the symbols traditionally connected with him are welded into one.35 Above his three solden crowns on a red field, the Virgin Mary is enthroned on the chief, holding the Child in her arms. Both charges belong to a rich and elaborate tradition. T h e Virgin Mary is first mentioned in connection with King Arthur in Nennius' Historia Britonum (ninth century): 'Arthur portavit imaginem sanctae Mariae perpetuae virginis super humeros ~ u o s . It ' ~ is~ not a heraldic charge but a devotional symbol which is mentioned here, as has been rightly pointed out. In \i\*illiam of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum A~glorum ( 1 125) and in the Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth ( 1 136), the Virgin Mary is mentioned again as Arthur's cognizance, while Geoffrey transforms the religious motif into a heraldic charge.37 From two passages in the AMA we learn that this is Arthur's hereditary and favourite shield of arms, which by virtue of its religious power gives the British warriors hope and strength in difficult ~ituations.~' T h e origin of the three crowns is more complicated to trace. T h e crowns are either gold on a red field, or gold on a blue one. Perhaps these two combinations reveal the origin of the tradition to which a particular text belongs: the French tradition uses the colours blue and gold, whereas the English prefers red and gold. The three crowns occur i s King Arthur's arms for the first time in the second half of the thirteenth century.39 Identical arms were being attributed to certain

Armorial Bearings and their Meaning religious figures, such as St Edmund or to the Three Magi, who, during the mid-thirteenth century, were more highly revered than ever before. Furthermore, three crowns appear in the royal arms of Sweden. According to a legend. Helena of Colchester. the mother of the Emperor Constantine. brought this symbol to England.40 Later, they were used as an emblem of royal patronage, e.g. in the arms of Oxford University, Another possible source of' this charge in connection with King Arthur has recently been suggested. In the Prose Merlin i t is not Arthur but Leodegan who bears this shield of arms. Arthur and Merlin mentions the same shield in connection with Leodegan's daughter, Arthur's wife; so we can assume that the King of the Britons acquired these arms through marriage."' This view is supported by the poet's statement that not this shield but the one with the Virgin and Child is Arthur's hereditary shield. Another plausible explanation is suggested by some miniatures connected with the story of King Arthur. As man? as thirty crowns are sometimes portrayed in these illuminations, and the name of a country conquered by the British King is attached to each crown. With these illustrations in mind we can assume that each crown on Arthur's shield might well represent one of his realms: England, Scotland and Both charges combined in one shield of arms can be found on a wall painting in the castle of Valeria in Sion, Swit~erland."~ In this case one shield of arms is impaling the other: the Virgin Mary stands beside the crowns. However, the Virgin and Child on the banner in the AMA are enthroned above the insignia of temporal power, as if the author wanted to indicate that all worldly government is inferior to spiritual power, and that crowns and kingdoms are therefore sub-ject to the will of God. T h u s Arthur's shield in the poem s e n e s the moral and homiletic purposes of the poet. T h e study of coats of arms in the AMA has shown that the author of this work was familiar with the heraldry of his time, although in blazoning he sometimes permits himself poetic licence, which is, in fact, common practice in literature using heraldic materiaI. The problem lies in the fact that the poet is not primarily interested in adhering to the rigid and elaborate rules of heraldry. but rather in utilising their possibilities for artistic expression. Some of the shields of arms described in the poem belong to the tradition of Arthurian arms, as has been pointed out, while others d o not. O f all those shields outside this tradition, only the two escutcheons carried by Mordred offer ground for a convincing interpretation. T h e Arthurian arms of Gawain, King Arthur and -up to a point -of the Nine Worthies attest the author's knowledge of this tradition, although other sources are also drawn upon. For dating the work and for establishing its date of origin none of the arms found in the text offers usable clues. Nevertheless, the AMA provides interesting and valuable evidence of how heraldry is employed in fictional literature and thus ofthe mutual relationship between the two.

The Figure of Sir Gawain

J ~ R G 0. FICIHTE

O n e of the more prominent changes in the AMA noted by recent editors and literary critics alike upon comparing the work with its putative extant sources, the Historia Regum Brztanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth, M'ace's Roman de Brut, and Layamon's Bmt, is the greatly expanded role of Sir Gawain.' Next to Arthur he emerges as the leading figure, being involved not only in the various military campaigns, but also setting out on his own in search of knightly adventure. Needless to say this change in Gawain's stature has provoked commentary both from within the poem and from without, i.e. Gawain's achievements, his actions, and his character are assessed by other figures in the AMA, and they have likewise been evaluated by modern readers of the work. Interestingly this assessment has produced vastly differing opinions: the Gawain enthusiasts, including King Arthur and Sir Mordred have regarded him 'Of a11 knyghtes be kynge bat vndir Criste lifede' (3961) or even 'as a representative of Christ',' while the Gawain critics have seen in him 'den Typus des aggressiven Dra~fqangers'~ whose 'reckless, uncompromising bravery and utter disregard for consequences . . . would by chivalric and practical standards be condemned as partaking of desrne~ure'.~ In view of these two irreconcilable opinions on the nature of Gawain's character and his position within the AMA a reassessment seems to be called for -one which concentrates on the following three aspects: first, the comparison of the Gawain image with the Gawain character as it unfolds and exhibits itself in the course of the poem; second, the relationship of Gawain's character to that of Arthur; and third, the consequences of an interpretative reading drawn from such an analysis. Gawain's unfortunate death at the hands of Mordred gives rise to a series of graduated necrologues by the author, his slayer Mordred, and King Arthur himself. While the author depIores the passing of 'the gude man of armes' (3858), the other two characters deliver elaborate eulogies praising his virtues. Thus, Mordred, weeping and repenting his misdeeds, calls Gawain 'the graciouseste gome' (3877)' 'hardyeste of hande, happyeste in armes' (3878). 'be hendeste in hawle' (3879), 'Pe lordelieste of ledyng7(3880) and extols 'His konynge, his knyghthode, his kvfidly werkes, / His doyng, his doughtynesse, his dedis of armes' (3883-4). Arthur personalises the loss Gawain's death means to him by making Gawain the incarnation of salvation now lost:

The Fiqus-e oJ'Sir Gawain Dere kosyn o kynde. in kare am I leuede, For nowe my wirchipe es wente and my were endide; Here es be hope of my hele. my happynse oofarmes My herte and my hardynes hate one hym lengede. k l y concell, my comfbrthe, bat kepide myn herte. kynqe bat vndir Clriste lifede. Of all knyghtes Pou was worthy to he kyng. f>ofeI be corown bare; My wele and my wirchipe of all Pis weride riche CVas wonnen thourghe Sir Gawa?ne and thourghe his witt one. (395643) After some more lamentation and bitter self-reproach, Arthur kneels down and asks God to behold Gawain's blood 'sakles of syn' (3992) 'worthy to be schrede and schrynede in golde'((3991). Gawain in Arthur's mind takes on the stature of a holy martyr, who has died guiltlessly because of Arthur's own sinfulness. And in consonance with this sentiment Gawain's body is embalmed and carried to the cathedral of Winchester, where the proper rites for the dead are to be perfbrmed. A closer look a t these eulogies will reveal two virtues stressed in particular: Gawain's martial prowess and his judgment. Aside from the obvious military accomplishments praised by his two eulogists, Gawain is credited with 'konynge' (3883) and the ability of 'concell' (3960). Arthur in particular appreciates Gawain's wise counsel and understanding which, a s he says. have been responsible for bringing about his success. In short, both Mordred and especially Arthur consider Gawain to have been the embodiment of the traditional sapientia et fortitudo ideal. In their eyes he was the model exemplar of an ideal associated with the perfect hero. It is, of course, the nature of eulogy to praise the character and conduct of the deceased, to epitomise his virtues, and to present an ideal image rather than a reaIistic portrayal. And thus the very genre gives rise to questions about the apprapriateness of the praise bestowed upon the deceased. Moreover, it is important to remember that the condition and motivation of the speakers play a definite role in this context: on the one side we have the penitent Mordred remembering the past glories of the Round Table, in which he had once shared, and on the other side, we have Arthur facing a seemingly hopeless situation after having been deprived of the services of his doughtiest knight. T o blordred 'the Malebranche' (4062) the faithful Gawain serves as a reminder of his own treachery; to Arthur he serves as a symbol of the unquestioning, loyal support which he so desperately needs. Consequently, both men are eager to create an image of Gawain suited to their situation and particular needs, but one which does not necessarily correspond to reality -a fact borne out by the much more moderate praise bestowed on Gawain by the poet speaking in propria persona, who emphasises solely Gawain's military accomplishments, i.e. his.fortitudo; his sapientia, however, is not recalled. What are

108

Jorg 0.Fichte

we to make of this omission? Is it an oversight on the part of the poet or is it intentional? Has he purposefully limited the applicability of the traditional heroic ideal to the aspect of fortitude, or has he simply forgotten to mention wisdom? T o answer this important question we shall have to survey briefly Gawain's actions and conduct in the AMA because such a survey will clearly delineate a definite behavioural pattern attributed to the character of Gawain by the author. Qf special interest are the alterations or modifications the author of the AMA makes concerning Gawain's actions and speeches illustrating his interest in the creation of a unified character. There are four major changes in the form of omission of material, modifications of actions and addition of scenes, which si,gnal departures from one or more of the poet's putative sources. First. there is the suppression of Gawain's brief speech found in both Wace and Lagamon counselling peace after Cador has just welcomed the emperor's challenge delivered by his emissaries and spoken in favour of war.' Second, we find an alteration in the handling of the embassy episode. Arthur puts Sir Roice in charge, but Boice has no leading position. since Gawain takes command, insuits the emperor without provocation from either Lucius or his fellow ambassadors, and finally kills Sir Gayous after being taunted by him. The sources agree in making Gawain's companions egg him on to foment some kind of incident which would give them an opportunity to fight the R ~ r n a n sThird, .~ we have the addition of the extended Priamus episode, which ends with Gawain taking on the superior forces of the Duke of Lorraine, although he and his men are greatly outnumbered. Even though the foraging expedition is officially headed by Sir Florente, Gawain dominates not only the roman dJnuentureencounter with Priamus but also the ensuing battle with the Duke's army-a battle initiated upon his insistence against the advice of the nominal leader Sir Florente. Finally, there is Arthur's landing in order to encounter Mordred's forces. A very brief description of a sea battle, in which both Arthur and .~ of Monmouth and Gawain excel, is found solely in L a g a m ~ n Geoffrey LYace only report the landing during which Gawain is killed together with other Arthurian knights.' In none of the three sources do we find an account of Gawain's desperate fight against Mordred -a fight provoked by Gawain's monomaniacal desire for revenge. This briefsurvey, summing up the major alterations ofand departures from the most likely sources the poet drew on, shows clearly his interest in creating a Gawain figure which is distinguished by a superabundance of fortitude, but which lacks any degree of prudence. The poet takes great care to suppress any information pertaining to Gawain's sapientia. Denying him the opportunity to speak for peace, the poet withholds from Gawain the possibility of showing wisdom in council. Making him the spokesman of Arthur's embassy to Lucius, he demonstrates Gawain's arrogance and irascibilty. Sending him out on knight errantry

Io!~

The Figure of Sir Gawain

while Arthur's forces are in dire need of supplies. he ilIustratt.\ (;;iv:tiil's insufficient recognition of priorities. H a \ . i n ~hint disstradc Sir F ' I o r . c . t ~ t t ' from withdrawing before the Duke's vast]) superior arm!. hi. \ttt)\\s Gawain's lack of prudence. And making him attack klortlrtti ,tlrnt,st single-handedly. incited by thoughts of venyeancr. hr f i r ~ ; i l l \ c t t m t 811strates Gawain's irrationality and blind obsession. Aside from illustrating Gawain's basic lack of' sapienira ( ortil)~I S ~ I I E such qualities as political cleverness. prudence. and thr at>ilit\ t o I l t r c I,(. and direct his conduct rightly, these episodes arc arrang.~din clrc 11 ,111 order as to make up an incremental pattern. \Z'c arc not rt t t t t c . s \ l t l ~ occassional lapses from the fortitudo et sapientzn ideal app1it.d to ( ~ ; t \ \ ; t ~ n bv Arthur and Mordred. but are confronted ~vitha proqrc.s\i\c. ; t t l t i deliberate de-emphasis of the sapiential asprcts. I n c-ontra\r to 111t. tn and ra?mede and raunsound be popie. ;lnd k! ll!de doun his cosyns. kyn,vs ennoyntt!dc:

(98-101)

Arthur did not have any qualms about maltreating the civilian population. He killed Lucius' cousins, who were anointed kings. and had his own cousins crowned in their stead, not by God's grace but by his own: Qwrenn he thes dedes had don. he doubbyd hys knyghtez. dyu)syde dowchens and delte in dyuerse remmes. Xlad ot'his cosyns k y n ~ ennoyntede. s In kyth there the! couaitte crounes to bere. (48-5 1 ) Arthur is in no sense a worthier man than the Roman Emperor, because in his reply he is as provocative as Lucius in his challenge. H e turns the tables on Lucius by aggressively announcing that he. Arthur, will now

The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune

147

conquer Rome, which he considers his rightful heritage. The Roman ruler, who pillages and burns down the cities, carries ofT the goods and chattles of the inhabitants, fells the forests, violates the right of sanctuary and kills dukes, peers, and the common people is no worse than Arthur in his unrestrained and immoderate wars of conquest. The author makes it quite clear. too, that Arthur's long absence from his country allowed evil men and marauding hordes to bring death and destruction upon his own subjects. who also suffered under the tyrannous rule of Mordred. Even before the war against Lucius has begun Arthur knows that he will conquer Lorraine and other countries (349-56). Neither in Lorraine nor in Lombardy will he leave a single man alive who obeys Lucius' law. Having no better reason than sheer greed, Arthur proposes to incorporate these nations within his own realm. He wants to distribute the 'louely lordchipe' (12399) of the Duke of Lorraine among his knights. After that, he adds threateningly, he will deal with the duke himself. As for Lombardy, Arthur is eager to impose his own law on it for the simple reason that it is a beautiful country which he desires. Again this demonstrates that Arthur is not essentially different from Lucius. Like his adversary he invades realms and nations out of greed. without giving a single thought to the calamitous consequences these wars will have on the people. The reader has an uneasy feeling that the conqueror-king was just waiting for something like the challenge of the Roman emperor in order to have a good excuse for continuing his briefly interrupted wars of conquest. And like master like man: the attitude of the knights of the Round Table towards battles and wars is congenial to their lord. Thus their response to the challenge of the Roman mission is unanimous. Sir Cador of Cornwall is looking forward to war with a11 his heart. For him. peace had already lasted far too long. 'Now war is aroused! Christ be praised!' (257) Aungers, Lot's brother and king of Scotland, eagerly wishes to take revenge on the Romans, who had- when ruling over his country -demanded ransom for the Scottish aldermen whom they held captive. They had also turned on the people. laid waste the countryside a n d raped the women. T h e ruler of Brittany promises Arthur to raise an army of 30,000 well-equipped knights within one month. He is prepared to assist the king against any country or nation whatsoever. The King of Wales will march at the head of the army. He wants to avenge himself on the Viscount of Rome who had once captured several of his knightly attendants in Tuscan);. near Pontremoli. The Viscount had set them free for a ransom which he had no right to demand. The King of Wales will not be reconciled with the Viscount until they face each other in battle and deal each other deadly blows. Sir Yvain can hardly wait for the time when he will fight against the Romans and ravage and lay waste their land.

148

Anke Jamen

IYith what amounts to sheer blasphemy, Christ. the Prince of Peace, is praised for the fact that war has been revived. The bellicose knights all swear their bloody oaths of vengeance in the name ofChrist, which is an undoubted abuse of His name. The kings of Scotland, Wales, and Brittany. Sir Lot and, last but not least, Arthur himself, all take an additional oath upon the holy vernicle that they will avenge themselves on the 'venemus' Romans (299) for the misdeeds the latter have inflicted on them. Sir Lot swears that he will carve a bloody path through his enemies. leaving innumerable dead in his wake. Arthur finally outtines an exact campaign plan, mentioning all the cities and countries he intends to conquer - all this in the name of Christ and swearing on 'l'eronica's kerchief. The oath on the vernicle was normally used by pilgrims to Rome. Thus it would appear that when the author lets Arthur and his knights reiterate the oath in connection with wars of aggression against Rome, he wants to point out the incongruity of their language and actions. Also. the reader and listener is reminded of Christ's death on the cross and thus the author invites a comparison of the bellicose conqueror King Arthur with the passively suffering son of God, whose kingdom is not of this ~ o r l d . ~ ' The PVorthies are damned fbr all eternity because during their lives on earth they had relied on a very specific kind of Fortune, viz. fortunein-war. The goddess favours King Arthur with the highest seat on the wheel. and she hands over to him the insignia of his sovereignty, the diadem and globe. She also proffers him the sword, requesting him explicitly to use it in battle. Fortuna makes it clear to Arthur that the sword is hers, and she exhorts him to brandish it threateningly. The goddess reminds the king that the very same sword has stood him in good stead in his previous battles and that it has never failed him. The change of tense makes it clear that the goddess Fortuna is referring to King Arthur's former battles. A few lines earlier she says that Arthur would be well advised to observe her wilI - 'Fore all thy wirchipe in werre by me has thaw wonnen' (3342). She has been kind to him and for his sake subdued his enemies. As have many ofhis comrades in arms, he has had ample opportunity to recognise this. Owing to her influence and goodwill he has felled 'Sir Frolle with frowarde knyghtes' (3345), so that France now belongs to him alone.30 Fortuna belli has decided that of all the leaders on this earth he shall occupy the most prominent seat on her wheel. Thus Arthur has become Fortune's darling, the favourite of Forfuna prospera belli. The utter fickleness and capriciousness of fortune-in-war is mentioned several times in the A M A , and everyone involved is fully aware of this. Arthur himself understands that Fortuna belli alone is responsible for his victories -in mass mtlie as well as in single ~ o r n b a t . ~ ' The phrase 'happy in armsYndicates that the positive result of a

The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune

149

battle is dependent on mere chance, that is on Fortune. Thus a very young knight named Chastelayne quite by chance runs his spear through the noble Sir Cheldrike: This chekke hvm eschewede be chauncez of armes. (2956)

Immediately after his unexpected victory, Gawain's young and inexperienced ward himself falls a victim to his fbrtune-in-arms, receiving a deadly wound in the neck from an enemy knight called Swyan. The heathen knight Hardolfe does not profit very much from having been 'happye in armes'. Gawain pierces his throat with his sword (2974-6).32 Arthur says in one of his last threnodies that his 'happynge of armes' (3958) was entirely dependent on Gawain. who was, as hlordred states. 'happyeste in armes' (3878).33But death on the battlefield comes to Gawain ironically through the very person who affirms his fbrtune in combat. Arthur relies quite deliberately on the Fortune of war and therewith on chance. T h e king informs the nobles, who have gathered in council, of his plans and at the same time lays down a kind of guideline under which the whole project is to be carried out:

'I am in purpos to passe perilous wa)es. To kaire with my kene men to conquere Qone landes. To owttmye myn cnm!. git'auenture it schewe. That orupyes m! n heritage. be Ernpyre of'Rome.' (640-3) It is therefore evident that Arthur's guilt consists. not least. in his entrusting himself; and thus his allies and his people, to Fortune's wheel although he is well aware of' the fickleness and unreliability of Fortunn belli. T h e king therefore succumbs to a fault typical of the proud and haughty by failing to apply this insight to hirnselfl i t is only the enemy who is struck by Fortuna a d m a . T h e mercenary Priamus. who is kin to King Arthur through Hector (2603. 4343), demonstrates that pride and trust in the Fortune of war a r e very likely to result in downfall. Priamus rules over Alexandria, Africa and other distant countries. He is the legal heir to the throne of his mighty father, who has allowed him to participate in Arthur's war and take with him 140 knights. Priamus himself confesses to being hauqhtv and presumptuous. Pride is the reason not only for his shakeful downfall, but also for that of his 'worthy' ancestors Alexander. Hector, Judas and Joshua. Priamus relied on the Fortune of war and was therefore vanquished for ever: 'And I am for cirqwitrye schamely supprisede. And be aw[n]tire orarmes owtrayede Sore euere.' (261&171

150

Anke Janssen

It has already been seen that the hortus conclusus of the goddess Fortuna resembles the garden of Paradise. From the goddess Arthur receives a 'pome' (3354). which is clearly associated with the apple by which Eve leads Adam into temptation.34 Arthur had enjoyed the fruits of victory presented to him by Fortuna belli. completely forgetting that they had their price. Xeither in his dream. nor when he was wide awake could Arthur resist temptation. In spite of all the exempla monentia he decided to put his trust in the Fortune of war. T h e philosopher who interprets Arthur's dream is very explicit as to the fact that Fortune now frowns upon Arthur. Fortuna prospera has become Fortuna nduersa. Arthur will never triumph again. 'Within five winters your fall will be complete'. the philosopher says. Arthur will fall like at1 the other Worthies 'that were conquerours kydde and crownnede in erthe' (3407). T h e king has shed much biood and he has killed many arrogance, pride and innocent people, 'in cirquytrie'(3399) -in presumption. Arthur's pride was already evident before his dream of Fortune's wheel. He had tried his luck in a very frivolous and outrageous manner before the walls of Metz by exposing himself without protection to the arrows of the besieged citizens. With the pride typical of the mighty, called temeritas, i.e. the inctination towards fboihardy and reckless action^.'^ he disregards the caution of his attendant Sir Ferrer and calls him a frightened child who is terrified of a fly. Sir Ferrer is, of course. the wiser and more responsible man. Arthur is convinced that the Fortune of war wiI1 never fBvour the townspeople. who, in his opinion. are rascals a n d scoundrels. T o the point of sheer blasphemy. he flaunts his confidence that God will assist him simply because he is an anointed king. Of course Arthur should have known better; even anointed kings cannot escape death on the battlefield. He himself' has seen a great number of kings die on the field and has even killed some by his own hand. Arthur's victories have made him immoderate and haughty. When the two Roman senators ask him in the name of Christ to spare their lives, reminding him that: it is Christ who has given him his realm ('For His luffe that the Iente this lordchipe in erthe'. 2319) the king replies in a very high-handed manner:

'I graunte'. quod [the] gude kyng. 'thurghe grace of my selfen: I giffe 3owe lyffe and lyme . . .' (2320- 1 )

Instead of being satisfied with his victor); the king becomes more and more arrogant. In addition to their macabre burden he bestows scornful words on the defeated Romans and plans further wars of aggression. This passage shows an important aspect ofArthur7s supe~bia.namely praesumptio, a n irrational belief in his own invincibility.

The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune

15 1

I n contrast to Priamus, who confesses to his own pride and who knows that the Fortune of arms has caused his downfall, King Arthur remains stubborn in spite of the philosopher's earnest admonitions. As with nearly all the mighty, e.g. the Worthies, Arthur does not heed advice, Being under the sway of uana gloria, the desire for fame and honour, he hears only selectively, accepting the idea that romances and chronicles will tell of his deeds, but closing his ears to the admonition that he will be condemned for his feats of arms on Doomsday (3445-5). I t is true that Fortune frowns upon him and yet it is still possible, the hilosopher says, to repent so that his soul at least may be saved: 'Mane no longer "Sir Kynge7'!], amende thy mode, or thow myshappen, /And mekely aske mercy for mede of thy saule.' (3454-5). King Arthur's answer to the philosopher's advice is clear enough. The warning remains unheeded. The mighty king rises, dons the magnificent robes of the s~verei~gn, the armour of the warrior and seizes the sword of the conqueror, thereby becoming guilty ofpertinucia, which is a particularly reprehensible element of superbia. At a crossing Arthur encounters Sir Cradoke, who is exactly the sort of humble pilgrim the philosopher would have liked Arthur to become. Cradoke tells the king that he is on a pilgrimage to Rome in order to obtain forgiveness for his sins from the Pope. The humble Cradoke is clearly a foil for the haughty Arthur, who is also just about to go to Rome, not as a repentant pilgrim but as a conqueror, full of pride and with rage in his heart, arrogantly claiming things to which he is not entitled. Cradoke thus embodies a clear alternative the king could have adopted. But Arthur has now, fully awake, confirmed the decision made in his dream. It has become evident that the Dream of Fortune contains the message of the poem in nuce. The interpretation of these 237 lines shows that the author was thinking of the war with France and wanted to admonish the princes of his time. In much the same way as Petrarch he warns against fortuna prospers, whose favour is responsible for the pride and haughtiness of the great. The author wants to point out that once a ruler entrusts his fate to Fortuna belli he has consented to his own downfall. By waging aggressive wars the sovereign brings misery and destruction upon many nations not least his own, and he brings death upon the innocent. By succumbing to the sin of superbia, with all its ugly aspects, he forgoes salvation. The famous British king is no longer depicted as a tragic hero who is not responsible for his own fall. The author treats him as a historical ruler who has rationally and deliberateIy decided to wage wars of aggression and therewith has brought about his own destruction. At the beginning of the poem King Arthur is already ruler over many a country. Thus only the final phase of his delusive ascent is represented. This is stressed in the symbolism of the Dream of Fortune when Fortuna raises the sovereign with her own hands to the highest seat of the wheel.

P

152

Anke Jamsen

And even this rise to the apex of power is sub specie aetemitatis the cause and medium of his moral decay and thereby part of the casus. The title of the poem thus serves the purpose of prediction; the AMA is about the fali, the protracted death of a king -Morte Arthure. John Gower obviously read and analysed the Dream of Fortune in the AMA very thoroughly and with understanding. In his earnest warning to Henry IV, 'In Praise of Peace' there are obvious references to the AMA. The Nine Worthies are presented to the king, who has just come to the throne of England, as exmpla malorum. Gower enumerates the three Christian rulers in exactly the same anachronistic order as in the AMA. In a manner similar to that of the AMA author, he points out that they were famous warlords and that their fame will abide in chronicles and romances, but that under the auspices of eternity this is all idle and vain. In view of the fact that our poem was clearly a major source of Gower's inspiration I would suggest as a motto for the AMA some lines from his poem 'In Praise of Peace': See Charlemeine, Godefroi, Arthus, Fulfild of werre and of mortaiite, Here fame abit, bot a1 is vanite.

Notes A Summary of Research Karl Heinz Goller

lo

" ''

" '' Is

l6

l7

"

Throughout this book the edition of Valerie Krishna, The Alliterative 'Morte Arthure'. A Critical Edition, with an Introduction, Notes, and Glossary (New York, 1976) has been used; in future it will be referred to simply as Krishna, A M A . The comprehensive and annotated bibliography by Michael Foley, 'The Alliterative Morte Arthure: An Annotated Bibliography, 195&75', Chaueer Review, 14 ( 1979), 166-87, has been very useful. llEe Thornton Manuscript (Lincoln Cathedral MS. 91), Introductions by D. S. Brewer and A. E. B. Owen (London, 1975, '1977). G. G. Perry, ed., Morte Arthure (London, 1865); Edmund Brock, ed., Morte Arthure (London, 1871; rpt. 1961). Mary M. Banks, ed., Morte Arthure (London, 1900); Erik Bjorkman, ed., Morte Arthure (Heidelberg, 1915). R. S. Loomis, Arthurian Literature in the Miaiile Ages (Oxfard, 1959), p. 541. J. L. N. O'Loughlin, 'The Middle English Alliterative Morte Arthure', Medium Aeuum, 4 ( 1935), 153-68, esp. p. 153. Loomis, Arthuian Literature, p. 521 John Finlayson, ed., Morte Arthure, York Medieval Texts (London, 1967). Stephen Douglas Spangehl, A Crittcal Editzon ofthe Alliterative Morte Adhure, with Introduction, Notes and Glossag-Concordance (Diss. University sf Pennsylvania, 1972). Larry D. Benson, ed., King Arthur's Death: The Middle English Stanzaic Morte Arthur and Alliterative Morte Arthure (Indianapolis and New York, 1974), XI. In J. Burke Severs, ed., A Manual of the Writings in Middle English (New Haven, Conn., 1967), p. 46. John Gardner, transl., The Alliteratiue Morte A r t h e , The Owl and the Nightingale, and Fiue Other Middle English Poems. In a Modemised Version with Comments on the Poems and Notes (Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1971), p. 239. John Stevens, Medieval Romances: Thmes and Approaches (London, 1973), p. 239. Sir Paul Harvey, ed., The Oxford Companion to EngEish Literature (Oxford, 1969), p. 561. W. R. J. Barron, 'Arthurian Romance: Traces of an English Tradition', E S , * ~ I(1980), 2-23, esp. pp. 1 6 1 1; D. Everett, Essays on Middle English Literature, ed. Patricia Kean (Oxford, 1955; rpt. I964), p. 62; Finlayson, Morte Arthure, pp. 31-2. P. Branscheid, 'Dic Quellen des Morte Arthure'. Anglia, Anzeiger, 8 (1885), 179-236. William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur: A Study of the Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (Berkeley and Los Anaeles, 1961) . John Finlayson, The Sources, Use of Sources, and Poetic TeGhndgues of the 14th [Century] Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (Diss. Cambridge, 1962).

154 I9

'* 2' 22

" 23

2s

26

''

29 30

"

"

' 34

35

36

37

38 39 40 4'

Notes to pages 8-9

E.g. Finlayson, Morte Arthure. p. 13. FinIayson, Morte Arthure, p. 13. Barron, 'Arthurian Romance'. Helaine Newstead. 'Arthurian Legends', in A Manual ofthe Wrilings in M E , pp. 44-6; Matthews, pp. 105-108. Matthews, p. 123. Roger Sherman Loomis, i 3 e Developmmt of Arthurian Romance (London, 1963), p. 152. Helaine Newstead, Rev. of The Tragedy of Arthur by William Matthews, Romance Phitologv, 16 (1962), 1 18-22. Matthews, pp. 126-7. D. S. Brewer. Introduction to his edition of Thomas Malory, The Morte Darthur: Parts Seven and Eight, York Medieval Texts (London, 1968), p. 8. Finlay son, Sources, pp. 190-2 10;John Finlayson, Rev. of The Tragedy of Arthur b y Mi. Matthews, M e d i m Aevum, 32 (1963), 74-7; John Finlayson, 'The Concept of the Hero in Morte Arthure', in Chaucer und seine Z i t . Symposionfur Walter F. Schinner, ed. Arno Esch (Tiibingen, 1968), pp. 249-74; Finlayson, Morte Arthure, p. 14. Matthews, pp. 23-4. Karl Josef Hbl tgen, 'Konig Arthur und Fortuna', Anglia, 75 (1957), 35-54; Karl Josef Holtgen, 'The Nine Worthies', Anglia, 77 (1959). 279-309. Horst Schroeder, Der To@ dm 'Nine Worthies' in Literatur und bildender Kunst (Gottingen, 197l ) , for the A M A , cf. pp. 309-1 7. J. F. Kitely, 'The Knight Who Cared for His Life', Anglia, 79 ( 1962), 131-7; D. S. Brewer, 'Courtesy and the Gawain-Poet', Patterns o f h v e and Courtesy: Essays in M e n z o ~of C. S. h i s . ed. John Lawlor (London, 1966), pp. 77 and 8 2 4 ; Raymond Henry Thompson, Sir Gawain andHerozc Tradition: A Study the Influme of Changing Heroic Ideals upon the Reputation of Gawain in the Medieval Literature of France and Britain (Diss. Alberta, 1969); Robert H. Figgins, The Character of Sir Gawain in Middle English Romance (Diss. Washington, 1973). Ira Bloomgarden, Northern Middle English Arthurian Romance and its Historical Background (Diss. City Univ. of New York, 197t ). J. L. N. O'Loughlin, 'The English Alliterative Romance', in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative Histoty, ed. R. S. Loomis (Oxford, 19591, pp. 520-7, esp. 524. Charles Lionel Regan, 'The Paternity of Mordred in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', Bulletin Bibliographique de la Sokite' Internationale Arthurienne, 25 ( 1973), 153-4, esp. p. 154. Heinz Reinhold, Humoristische Tendmen in der englischen Dichtungdes Mittelalters (Tiibingen, 1953). Larry D. Benson. 'The Alliterative Mode Arthure and Medieval Tragedy', Tennessee Studies in Literature, 1 1 ( 1966), 75-88. Brewer, Introduction to Malory, Morte Darthur, pp. 6-9. John Barnie, War in Medieual English Society: Social Values in the Hundred Years War 1337-99 (Ithaca, New York, 1974), p. 150. Finlayson, 'The Concept of the Hero', p. 265. Moritz Trautmann, 'Der Dichter Huchown und seine Werke,' Anglia, 1 (1878). 109-49; Franz Josef Mennicken, 'Versbau und Sprache in Huchowns Morte Arthur', in Bonner Beztrage cur Anglzstik, 5 (1900). 33-144.

Notes to pages 4-1 1 42 43

44

45

46

47

49

" '' 52

s3

s4

s5

" 5'

'* 59

61

62

63

155

Henry Noble MacCracken, 'C:oncerning Huchown,' PLMA, 25 ( 19lo), 523. Moritz Trautmann, 'Zur Kenntniss und Geschichte der Mittelenglischen Stabzeile', Anglia, 18 ( I896), 83-100. Cf. Karl Luick, Rev. of Mennicken's 'Versbau und Sprache', Beiblatt cur Anglia, 12 (1901), 235-7. Karl Luick, 'Die Englische Stabreimzeile im XIV, XV und XVI Jahrhundert', Anglia, 1 1 (1889), 392443 and 553418. OILoughlin, 'The Middle English Alliterative Morte Arthure', pp. 15348. Hoyt N. Duggan, 'Strophic Patterns in Middle English Alliterative Poetry', MP, 74 (19761771, 223-247; M. F. Vaughan, 'Consecutive Alliteration Strophic Patterns, and the Composition of the Alliterative Morte Arthure', MP, 77 (1979180). 1-9. Cf. R. A. Waldron, Qral-formu1aic Technique in Middle English Alliterative Poetry', Speculum, 32 (1957), 792-804; John Finlavson, 'Formulaic Technique in hf0rte Arthure'. Anglia. 81 (1963). 372-93, and Finlayson, The sources. R. F. Lawrence, 'The Formulaic Theory and its Application to English Alliterative Poetry', Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Cn'tical Approaches to Litera9 Style. ed. Roger Fowler (London, 1966), pp. 166-83. See, for example, Larry D. Benson, Art and Tradition in 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight', (New Brunswick. N.J.. 1965). Hugh Ward Tonsfeldt, Medieval Narrative and the Alliteratiue 'Morte Arthure' (Diss. Univ. of California at San Diego, 1975), pp. 15-16. Thoriac Turville-Petre, The Alliteratiue Rmiual (Cambridge, 1977), p. 92. Cf. Turville-Petre, Reviual, pp. 86-7; J. P. Oakden, Alliterative Poetty in Middle English, 2 vols. (Manchester, 1930/35; rpt. Hamden, Conn., 1968). 11, 312-43, and J. S. P. Tatlock, 'Epic Formulas, especially in Layamon', PMLA, 38 (1923), 494-529: cf. also W. E. Holland, 'Formulaic Diction and the Descent of a Middle English Romance" Speculum, 48 (1973), 89-109. Finlayson has noted that such collocations are connected with particular motifs essential and traditional to heroic poetry. Cf. Finlayson, 'Formulaic Technique', pp. 386-9. James D. Johnson, Formulaic Diction and Thematic Composition in the Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (Diss. Univ. of Illinois, 1969). Benson, King Arthur's Death; Jerome E. Coffey, The EuoEutkon of an OralFormulaic Tradition in Old and Middle En ed; cf. Rachel Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein. The Welsh Triadr (Cardiff, 1964). pp. 454-5. E. M. O'Sharkey, 'King Arthur's Prophetic Dreams and the Rule of Mordred in Lay amon's Brut and the Alliterative Morte Arthu~e', Romania, 99 (1979), 355.

Notes to pages 135-141

179

San Marte, Gottfned's von Monmouth HRB und Brut 7 j y I i o (Halle, 1854). San Marte, HRB und Brut Tysylio, p. 557. There are some obvious mistakes in translation, in spite of the fact that San Marte translated from the English. In Peter Roberts' version the dream readers say that Arthur will fight against 'some monstrous giant' (p. 9). San Marte translates: '. . . er werde mit einigen ungeheuren Riesen kiimpfen' (p. 557). Cf. Griscom, HRB, pp. 468-9; some authors have pointed out that the battle with the giant does not fit into the context of the HRB: It is maintained that it portrays a King Arthur who is not quite in accordance with the rest ofthe p r n and seems heroic and archaic. E. Faral writes: 'L'episode lui-mtme de la lutte soutenue par Arthur contre le g6ant n'a pas le caractPre eIev6 des autres parties de lyhistoire: il se rattache moins au thPme de la majesti royale, dont Geoffroy semble avoir fait son veritable sujet en traitant d'Arthur qu'2 celui d u champion prodigieusement fort de ses bras, dont la tradition Ctait livree par IWistoria Bntonum anonyme.' La Llgende Arthurienne (Paris, 1929), 11, 286. Ivor Arnold, k1. M. PeIan, La Partle ArlhuPienne Du Roman De Brut (Paris. I962), 2691-2730. Arnold/Pelan, La Partie Arthurienne, 2730. Edited from British Museum, MS. Cotton Caligula A. IX and MS. Cotton Otho C.XII1, by G. L. Brook and R. F. Leslie, EETS OS, 277 (London. 1978). For the verb 'swelde' cf.: 'to swelter', NED 'swelter' 2, also 'swelting'. 'swelt', etc.

The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune Anke Janssen Howard R, Patch, m e Goddess Fortuna in Mediaeval Literature (Cambridge. Mass., 1927, rpt. New York, 1967), p. 176. See also A. Doren, 'Fortuna im Mittelalter und in der Renaissance', Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg, ed. Fritz Saxl, Vortrage 1921-2 (rpt. Nendeln/ Liechtenstein, 1967). 7 1-1 43. Karl Josef Holtgen, 'Konig Arthur und Fortuna', Anglia, 75 ( 1957). 35-54, cited on p. 37. Cf. F. P. Pickering, Augustinus oder Boethius? Ceschichtsschreibung und epirche Dichtung im Mittelalter- und in der Neureit, I- Eznzhrender Ted, Philoiogische Studien und Quellen, ed. W. Binder, H. Moser, K. Stackmann, Heft 39 (Berlin, 1967), pp. 12-13. T h e concept of destiny (or fate) is expressed in two me. words in the text. 'destanye' (704 etc.) and 'wer(e)de' (O.E. w y d , M.E. weird) (385 etc.). The nearness of ags. wyrd must not tempt us to look for Germanic or even pagan connotations inconsistent with the tenor of the poem. It would, of course, be ridiculous to deny that the word harks back to Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry, but at the same time it is unmistakably embedded in a Christian and Boethian context. Other occurrences of the word, for instance

180

' lo

"

l2

"

l4

IS

'"

l7

l9

Z0

2'

22

23 24

2J

26

27

"

Notes to pages 141-145

in the Old English Boethius and Chaucer's poetry, show that it was intimately connected with the Boethian tradition in England. Review of Matthews' monograph on the AMA in Romance Philology, 16 (1962), 1 18-22, esp. pp. 1 19-20. Cf. in this connection Klaus Heitmann, Fortuna und Virtus. Eke Stdie zu Petrarcas Lebmsweisheit (Koln, Graz. 1958), esp. ch. I: 'Fortuna und Virtus vor der Auseinandersetzung'. Heitmann, Fortuna, p. 149. Quoted from Heitmann, Fortuna, p. 1 1. Heitmann, Fortuna, pp. 1 1-13. Heitmann, Fortuna, p. 150. Heitmann, Fortuna, pp. 153-7. In connection with the seven deadly sins see Dan Jon Gaytyge's Sennon written in alliterative prose about 1350, printed in Religious Pieces in Prose and Virse, ed. from Robert Thornton's MS. (cir. 1440) in the Lincoln Cathedral Library by George G. Perry, EETS OS, 26 (London, 1867).pp. 1-14. Cf. Morton W. Bloomfield, The Seam Deadly Sins. An Introduction to the History of a Religious Concept, with Special Reference to Medieval English Literature ( 1952, rpt. Ann Arbor, 1967), esp. pp. 184-5. Heitmann, Fortuna, p. 151. Quoted from Derek Pearsall, John Lydgate (Charlottesville. 1970), p. 241. Printed in Chronique de la Traison el Mort de Richard Deux Roy Dengtetme, ed.Benjamin Williams (London, 1846),'Appendix G.', pp. 298-9 [Bodleian. Douce MS. 78, fol. 1 .I. Patch, Goddess Fortuna, ch. 111: 'Function and Cults', pp. 107-10. Ulysse Robert, L'Art de Chevalene. Traduction du 'De Re Militan" de V(q2cepar Jean de Meun (Paris, 18971, p. 131. Ed. James A. H. Murray, EETS ES, 17 (London, 1872), p. 15. Cf. Patch, Goddess Fortuna, p. 108, footnote 1. John Gower, 'To King Henry the Fourth. In Praise of Peace" in The English Works of John Gower, ed. G. C, MacauIay, 2 vols., EETS ES, 82 (London, New York, Toronto, 1901, %pt. 1969), 11, 481-94, quot. lines 113-19. Karl Hammerle, 'Das Fortunamotiv von Chaucer bis Bacon', Anglia, 65 (1941), 87-100, quot. p. 90. Cf. in this connection Horst Schroeder, Der Topos dm ATiaeWorthies in Literatur and bildender Kunst (Gottingen, 1971), esp. ch. 11: 'Die Quelle des T o p s Les Voeux du Paon'. This is the standard work on the t o p s of the Nine Worthies. Cf. Schroeder, Nine Worthies, esp. pp. 68-9, 70-1, and ch. VI: 'Die Nine Worthies in der englisch-schottischen Literatur'. Schroeder, Nine Worthies, pp. 58-9, 305-6. Schroeder, Nine Worthies, pp. 307-8. William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur. A Study of the Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' (London, I960), p. 105. See also Holtgen, 'Konig Arthur und Fortuna', especially his treatment of the AMA, pp. 43-50. George R. Keiser, 'The Theme ofJustice in the Alliterative Morte Arthure', Annuale Mediaevale, 16 (1975), 94-1 09, quot, p, 98. Concerning the chronology of the Nine Worthies cf. Holtgen, 'Konig Arthur und Fortuna', pp. 46-7. The author of the AMA has the philosopher predict that Geoffrey ofBouillon

Notes to pages M6-152

29

30

' 32

'

34

35

181

will be anointed and crowned King ofJerusaJem. Yet in reality. Geoffrey refused the crown. He called himself simply 'protector of the Holy Sepulchre'. Apparently the author alters the historical facts in order to make his standpoint clear: Geoffrey has to be one of the great and mighty, otherwise his casus would not be justified. Force of arms was not only employed by emperors and kings for the conquering of countries and cities. The Emperor Constantine, whom Arthur calls his next of kin, not only conquered Rome, but also recovered the Holy Cross by military power; and Geoffrey of Bouillon, one of the Worthies, was not ashamed to wage a bloody war in order to capture the Cross. the Christian symbol of peace. This is paralleled by another Worthy. the Emperor Charlemagne, who captured the Holy Lance and the instruments with which Christ had been tortured, by brute force, Concerning Sir Frolle see Larry D. Benson, Ktng Arthur's Death. The Middle English Stanzaic Morte Arthur and Alliterative Morte Arthure (Indianapolis, New York, 1974), p. 210, note on line 3345. There are several passages in the A M A where victory is attributed to Fortune: 11 76-7; I 749-50; 2994-300. See Krishna, A M A . note on line 3345. Cf. line 1741: 'Howell and Hardelfe, happy in a m e z . . .'. Rolf Breuer, Die Funktion des Naturschildemngm in den mittelengtischen VersromanZen (Diss. Gottingen, 1966), pp. 9&3. Cf. Wilfried Schouwink, Fortuna im Alexanderroman Rudolfs w n Ems. Studien cum Verhiiltnisvon Fortuna und Virtus bei e z n a Autos der spiten Staufir~eit(Gappingen. 1977), esp. pp. 5 0 4 0 .

Subject Index Alexander-romances. 8. 1 76 (n. 14) alliteratton, 71, 78-9. 81 alliterative long line, 22 Alliterative Revival. 8. 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 57. 59, 60, 61, 165 (n. 15) Alhteracrve Survt\al. 70, 78, 81 Amzs and Amrloun. i 4 anti-romance, 15. 16, 24 archatsm, 165 (n. 16) Arthour and Merlin. 43. 105. 174 (n. 41) Arthur. 8, 9, 11-13. 58-9. 85. 86. 89. 90, 91. 92. 93. 94. 96. 98. 100. 102-5. 106-9. If2-K6. 131, 134-9. 140. 141, 173 (n. 35), 175 (nn. 21. 22. 24, 25). 177 (n 22). 178 (n. 24). 179 (nn. 32.33) as conqueror and warlord. 145. 146, 147, 148. 151 council. 26. 35 death of, 138-9. 152 Fall of. 59, 91. ll.%t6. 135. 139. 141, 144. 150. 151. 152 feast. 20. 34. 86. 91. 93. 94. 158 (n. 22) and polrtrcs. 17 return of. 28-9 role of in AMA. 41. 42. 52. 112-14, 120. 125. 179 superbur, 149. 150. 151 Arthurlan trad~tron.17. 18. 22. w 3 audtence. 4 4 4 . 6 7 . 85. 89.95. 116 Avalon. 26. I27 a w t u r c , 22 T k Awnprs off Arthure. 43. 47. 52. 66, 101, 103. 164 (n. 61). 166 (n 28) A~mbttcof Inzql. 1M baronral oppwioon. 45. 46. 47 Battle of Bm~~anburh. 84 Battle of Malda, 60. 70. 84 baudv. 22 Bedever, in AMA, 22. 86. 119. 120 Bcowutf. 60.62.84. 1 18. 127. 128 Bible. 28 Black Book of Camrrhm. 30 Boethian traditmn, 1 7 W 0 (n. 4) Borrhtur (Old Enqlish Transiatton). 179-80 (n. 4) Bonn. School of Metrrcs. 7 Brittanv. Duchess of. rn AMA. 19. 22 Brut Tyyho, 135. 136 Cador. in AMA. 91-3, 108. 113. I47 cam-rnotic 42. 90. 128. 141. 152. 180-1 (n. 28)

chanson de geste. 8. 15. 22, 24, 39, 42 La C h a m dc Roland. I I f , 116, 122. 123-4, 127. 128, 175 (n. 161, 176 (n. 31) chivalry and knighthood, 16, 18, 21. 23, 24, 36. 39. 58. 63 chronicle tradition, 24, 30-4, 39, 42 Clarmt. Arthur's ceremonial sword, 18 Commons. House of. 18.49 contemporary allusions in AMA, 12-14. i s m . 28 contrapasso, 28. 102 Cradoke. in AMA, 21. 26. 52. 53. 151 'Culhwch and Olwen'. 30 'Dame Fortune and Her Wheel', 142-3. 180 (n. 14) damsel in dtstress. 22 Danes [Mordred's mariners). 19 date of AMA, 11, 12. 100, 101, 104 destiny (fate). 179 (n. 4) 7% Dcshction of Ttop. 8. 49. 84, 166 (n 28) dolor. 142 Dream of the Dragon and B a r . 8. 36. 64. 90. 92. 93. 13-9. 140 Herzelovde's dragon drram. in Par