This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Alliterative Verse and Nationalist Literary History
Randy P. Schiff
ThE OhiO STaTE UnivERSiTy PRESS
Copyright © 2011 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schiff, Randy P., 1972– Revivalist fantasy : alliterative verse and nationalist literary history / Randy P. Schiff. p. cm.—(Interventions : new studies in medieval culture) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8142-1152-6 (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-0-8142-9251-8 (cd-rom) 1. English poetry—Middle English, 1100–1500—History and criticism. 2. Alliteration. I. Title. II. Series: Interventions : new studies in medieval culture. PR317.A55S36 2011 821’.1093581—dc22 2010047838
This book is available in the following editions: Cloth (ISBN 978-0-8142-1152-6) CD-ROM (ISBN 978-0-8142-9251-8) Cover design by Larry Nozik Type set in Times New Roman Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48–1992. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
FRoM ModERN to MEdIEvAl 1 BEyoNd thE BACKwAtER: AllItERAtIvE REvIvAlISM ANd NAtIoNAlISt FANtASy CRoSS-ChANNEl BECoMINgS-ANIMAl: PRIMAl CouRtlINESS IN Guillaume de Palerne ANd William of Palerne dEStABIlIzINg ARthuRIAN EMPIRE: gENdER ANd ANxIEty IN AllItERAtIvE tExtS oF thE MIlItARIzEd MIdlANdS BoRdERlANd SuBvERSIoNS: ANtI-IMPERIAl ENERgIES IN thE aWntyrs off arthure ANd GolaGros and GaWane BAgS oF BooKS ANd BooKS AS BAgS: PolItICAl PRotESt. ANd thE Piers PloWman tRAdItIoN vii 1 17 2 45 3 72 4 100 5 128 EpILoguE EPoChAl hIStoRIogRAPhy ANd RE-ENgAgEMENt wIth AllItERAtIvE PoEMS Notes Bibliography Index 157 163 229 255 .Contents Acknowledgments INtroductIoN REvIvAlISt FANtASy: AllItERAtIvE NAtIoNAlISM. CoMMuNICAtIoNS tEChNologIES.
I am very grateful to Malcolm Litchfield. who inspired me to pursue medieval studies and who gave me my first. I owe a special debt to Jerold Frakes. I am grateful for his continued mentorship. which is all the stronger for his having engaged with it. anonymous reader who responded to my manuscript. The memory of his warmth and wisdom will always enrich my work. Maggie Diehl. To Carol Braun Pasternack I owe great thanks for her searching commentary on my work. Aranye has remained a key source of counsel. I wish I could thank Richard Helgerson once more for all his care and cheer in responding to my dissertation. and inspiration. for his rich readings of two chapters and his sage advice on my general project. fateful taste of alliterative verse. and their careful analysis has saved me from much error. Any infelicities in the present work are my responsibility. vii F . My adviser when this project began. To Jim Holstun I am very grateful for feedback on so much of my work. I owe a singular debt to Carolyn Dinshaw. whose insights and enthusiasm have been at the heart of this work.AC KN owlEd g MEN t S IRSt ANd FoREMoSt. in both its early and later stages. Reflecting on the road leading to this book. who has counseled me on matters great and small in my development of this book. and everyone else involved at The Ohio State University Press for helping bring my manuscript to print. In this respect I also owe a singular debt to Ethan Knapp for enabling this wonderful venue for my work. I must acknowledge my unique debt to Patricia Clare Ingham and to the other. encouragement. Martin Boyne. I would like to thank Aranye Fradenburg. Their extraordinary insights have enriched my argument. I must also thank Graham Hammill.
my anonymous readers at Speculum. Regarding chapter 3 material. For chapter 2. who invited me to present at the 2008 NCS congress at Swansea University. I must thank the English Department and the College of Letters and Science at UC Santa Barbara and the English Department and College of Arts and Sciences at SUNY Buffalo. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. and Susan Eilenberg. among many others. Alan Lupack. James J. . Barbara Bono. Aranye Fradenburg. I owe thanks to Ruth Mack. and Sue Niebrzydowski. Joseph Taylor. David Schmid. Sandro Sticca. Regarding chapter 4 material. who invited me to present before the SUNY Buffalo English Department. I owe thanks to all at the British Library. Elizabeth Scala. I thank Speculum and its editor. and Candace Waid. Robert J. who invited me to present before the Early Studies Group at the University of Rochester.viii · AC K NowlEdgMENt S An earlier version of portions of chapter 2 appeared in Exemplaria 21 (2009). Russell Peck. I am grateful to Frank Grady. Scott Stevens. who invited me to present at Kalamazoo in 2003. who invited me to present at the 2001 MLA meeting. for permission to reprint the work. I am grateful to Maney Publishing for allowing me to reprint this expanded and updated version and to the editors. Kathy Lavezzo. Paxson. David Marshall. Kurt Heinzelman. the Bodleian Library. to Rachel Ablow. Patricia Clare Ingham. Thomas Hahn. Cristanne Miller. For providing access to manuscripts that I consulted in my research. who invited me to present at the 2007 Medieval Academy meeting at the University of Toronto. Andy Stott. Michael O’Connell. and Molly Lynde-Recchia. I am grateful. Tison Pugh. and Ned Lee Fielden. Geraldine Heng. Martin Shichtman. Siobhain Calkin. I am grateful to Paul Szarmach. who invited me to present at the 2006 NCS congress. the students in my 2006 Pre-Postcolonialism Seminar at SUNY Buffalo. Katherine Terrell. I am grateful to my anonymous readers at Exemplaria. Szarmach. and the Cambridge University Library. For feedback on my general project. Paul E. I am indebted to Mili Clark. Laurie Finke. I am grateful to the Pierpont Morgan Library and to the Julian Park Publication Fund. An earlier version of portions of chapter 4 appeared in Speculum 84 (2009). For chapter 5. Patricia Clare Ingham. Steven Deng. Jody Enders. Scott Kleinman. Jacqueline Brown. For financial assistance in my archival research. and Elizabeth Scala. For help with the cover design. Oxford University. Meyer-Lee. Carla Mazzio. for inviting me to present at the 2008 Kalamazoo congress. who invited me to address the SUNY Buffalo English Department. Mark Amodio. For comments on chapter 1. and Daniel Hack. who invited me to present at the 2005 MAP meeting.
for all their loving support. . especially my parents. I thank my wife. Maki Becker. More than anyone. and my sons Duncan and Desmond. Barbara and Neal Schiff.ACKNowlEdgMENtS · ix I am very grateful for the support of my family and friends. This book is dedicated most especially to you three.
with the stresses tending to be marked.I N tR o d u C tIoN revivalist Fantasy AllItERAtIvE NAtIoNAlISM. reconsidering their discipline’s foundational assumptions. with two caesura-divided half-verses.3 While Skeat is concerned primarily with meter rather than politics.2 Skeat urged scholars to generate “genuine English terms” for the study of “English” poetic works.” Return and Tonic4—his insistence on retooling a classically oriented criticism of alliterative meter led to considerable standardization. rather than Skeat’s “genuine English terms. FRoM ModERN to MEdIEvAl that. each marked by two major stresses. Skeat argued .6 Critics practicing the New Medievalism have turned increasingly to self-reflexive studies of literary criticism’s institutional context.8 Narrating the “family romance” of medieval studies. Although Skeat’s terminological suggestions did not reshape prosodic studies—we still speak of the iamb and trochee. Indeed. by alliteration— still form the basic framework within which most literary historians work. Walter W.5 Skeat’s call for literary critical self-critique has been echoed in recent medievalist work.1 Critiquing the “absurd and mischievously false terminology” produced by applying concepts from “temporal” classical verse to the “accentual” English corpus. to move forward in framing the “rules and laws of English prosody. for example. in various patterns. The New Medievalist writing of “the history of medieval studies from within the perspective of the discipline itself”7 has been aptly described as an “Oedipal” project that directs critical violence against the enduring work of foundational scholar-fathers.” literary critics must cast their eyes inward. it is telling that he turns to a nationalist rhetoric of uniqueness and authenticity when considering alliterative prosody. Skeat’s key claims concerning alliterative verse—that of a four-stress line. New Medievalists have foregrounded the epochal nineteenthcentury transition from amateur to professional literary criticism9 and thus have called attention to the often hidden ideological legacy generated by the 1 I N AN 1 8 6 8 E S S Ay on alliterative verse.
my own story is deliberately multiplex and discontinuous. exposing a stable medieval corpus beneath. and continues to sustain. Identifying the Revival as a racialized fantasy.2 · I Nt R o duC t Io N institutionalization of literary studies. and Continental scholars. Revivalist Fantasy has its own desires. Such arbitrariness is obligatory: since my primary argument is that the Revival is a monolithic narrative that blinds us to alliterative poems’ local contexts. Revivalist Fantasy participates in such disciplinary history.11 I will maintain that the Alliterative Revival is a medievalist rather than medieval phenomenon that originates from. Tracing the Alliterative Revival only so far back as the nineteenth century. I do not claim an objective vantage point from which the folly of past scholars can be isolated and removed. I will demonstrate the ways in which the totalizing vision of a neo-Saxon alliterative movement inhibits us from appreciating the engagement of alliterative poems with matters of current concern. using the fantasy of an atavistic alliterative movement to narrate the rise of a Chaucerian proto-modernity. My own critical desires and cultural moment drive both my critique of Revivalism and my recovery of perspectives obscured by a nationalist literary historical lens. In foregrounding critical fantasy.13 Revivalist discourse tells a fundamentally nationalist story: linking alliterative verse with a factitious Germanic antiquity. I will argue that Euro-American nationalists project modern racialism into the Middle Ages. syllabic poets associated with the English South. American. I will define Alliterative Revivalism as the dissemination of the theory that the Old English alliterative line re-emerged in a mid-fourteenth-century Middle English literary “efflorescence” practiced by a single. anti-imperialist critical priorities. Revivalist critics tie literary and national modernization to the spectacular collapse of a unified alliterative movement. Tracking the development and continuing impact of the literary historical concept of an Alliterative Revival. nativist “school” that competed with French-influenced. Redirecting alliterative texts away from the Revivalist fantasy of .10 As I shall argue. Operating according to the historiographical assumption of the modernity of the Middle Ages—the artificial pastness of which James Simpson traces back to the sixteenth-century epochal “period map” drawn by state and ecclesiastical interests that consolidated themselves by narrating a “negative” medieval past12—I will present Revivalist prejudice as a critical horizon within which we continue to receive late-medieval alliterative texts. nationalism proves the most powerful paradigm of this nineteenth-century critical inheritance. I will arbitrarily select poems that speak to my own post-nationalist. which dictate the directions in which I steer criticism after identifying Alliterative Revivalism’s continuing literary historical life. Western nationalist interests linking British.
by analyzing a racialized rhetoric that sustains a nationalist grand récit.”15 Yet even as Hanna attacks the limitations of this “Othering” gesture. such as transnational identity (chapter 2). In his critique of “Old Historicist” investigations of alliterative verse. My aim is to identify and thereby disengage layers of disciplinary prejudice that have rendered alliterative texts fundamentally retrograde. Ralph Hanna argues persuasively that “identifying the poetry with its verse-form renders it particularly Other in a literary context increasingly dominated by syllabic (and especially Chaucerian) verse” and marginalizes alliterative texts according to assumptions of “defiant regionalism” and “negative reactions to centralizing tendencies. By manufacturing a monolithic metrical school obsessed with a native past. The Alliterative Revival has had a long literary historical life.”17 Insisting that the nostalgic pose associated with the alliterative poet is a literary historical rather than literary phenomenon. and subversive communication networks (chapter 5). I seek to re-open lines of communication between particular alliterative poems and issues of current critical fascination. Much as Hanna reveals a totalizing vision in revising Alliterative Revivalism. and history is for “them”—evidently for all “alliterative” poets—a “longing for a new beginning. I will argue that the fantasy of a nativist Alliterative Revival contributes to a nationalist effort to retroactively arrest the play of late-medieval ethnic. borderlands culture (chapter 4). Offering material evidence of Kathleen Biddick’s observation that “medieval studies is still intimately bound to the fathers” responsible for literary criticism’s nineteenth-century professionalization. Chism’s powerful analyses of the social and cultural contexts of alliterative texts are framed by a Revivalist paradigm: .” if “not of geography. he participates in an “Old Historicist” insistence on a monolithic and self-conscious alliterative movement: for Hanna. so does Christine Chism disclose the continuing influence of Revivalist literary historiography. linguistic.”16 By the end of the essay. This ongoing impact is nowhere clearer than in vexed efforts to escape Revivalist historiography. and regional identities. “alliterative poems” are “always concerned” with the sociopolitical implications of lordship. Hanna holds that “alliterative poetry” is indeed “Chaucer’s Other. Revivalist critics consign poets producing alliterative works to a static antiquity against which a Chaucerian modernity is projected. Alliterative verse becomes linked repeatedly with pastness and with death.REvIvAlISt FANtA Sy · 3 a moribund neo-Saxon tradition. “alliterative narrative” is “inherently exemplaristic” and “soberly turned towards values which will endure”.14 Revivalist discourse continues to inflect our reception of late-medieval alliterative texts. gendered economic power (chapter 3).” in terms of “consciousness.
alliterative poets suffer a second death in Revivalism’s writing of the rise of a Chaucerian English modernity. Aranye Fradenburg calls the “power of fantasy to make history” for various purposes.19 I will locate the rise of Revivalism within the nationalist philological culture in which Middle English studies evolved. racialized narrative reproducing itself in numerous literary histories. Alliterative Revivalism turns to ethno-history to manufacture this medieval modernity. By reviving the allegedly native strong-stress line. failed stand of a nativist. their postmortem eyes turned resolutely toward the Saxon past. In turning to fantasy as a conceptual tool. O. the structural metaphor of revival that Chism inherits derives from a nationalist narrative of double death: a doomed fourteenth-century aesthetic movement appropriates the prosody of a doomed Saxon England. As Reginald Horsman demonstrates in his study of the nineteenth-century shift from “environmental” understandings of racial difference to the pseudo-scientific taxonomies of discrete races. I investigate the ideological vision that projects a coherent historiographical picture onto a Middle Ages made to stage English modernity’s rise. Revivalism fantasizes the continuation of eleventh-century Saxon–Norman struggles on fourteenth-century metrical battlefields. Such racial logic is a key innovation in post-Romantic literary criticism. with Chaucer winning the field after the final.”20 then it is crucial to note that Revivalist criticism writes this modernity into the close of medieval English literary history. with neo-Saxon alliterative . If Alliterative Revivalism inflects even such searching studies as Hanna’s and Chism’s. Medievalist scholars have deployed what L. If Stephen G.21 Spawned in this racialized nineteenth century. with alliterative poets portrayed as primarily backward-looking. picturing a Chaucer who triumphs over purist neo-Saxons by fusing native bluntness with a Francophile sophistication. but short-lived. literary moment.4 · I Nt R o duC t Io N the “single current” Chism pursues in Alliterative Revivals is “the revival of the dead and the past performed. with the re-animated prosody expiring after its spectacular. As I shall argue throughout this book.”18 Generations of Revivalist criticism literally cast a pall over the readings. it is because its fantasy is deeply embedded in the discipline. ranging from the ethical installation of state welfare systems to programmatic nationalist activity. blood-based narrative played an integral role in both the British and American brands of imperialism that sustained Revivalist theory. Each of the elements constituting Revivalist discourse merits terminological discussion. provincial poetics. with its nationalist. Nichols is correct in arguing that nineteenth-century “romantic historiography” fashions an “essentially ‘modern’ Middle Ages wherein might be discerned the origins and identity of current practices and institutions.
” as Kathy Lavezzo notes. Just as Revivalists write a nineteenth-century notion of race into latemedieval alliterative culture. and from vaguely contoured.22 While Revivalism depends upon racialist logic. in which arguments range from a people to a state.23 the Revivalist narrative ultimately depends upon a barbarization of Saxon identity.26 will help contextualize my understanding of Revivalism’s nation as a fundamentally modern construct. How we are to understand the nation in such a chronology remains controversial.25 To build the story of a modern England.REvIvAlISt FANtA Sy · 5 poets revolting against French-influenced (though English-speaking) syllabic competitors. I will contend that. despite recent efforts to stretch the nation’s history back into the medieval period. with the imperial state a preferable model for latemedieval British literary history. generated by a nationalist ideology that saturated the nineteenth-century development of literary criticism. we should see the Western Middle Ages as pre-national. but nevertheless English. whose backwardness is used to highlight the English ascent to a racially hybrid modernity. precludes us from meaningfully tying this “fantasy”-saturated concept to a determinative etymological analysis. Revivalist criticism involves a literary historical writing of English exceptionalism and the deployment of “cultural capital” to “constitute retroactively” a “pre-national” culture on which to ground the modern nation. it is instructive to examine two related ethno-historical arguments for a medi- . Some discussion of what Walker Connor calls the “terminological chaos” in the theorization of the nation. Revivalists narrate the meteoric rise and collapse of a medieval one. so do they project a modern notion of the nation into the Middle Ages.24 A fantastically ancient Saxon culture and a nativist artistic rebellion against a syllabic foreignness become the narrative ingredients of a nationalist myth of triumphant aesthetic assimilation. it remains largely aloof from explicit racism. Throughout this book. Chaucer. so do critics theorizing a doomed reflowering of alliterative verse imagine fourteenthcentury Saxons as noble barbarians in need of the civilizing supplement of a French-influenced. subjective communities to precisely delineated polities. I will understand the nation as a fundamentally modern phenomenon.27 However. Alliterative Revivalist imagination involves a retrospective installation of what Dipesh Chakrabarty calls the “not yet”: much as nineteenth-century historicists display a Western-biased evolutionary model of history that deems nonWestern cultures not yet civilized enough for self-rule. Far from serving to sustain the Anglo-Saxonist ideology key to Anglo-American imperial aggression. The “notoriously slippery meaning” of the word “nation.
Shem. post-Enlightenment.32 In suggesting that we speak of ethnic communities and states as separate entities. I join certain theorists of the medieval nation in critiquing teleological understandings of national development. then nations must be seen as polities of great antiquity. and sensibilities about territory. for example. stock. As in the case of race-based views of national identity. Influenced by Romantic notions of cultural particularity. kind.29 If we regard the nation as signifying merely the perception of common birth and culture. requiring the homogenizing mechanisms of the bureaucratically centralized. . The Vulgate Bible offers a particularly influential use of natio in its enumeration of the various descendants of Noah’s three sons. for “birth. Ham.34 I differ in choosing to break from the vocabulary of a medieval nation in my investigation of radically other forms of political community that bear uncanny resemblance to the transnational present. species. set”28—would be of great antiquity.6 · I Nt R o duC t Io N eval nation. I do not mean to discount the importance of ethnic identity in late-medieval Britain. with roots stretching well beyond historical memory. rather than providing space for medieval nations. race. Smith calls ethnies. and Japheth (Gen. While I share Ingham’s vision of a dynamic Britain in which competing visions of community included various combinations of regional and ethnic identities. aligns my work with Patricia Clare Ingham’s study of late-medieval British political fantasy.31 While modern nations are qualified by ethnic roots. the criterion of linguistic solidarity leads to claims for numerous nations. and what Anthony D. according to Smith. transnational communities based on religious and class affiliations. which depend on racial and linguistic associations.” as a term connoting a community bound together by notions of common blood—rooted in the Latin natio. I will suggest that. late-medieval Britain featured a range of non-congruent entities—regnal (and imperial) states. If we were to rely merely on historical uses. in a catalogue appropriated both by medieval genealogists and by nineteenth-century race theorists. while seeing religious and class identities as constantly complicating individual political loyalties. 10:1–32).33 My focus on empire. tribe.30 Neither racial nor linguistic bonds produce the nation as I understand the term. with each possessing the same primordial antiquity as the language with which it is conflated.” and extended to mean “breed. origin. though I do seek to work against a recent trend of extending the nation’s genealogy lineally back into the Middle Ages. post-industrial state. origin myths. they are nevertheless distinct from these ethnic identities. then the word “nation. ethnic groups sharing common culture. some critics emphasize language as the primary force binding individuals into a nation.
the industrialist-capitalist nation still exploits emotive ethnic attachments. and then became the primary vehicle for.39 Emphasizing the modern nation’s faux-antiquity.41 Literary history proves a key channel through which nineteenth-century nationalists exploit ethnicity’s homogenizing power. Producing the evolutionary narrative of a hybrid English . with the latter polities formed out of former administrative units of empire. even as they distract attention from the shared nature of the field in which these ethnic others compete—that of vernacular Middle English. Revivalism’s fantastically aged. though that is how it does indeed present itself. stressing radical difference through a racialized dialectics.37 As I shall argue. Revivalist critics use the narrative of an alliterative school’s rise and fall to imagine a metrical civil war that yields a single literary tradition for a late-medieval nation. I rely particularly on two theorists of nationalism. Revivalists obscure their nationalist motives. in order to obscure the post-industrial rupture that.” nationalists regularly make it their business to manufacture a teleology out of such developments.REvIvAlISt FANtA Sy · 7 In calling attention to the nationalist motives at the heart of the Alliterative Revival. print-capitalist culture. nativist neoSaxons compete with a Francophile but English-speaking Chaucer in a struggle that marks the foundational literary history of England as English. the age of the nation represents a new sociopolitical epoch. as nineteenth-century European states produced sovereign and limited “imagined communities” imitative of originally Creole models. modern industrial societies. Gellner argues that nationalism is “not the awakening of an old. seeking constant market growth. dormant force.35 The nation required significant cultural development. For Benedict Anderson. Anderson holds. as a fixed vernacular gradually became standardized by. but virtual.40 According to Gellner.”38 Revivalist critics insist on such continuity.” Revivalism conflates the English nation with an English language that “looms up imperceptibly out of a horizonless past. latent.” but is rather the product of new forms of “social organization” demanded by industrial capitalism. produced the nation. pre-national past through the cultivation of a general education system.36 Despite this material prehistory. the rise of a nation like England was part of a second phase of the nationalist age. “largely unselfconscious processes. according to Ernest Gellner. While breaking away from the fundamentally class-striated. sense of “contemporaneous community. Channeling language’s unique capacity to provide a powerful. each of which is precluded by the primacy of class-based and religious affiliations in the medieval and early modern worlds. require socioeconomic mobility and cultural homogeneity. Whereas the homogenization of a national print language and the related reduction of other dialects to “regional” status are.
static disposition of uniformly defined nation-states. I do not mean to suggest an absolute medieval–modern divide. Medievalist critics have often been wary of alteritist views of the nation. racially encoded prosodies. Drawn from postcolonial critics’ efforts to work against nation-based critical methodologies. the concept of the transnational enables our identification of networks of meaning that defy boundaries traditionally tied to nations. state as the analytical unit for late-medieval English and Scottish political history.44 In order to indicate the dynamic sense of community formation in the Middle Ages. In emphasizing Alliterative Revivalism’s nationalist modernity. In arguing that English nationhood stretches back to King Alfred’s reign. corporate.” insofar as each vision offers useful perspectives in interrelating the medieval and the modern. As Jeffrey Jerome Cohen argues. we need not “choose between continuist and alteritist approaches” as “metanarratives. which implies a modern. Kathleen Davis contends that Anderson systematically ties modernity to the “decline” of medieval culture. transnational religious community.8 · I Nt R o duC t Io N identity generated by competing. and biopolitical power.” as seen in Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s vision of a global movement beyond static nation-states and into a world of unbounded. with the “shift” to the nation requiring decisive movement away from medieval dynasticism. Besides forging connections between contemporary and medieval polities.46 While Davis is right to critique Anderson’s generalization that the medieval sense of time is non-calendrical—Geoffrey of Monmouth’s systematic synchronization of British historical events with Roman and Judeo-Christian histories clearly counters this view47—it is worth noting that Anderson’s argument for late-eighteenth-century Creole nations undermines traditional literary histories that locate modernity in . rather than national. and instead deploy the term transnational. an alteritist view of nationalism works against the marginalization of the Middle Ages in traditional periodization. and a “providential” sense of time.42 While I maintain the alteritist view that the medieval nation is a modern projection. I aim to link this pre-modern political world with post-national “Empire. I avoid use of the term international. Revivalist critics linked an alliterative movement’s collapse with the imagined rise of an English modernity destined to become the cultural center of a larger and later British imperial state.43 Urging critics to consider the imperial.45 Undoing nationalist Revivalist frames allows us to juxtapose the medieval and post-modern periods’ similarly transnational empires. sensing that modernity constructs its identity precisely against a medieval past. I insist on placing late-medieval Britain within an ongoing imperialist history that stretches back at least as far as the era of Edward I. for example.
Gellner’s and Bourdieu’s focus on the education system’s homogenizing effects informs my choice of medievalist materials for analysis.53 when the Parson insists. ruf. Much as. nationalist origins.51 so is the stereotype of the alliterative poet as a neo-Saxon struggling against foreign newness generated by post-industrial. I engage not only with literary historical monuments. the Chaucer associated with the foundations of Englishness is a product of nineteenthcentury nationalism bearing little resemblance to the class-conscious and Continentally minded medieval poet. Only by resisting the Revivalist fantasy of a nativist alliterative school can we re-engage with the poems’ current concerns. such as those of Hippolyte Taine and George Saintsbury. Just as we do not read Chaucer as obsessed with a specifically syllabic identity. falling well into the industrial nineteenth century. not only the Revivalist vision of an agonistic relation between alliterative and syllabic prosodies but also an emphasis on a self-consciously “alliterative” culture are medievalist rather than medieval phenomena. I am a Southern man. grouping the medieval. it becomes clear that the modernist theory of the nation allows us to reconfigure traditional literary histories.52 Indeed.48 When we follow Gellner’s even later dating of the nation’s rise. so should we avoid reading poets working in alliterative meter as primarily focused on prosody.REvIvAlISt FANtA Sy · 9 the sixteenth century. Chaucer produces only a single unambiguous reference to alliterative poetry. but also with little-known works used in secondary schools or aimed at a general readership that also participated in inculcating the Revivalist narrative. my engagement with a range of Revivalist arguments exposes the mode of reproduction of this nationalist fantasy of opposition and nativism that obscures the various motives driving late-medieval alliterative poems. While it would be impossible to give exhaustive coverage of such literary histories. Pierre Bourdieu isolates literary history as a key means by which the school system constitutes a “dominant culture” as the “legitimate national culture.”50 by narrating modern English literature’s rise after the ruin of a reactionary. As I shall argue. early modern. “But trusteth wel. I am a Southren man / I kan nat geeste ‘rum. for Derek Pearsall. I don’t know how to . I systematically explore modern literary historical materials as filters through which late-medieval alliterative texts are encountered. In insisting on Revivalism’s nineteenth-century. Western nationalism.’ by lettre” [But believe you me. almost no medieval evidence exists of the metrical struggle posited by Revivalism.”49 Revivalist discourse participates in precisely this process of “inculcating” the cultural ingredients of the “national image. nativist movement. Analyzing educational institutions’ powerful role in producing the homogeneity key to the modern nation. ram. and Enlightenment periods in a pre-national epoch.
dictionaries. status of Chaucer’s Parson’s comment on alliterative verse casts doubt on the Revivalist fantasy of opposed meters locked in mortal combat. the Parson moves immediately to state that “rym holde I but litel bettre” [I consider rhyme only slightly better] (X.” along with the Southerners Lydgate and Gower. distinguishing it from the alliterative line by encoding the three alliterating stresses in the most common alliterative verse-pattern.61 The exceptional. while the buttressing of identity through a process of “self-alienation” from past “barbarism” has been linked with the early modern “writing of England.44). for bringing the flowers of rhetoric to a Scotland that was before “bare and desolate.54 The Parson defines “Southern” literature negatively.59 If Chaucer’s Parson was tasked with communicating that alliterative verse was barbaric.1 0 · I Nt R o duCt Io N tell stories “fe fi fo.57 both the innocuous nature of the attack and its conventionality speak strongly against linking it with a national metrical struggle. Explicit statements by alliterative poets either about their own or about a competing prosody are virtually nonexistent.60 If little evidence exists for Chaucer’s conscious competition with alliterative poets. considering recent work that suggests that a strong sense of dialect emerges only after generations of standardization produced by print culture and its grammars.”55 Chaucer elsewhere makes clear that he sees Britain as a realm with a wide variety of dialects and. The literaturedisdaining Parson is hardly an ideal spokesperson for un-ironic literary criticism: indeed. In the Goldyn Targe.” thus improving “our rude langage” and “imperfyte” [imperfect] speech (253–70). ruf. there is even less in extant alliterative poems. indeed singular. ram. then Dunbar clearly missed the message. However. Chaucer’s Parson is virtually alone in such isolation of an alliterative tradition. as “rum. for his “longest and most ambitious work” is the fully alliterative (yet Chaucer-influenced) Tretis of the Twa Mariit Wemen and the Wedo. prosodies: knowing that there is “so gret diversite / In English. William Dunbar thanks “reverend Chaucere. and stable . Chaucer’s Parson seems to anticipate Revivalist rhetoric through his reduction of the prosody to a single set of barbaric sounds: rum ram ruf. The Revivalist assumption of alliterative poets’ regional and linguistic alienation also seems overstated.” by letter]. indeed.56 In referring to alliterative verse. While Chaucer’s single snipe at alliterative meter should indeed be seen as part of an effort to magnify his own poetry’s prestige. Moreover. and in writyng of oure tonge” [such great diversity in the English language and in its orthography]. he prays that no one “myswrite” [mis-write] or otherwise “mysmetre” [misversify] his text.”58 another late-medieval use of the trope elicits evidence against its application to alliterative culture. aa ax.
set about “reanimating the spirit of the medieval past. . building upon the racialized literary historical foundations laid by critics such as Taine and Thomas Warton.REvIvAlISt FANtA Sy · 1 1 literary idioms. N. As F. did not share with nostalgic medievalists such as the Pre-Raphaelites the vision of an ideal medieval order.” thereby ensuring that in “the character of these Teutonic tribes are to be found the fundamental traits of the English people and of English literature. hostile to utilitarianism. Examining a late-eighteenth. Revivalist racialism emptied the fourteenth-century prosodic proving ground of all competing ethnic identifications save the Saxons and Norman French. materialistic modernity. agonistic literary history could be encapsulated as the conviction that that which . and with so little alliterative evidence of metrical self-consciousness.and nineteenth-century “medieval revival. Rather than looking to alliterative culture for a more authentic past to inform a morally deficient present. it derives from a medievalism very different from that of nineteenth-century utopianists seeking escape from post-industrial alienation.”63 While the Alliterative Revival is a medievalist fantasy. only to disappear into Chaucer’s assimilative English modernity. . Revivalists imagined a retrograde past as the antithesis of a proto-homogeneous modernity. V.64 No such Romantic utopians.62 With such doubt concerning the primacy of medieval dialectal self-identification. invading “Teutons .67 participated in the construction of an ethno-historical narrative in which a neo-Saxon subculture survived the Norman Conquest. with the fantasy of a proto-national race war culminating in the triumph of Chaucer’s hybrid poetics.” in order to locate a “home” absent from a mechanistic. Revivalism highlighted the doomed nature of a unidimensional nativism. Alliterative Revivalists were not fleeing from. supervisory Catholic Church.” Alice Chandler argues that both “naturalist” and “feudalist” medievalists.”66American Revivalist critics such as Painter. but were essentially invested in. they saw a pre-modern inheritance that provided material useful for the nationalist mythology of cultural continuity. with neatly organized social classes harmonized by a larger. The evolutionary essence of Revivalism’s nationalist. the consolidation of the post-industrial nation. Alliterative Revivalists. As we shall see (chapter 1).65 Rather. the Parson’s potshot at alliterative poets seems too slim a piece of evidence to support such militaristic Revivalist visions as Saintsbury’s view of an armed alliterative “rebellion” against the syllabic “foreigner. supplanted the native Celts as completely as their descendants exterminated the American Indians. Manufacturing a national Saxon–Norman struggle that persisted into the fourteenth century. every bit as invested as British scholars in a primordial Saxon Englishness. Painter chillingly argues.
In referring to alliterative zones I build on N. regional. Heuristic rather than deterministic. but serves primarily to enrich our contextualization of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (chapter 3). indeed. Along with ethnic identification. I follow Blake’s lead in imagining relatively distinct sociopolitical contexts. I have not sought to map out a detailed history of late-medieval alliterative verse.69 While we may cringe at hearing the racialist logic of Reuben Post Halleck’s description of Saxon “dough” mixing with Norman “yeast” to make a single English “race” that produced the world’s pre-eminent poetry.71 As we shall see.72 While I argue that we need to discard the concept of “revival” produced by generations of critics artificially binding alliterative poems to a fantasized Saxon past. along with my focus on empire and transnational class loyalties. I do not suggest that these alliterative zones are finite in either number or location. My engagement with Yorkshire. Recognizing Revivalism’s unremittingly diachronic pursuit of the racialized origins of a single alliterative movement. regional difference plays a significant role in my analysis. Revivalism valued hybridity over purity.73 nor do I attempt to provide exhaustive coverage of alliterative works within a region. I do not seek to offer the final word on the regions that I assess. these alliterative zones map out the range of local. I will re-engage with alliterative texts as individual poems by conducting synchronic analyses. Blake’s revision of a monolithic Alliterative Revival through the conception of “revivals” in the Southwest Midlands. using its narrative of a crushed nativism to portray England as both strengthened and unified by ethnic diversity. Northwest Midlands. and transnational contexts inflecting poems that happen to be composed in alliterative verse. it is my basic contention that the Revivalist production of a single explanatory model blinds us to the current concerns of poems composed in the meter. and Scotland.68 Working against the grain of the more virulent forms of Anglo-Saxonism that sustained racist discourses in both Britain and America. for example. Alliterative Revivalists insist on the futility of efforts to cultivate a nostalgic. F.70 hybridity is here valorized in such a way as to distance Revivalism from the Teutonist emphasis on Saxon superiority that Clare Simmons has shown to lead directly to twentieth-century racism. I propose regional models for exploring select alliterative texts. a region that could command its own study considering York’s thirteen-line alliterative tradition and the prodigious output of the West Riding scribe Robert Thornton. race-based nativism.74 does not presume a totalizing reading. In the final three chapters. with none “in total isolation” and yet each featuring a unique audience. undermines Revivalism’s assump- . Attention to regional difference and instability.1 2 · I Nt R o duCt Io N does not kill Chaucer makes modern English stronger.
I turn to Wynnere and Wastoure to explore the limitations produced . Francophile South that Chaucer shepherds into modernity. positing a stable.REvIvAlISt FANtA Sy · 1 3 tion of late-medieval national identity.76 My analyses of alliterative poems released from Revivalist filters call such national unities into question. Revivalist Fantasy seeks to redirect our critical attention to the contemporary engagements of alliterative works unconcerned with Revivalism’s ethnonationalist nostalgia. post-Romantic gaze of a Revivalism that projects national unity into discrete social and cultural historical data. While centralizing tendencies can indeed be located. I collapse the distinction between critics who see the significant fourteenth-century output of alliterative poems as the resuscitation of a long-dead Anglo-Saxon line and those who interpret that re-animation as an illusion produced by manuscript attestation of an essentially oral meter:79 each perspective is predicated upon a modern rather than medieval desire for continuity with the Saxon past. Theorists of a medieval nation have produced powerful visions of English unity. such as Adrian Hastings’s argument for a late-medieval vernacular literature forging national identity from insular territorialism and from a religious English exceptionalism that dates back to Bede’s eighth century. In chapter 1. and I argue that such elitist interests render the state Clanchy describes as imperial rather than national (chapter 4). As I will systematically maintain. Revivalist critics exploit the powerful narrative appeal of teleological historiography.78 I work against the retrospective. I argue that Revivalist critics imagine a unified. After demonstrating the survival of such a militaristic. Tracing the development of racialist literary history. tracking its development from the early phase of amateur medievalism to its explicit racialization and regionalization by critics participating in the disciplinary formation of literary studies. neo-Saxon alliterative movement that struggled in vain against a syllabic. we need to be wary of projecting static notions of English (or Scottish) nationhood back into the medieval period. I introduce Alliterative Revivalism. and religious loyalties overrode the capacity of centralization to produce either territorial or demographic homogeneity. monolithic vision of alliterative meter. I critique such cultural homogeneity as Hastings asserts. class. by examining a transnational aristocratic culture that defies attempts to equate English community with the territorial population (chapter 2).75 and Michael Clanchy’s argument that a cultural Englishness surviving the Norman Conquest became the basis for thirteenth-century processes of governmental centralization that treated England as a national territory. since regional. primordial ethno-linguistic presence as the foundation for a stable English territorial state.77 Joining with critics who emphasize such socioeconomic and regional fissures.
1 4 · I Nt R o duCt Io N
by Alliterative Revivalism. Revivalist insistence on Saxon sternness and nationalist nostalgia blinds us to the Wynnere-poet’s sophisticated, playful engagement with transnational issues of class, consumption, and pleasure. In chapter 2, I explore Revivalist anxiety concerning French culture, arguing that medievalists project Francophobia into a late-medieval period in which transnational solidarities precluded nationalist loyalties. Examining William of Palerne, a fourteenth-century alliterative translation of the twelfth-century Old French Guillaume de Palerne, I explore a ritualized animal allegory that bridges the French and English aristocratic worlds. Working against Revivalism’s ethno-linguistic nationalism, I track the poet William’s use of translation to sustain elitist interests. In becoming animal, whether as werewolves or as dressed in animal skins, these romances’ aristocratic youths ritually mark their social power. William intensifies his source’s elitism due to his anxieties concerning the prestige of Middle English, pressured by his patron’s transnational aristocratic class rather than by any anti-French nativism. William also intensifies female participation in the ritual transformation of each noble youth into the homo sacer, as women wielding clerkly power supervise the animalized allegory of aristocratic exceptionalism. Excluding an Eastern prince from the closed circle of aristocratic becoming, William indicates that pan-European cultural ties override anything like nationalist identity, suggesting empire as the model for late-medieval English political identity. In chapter 3, I turn to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and its transnational context. The Gawain-poet’s milieu transcends the militarized Northwest Midlands, to include a Northeast Midlands bound by bibliographical and economic links, as well as Welsh, Manx, Scottish, and Northern English territories connected by mercenary warfare. Noting Revivalist critics’ tendency to privilege male conflict due to an obsession with a Saxon spirit motivating alliterative work, I investigate critical resistance to the vital roles accorded to Morgan and the Lady. Anxiety about such powerful female figures derives from the considerable legal and economic power open to all English women being magnified by the massive wealth and sparse population of militarist culture. Such economically empowered female agents also stir unease in regionally proximate poems by John Clerk and the Morte-poet. Considering literary critical efforts to reduce the Lady’s and Morgan’s roles through aesthetic fault-finding or doppelgänger fantasies, I conclude that such reactions reveal both medievalist and medieval unease with the socioeconomic instability generated by the English war machine, and that such female empowerment undermines Revivalism’s masculinist, neo-Saxon ethos. Finally, I maintain that Morgan encodes her political pre-eminence through an allegory of ages, disguising herself as an elderly
REvIvAlISt FANtA Sy · 1 5
widow in order to signal her superiority both to her middle-aged emissary, Bertilak, and to her young competitor for transregional power, the young Arthur. In chapter 4, I explore two alliterative Arthurian romances, analyzing Anglo-Scottish marcher culture as a transnational context obscured by Revivalism’s nation-based literary historiography. Examining two poems in the thirteen-line stanza, the Awntyrs off Arthure and the Knightly Tale of Golagros and Gawane, I investigate borderland sensibilities produced by the collision of the Scottish and English empires, in which shared narratives of imperial aggression and practices such as side-switching belie attempts to link either poem to a single national provenance. I call attention to the Awntyrs-poet’s anti-imperialist imagination of Arthurian aggression and assess the ethnic ambiguities of Galeron, Gawain, and Galloway. The poetics of land-grants with which the poem closes highlights the Arthurian war-state’s transnational status. Turning to the ostensibly Scottish Golagros and Gawane, I argue that, far from figuring a Scottish love of freedom through a lord’s effort to remain independent, the poet highlights the arbitrariness of imperial Arthurian aggression in a fluid, marcher world. Golagros’s final lordlessness signals the purely romanticized status of his independence in a borderland driven by brutal, transnational expansionism. In chapter 5, I turn to poems of the Piers Plowman tradition that undercut Revivalist claims concerning the geographical and cultural provinciality of late-medieval alliterative verse. Situated in a Southwest Midlands–London nexus that connected an allegedly outlying region with the scribal and administrative circles of the Greater Westminster area,80 the Langlandian tradition forces us to abandon the center–periphery rhetoric at the heart of Revivalist discourse. While Revivalist critics often link alliterative poets with cultural and technological backwardness, the poets of the Piers Plowman tradition prove to be on the cutting edge of communications technologies. I assess a canny conception of book production among Langlandian poets, examining the Crede-poet’s recursive media analysis and the strategic use of anonymity for political communication in Richard the Redeless. Tracking the narrator’s movement in Mum and the Sothsegger from idealism to pragmatism, I explore a systematic deployment of media and authors in a recursive allegory of political discourse. Langlandian poets’ sophisticated understanding of social networks and textual media is obscured by Revivalist efforts to read alliterative poets as neo-primitives looking ever backwards into a moribund, oral, and Saxon past. In the epilogue, I discuss the literary historiographical implications of undermining Alliterative Revivalism. Arguing that my modernist view of the nation involves an epochal rather than teleological model of historical
1 6 · I Nt R o duCt Io N
change, I maintain that the disengagement of nationalist desires structuring the reception of alliterative texts exposes medieval motivations that often mesh with current critical priorities. By identifying Revivalism’s monolithic discourse (chapter 1), clarifying the transnational context for alliterative poems (chapter 2), and then exploring the diverse local contexts obscured by a reductive Revivalist vision (chapters 3–5), I expose the considerable, yet often unconsidered, weight of nationalist fantasies. It is only by disclosing Revivalism’s racialized and nationalist rhetoric that we can recover what Gabrielle Spiegel calls the “social logic” of literary works as “lived events” that “are essentially local in origin.”81 By identifying and thereby disengaging layers of reductive criticism that have accreted to critical assessments and editions of alliterative texts, I seek to forge dynamic links among late-medieval and current concerns.82 Revivalist Fantasy reengages with what has been left out of the nationalist fantasy of a doomed, nativist metrical rebellion, re-imagining communities and commitments occluded by the deeply rooted discourse of Alliterative Revivalism.
nativist. marcher culture and empire (chapter 4). suggesting images of nostalgia. and. its master narrative of cultural death followed by revival followed by second death. ethno-historical discourses that evolved along with the Western discipline of literary studies. and the politicization of book culture (chapter 5).”1 Such a book would at least “allow the author to dwell fairly on the differences as well as the similarities among alliterative poems. However fantastical Revivalism appears. it is only regarding national identity and race that I stress medieval–modern difference. By systematically undoing the layers of Revivalist fantasy that have accreted to alliterative works. I aim to recover the medieval desires and commitments obscured by the literary-historical yoking of poems to an allegedly native Saxon past. My assumption of the nation’s nineteenth-century origins might suggest an epochal literary historiography predicated upon the absolute alterity of the Middle Ages. provincial alliterative movement proves rooted in nationalist. it continues to shape our reception of late-medieval alliterative texts. I have intended the simultaneously destructive and creative response envisaged by Blake. As I have shown through my engagement with classism and Western consolidation (chapter 2).”2 In critiquing Alliterative Revivalism’s monolithic vision. ethnic pride. above all.E P I lo g u E Epochal Historiography and re-Engagement with Alliterative poems N hIS REvIEw of Turville-Petre’s The Alliterative Revival. Blake suggests that “it might not be too much of a paradox to say that the best book on the alliterative revival is likely to be the one which takes as its theme that such a book is unnecessary because it organizes Middle English poetry in the wrong way. 157 I . while exploring contexts foreclosed by nationalist literary historiography. The Revivalist portrait of a unified. female participation in a transnational economy (chapter 3). However. alliterative texts are variously caught up in cultural practices of continuing significance.
1 5 8 · E PI lo guE My insistence on the nation’s modernity takes place in the context of a vigorous historiographical debate. Unless one assumes primordial ethno-national identities that stretch continuously beyond historical memory. using criteria such as Reformation culture or cartography. one must draw an exclusionary line at some historical point. rather than binary.5 I have sought to isolate the precise aspects of Anderson’s (and Gellner’s) models that contribute to my critique of Revivalism. Medievalist scholars have offered powerful criticism of modernist theories of nationhood.6 Insofar as periodization.8 other critics. Timelines such as Gellner’s post-industrialist rise of nationalism remove the medieval era from isolation. As we have seen. not the least of which is the discursive coincidence of the nationalist age with the professionalization of literary studies (chapter 1). joining it with the early-modern and eighteenth-century periods in a reconfigured. it seems an oversimplification to view Anderson as unique in constructing Western modernity on the basis of a medieval other. some medievalist scholars trace a progressively developing English national identity as far back as the Anglo-Saxon period. I would urge medievalist critics to recognize the epochal. potential of Anderson’s and Gellner’s historiographies. as Davis argues. In tracing European national modernity only as far back as the nineteenth century. Anderson’s late-eighteenthcentury Creole print-capitalism is no less arbitrary in its explanatory force than Hastings’s argument for Anglo-Saxon religious identity or Greenfeld’s .7 it is unsurprising that the concept of modernity is as ambiguous as it is historiographically inevitable.3 Ingham. argue for a sixteenth-century dawn. particularly Anderson’s view of a decisive shift from a dynastic Middle Ages with a transnational religious structure and “sacral” sense of time.9 while others. each imagined in the “homogeneous empty time” of print-capitalist culture. is a “political technique” that always serves current interests.10 Considering such a variety of narratives of national growth. assert eighteenth-century beginnings.4 In emphasizing the continuities of pre-modern and current imperial identities. examining anti-French literary culture or British political union. I submit that alternative approaches such as Ingham’s “dialectical” method are vital adjustments required for the application of modernist theories such as Anderson’s. has powerfully interrogated Anderson’s evolutionary argument that continuously developing capitalist pressures cause the “passing away” of dynasticism and typology. which disappear in the past of a linear model of history. to secular. I adopt a version of modernity that undermines the marginalization of the Middle Ages in periodizations that assume a decisive sixteenth-century shift. socially horizontal communities. for example. pre-national epoch.
12 With its emphasis on political and technological ruptures in cultural history. While it would be naïve to claim that modern capitalism utterly levels class distinctions. I hope here to open up theoretical lines of communication between the age of the manuscript and the electronic epoch. Anderson’s historiography accommodates non-linear readings. .E Po ChAl hIStoRIogRA Phy · 1 5 9 prioritization of the English Reformation.15 In applying Gellner’s argument that industrial modernity requires a homogeneous society capable of being efficiently mobilized for capitalist production. the notion that power can be contained within limited sovereign territorial states is already being undermined. with transnational power networks preying upon the very belief in fixed national borders. I highlight both class loyalties and regional distinctions that prove incompatible with the Revivalist fantasy of medieval nationalism. nationalist political rhetoric. Two of the topics I pursue demonstrate how an epochal historiography of nationalism works against alteritist tendencies. epochal historiography can bring postmodern criticism into proximity with the medieval period.16 Gellner’s insistence on industrialism’s systematic production of socioeconomic entropy highlights the qualitatively different status of medieval classism.13 The dynamic imperial states of the late-medieval period bear uncanny similarities to such post-national entities. As Hardt and Negri argue concerning the “new physiology” of global politics. thus exposing Revivalism’s imagination of a populist nationalism as a distracting fantasy. and nation-wide bureaucracy assimilating all localities into a single market system. When I turn to Anderson to explore the unstable nature of borders in the Anglo-Scottish marches. with general education programs.11 Moreover. I am motivated in part by a desire to theorize radical return to pre-modern territorial instability. Tracking the multiplication of texts and the obfuscation of authorial responsibility in Langlandian poems. Gellner’s modernist model offers the crucial insight that post-industrial society organizes itself as if pre-national social hierarchies have been destroyed. By foregrounding technological developments and the cultural effects of the mass migrations that produced Creole consciousness. When I focus on the political use of anonymity and multiplicity in Langlandian book culture (chapter 5). Anderson identifies a nationalist age while simultaneously implying that decisive shifts in technology and demographics can produce alternative epochs. insisting that the assumption of nation inhibits us from seeing the identity play within such communities (chapter 4).14 I am driven by a fascination with the similarly unstable nature of manuscript and digital textuality. probing the “manuscript matrix” that often eludes a print-centered critical tradition.
such as the imperial war machines of Arthurian romance (chapters 3 and 4). and much as the monarch of Wynnere and Wastoure unproblematically bears the arms of England and yet rules over French and Germans (chapter 1). the entities that inspire loyalties in the poems that I explore in this book. much as Galeron of Galloway switches unflinchingly from one side to a stronger (chapter 4). I adopt what Jacques Derrida calls that “interpretations of interpretation” that affirms the ludic potential for manipulating elements. bear little resemblance to the modern nation. late-medieval Middle English poets prove unconcerned with the exclusive loyalties required by modern national identity.19 As seen in William of Palerne (chapter 2). acquired through recognition of the non-totalizable nature of the literary historical field.18 Moreover. My reflection on regional perspectives also aims to release select alliterative poems from subjection to Revivalism’s fantasy of nationalist nativism and ethno-poetic nostalgia. Turville-Petre asserts that nationalist loyalties existed alongside both local and transnational identities. such as the Church. I join Pearsall in asserting that medieval invocations of English identity invariably prove local. considering the lack of latemedieval mass media and general education institutions to disseminate such an ideology uniformly. While patriotism concerning the English realm has presumably existed as long as has the kingdom. Convinced that the identification of Revivalist discourse facilitates re-engagement with alliterative texts deracinated by generations of nationalist reception. I highlight the partiality of my selections of texts and regions because it is .1 6 0 · E PI lo guE Arguing for a late-thirteenth-century rise of an English nation. the notion of a nationalist ideology transcending class interests is a medievalist projection: William “Englishes” French material not out of patriotism. I propose alliterative zones flexible enough to accommodate social and cultural cross-connections.17 I would advance two criticisms of this view. Indeed. Analysis of the fissured nature of pre-national political identity proves vital in recovering such local contexts. serving merely to rhetorically reinforce class or regional interests. I investigate contexts that speak to current critical priorities. but in the service of aristocratic exceptionalism. Rejecting Revivalism’s monolithic contextualization of alliterative poetry. such emotional attachments require a systematic and self-sustaining ideology to rise to the level of nationalism. while simultaneously elucidating regional identities obscured by nationalist models.20 I advisedly make no effort to provide exhaustive coverage of an alliterative movement or movements. Much as the Mum-narrator slips seamlessly from Orléans back to London (chapter 5). with the trans-regional growth of English as the vernacular standard producing a national perspective. Besides such overriding class interests.
its most immediate.25 If Smith is cor- . In his description of nationalism’s historiographical sleight of hand. and doomed to fall before a Chaucerian school that embraces and assimilates an imported French culture. I assert that nineteenth-century racialist logic. Far from idealizing Saxons as a uniquely gifted and indomitable race.and early-twentieth-century America and Britain. appeals through its nationalist rhetoric to various British. that “it preaches and defends continuity. while Anglo-centric. In order to construct its narrative of English exceptionalism. As we have seen (chapter 1). In insisting on the modernity of nationalist literary history. if purist. Much as a shared sense of Germanic origins and imperial destiny drove both American and English nationalist literary histories.”23 Gellner offers what could stand as a summary of Revivalist practice. technically inferior. Revivalists aestheticize ethno-historical material to produce a literary history that. namely. with its primary motivation being the installation of a modern Englishness that postdates the alliterative movement’s defeat by a Chaucer who epochally blended native vigor and Norman style. American. pseudo-scientific taxonomy of discrete races.21 That American critics were among the first and most virulent Revivalists (chapter 1) supports Anderson’s hypothesis that the first nations derived from Creole cultures linked by print technologies with imperial ethnic homelands. In foregrounding the heuristic nature of my regional contextualizations and the arbitrariness of my choices of poems for analysis. It is not fantasy itself that I indict—or claim to transcend. Vance Smith argues. in order to encourage further interested reconfigurations of social and political contexts informing alliterative works. “obliviate[s]” differences “in memorializing the nation. while Revivalism depends upon a modern. performed in the mode of “thinking nationally” that. but owes everything to a decisive and unutterably profound break in human history. as D.E Po ChAl hIStoRIogRA Phy · 1 6 1 central to my argument that the Revivalist vision of a single alliterative school that could be reconstructed is a limiting fantasy. Anglo-nationalist goal prevents it from participating fully in the Anglo-Saxonist racism of nineteenth. I seek to illuminate medieval–modern continuities in alliterative poems.”24 Revivalism invokes Saxon–Norman difference only to kill it off.22 and also highlights the modern nexus of nationalism and imperialism. and Continental critics committed to post-Romantic ethno national paradigms. talents. Revivalists portray them as second-rate provincials. produces the Alliterative Revival. rather than medieval ethnic identity. so does the participation of Scottish critics alongside English scholars sustain imperialist visions of an Anglo-centric British antiquity. Revivalist theory presents neo-Saxon culture as retrograde. with limited. The Saxon–Norman binary out of which Revivalism constructs its modern England is a fantasy produced by forgetting.
and class differences informing individual alliterative poems. Much as the notion of a single rhythmic standard for alliterative verse is an anachronistic. a recognizable meter. I have selected poems that figure transnational identities.”27 For the polemical purpose of revising the Revivalist model that continues to inflect our reception of alliterative verse. and writing technologies. in an effort to re-engage with the current energies animating late-medieval alliterative poems. of course. Chaucerian poetics. and traditions of late-medieval alliterative verse. A fixation on prosodic identity is the driving force of Revivalism’s nationalist narrative of neo-Saxon nativists collapsing before a successful. While alliterative prosody is. they rarely insist on linking such poets with their prosodies. which is precisely what Revivalist scholars do when fashioning monolithic narratives that foreground the choice of alliterative meter.1 6 2 · E PI lo guE rect in maintaining that modern nations require an ethnic core (even if factitious) to survive. so does Revivalism’s single alliterative movement provide an influentially reductive frame. Lawton deems it necessary to note that he does not intend to imply that “there is no such thing as alliterative poetry. I would suggest that criticism benefits from acting as if there were no such thing as alliterative poetry. but also to suggest reconfigured sociohistorical contexts.26 then Alliterative Revivalism’s post-industrial production of medieval ethnic homogeneity aims to anchor modern national identity. Given the near absence of primary evidence of alliterative self-consciousness (Introduction). post-print production (chapter 1). The identification of Revivalist discourse facilitates resistance to such nationalist leveling of the ethnic. I would suggest that scholars have not often enough considered how transparently this verse-form was used. whether used exclusively or in combination with rhyme. because hybrid. . By disrupting Revivalism’s nationalist story of a futile reanimation of the Old English past. composers. I have endeavored not only to negate the ongoing impact of such totalization. deliberately replacing Revivalist fantasy with my own set of informing desires. it is clear that Revivalism’s prioritization of prosodic difference is a gross imposition of modern literary-historical taxonomy. regional. Through his analysis of the diversity of audiences. While critics understandably relish the metrical skills of a Chaucer or a Dunbar. regional politics.
. Trübner and Co. 1–12 . Sarah Kay. I take the notion of a medievalist “family romance” from Lee Patterson’s study of the disciplinary inheritance of the nineteenth-century medieval “revival. Rita Copeland. 1988).N ot ES introduction 1. Ibid. to its central role in F. and David Lawton (Oxford: Clarendon Press. Elizabeth Scala and Sylvia Federico (New York: Palgrave Macmillan. see Stephen G. “Analytical Survey 3: The New Philology. 43–63 [44–46]. Ibid. Ibid.” in “Getting Post-Historical.” in The Post-Historical Middle Ages. Nichols.” in The Endless Knot: Essays on Old and Middle English in Honor of Marie Borroff. 3. 1–22 . ed. 1995). xii. Wendy Scase. See Sylvia Federico and Elizabeth Scala’s call for a “profession-wide interrogation of contemporary critical practices. 4. R. 9. For a definitive analysis of alliterative prosody. xii–xiv. Teresa M.” in Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Tavormina and R. By “temporal” and “accentual... 1996). Ibid. vol. 7. Howard Bloch and Stephen G. xi.” in Medievalism and the Modernist Temper.. R. 6.. 2.” in Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript: Ballads and Romances. Walter W. 1999). Hales and Frederick J. “Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture. 8. 1868). ed. respectively. J. ed. John W. 2009). Skeat. 5. ed. S.” Skeat refers to quantitative and stressbased prosodies.” Speculum 65 (1990): 1–10. Nichols. “Defining Middle English Alliterative Poetry. 3–9. On the New Medievalism’s disciplinary self-interrogation. 3. See David Matthews’s “material history” of the development of Middle English studies from its origins in eighteenth-century antiquarianism.” in New Medieval Literatures 3. Brewer. 163 . Howard Bloch and Stephen G. see Ralph Hanna III. “Introduction. 10. “An Essay on Alliterative Poetry. xi–xxxix [xii]. Nichols (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Furnivall (London: N.” read as the necessary starting point for the politico-historical question of “what it means to be a medievalist. ed. 295–326 [309–11]. F. Yeager (Cambridge: D.
” in Is Literary History Possible? (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. and on the hermeneutic method of adjusting one’s assumptions as objects of study present alternative limits of meaning.2 (2005): 422–41 . 15. 2: 1350–1547 (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nationalism. “Writing the New Middle Ages. 14.. The Shock of Medievalism (Durham..” in The Alliterative Revival (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. in The Making of Middle English. 16. 12. see Elie Kedourie. 248. Reform and Cultural Revolution: The Oxford English Literary History. on medievalist “complicity” in nationalist historiography. 1977). trans. Ibid. Hanna provides a crucial revision of temporal “Othering” by Revivalist critics. ed. Marshall (London: Continuum. who “pack” alliterative poems into the “second half of the fourteenth century. always “made out of literary histories. On medievalist fantasy and social welfare programs. Sacrifice Your Love: Psychoanalysis. 1992).” PMLA 120. in Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial AngloSaxonism (Cambridge. 98–138. To avoid a rhetoric of rupture. 1. 11–12. NC: Duke University Press.. (London: Hutchinson. Kathleen Biddick. see Fradenburg. Szarmach (Kent.” in The Alliterative Tradition in the Fourteenth Century. 2004). Historicism. David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nichols.2 (1997): 205–30 [218–19]. rev. 18. . see Hans-Georg Gadamer. ed. see L.” New Literary History 28. 2002). 1966). Bernard S. Christine Chism. and finally to its nineteenth-century professionalization in universities. 1998). Derek Pearsall utilizes the term “efflorescence” to describe the mid-fourteenth-century burst in manuscript evidence of alliterative verse. to construct a deep and integrated model of Revival. 13. 1999).1 6 4 · N ot ES to INt R o duCt Io N Furnivall’s nationalist publication projects. MA: Harvard University Press. 512. 19. 2002). 1. in “The Origins of the Alliterative Revival. 55–68. On prejudice as determining interpretive horizons. OH: Kent State University Press. 488–512 . On Saxon-Norman struggle in Victorian literary historiography. James Simpson. Stephen G. 504. Thorlac Turville-Petre posits a single latemedieval alliterative “school. 3rd ed. Aranye Fradenburg.” despite the fact that numerous poems clearly date from well into the fifteenth century (495–97).. or even an English tradition as an identifiable national tradition of letters” (11). “‘So That We May Speak of Them’: Enjoying the Middle Ages. 20. See Reginald Horsman’s anlysis of Enlightenment universalism and Romantic particularism. See David Perkins’ argument that literary histories are recyclical. On nationalist ideology and the German Romantic view of nations as natural entities whose particular cultures need to be preserved through state development. 1–24 [1–7]. Simpson argues that John Bale’s and John Leland’s antiquarian programs are the “first attempts to shape a British. 511. 21. 1981). Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. 1982). 278–306. see Clare A. Ralph Hanna. Chaucer (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Levy and Paul E. Truth and Method. 17. 11. Ibid. 22. 1765–1910 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Alliterative Revivals (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 511. 27. xxxiv–xxxv. 73. ed. 1999). 2nd ed.” in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature. 2002). “Alliterative Poetry. O. Vol.
NJ: Princeton University Press. Frantzen and John D. 1984). with an account of nearly all ethnic genealogies. 29. Isidore of Seville follows his definition of “gentes. Niles in “Anglo-Saxonism and Medievalism. 1998). 189–228). 1990).” William and Mary Quarterly 54 (1997): 103–42. 2004). ethnic. “The Sons of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographical Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods. Shem. particularly regarding conflations of nation and state. 42. 27.” their introduction to Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity (Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 1994). 1911). On the post-Romantic legacy of linguistic nationalism. a majority of Americans maintained an Anglo-Saxonist self-perception by the 1848 close of the U. John Guillory. vii–xxxiv [xvi– xvii]. NJ: Princeton University Press. .Mexican War (see Race.2.1). 2008). Horsman links the development of American racialism with efforts to justify dispossessions of Indians understood as savages. 30. An Elementary Latin Dictionary (1890. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006).” in Imagining a Medieval English Nation. corporal. 25. “Introduction. 62–73. Kathy Lavezzo. The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell. fluid collective identities of the medieval West. are followed by the summary statement that it is from the nationes of Noah’s three sons that all post-diluvium gentes are derived (Gen. ethno-historical myths about Germanic origins. for which reason Reynolds avoids the terms “nation” and “national. On the confluence of geographic. Reversing the Conquest: History and Myth in Nineteenth-Century British Literature (New Brunswick. 1997). in Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe. see Kedourie. in Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum. and Ham. legal.S. 43–73. 31.2. NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kathy Lavezzo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.10:32). in Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton. Hybridity. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nationalism. 527. I follow Horsman in restricting the term “AngloSaxonist” to the sense of medievalist. 1–14 . 24. Charlton T. see Jeffrey Jerome Cohen.” which he equates with “nationes” (IX.2–127. Dipesh Chakrabarty. the catalogues of each of the three sons’ descendants. 23. 1986). Lewis. 900–1300 (Oxford: Oxford University Press. William Lindsay (Oxford: Oxford University Press. as traceable to Japheth. IX. According to Horsman. and Monstrosity in Medieval Britain: On Difficult Middles (New York: Palgrave Macmillan. See also Susan Reynolds’s discussion of the difficulties of mapping modern nationalism onto medieval political theory. See Walker Connor’s study of shifting terminology in nation studies.” as do Allen J. each enumerating various ethnic groups called alternately nationes and gentes. In the Vulgate. and other forms of differentiation in the hybrid. 11–42. Smith. 26. Anthony D. Identity. On the early modern spread of medieval genealogies of Noah’s sons. 1993).N otES to INtRoduC tIoN · 1 6 5 Simmons. ed. 250–54. 28. I do not use the word to mean a “self-conscious national and racial identity” that “came into being among the early peoples of the region that we now call England. 90–117. 7–8. see Benjamin Braude. ed.” preferring “kingdom” and “regnal” to describe lay collective identities. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton.
35. Alfred P. 1983). Smith’s work helps avoid an alteritism that would erase ethnic difference from pre-modernity. While discrete. NY: Cornell University Press. 48. see R. mass communications systems. 32. see Carine M. 22–30. xii–xiii. Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca. 47–81. Smith. 42. On the late-eighteenth-century Creole production of the nation. ed. 2000). 19–52. Ibid. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.1 6 6 · N ot ES to INt R o duCt Io N 13–15. 175. Irish. 38. in his preface to Medieval Europeans: Studies in Ethnic Identity and National Perspectives in Medieval Europe. On the nation’s rise relative to industrial-capitalist growth. in Ethnonationalism. 34–111. 47–65. ed.. Welsh. with European imitations appearing around 1820. see Benedict Anderson. 2000). which requires population homogenization effected through a confluence of general education. Davies. 2001). Martin’s Press. 44. On the transnational as a methodological concept replacing “fixed and exclusionist” identities with a “relation identity” generated by multi-cultural influences. Ibid. ed. “Introduction. Empire (Cambridge. For a general analysis of the global economic transformation brought about by industrialization. a fundamentally psychological entity. 2005). “National Writing in the Ninth Century: A Reminder for Post- . rev.. ed.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 31.” in The Postcolonial Middle Ages. 46.. “The Difference the Middle Ages Makes: Color and Race before the Modern World.. Chris Wrigley (New York: New Press. or Scottish nations. On Edward I having achieved imperial sway in Britain. Ibid.1 (2001): 1–37. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen (New York: St. R. see Eric Hobsbawm. 212. Ibid. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. 1991). there were clearly medieval modes of ethnic identification that made use of differences in culture and appearance. 39. 43. See Connor’s argument that ethnic identification underwrites the nation. 41. Sovereign Fantasies: Arthurian Romance and the Making of Britain (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. See Alfred P. and bureaucratic centralization. stable. see Ernest Gellner. On clear cases of ethnic differentiation in Anglo-Norman legislation and in Gerald of Wales’s “area studies” (5–8). 40. 45. 36. ed. MA: Harvard University Press. see Thomas Hahn. 45. Martin’s Press. 34. (London: Verso. Reclaiming Difference: Caribbean Women Rewrite Postcolonialism (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.. along with a critical introduction to a collection of articles theorizing pre-modern race. 1–17 . The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles. 2000). Smyth (New York: St. rev. Smyth’s critique of teleological historiographies that seek out “signs of constitutional and political sophistication” to be interpreted as early stages of developing English. see Patricia Clare Ingham. 1998). On narratives of British national community that defy a progressivist historiography. xiv–xv. a process begun in Britain. 33. 45. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Industry and Empire: The Birth of the Industrial Revolution. 37. Kathleen Davis. (pseudo-)scientifically endorsed races are post-Romantic products. Ibid. Ethnic Origins. 3–7. 9–10. 90–117. 144–45. 1093–1343 (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1999). Mardorossian.
in “Middle English Alliterative Revivals. 29–87. That Sidney would have had no knowledge of alliterative verse seems unlikely. 2002). All citations from Chaucer are from the Riverside. Katherine Duncan-Jones (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1968). Michael D. Blake’s criticism that the Alliterative Revival theory departs from standard literary historical practice by isolating alliterative poems according to meter. 1994). ed. Derek Pearsall.. but also attributes the “birth of nationalism” to the English example. whose singling out of Chaucer for praise in that otherwise “misty time” of medieval English poetry suggests willful occlusion of alliterative (and. ed. X.” in Practical Reason. Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Larry D. in the Defence of Poesy. ed. 2007). MA: Harvard University Press. 25.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 28 (1998): 612–37 [612–13]. In arguing for an early modern English nation that legitimized itself by appeals to transcendent notions of “order and . 1998). gen. ed. 53. in “Chaucer and the Alliterative Romances. Benson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin. in Chaucer and Langland: The Antagonistic Tradition (Notre Dame. Loïc Wacquant and Samar Farage (1994. and x marking non-alliterating stresses). 1992). “Language and Versification. ed. trans. Ibid. Lynch (New York: Routledge. 54. xxix-xlv [xlii-xlv]. 74. Benson. 84–85. 30–33. Most critics believe Chaucer’s Parson alludes to the aa ax alliterative long line (with a marking alliterating stresses. 1992). See N.” in Chaucer’s Cultural Geography. The Canterbury Tales. Liah Greenfeld not only locates the “birth of the English nation” in the sixteenth century. 49. 48. which are also found in rhythmical prose. 50. However. I translate “fe fi fo” to indicate the barbaric sounds in which the Parson encodes non-Southern verse. considering the fascination with metrical variety that he reveals throughout the Eclogues of The Old Arcadia. all other non-Chaucerian) verse. 55.N otES to INtRoduCtIoN · 1 6 7 colonial Thinking about the Nation. 134. trans. Chaucer.1793–96. listing “that nameles” writer of “Piers Plowman” among the “most commended writers in our English Poesie. see Norman Davis. Chaucer. in Sir Philip Sidney. in Riverside Chaucer. 23. Troilus and Criseyde. Benson. 2007). 58. 3rd ed. 47. Stanford. 15–17. “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field.1136). since alliterative poets competed alongside him in the London book-trade. F. 35–63 . 51. Reeve. Blake asserts that the Parson refers only generally to alliterative patterns.” Chaucer Review 3 (1969): 163–69 . Pierre Bourdieu. UK: Scolar Press. Richard Helgerson. 34–35. Chaucer’s gesture may be repeated by Philip Sidney. V. in Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge. George Puttenham suggests significant literary historical appreciation of alliterative verse in Sidney’s day. Neil Wright (Woodbridge: Boydell. my translations. 57. IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Menston. 52. ed. 281–301 [294–96].” in The Riverside Chaucer. Kathryn L.41–42. CA: Stanford University Press. John Bowers argues that the singleness of Chaucer’s mention of alliterative verse was not due to unfamiliarity. On Chaucer’s exclusive use of rhyme and regular syllable patterns in his poetry. See Geoffrey of Monmouth’s widely disseminated The History of the Kings of Britain (c.” Review 1 (1979): 205–14 . 1987). of course. “Chaucer and Englishness.” in The Arte of English Poesie (1589. 56.
On the competition between alliterative and “Chaucerian” styles in fifteenth-century Scotland.. and for an argument that medieval. 1985). Helgerson’s class-striated. and would require generations of governmental centralization enabled by print-capitalism to thoroughly disseminate a uniform culture. H. Bawcutt. A Dream of Order: The Medieval Ideal in Nineteenth-Century English Literature (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. IN: University of Notre Dame Press.” Proceedings of the British Academy 28 (London: Humphrey Milford. 41–46. see G. F. Angels on the Edge of the World: Geography.1 6 8 · N ot ES to INt R o duCt Io N civility. The Return to Camelot: Chivalry and the English Gentleman (New Haven. 1942).. 1996). NY: Cornell University Press. The English Language in Medieval Literature (London: Methuen. ed. . 7–10. see Kathy Lavezzo. ed. Aranye Fradenburg. Printing. 7–32. Chandler argues that “naturalist” medievalists (e. 195–96. Alice Chandler. 63. William Vantuono. Paula Blank. (London: Macmillan. Broken English: Dialects and the Politics of Language in Renaissance Writings (London: Routledge. see L. [Notre Dame. 1981). N. literarily self-conscious England is not a nation in the modernist sense. 130–293. see Eric Hobsbawm. 1999]. The Goldyn Targe. 24–25. see William Craigie. 1906–10). Turville-Petre reads this as anxiety concerning audience resistance to a newly revived prosody. ed. see Mark Girouard. in Alliterative Revival. Blake. Deibert. 1997). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme. 1996).. from the Twelfth Century to the Present Day. 5524. and Hypermedia: Communication in World Order Transformation (New York: Columbia University Press. On the reception of Chaucer in Scotland. William Morris) looked to a Middle Ages that was more attuned to nature. 64. William Dunbar.” in Writing After Chaucer. 60. Pinti (New York: Garland. William offers a more suggestive reference with his worry in William of Palerne that his “metur” is not to everyone’s delight. recreational. 231–45. 1970). and heroism. Literature. O. emotion. Daniel J. 59. For a survey of nineteenth-century British applications of medievalism in educational. ed. 1–20. 9–12. proto-nationalist imaginings were sharpened by selfperception as a uniquely marginal community. I. A History of English Prosody. CT: Yale University Press. Helgerson asserts that the “nation-state” can only “constitute” itself by distinguishing itself from its “former self or selves” (22). social. Reality. my translation). Netherlands: Bouma’s Boekhuis. Selected Poems. 1998). and English Community. ed. for it lacks a leveling of socioeconomic ranks. Critics sometimes argue that the Gawain-poet refers to the alliterative long line by describing his verse as “wyth lel letters loken” [bound together with loyal letters] (35). and Anderson. Parchment. See Ronald J. 8–11.” even as it “enforced boundaries of class” (10–11). “The Scottish Alliterative Poems. 3 vols. Priscilla Bawcutt (London: Longman. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myth.g. 1992). and political practices. George Saintsbury. 33–57 . V. 105. in Selected Poems. though this seems vague enough to refer to any metrically composed—and hence memorable—work (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. 167–77. 1977). 62. 61. rev. 2006). while “feudalist” medievalists (e. Walter Scott) looked to the medieval political order for social harmony and stability missing from modernity (195–96). 2nd ed. On medievalist debate concerning English nationhood.g. “The Scottish Chaucer. 1000–1534 (Ithaca. Imagined Communities.110. 42–50. in Dunbar. Bunt’s edition (Groningen.
V. 1917). Painter. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity. 9 (New Orleans: Martin & Hoyt. Ralph Waldo Emerson shares with Revivalists an alternative. My formulation here depends on Friedrich Nietzsche’s evolutionary view that “what does not kill me makes me stronger. Clanchy. and Cheuelere Assigne. Sampson. 162–64). On the participation of nineteenth-century American and Scottish critics alongside English Anglo-Saxonists. see Jesse Byers Reese. see Sarah Beckwith. see Horsman. the Awntyrs off Arthure. N. Blake. Dream. 77. See Simmons. 47. as well as texts of the Siege of Jerusalem. evolutionary view of hybridity. vol. 67. 31–41. See Chandler. (Oxford: Blackwell. 70. and Company. provide unique texts of the Alliterative Morte Arthure. in “Defining Middle English Alliterative Poetry.” in English Traits (Boston: Phillips. Hollingdale (New York: Penguin. J. Reversing the Conquest. 1900). “Alliterative Verse in the York Cycle. 61–77. 1894). Adrian Hastings. 62–68. Shewell.” Studies in Bibliography 36 (1983): 11–19. and on scholars’ projection of current geographical understanding of British nations onto medieval po- . 33). T. ed. and Sanborn. Blake’s specific target for criticism is TurvillePetre’s The Alliterative Revival. 72. On urban context as essential to the York pageants. 75. 2nd ed. 68. Race.” 207. R. 184–230. England and Its Rulers. History of English Literature (New York: American Book Company. 3. 22–39. Race. and “More Light on the Life of Robert Thornton. On the alliterative line in the York mysteries. 69. 201–2. 73. 1998).” Studies in Philology 48 (1951): 639–68. 23. On racist views of Anglo-Saxon purity in Britain and America. “Lincoln Cathedral Library MS 91: Life and Milieu of the Scribe. Including a Number of Classic Works with Notes (Boston: Leach. Hanna argues that “north Yorkshire” is a “generative provincial culture” often “ignored” in analyses of alliterative meter. Revivalist discourse typically insists on French-speaking Normans as introducing a foreign culture into Saxon England. While many nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxonists saw the Normans as part of a larger Germanic-Norse family (ibid.” Studies in Bibliography 32 (1979): 158–79. 66. On Thornton’s life and work. “Middle English. 158–86. M.. see George Keiser’s studies. 2001). see Horsman.N otES to INtRoduC tIoN · 1 6 9 65. see Richard Henry Hudnall’s biography in Library of Southern Literature.” 55. 1968). Wynnere and Wastoure. 4. F. 74. trans. Introduction to English Literature. 1997). 76. British Library Additional MS 31042 and Lincoln Cathedral MS 91. the Parlement of the Thre Ages. Robert Thornton’s two miscellanies. 173–89. Religion and Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1066–1272. arguing that the English are “collectively a better race than any from which they are derived. 62–76. See also Perkins’ speculation that “literary histories are shaped by the pleasures of aggression” (Is Literary History. and the Quatrefoil of Love. 1857). 116–38. On the fluid nature of political loyalties in medieval regions. On Virginia-born Franklin Verzelius Newton Painter (1852–1931). Signifying God: Social Relation and Symbolic Act in the York Corpus Christi Plays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reuben Post Halleck. Edwin Anderson Alderman and Joel Chandler Harris. 71. 3889–94.” in The Twilight of the Idols (1889). 56–58.
1 7 0 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 1
litical communities, see Davies, First English Empire, 54–88. 78. See Smith’s argument that class and regional differences precluded medieval English nationhood, with policies and communications technologies unable to generate fully “standardized conditions” of bureaucracy and labor, in Ethnic Origins, 175. On the perception of a social gulf between the English North and South, see Katie Wales, Northern English: A Cultural and Social History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1–31; 64–115; and Helen M. Jewell, The North-South Divide: The Origins of Northern Consciousness in England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), 119–51. Robert W. Barrett, Jr., urges scholars to coordinate analyses of regional perspectives with studies of medieval English national identity, in Against All England: Regional Identity and Cheshire Writing, 1195–1656 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 1–23. 79. On scholarly claims for a late-medieval “revival” of a defunct alliterative line, as against arguments for the meter’s “survival” through oral channels, see David Lawton, “Middle English Alliterative Poetry: An Introduction,” in Middle English Alliterative Poetry and Its Literary Background, ed. David Lawton (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1982), 1–19; 125–29. Pearsall assumes multiple generations of (now lost) manuscript survival of alliterative texts in Worcestershire, in “Origins,” 6–17. 80. On the Greater Westminster area as an administrative center that significantly shaped late-medieval literary culture, see Kathryn Kerby-Fulton and Steven Justice, “Langlandian Reading Circles and the Civil Service in London and Dublin, 1380– 1427,” in New Medieval Literatures, ed. Wendy Scase, Rita Copeland, and David Lawton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 59–83; and Ethan Knapp, The Bureaucratic Muse: Thomas Hoccleve and the Literature of Late Medieval England (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001), 4–9; 20–36. 81. Gabrielle M. Spiegel, “History, Historicism, and the Social Logic of the Text in the Middle Ages,” Speculum 65 (1990): 79–86 . 82. In interrelating desires in medieval texts with my own critical concerns, I am indebted to much medievalist reflection on negotiating alterity. Carolyn Dinshaw, in critiquing conceptions of the Middle Ages as an utterly pre-modern totality, urges critical vigilance in identifying potential allies in the political work of “coalition building,” in Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities, Pre- and Postmodern (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999), 12–21; David Aers reflects on the recovery of medieval labor history erased by New Historicism’s reductive genealogy of modern individualism, in “A Whisper in the Ear of Early Modernists; or, Reflections on Literary Critics Writing the ‘History of the Subject,’” in Culture and History, 1350–1600: Essays on English Communities, Identities and Writing, ed. David Aers (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 177–202 [178–79]; and Lee Patterson asserts the “political” nature of all forms of historicism, suggesting that modern desires could never be fully extracted from the interpretation of medieval texts, in Negotiating, ix–xi.
1. Turville-Petre, Alliterative Revival, 27. 2. William Henry Schofield, English Literature from the Norman Conquest to
NotES to ChAPtER 1 · 1 7 1
Chaucer (New York: Macmillan, 1906), 372. 3. Saintsbury, History, I.100–101. 4. J. P. Oakden, Alliterative Poetry in Middle English, 2 vols. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1930–35), II.86–87; I.153. Oakden sees the alliterative “school” originating in the “west,” and being displaced as “shorter and more popular” poems appeared in the “north” (II.87). 5. Dorothy Everett, “The Alliterative Revival,” in Essays on Middle English Literature, ed. Patricia Kean (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), 46–96 . 6. Pearsall, “Origins,” 2. 7. Hanna, “Alliterative Poetry,” 488; 508; 504. 8. On Percy’s Reliques as a foundational text for a professionalizing, nineteenthcentury literary criticism, see Matthews, The Making of Middle English, 3–24; and Arthur Johnston, Enchanted Ground: The Study of Medieval Romance in the Eighteenth Century (London: Athlone Press, 1964), 75–99. 9. Thomas Percy, ed., Reliques of Ancient English Poetry (1765; rpt. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1869), 266. Percy assumes the unrevivable death of alliterative meter, stating that “the ravages of time will not suffer us now to produce a regular series of poems entirely written in it” (266). 10. Ibid., 270. On the criteria for alliterative meter, see Hanna, “Defining Middle English Alliterative Poetry,” 43–63. Angus McIntosh differentiates alliterative meter from “homomorphic” prosodies, in which lines consist of regular dispositions of stressed and unstressed syllables (i.e., feet); “heteromorphic” lines (such as the alliterative long line) have varying feet and hence variant rhythms; see “Early English Alliterative Verse,” in Middle English Alliterative Poetry, ed. Lawton, 20–33 [21–22]. Alliterative verse was not unknown before Percy: some scholars have recognized the strong-stress nature of Old English meter since the mid-sixteenth-century development of Anglo-Saxon studies; see Allen J. Frantzen, Desire for Origins: New Language, Old English, and Teaching the Tradition (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990), 35–50. However, a number of key critics either ignore or misunderstand strongstress meter: Sidney makes no mention of alliterative verse in his Defence (c. 1580), while Puttenham dismisses Piers Plowman’s prosody as “but loose meetre,” in Arte, 74. 11. Later editions reveal the seminal status of Warton’s work for a slowly professionalizing literary criticism. Matthews memorably describes Warton’s text after having passed through editions by Richard Price (1824), Richard Taylor (1840), and William Carew Hazlitt (1871) as “a bloated compendium encrusted with all the quarrelsome learning of a century of antiquarian dispute and fact-grubbing” (The Making of Middle English, 31). On the foundational status of Warton’s literary historiography, see Johnston, Enchanted Ground, 100–119; and Trevor Ross, The Making of the English Literary Canon: From the Middle Ages to the Late Eighteenth Century (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1998), 261–67. On Warton-era literary histories joining with novels in a new historiographical reflection on continuity that had escaped empiricist historical treatises, see Ruth Mack, Literary Historicity: Literature and Historical Change in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), 3–5. 12. Thomas Warton, The History of English Poetry, from the Close of the Eleventh to the Commencement of the Eighteenth Century, 3 vols. (London: J. Dodsley, 1774– 81), I.i.
1 7 2 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 1
13. Ibid., I.ii; I.vi. 14. Ibid., I.vi. See Simpson’s argument that Warton’s narrative of the sixteenthcentury humanist break with barbaric medieval romance appropriates the “terms of romance” (Reform, 262). 15. Warton, History, I.ii. 16. In commentary on Piers Plowman chosen to replace Warton’s analysis, Skeat directly attacks Warton, arguing that “it is untrue that Langland adopts the style of the Anglo-Saxon poets,” and that Langland chose the meter because it was recognizably and “thoroughly English,” in Thomas Warton, History of English Poetry from the Twelfth to the Close of the Sixteenth Century, 4 vols., rev. ed., ed. W. Carew Hazlitt (1871; rpt., New York: Haskell House, 1970), 250. Skeat here cites George Perkins Marsh, who argues that Langland’s work is utterly un-Saxon, instead “exhibit[ing] the characteristic moral and mental traits of the Englishman, as clearly and unequivocally as the most national portions of the works of Chaucer or of any other native writer,” in The Origin and History of the English Language (London: Sampson Low, 1862), 303. 17. Warton, History (1774–81), I.266. 18. On British national identity as having developed after the 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland, with empire, warfare, and Protestantism binding formerly distinct communal identities, see Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), 364–75. 19. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 47–65. 20. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, 53–62. 21. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 201. 22. Ibid. 23. Eric Hobsbawm, “Inventing Traditions,” in The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1–14 [13–14]. 24. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 195–96. 25. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, 55. 26. Deanne Williams, The French Fetish from Chaucer to Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 3. On the evidence for ethnic diversity within English culture, and on resistance to such views being based on notions of separate races in Victorian pseudo-science, see David Miles, The Tribes of Britain: Who Are We? And Where Do We Come From?, rev. ed. (London: Phoenix, 2005), 7–34. 27. On the rise of the Norman Yoke theory among scholars of the Society of Antiquaries, and on its prominent place among English Radicals, particularly the Levellers, see Christopher Hill, “The Norman Yoke,” in Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century (1958; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), 58–125; see also Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, 11–24; and Gerald Newman, The Rise of English Nationalism: A Cultural History, 1740–1830, rev. ed. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997), 189–91. On Saxon and Norman stereotypes from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, see Simmons, Reversing the Conquest, 13–41. 28. Krishan Kumar, The Making of English National Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 48–49. 29. I take this description from Suzanne Conklin Akbari’s analysis of distinct local
(Paris: Librairie Hachette. Hippolyte Taine. Douglas.” while “the other sought to recommend itself to the taste and character of the more numerous part of the population. Vikings. van Laun (New York: Grosset & Dunlap. Taine. Marsh writes that “Early English poetry divided itself into two schools. and Normans merely “calmed down” enough to become “proto-English. 40. I leave the terms untranslated. I.17. 271–75. see A. 2002). see Horsman. see David C. Jr. some remains of which still lingered in the memory of the common people” (Origin and History. The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton. On William the Conqueror’s pragmatic self-presentation as king of the English. 32. Identity of England (Oxford: Oxford University Press. All English translations derive from Taine. trans. 49. by reviving the laws of Saxon verse. which resurfaces as an anti-immigrant reaction in England.” in Cultural Diversity in the British Middle Ages: Archipelago. 39. eds.” Modern Language Notes 7 (1892): 191–92. History of English Literature. Tolman.” Anderson insists that every nation sees its borders as “finite” and its place as situated on a plane with “other nations” (Imagined Communities.” until the “Norman Conquest” enabled truly permanent settlement. 6–7). 34. 31. 17–37 [19–23]. H. Colls shows. 1964). History. enabling national “progress. I incorporate the original French in brackets where significant alternatives might be imagined. Defining the nation as a community imagined as “inherently limited and sovereign.. 4 vols. 133. NJ: Princeton University Press.” with one “follow[ing] Continental models in literature.xxii. The Making of English National Identity. 25–61. England. Despite the Normans’ singular role. 2002). Henry Louis Gates. 180–82. 2008). 33. in “Between Diaspora and Conquest: Norman Assimilation in Petrus Alfonsi’s Disciplina Clericalis and Marie de France’s Fables. As Taine’s tripartite literary historical scheme is well known. 35. Horsman. On ten Brink’s background. L'Histoire de la littérature anglaise. 29–36.NotES to ChAPtER 1 · 1 7 3 communities formed by assimilative Norman conquerors. 38. 276). Island. 29–38. and on continuity of loyalties and traditions between Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman England. ed. Horsman. 30. 37. and Patrick J. On nationalism in nineteenth-century philologies. Race and Manifest Destiny. which shifts from general praise of liberty-loving Anglo-Saxons to a pseudo-scientific doctrine of racial superiority in which Anglo-Saxons are an elite sub-group within an allegedly superior “Germanic” branch of a “Caucasian” race. “Obituary: Bernhard ten Brink.. . Jeffrey Jerome Cohen (New York: Palgrave Macmillan. beginning in the 1940s (133–39). Geary. Race and Manifest Destiny. William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact upon England (Berkeley: University of California Press. Medievalism. 36.1 (1985): 1–21 . H. Race and Manifest Destiny. On the nineteenth-century development of racist Anglo-Saxonism. “Writing ‘Race’ and the Difference It Makes. 1863–64). 1908). see the essays collected in Bloch and Nichols.” Critical Inquiry 12. the “invader thesis” inspired much Victorian Anglo-Saxonism. according to which “waves” of invading Saxons. On the “invader thesis” in nineteenth-century Victorian archaeology.” see Robert Colls. and Kumar. I.
170].161]. 105]. see Thorlac Turville-Petre. Taine.413]. 1877). I.330 [I.’ Review of English Studies 25 (1970): 1–14. trans. I. I. (London: George Bell & Sons. On variations of the thirteen-line stanza form. ‘Summer Sunday. 55. I utilize Horace M. 1891). 63. 2 vols. 43.332 [I. Ibid. Kennedy’s translation.’ and ‘The Awntyrs off Arthure’: Three Poems in the Thirteen-Line Stanza. I. I. 48. 26–27. 29–38.120 [I.329–30 [I.” That Revivalist formulations parallel such cinematic story-telling supports Fradenburg’s view of the profound interrelation of fantasy and scholarship—that “philology also dreams” (“‘So That We May Speak of Them. Miller) stages explicit Saxon-Norman conflict in 1191. Taine. Ibid. I. (Berlin: Robert Oppenheim.” 58. For all citations from ten Brink.. 57–60. 52. I. Myth of Nations. 140–41 [I. hard-working “Saxons” oppressed by “Norman” nobles prone to feasting and armed tax collection.117–18 [I.329. And I’ll never rest until every Saxon in this shire can stand up free men and strike a blow for Richard and England. I. Construction of Nationhood. Ibid. Ibid. Horace M. Ibid. 45. Bernhard ten Brink. 42. Nations and Nationalism. 49.. 2004). I. Ibid.179. with simply dressed. 44. Kennedy.411. 59. Warner Brothers’ 1938 The Adventures of Robin Hood (directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley. in Greenfeld. 165. 134 [140–41]. . I.108].. Geschichte der Englischen Litteratur.. 62.415]. and is a key source for Revivalist use of the term “Revival”. Alois Brandl.. ed.108 [I. 12. Early English Literature (to Wiclif). .160]. 64..81 [Histoire I. Ibid. Bernhard ten Brink. Resistance to the Norman juggernaut is played out in the forest-zones beyond the reach of the Norman war machine. Saintsbury.. 50. 61. which was revised by ten Brink (vii–viii). 53.166. 65. Ibid. Nationalism. . 56.. Ibid. Taine.330 [I.412].’ ‘De Tribus Regibus Mortuis. 46. 60.161 [I.. and Hastings. The Reformation is accorded a foundational role for a precocious English nationalism.413]. Ibid.1 7 4 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 1 41. 51–53. Ibid. Wiederaufblühen could be more literally rendered as “reflowering. Geary. I. I incorporate bracketed translations from the original German when helpful. 54. 2 vol. written by Norman Reilly Raine and Seton I. History. with Robin Hood highlighting the national nature of his insurgency: “I’ll organize a revolt. I. I. History.60]. I. History. I. History. I. Premodern Places: Calais to Surinam. Ibid. Ibid. 57. and . Chaucer to Aphra Behn (Madden: Blackwell.161–62 [I. 47. Gellner.’” 210).120]. 169 [I.134]. David Wallace. Ibid.. 51.
I. 77. Blackwood and Sons. 59).. Such American interventions may be motivated by what Biddick calls the “lingering magic power” of “English America.179–80. 57. 55–56. Blyth Webster’s “A Biographical Memoir. I. Ibid. Amours. Ibid. Ibid.290–92. 66.191. 80. F. I. History. The Original Chronicle of Andrew of Wyntoun. 71.” according to which American educational institutions prioritize English history in a joint AngloSaxonist imperialism (Shock of Medievalism.. ed. History. 67. 69. 1947). after describing the poet’s dialect as of a “Northern” origin that could be either English or Scottish. see A.” in A Saintsbury Miscellany. 1966).” interprets the latter two texts as variant titles of the Alliterative Morte Arthure. Saintsbury. I. The Scottish Text Society 27.100–101. 84. in Race and Manifest Destiny. 55. 1903–14). 78. such critics work against what Robert Crawford analyzes as the tendency among modernizing Scottish critics to favor Southern English. in Scottish Alliterative Poems in Riming Stanzas. “The Diversity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry..110. ed.179–80. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. lvi–lvii. I. F. Lawton. Ibid. 47. 70. strongly committed to a Scottish “Huchown. 22–28. Saintsbury. On the idealization of a Middle Ages “home” by nineteenth-century British medievalist scholars and artists. J. 85. Amours. 81. in Devolving English Literature. Ibid. 6 vols. my translations. 79. 75. See Horsman’s argument that the politico-religious histories of England and America predisposed these societies toward racialized historiography. Insisting on the provincial nature of Scottish poet Huchown’s verse. Dream of Order. 16–44. On the Southampton-born Englishman Saintsbury (1845–1933). 68. I. Gellner. History. Ibid. 87.” in Middle English Alliterative Poetry.” Leeds Studies in English 20 (1989): 143–72 [151–64]. I. 1897 (London: Johnson Reprint Corporation. 2000). ed. Saintsbury. On nationalist teleology and the organization of the past. cites external evidence in placing the Pistill in Scotland . Derek Pearsall. (New York: Oxford University Press. 74. 82. J. 38.. see Chandler.290–92. then American Revivalist criticism had the longest nationalist gestation (see Imagined Communities. History. see Gellner. 76. If Anderson is correct in locating the nation’s origins in Creole communities. 50–65). 72. “The Alliterative Revival: Origins and Social Backgrounds. Ibid. 83. Ibid. Nations and Nationalism. Amours. Halleck. 86. Augustus Muir et al. Nations and Nationalism. 27–73. 73. Andrew of Wyntoun. 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: W. The “Gest Hystoryalle” and the “Gest of Brutis aulde story” may simply be alternative titles for either of the Arthurian texts attributed to Huchown. Ibid. 34–53 .NotES to C hAPtER 1 · 1 7 5 David Lawton.. 10.
321n. 519. 14.. Tom Shippey and Martin Arnold (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer.. Furnivall. F. ed.” in her edition. 2001). 90. 301–4.. 65–66 89. 98. 88. Politics. 100. lxxxii). Dr. viii.” 517–18. see Matthews. Valerie Krishna (New York: Burt Franklin. Ibid. OK: Pilgrim. ed. italics in original. and William Benzie. in “Der Dichter Huchown und seine Werke.” PMLA 25 (1910): 507–34 [507–8]. 117–56. Utz. J. 1. F. Huchown. On Francis Joseph Amours. see Henry Noble MacCracken. by Scottish and English Authors (1839. “Concerning Huchown. 188–212. 1976).s.” in Lectures and Essays (London: Macmillan. II. Bawcutt. Fraud. Amours cites as examples of Huchown’s alleged identification with the Arthurian forces references to “oure seggez” [our men] (1422). 91. II. Early English Text Society Annual Report.” in Huchown of the Awle Ryale. J. 1864). 99. see the anonymous obituary in Scottish Historical Review 8 (1911): 101–4. Dr. ed. 95. ed.” Anglia 1 (1878): 109–49. On the EETS’s early years. and “oure syde” [our side] (2802). “Enthusiast or Philologist? Professional Discourse and the Medievalism of Fredrick James Furnivall. Alice Miskimin discusses the practical necessity of treating the Pistill-dialect as only generally “Northern. 97. . see Richard J. See also John Robert Seeley. 138–61.1 7 6 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 1 (ibid. “oure rerwarde” [our rear guard] (1430).’ ed. 1902). Making of Middle English. “oure men” [our men] (1428). see Matthews. 24. Ibid. 1–2 [cited in Benzie. xviii–xxv. 96. On Furnivall and the populist. lxxi. On the relative strengths of Furnivall’s passion and scholarship. see The Alliterative ‘Morte Arthure. ten Brink. who restricts Huchown’s authorship to the Morte and Pistill. 92. Old English.s.. February 1871. 1870).” in Studies in Medievalism XI—Appropriating the Middle Ages: Scholarship. 1983). viii–ix. MacCracken. Susannah: An Alliterative Poem of the Fourteenth Century (New Haven. of which Furnivall was the driving force and primary director from 1864 until his 1910 death (and replacement by Israel Gollancz). and on Furnivall’s nationalist publishing aims. Amours. J.50–51]. and Pearsall. the Alliterative Poet: A Historical Criticism of Fourteenth Century Poems Ascribed to Sir Hew of Eglintoun (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Son. 217–44 [238–39]. For arguments that Pistill can be attributed to Huchown. Neilson. Scottish Alliterative Poems. Scottish Alliterative Poems. Syr Gawayne: A Collection of Ancient Romance Poems. lxx.” William Dunbar claims that Clerk of Tranent composed the “anteris of Gawane” [adventures of Gawain] (ed. 1969).402–3 [History.. MacCracken. J. See also Moritz Trautmann. Furnivall: A Victorian Scholar Adventurer (Norman. patriotic foundations of the Early English Text Society. “Concerning Huchown. Furnivall. Making of Middle English. 1867). “Concerning Huchown. 1971). CT: Yale University Press. 93. 131–32]. F. 67–79. lxxi. Early English Alliterative Poems (EETS o. In his catalogue of dead poets. Geschichte. Frederic Madden. ed. Richard Morris. New York: AMS. Furnivall. 515–16. “The Lament for the Makaris. ed. Amours. 6... The Stacions of Rome (EETS o. F.” 507. 151–57. “English in Schools.. 94. Neilson speaks dramatically of the “heroic extreme” to which his opponents Bradley and Gollancz went in “claiming Huchown as English.
ed. ed. “Hypothesis. For Chambers’s biography. see the Biographical Note to the James R. 105. On the Continuity of English Prose from Alfred to More and his School (EETS o. 107. see Salter. Special Collections Research Center. 128.and early-twentieth-century conflation of ethnicity and language in European nationalisms. 108. 1932). Nations and Nationalism. 103. Chambers.” in Text and Territory: Geographical Imagination in the European Middle Ages. lxvii.. On the material links among aristocratic libraries throughout England. lxxxii. 43. postnationalist use of race as the “ultimate trope of difference” in literary historiography (5). Chambers presumably means Langland and the Gawain-poet. 1978). lxxi. Scottish Alliterative Poems. ed. Sylvia Tomasch and Sealy Gilles (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 102.. W.. which entered into the “de-luxe” manuscript MS Digby 202 due to a scribe’s mistaken belief that it supplied missing text in the French romance that occupies most of the illuminated manuscript (43). The Papers of Raymond Wilson Chambers (1874–1942) (London: Library of University College. II. Elizabeth Salter.” Modern Philology 28 (1931): 405–22 [406–7]. to a post–Civil War identification with An- .” Modern Philology 64 (1966–67): 146–49. The interchangeability of “Saxon” and “English” in Chambers’s Revivalist criticism recalls Anglo-Norman strategies of containment. James R. 412. Turville-Petre notes that the key exception is Alexander and Dindimus. 114. On late-nineteenth.s. “The Alliterative Revival.87. see Janet Percival.’” 4. Gellner. 118. Continuity. 119. R.” in Alliterative Poetry. 97–115 . Turville-Petre. Nations.” with “some activity” in the equally provincial “north. On Southerners’ movement away from identification with a Norman feudal culture whose serf-holding justified slavery. Ibid. Nations and Nationalism. 115. lxvi. 409.. Alliterative Revival. 1998). “Writing ‘Race. Turville-Petre. 120.” Anglia 75 (1957): 373–84 . 27. 1. Hulbert. See also John Burrow’s argument that the numerous and materially heterogeneous manuscripts of Piers Plowman were marketed for the fifteenth-century “bourgeoisie. Hulbert. Chambers. 112. Ibid.” 412–13. 111. lxv. Oakden situates alliterative verse primarily in the “west... University of Chicago Library. Ibid. Ibid. Stein’s argument that Norman cultural policing led William of Malmesbury to reduce Anglo-Saxon tribal and regnal differences to being “simply English. See Gates’s analysis of the post-Romantic. Ibid. Gellner.” 146–50. Amours. “A Hypothesis Concerning the Alliterative Revival. 116.. lxvi–lxvii. Hulbert Papers.” in “The Audience of Piers Plowman.NotES to ChAPtER 1 · 1 7 7 101. 233–37 [233–34]. 110. 117. 104. 121. See Robert M. On Hulbert. Alliterative Revival. 106. 113. London. Gates. 147–49. 102–3.” in “Making History English: Cultural Identity and Historical Explanation in William of Malmesbury and Laȝamon’s Brut. 191. 122. 109. “Alliterative Revival. see Hobsbawm.
30. 1962). “What is a Nation?. Charles Moorman. 157–72 [161–67]. 1990). and primitive” medieval “traditionalism” and a romantic “medieval modernity. Qu’est-ce Qu’une Nation? (1882. or a Visigoth” [Aucun citoyen français ne sait s’il est Burgonde. 2009).. Frantzen and Niles. Jr. 125. Paris: R. see Gregory A. Ibid. 15. 129. P. Renan argues that “forgetting” [l’oubli] is a vital component of nation formation. rpt. Dark Ages. 183. MA: Me- . 199–200. W. see Barbara B. Ibid. Homi K. Taifale. denies the caesura’s essential role in alliterative verse. 1934). in Nation and Narration. 135. see Horsman. 132. To my knowledge. 11. “The Myth of Medieval Romance. “Byrthnoth in Dixie: The Emergence of Anglo-Saxon Studies in the Postbellum South. 11. Geoffrey Shepherd. The St.” in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: A Stylistic and Metrical Study (New Haven. most scholars accept Marie Borroff’s resolution of such stresses as “secondary. VanHoosier-Carey. in “What is a Nation?”. Ker’s book was originally the first volume of the George Saintsbury-edited series.” in History on the Edge: Excalibur and the Borders of Britain (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ker. 148–66 [156–58]. 20. Imagined Communities.. ed.” see John Ganim. 200–201. 127. Renan. Imagined Communities. a Taïfale.” Proceedings of the British Academy 56 (1970): 57–76 . Renan. 130. New York: Mentor. 1958). see Joseph R. Warren’s analysis of the genealogical critical practice of “strategically deploying ethnic and family resemblance as well as difference” to forge “continuities across time. Anderson. Race and Manifest Destiny.” trans. 123. On the military suppression of the Cathar movement. Ibid. 14. 201. London: Routledge. Ibid. see Ernest Renan. 11”. 126. Qu’est-ce Qu’une Nation?. 90.1 7 8 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 1 glo-Saxons as the victims of conquest. Visigoth]. 2000). “The English Alliterative Revival and the Literature of Defeat. Diefendorf. 116–38. ed. Bloch and Nichols..” in AngloSaxonism. 133. 131. The Albigensian Crusades. Ker. The Dark Ages (1904. Qu’est-ce Qu’une Nation?. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 30. Bhabha (1882.1 (1981): 85–100 . Helleu. Renan argues. while each such citizen shares the constitutive forgetting of pre-modern traumas. 8–22 . in A Theory of Middle English Alliterative Meter with Critical Applications (Cambridge. with epilogue by Carol Lansing (1971. only Robert William Sapora. On Ker’s distinction of an “English. Periods of European Literature (1897–1907). See Michelle R. “The Nature of Alliterative Poetry in Late Medieval England. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: A Brief History with Documents (New York: Bedford/St. 25–26. insofar as it must consign to the shadows the violent foundations of the state—for “unity is always effected by means of brutality” [l’unité se fait toujours brutalement]. “No French citizen knows whether he is a Burgundian.” in Medievalism. 198–203. 179. On the violence against Huguenots in the 1572 massacres. see “What is a Nation?”. 128. 55–142. 1992). 124. Though there have been debates concerning the possibility of a half-verse with three major stresses..” Chaucer Review 16. ed. On Southern Anglo-Saxonism and the justification of slavery. Martin’s. 134. CT: Yale University Press. an Alan. Alain. Martin Thom. Strayer. [N]ordic. Anderson.
149. Duggan. While he does not discuss Duggan’s database. Standard scansion marks alliterating stresses with the same letter.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 8 (1986): 73–105 [77n]. see the criticisms put forth by Stephen A. “Alliterative Patterning. 148.. “Israel Gollancz’s Wynnere and Wastoure: Political Satire or Editorial Politics?” in Medieval English Religious and Ethical Literature. 150. Duggan.. Ibid. Fein. italics in original. Crawford. Susanna G. “Early English Alliterative Verse.. I. In his review of Gollancz’s edition.” 82.” in Modern Language Notes 36 (1921): 103–10 . “Essay on Alliterative Poetry. 147.” 76–77. and the caesura by a space. 1991). 155. 153. and his analysis of key evidence for regionalist alliterative movements. 138.NotES to ChAPtER 1 · 1 7 9 dieval Academy of America. 137. ed. Ibid. 157. Alliterative Poetry. 63–65. Lawton cites the “challenge” of N. 73. in “Diversity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry.169). in “Langland’s Prosody. 5–6]. 1977). See Chakrabarty. 76. 144. which has been scanned as consisting of 99 percent aa ax lines (Oakden. Provincializing Europe. 136. “Alliterative Patterning. History.. Gregory Kratzmann and James Simpson (Cambridge: D.” Modern Language Quarterly 48 (1987): 3–19 [3. non-alliterating stresses with an x. “Alliterative Poetry. “The Ghoulish and the Ghastly: A Moral Aesthetic in Middle English Alliterative Verse. ed. F. and Hoyt N. italics in original. 81–82. The English Alliterative Tradition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 18. 154. Fein.” 50–51. 143. 1987). Ibid. “The Unity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry. Devolving English Literature. 18–38. 142. I. John Steadman argues that “the poem is boldly rewritten. 139. Tavormina and Yeager.101–2.” in Endless Knot.” 497).” xi–xxxix [xviii]. Lawton. David A. Stephanie Trigg.” 19. “Defining Middle English Alliterative Poetry. 115–27 . 16. Duggan. 17–18. 92. See Lawton’s survey of literary historical theories of alliterative verse. 156. 145.” Speculum 58 (1983): 72–94 . Ibid. 152. 151. Skeat.100–101. 65–85 [74–75]. Brewer. McIntosh. “Langland’s Prosody: The State of Study.” 21–22. Texts in alliterative meter typically display variation in stress-patterns. 141. Barney. a late (possibly sixteenth-century) and very lengthy text (Hanna. I.” 69. 158. Hanna. Citing topical references to the 1352 Statute of Treasons and to Chief Justice . “Ghoulish and the Ghastly. Barney argues that the “corpus” of late-medieval alliterative poetic material should be “defined precisely” and its “textual status” (including “editorial interventions”) made clear.” 143–72. Ibid. Thomas Cable.. “Alliterative Patterning as a Basis for Emendation in Middle English Alliterative Poetry. 146. S. Saintsbury. 140. Blake’s doubts concerning a single alliterative school as inspiring his argument for unity (73). Besides the counter-evidence that caesurae are often marked in late-medieval manuscripts. 8–9. The notable exception is the Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy.
Hulbert. Sentiment and Demonology (Cambridge. Ibid. 2. 168. Wild Men in the Looking Glass: The Mythic Origins of European Otherness. “Israel Gollancz’s Wynnere and Wastoure. A Good Short Debate Between Winner and Waster (London: Humphrey Milford. Ibid. 161. Gollancz..s. 173. Roger Bartra. including an argument for a range from 1352–c. 1974). Satire and Allegory in Wynnere and Wastoure (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.” in Oral Tradition in the Middle Ages.’” Modern Philology 19 (1921): 211–19. in “The Problems of Authorship and Date of Wynnere and Wastoure. in “The Date of ‘Winnere and Wastoure. ed. in Alliterative Poetry. 172. 167.1 (1996): 1–28 [11–16]. MA: Harvard University Press. 164. 1952). 166.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 26.. 1920). and Samuel Kinser. Good Short Debate between Winner and Waster. 169. See Jerry D. Wild Men in the Middle Ages: A Study in Art. “Wildmen in Festival. The Pardon of Piers Plowman. Turville-Petre. 165. and again by Oakden. 155–62. Ibid. 297. 264. as well as heraldic references to Edward III and the Black Prince.. 1957). 1994). 1995). 1370. xxii. All citations from Wynnere and Wastoure are from Trigg’s edition. W. 1300–1550. 1990). 170. Clothing. ed. Carl T. The Performance of Self: Ritual. Nevill Coghill. James. in his edition. xxiii. 2002). xxiii–xiv. 171. see Richard Bernheimer. Proceedings of the British Academy 30 (London: Humphrey Milford. see Thomas H.” 116. 159. 118. 160. Gollancz dates the poem to c. my translations.” Medium Ævum 47 (1978): 40–65.” in “The Undercutting of Conventions in Wynnere and Wastoure. 163.1 8 0 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 1 William Shareshull’s tenure. Nicolaisen (Binghamton. in “‘With Tresone Withinne’: Wynnere and Wastoure. Chivalric Self-Representation. Bestul. 117.. M. 119. II.” Modern Language Quarterly 25 (1964): 243–58 . On the theatrical significance of the wild man. 49–84. Maura Nolan analyzes the crucial role of theatricality in a Wynnere and Wastoure shaped by chivalric pageants and treason trials. xxiii. 30. trans. in “The Timeliness of Wynnere and Wastoure. Wynnere and Wastoure (EETS o. Good Short Debate. and the Law. argues for extending the dating to 1366 (the end of Shareshull’s term). 120. Trigg. John Speirs. H. Medieval English Poetry: The Non-Chaucerian Tradition (London: Faber and Faber. viii–xiii. 1945). who links the Wynnere-poet with Chaucer as members of a “mocking brotherhood.. Trigg. 145–60. “Israel Gollancz’s Wynnere and Wastoure. . 117. Ibid. On the dating of Wynnere. On critics’ desire for antiquity leading to a reductive use of topicality in trying to identify a pre-Langland alliterative text. while Salter undermines earlier critics’ assumptions of topicality. 1352–53.. Gollancz’s dating was seconded by J. see Stephanie Trigg. Steadman.” Modern Philology 18 (1920–21): 31–40. Gollancz. 119. and Identity During the Hundred Years War (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.” 115. F. 1–23. Alliterative Revival. Berrisford (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 120–21.51. 1. ed. xxii–xxvii. xv. 162. Susan Crane. 123. NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies.
NotES to ChAPtER 1 · 1 8 1 174. 63–98) join Gollancz in emending to “thre. 1997).” Warren Ginsberg rightly retains the manuscript “thies” in his edition (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. Northern English. “Langland and the Bibliographic Ego. 1932]. Scott L. 183. 23–39). 11. ed. On strategies for maintaining authorial identity within pre-copyright culture. 1997). Halleck. 1989]. and Authorship. 47. History. Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton. ed. For a general study of sumptuary laws. arguing that provincial poets such as Langland.354 [I. 1–42. Martin’s Press. “Medieval Britain. 127–45 .” Leeds Studies in English 18 (1987): 19–29 . 1996). DC: Catholic University of America Press. vol. Reinhard Haferkorn [Leipzig: Verlag von Bernhard Tauchnitz. 175. Early English Literature. see Nigel Saul. 1994). King Death: The Black Death and its Aftermath in Late-Medieval England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press. links class-blurring with misfortune. Waugh. 1991). see Medieval English Political Writings. Charles Moorman links the Wynnere-narrator’s “moral earnestness and high seriousness” with “the alliterative tradition” and insists that “nothing frivolous” appears in the text. and Colin Platt. 182. 179.” in The National Trust Historical Atlas of Britain: Prehistoric to Medieval. extant in twenty-one manuscripts (ed. 38–66) and John W. 25–28.454]. in “The Origins of the Alliterative Revival. 115–204 [137–42].” were “divorced” from “healthy contact with important sources of selfconsciousness and intelligence. 178. 67–143 [78–82]. Boris Ford (Harmondsworth: Penguin.” in The Pelican Guide to English Literature. The Harley MS 2253 version of “Thomas of Erceldoune’s Prophecy” lists “when laddes weddeth lovedis” [when commoners marry ladies] (15) among the signs of coming apocalypse. 1991]. speaking in the A-version of “knyghtys and knauys” [knights and churls] wearing “one clothing” [the same clothes] (8). 180. Labor.” in “Langland’s Piers Plowman. a phenomenon most frequently found in the Midlands. ed. Wales. James Dean (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. Reviewing Gollancz’s edition. MI: Colleagues Press. uniquely affected by two centuries of “reversal and foreign domination. 118. On the late-medieval desertion of villages. I. Turville-Petre reads the opening section as a “series of linked commonplaces. The largely alliterative When Rome is Removed into England. ed. Ten Brink. 176. 177.” in Written Work: Langland.” composed by a poet whose “old-fashionedness” indi- . Speirs sees Wynnere as among the “last English masterpieces of the oral tradition of early Northern poetry. 1959). Turville-Petre (in Alliterative Poetry of the Later Middle Ages: An Anthology [Washington.” Southern Quarterly 7 (1969): 345–72 . 1992). Derek Traversi reveals extreme regionalism. see Alan Hunt.” in “The Prologue of Winner and Waster. 1996). in Review of English Studies 9 (1933): 213–18 [214–15]. Dorothy Everett criticizes Gollancz’s emendations based on unquestioned faith in an aa ax standard. Conlee (in Middle English Debate Poetry [East Lansing. Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law (New York: St. In their editions of Wynnere and Wastoure. Steven Justice and Kathryn Kerby-Fulton (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. England in the Reign of Edward III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. see Kathryn Kerby-Fulton.1: The Age of Chaucer. Nigel Saul (Phoenix Mill. 33–47. 181.
” in “Alliterative Revival. 189.. 179–95. Michael J. xviii–xxi. lxxxi. lxxxi. with localizations ranging from the Northwest Midlands to the Northeast Midlands. 27. and see chapter 3 (below). Community. Jacobs. On the transnational nature of Northwest Midlands military culture. 1980). 186. and Francis Ingledew. lxvi–vii. The Garter motto is traditionally phrased as “Honi soit qui mal y pense. Wynnere and Wastoure.” in Middle English Alliterative Poetry. see A. see Geary.1 8 2 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 2 cates his “belonging to a dying culture” (Medieval English Poetry. 193. and on Geoffrey’s grounding of British history in ambivalent Trojan–British origins. Community.” Review of English Studies n. 88–100. On the dialect of Wynnere. 187. Lawton. 157–70. Trigg.. 188. 192.” in “The Typology of Debate and the Interpretation of Wynnere and Wastoure. For a survey of manuscripts attesting alliterative texts. “The Manuscripts. 60–62. ed. see Bennett.” Speculum 69 (1994): 665–704 [669–80].” 233. Ibid.” 191. On Geoffrey of Monmouth’s role in promoting a secularized historiography authorized by Virgil. Harrington’s listing of the Wynnere-narrator among those “inadequate spokesmen for onesided positions”. 190. 2. see Timothy Husband. 36 (1985): 481–500 . On the prominent role of literary myths of Trojan ancestry shaping post-Roman European ethnic identity. “The History that Literature Makes. 162–91. Myth of Nations.” Harrington locates all sophistication in readers’ interpretations. Salter argues against viewing the “revival” as a “local affair.” New Literary History 19 (1988): 541–64. lxxxii–iii.” 497. On the satirical traditions informing the allegorical figures of Wynnere and Wastoure. For criticism of efforts to assume continuity of Old Eng- . Doyle. 196. in “Indeterminacy in Winner and Waster and The Parliament of the Three Ages. On heraldic representations of the wild man. see Bestul. despite his interest in the poem’s “indeterminacy. Bennett. Bennett. 266–67). 22n. “The Book of Troy and the Genealogical Construction of History: The Case of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae. Satire and Allegory. 108–33. The Wild Man: Medieval Myth and Symbolism (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Class and Careerism. Class and Careerism. 194.” Chaucer Review 20. 195. Turville-Petre.s. 1–23. 184. I. Nicholas Jacobs echoes Gollancz in calling the narrator a “romantic conservative” who has “social reality” and even “the language against him. Community. 197. chapter 2 1. see Patterson. Class and Careerism.3 (1986): 246–57 . Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983). 185. 197–206.. ed. Alliterative Revival. 248. See Bennett. Chambers. “Typology of Debate. Continuity. see Trigg’s edition. ed. Negotiating the Past. Revivalist disdain for the alliterative poet is clear in David V.” noting that “clerkly poets were probably as well traveled as their noble patrons. 162–91. Community. and Richard Waswo.
I. Taine’s vision of racialized struggle for cultural ascendancy anticipates modern views concerning the instability of ethnic boundaries. Anglo-Saxon stability is in sharp contrast with Norman identity: Norman “conquerors themselves were conquered” as “their speech became English” see History. 1996). Imagined Communities. 11–22. Nichols. see Cable.75–76. 51–63. while “English” and “French” often varied as cultural markers depending upon one’s class and place of origin.94. “National Politics and the Publishing of the Troubadours. and Daniel Donoghue. Morse. Charlotte C. See Fredrik Barth’s seminal discussion of ethnic boundary maintenance. England the Nation: Language. Graham. see “Anglo-Norman Cultures in England. Lavezzo. Literature. Nineteenth-century philological influences link early literary studies with a number of racialized political movements. 8. Long Grove. 42–43. L’Histoire. ed. 1290–1340 (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006). Bloch and Nichols: Stephen G. in “French Culture and the Ricardian Court. and National Identity. critiquing “patriotic” . 1997).” in Imagining a Medieval English Nation.” in Essays on Ricardian Literature in Honour of J. 6. 144–45. Vikings. History. Norton. Peck. A. Fredrik Barth (1969. 9–38. ed. Turville-Petre exposes the anachronism of linking discrete languages and ethnicities. For a survey of self-consciously English-speaking statements from the early fourteenth century. “‘In the Beginning Was the Word’: Germany and the Origins of German Studies” (127–47). and Jeffrey M. 1998). Burrow. Geary. “Modernism and the Politics of Medieval Studies. W.” 25–56 [34–40]. L’Histoire. 11. noting that a “mixed” language was often deployed in mercantile documents. Minnis. in which social and economic changes enable movement across ethnic lines. 44–45. Myth of Nations. I. see Turville-Petre. 5. English Alliterative Tradition. On the Nazi legacy of such philology.94. 82–120 [82–85]. John M. ed. J.NotES to ChAPtER 2 · 1 8 3 lish metrical practice with either Laȝamon’s twelfth-century poetics or with fourteenthcentury poetry. in Nations. For analysis of fourteenth-century monastic culture that links Latinate writing with proto-national identity. I. in Saxons. On German Romanticism’s influence on nationalist philologies in France and Germany. Ardis Butterfield critiques reductive views of late-medieval linguistic complexity. A. “Latin England. Hobsbawm asserts that a national standard can be constructed only through a post-print hierarchizing of dialect differences. 3. Susan Crane’s dialect-based view that the English language only begins to suggest “national identity” well into the Lancastrian fifteenth century also challenges Revivalist assumptions of a fourteenth-century nationalism. who posited an “original Aryan people” linked with an originary Indo-European language. ed. 35–60 [55–56]. ranging from French chauvinism to pan-Germanism. IL: Waveland Press. and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland (New York: W. ed. 41–91 [45–73].” Speculum 65 (1990): 537–63 [538–39]. see Bryan Sykes’s discussion of “the Aryan myth” that originated in the work of German linguist Max Müller. see Andrew Galloway. Taine. Anderson. 37–46). in his introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. and Thorlac Turville-Petre (Oxford: Clarendon Press.75–76.” in Cambridge History. 4. 1066–1460. Wallace. “Laȝamon’s Ambivalence.” 57–94 [60–80]. see three essays in Medievalism. I. 7. 41–65. Building upon Anderson’s argument that the fixity of languages produced by print-capitalism is a precondition to the nation’s eighteenth-century rise (Imagined Communities. For Taine.
listed as co-author with the deceased Shaw. (1874. language. 77–157 (Alexandre Micha. in Remains Concerning Britain (1605. ed. and ethnicity.. Nations and Nationalism. 6565. ff. 16. Pelletreau. 17. Backus and Thomas B.1 8 4 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 2 efforts to associate English with “the people. claiming that Edward III enabled the ascendancy of “our language” by releasing legal scholars from the “bondage” of French. 14. vol. rpt. Arsenal Fr. Thomas B. 1849). Shaw. rev. 13. 58. 1–10.344. Court. for a full description. On nationalists’ efforts to conceal the nation’s modernity by presenting languages as “the primordial foundations of national culture and the matrices of the national mind.” see Hobsbawm. though such patriotic accounts begin only in the fourteenth century (“Nationality and Language. and of late-medieval attempts to “reviv[e]” the “ancient English style of poetry. ed. 155–59. Shaw’s New History. Truman J. Backus and Shaw. Shaw’s New History of English Literature together with A History of English Literature in America. with each group sharing Latin as an administrative language. 35. 7–8). in “Nationality and Language in Medieval England. provides further evidence of Anglo-American linguisticonationalist collaboration. Backus. On the nineteenth-century “lexicographic revolution” and the reification of languages as the “personal property” of national entities. London: John Russel Smith. 54. and on his work’s popularity in America. 1884). 9. uniquely attested in King’s College Cambridge MS 13 (dated 1350–75. A History of Long Island. 25. C. As Galbraith shows. 23 (1941): 113–28 [120–24]. Outlines of English Literature (Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard. see Anderson. see Bunt. History (1774–81). see William S. 3 (New York: Lewis Publishing). 2001). Guillaume de Palerne. [Geneva: Librairie Droz. 15. NY: Syracuse University Press. there were indeed medieval efforts to portray the Norman conquerors as zealous to eradicate the English language. 1990].” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 58–59. which is uniquely attested in the thirteenth-century manuscript Paris. The Scottish Connection: The Rise of English Literary Study in Early America (Syracuse. Warton. see Franklin E.” and Latin and French with the clergy and the “noble descendants of the Norman oppressors”. Considering the complexities produced by class. Imagined Communities. Nations. 10. Galbraith qualifies his view of medieval national identity by adopting a deliberately broad definition of the nation as “any considerable group of people who believe they are one” (113. Outlines. 38. Shaw. 34–35. 4th ser. 12. On Thomas Budd Shaw (1813–62). emphasis in original). 83–84. the readers of the English language are the richest people that the sun shines on” (17).” 120–24). Gellner. 288–89. these languages actually mingled in a single “culture in three voices” (England the Nation.” see 35–36. For Backus’s biography. 11. For Backus’s racialized vision of the survival of Englishness after the Norman Conquest. Shaw. Galbraith critiques the Saxon-Norman myth by analyzing Saxons’ rapid transference of loyalty to an accommodating Norman elite. is a translation of the twelfth-century Old French romance. Warton merely continues a traditional view . New York: Sheldon and Company. V. I. William of Palerne. 20–38. 25.. 181). 1903. Backus’s 1884 edition opens with the claim that “in their literary inheritance. ed. 25. 14–19). William Camden provides an early-modern instance. 1870).
1993). informs my own efforts to balance findings of medieval–modern continuities and alterities. J. strictly syllabic modernity. see Cecile O’Rahilly’s edition (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. while Chaucer evolves beyond alliteration to a higher..” in Postcolonial Moves: Medieval through Modern. ed. Ibid. see Patricia Clare Ingham. 1949). at that time the most polished dialect of any in Europe” (I. ed. Galloway. as well as four early modern editions of Pierre Durand’s French prose redaction of Guillaume. 23. There survive two sixteenth-century editions of an English prose version of the story printed by Wynkyn de Worde. otherwise unknown outside of Wil- . French Fetish. The narrator of Guillaume claims to be translating from a Latin source (Micha. William Vaughn Moody and Robert Morss Lovett.38–40). in A Literary History of the English People from the Origins to the End of the Middle Ages (New York: G. “Alliterative Revival. xi–xii. Lawrence Warner speculates that William. II.” Though Jusserand speaks of a national metrical “compromise” that produced modern English verse. he has a distinctly one-sided view: Langland. 51–55. See also J. who turns to Chaucer and Langland to represent the “two races” forming the English “nation. 2003). 27. Old English and Middle English Poetry (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 26.’ ‘then’ and ‘now’” (48). For the evidence that the Irish Eachtra Uilliam is a translation of William. Patricia Clare Ingham and Michelle Warren (New York: Palgrave Macmillan. P. who “rejected” French “rime” and remained with the “past of his kin” by writing in alliterative meter. 1–3. I. 1905). especially 3–21. ed.. 25. 47–70 . Williams. 245.344. 21. 22. Jusserand. 18. and Derek Pearsall. William of Palerne. 29. 1977). Warton. 9659–60). which itself transpired within a global frame.339). Ingham’s “contrapuntal” historiography. A History of English Literature (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. see Bunt.” Oakden offers fairly typical Revivalist disdain. which seeks out “distinction” on a fluid field featuring the “complex dynamics of ‘here’ and ‘there. 24. On balancing local contexts with a view to the broader consolidation of Europe. Warton’s instructive Chaucer forms “a style by naturalizing words from the Provencial [sic]. NJ: Princeton University Press.” the Lancastrian and Tudor origins of which are analyzed by Seth Lerer. Ibid. 19.” 42. 34..NotES to ChAPtER 2 · 1 8 5 of Chaucer as the “Father of English poetry. in Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late-Medieval England (Princeton. “Contrapuntal Histories. questioning “whether the alliterative meter was a suitable medium for the French original.” 53–54. “Latin England.. History (1784–81). 1893). Moody and Lovett reveal Revivalism’s Norman-Saxon obsession by speaking only to Chaucer’s French influences while disregarding the massive influence of Italian poetry. 28. 19–20. See also Everett. 401–2. Noting William’s status as “possibly the earliest of the alliterative romances. Putnam’s Sons.” since it seems “beyond the power of the English translator to copy” the original’s “polish and grace” and “elaborate play” (Alliterative Poetry. 156–57. 20. Ibid. disappears from the narrative. 21–26.
trans. Gellner argues that late-medieval culture.” in Non Nova.” in Middle English Alliterative Poetry. MA: Harvard University Press. 117–18. see W. 31. John B. 37. For an extended discussion of dialectal evidence in the unique text of William. Medieval Identity Machines (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. and Bunt. 6. CA: Stanford University Press. vol. see Foucault. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. in A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 38. “Patron. 30–36. Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson (Cambridge. sed Nove: Mélanges de civilisation médiévale dédiés à Willem Noomen. 1984). Simpson. R. who restricts the era of “biopower” to a French “classical” period post-dating demography and innovations in physical subjugation techniques. 70–87 [75–80]. in Language and Symbolic Power. Barron. 5–8.” in Historical Linguistics and Philology. trans. he still maintains that multiple stages of transmission and mixed (Southwest Midland and Eastern) forms render the dialects of both poet and scribe uncertain (Bunt. 1990]. 2005). trans. William of Palerne. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. 1978). is fundamentally concerned with reinforcing and illuminating social rank. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. See also Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s analysis of “machinic assemblages” as identities under constant construction. 33. On English self-consciousness concerning the epoch-making Norman Conquest. Metamorphosis and Identity (New York: Zone Books. Bourdieu argues that the “social function” of rites of passage is to “consecrat[e]” the line that differentiates elite participants from those barred from making such crossings. Society for Early English & Norse Texts A:3 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1. French Fetish. Author and Audience in a Fourteenth-century English Alliterative Poem. ed. While Bunt has tentatively suggested a place of origin for the poem in southern Worcestershire or Warwickshire (in “Localizing William of Palerne. trans.. ed. Giorgio Agamben. while arguing that a past engagement with animal-skin disguises would explain Langland’s penchant for disguise imagery (401–5. Martin Grosman and Jaap van Os (Groningen. 2002). 1991).” Viator 37 (2006): 397–415. 139–45.1–10. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage.1 8 6 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 2 liam. Netherlands: Bouma’s Boekhuis. 109. J. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford. On the “attraction and terror of shape-shifting” to twelfth-century audiences fascinated with the metaphysics of change. 73–86 ). . Thompson. 410). 32. 1987). citing dialectal (and first-name) similarity (397). 104–11. 1998). 20. in “Langland and the Problem of William of Palerne. is William Langland. Lawton. 3–13. 25–36 [31–32]). On biopolitics involving capitalist states’ bringing of subjects’ bodies to the center of political calculation. part of the “agrarian” phase of economic development. 42–44. ed. see Bunt’s “Introduction” to William of Palerne: An Electronic Edition. see Caroline Walker Bynum. Agamben here seeks to recover a biopolitical history that pre-dates the eighteenth-century epochal shift proposed by Michel Foucault. ed. 20). with this differentiating function preventing nationalism’s use of culture to “mark the boundaries of the polity” (Nationalism. 271–73. 35. 30. Jacek Fisiak [Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ed. On translation in William. Reform and Cultural Revolution. 36. The History of Sexuality. 2003). 3. see Williams. 34. “Alliterative Romance and the French Tradition.
Crane. 43–44. MA: Harvard University Press. 50. Comedy (New York: Routledge. Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art (Cambridge. The Reign of Edward III. 17–19. 56. French Fetish. 40. Given-Wilson. 52. 53. Sconduto (Jefferson. Performance of Self. Micha. 54. 48. On the activities of proto-capitalist agents before capitalism’s post-1500 rise in fully urbanized European economies. 1960). 33. 60. Williams. Alliterative Revival. Turville-Petre. Ibid. 42. “Humphrey de Bohun. Capital. 33–36. Salisbury.” countering socioeconomic mobility in the agrarian world.” 262. trans. Ormrod. The comical deployment of grotesque images of peasants in both Guillaume and William serves to reinforce hierarchical social visions. 49. Putter. all translations are from Guillaume de Palerne. 118–31. 51. see Chris Given-Wilson. 1992). Turville-Petre. 2004). Author and Audience. see Gellner.” 262. W. see Charles Tilly. 49. 65. All citations from William are from Bunt’s edition. 61. 14–15. 1995). For analysis of the use of stereotypical images to provide the “comfort of confirming an audience’s prejudices” and so consolidate class privileges.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75 (1974): 260–62. 12–13. Sconduto’s lineation follows Micha’s. 2005). Michael Camille. ed. Guillaume de Palerne. Coercion.. (Charleston: Tempus. Pearsall. 23. The Foundling and the Werwolf: A Literary-Historical Study of ‘Guillaume de Palerne’ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press. M. Nationalism.” 407.’ 200–201. NC: McFarland. See also Turville-Petre. 46. 2000). 45. 116–36.NotES to ChAPtER 2 · 1 8 7 39. 157. Ad Putter. “Langland. 20.. “Humphrey de Bohun. On linguistic identity and late-medieval English noble self-consciousness. On “excremental discourse” as a “social control” mechanism deployed against medieval “others.. Charles W. see Warner. For similar criticism. 41. ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’ and French Arthurian Romance (Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dunn (ibid. 41. 1994). All citations of Guillaume are from Micha’s edition. Bunt. William of Palerne. 1987). “Humphrey de Bohun and William of Palerne. Dunn. Bunt. ed. 47. 55. Turville-Petre. 2008). 43. On the cultivation of identifiable features as a means of “entropy-resistance. Old English and Middle English Poetry.d. 990–1992. see Andrew Stott. ed. (Oxford: Blackwell.) regards “Aubelot” as relatively unusual and notes that Akarin has links with Saracen culture.” see Susan Signe Morrison. 59. ed. 55. William of Palerne. “Patron. The Beast Within: Animals in the Middle Ages (New York: Routledge. Excrement in the Late Middle Ages: Sacred Filth and Chaucer’s Fecopoetics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ‘Sir Gawain. 44. 87–103. English Nobility.” 32. 9. On late-medieval animal fable’s promotion of a conservative social order. 58. ed. 70–71. 18–19. . 1992). rev. Bunt. rev. and European States. 209–10. see Joyce E. The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. a. Leslie A. my translations. 57.
78. 2004). 69. Agamben. see Agamben’s analysis of the symbolic “power of delivering something over to itself. Bynum. 1993). Bynum argues that hybrids. 104–6.. Laurence HarfLancner (Paris: Librairie Générale Française. 81–94. See Giorgio Agamben. by becoming his king’s hunting dog and intimate. 1990). Metamorphosis. internalizes the “superiority of the bond that ties him to the king over that which had joined him to his spouse. Arthur and Gorlagon. All citations from the original are from Kittredge’s edition. 2001). Bynum. Monsters. trans. Saunders. 1997). 1999). 234–55 . 39–72. Karl Warnke. who argues that Alphonse is a “humane” wolf whose wolf-body is as factitious as the lovers’ disguises. 77. See also Doryjane Birrer. 68. I cite first from Guillaume and then from William. Kittredge. 1976). Guillaume bids Melior remove the bearskin and so display her “pur” [naked] body (4061–62). Homo Sacer. 74. in A Lycanthropy Reader: Werewolves in Western Culture. Leviathan.. 75. in Lais. Ibid. Arthur and Gorlagon. 34–38. Homo Sacer. 107–8. 25–27. 76. if servile. 1651. necessarily conjoining different characteristics in a single visual plane.” in Homo Sacer. Gary Day.. Ibid. Metamorphosis. Prudence Mary O’Hara Tobin (Geneva: Librairie Droz. and the Middle Ages (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ed. ed. NY: Syracuse University Press. my translations. Thomas Hobbes. ed. Bisclavret. On the possibly Welsh context for Arthur and Gorlagon. “Taken Men and Token Women in Sir Gawain and the Green . fuse incompatible categories that “comment” on one another.1 8 8 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 2 62. Arden (Cambridge: D. 81. Agamben. Broceliande.” in Of Giants: Sex. ed. 79. The Open: Man and Animal. 19–23. Otten (Syracuse. Milne’s version. merely covering over a reasonable and sympathetic self. all translations are from Frank A. see Corinne J. 38–110. 80. CA: Stanford University Press. in Les Lais anonymes des XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Marie de France. 71. 109. Richard E. Hereafter. Ibid. Bourdieu.” Journal of Narrative Theory 37. 298–99. 63–66. see George L. 64. 76. Brewer. Charlotte F. 153. On the sylvan lives led by the fugitive Tristan and Iseult. 106. Class (London: Routledge. The Forest of Medieval Romance: Avernus. See Sheila Fisher. 66. 72. William’s translation emphasizes the clothing beneath the skins (2417). while metamorphosed figures instantiate a breakdown of categories (29–31)... S. Kittredge. 119. companion. 94 73. Ibid. ed. 65.2 (2007): 217–45 [218. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen argues that Bisclavret. 1986). 67. in “A New Species of Humanities: The Marvelous Progeny of Humanism and Postmodern Theory. 229]. On the ritual ends of animalized aristocratic violence. 35. ed. 105–6. 63. Language and Symbolic Power. when citing both versions.11. In Guillaume. 129. Flathman and David Johnston (New York: Norton. Mélion. 70. 81–86. Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature 8 (1903): 149–275 [176–209]. trans. Kevin Attell (Stanford.
. 4–9. an anomalous agent always functions as the bridge to the process of becoming-animal that shatters static identity (Thousand Plateaus. A. Halley (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Rosenberg and Carleton W. Norton. Sexuality and Form: Caravaggio. The Hound and the Hawk: The Medieval Art of Hunting (London: Phoenix Press. Ibid. 1993).” in Text and Intertext in Medieval Arthurian Literature. “Elements of Magic in the Romance of William of Palerne. 71–105 [71–72]. ed.. Lacy. Guigemar. ed. and trans. Carroll (New York: Garland. For Deleuze and Guattari. New York: Burt Franklin. 2004). 90–102.” offers no justification for adding the werewolf (vii). in Sir Gawain. Kate Watkins Tibbals. using a potion to make Lancelot dream of Guinevere. Lacy (New York: Garland. 89. 243–44). like the story of Guillaume. Hatto (Baltimore: Penguin. Marie de France. Norris J. 2004). Norris J. 121.” in Seeking the Woman in Late Medieval and Renaissance Writings. 88. 87. and Michael W. vol. 119. 1988). T.” 402. On aggression as key to the “social reproduction of the body” in the self’s “social institution” through orchestrated corporal activities. 2000). 95. noting that Richard Hyrd entitled the work “Wyllyam and Milior” in a 1529 list of romances. 94.. Hammill.” in Homo Sacer. Tristan gains entry into the Cornish royal court by instructing a noble hunting party in the art of flaying and presenting a deer. Gaston Paris. 8 (emphasis in original). The Gawain-poet describes at grisly length the flayings of a deer and a boar. W. Helen Cooper points to one revision of this gender bias. 93. Hunting manuals.” Romania V (1876): 108–13 . 91. cross . 1984). rpt. in Lais. 1960). 106–7. Guillaume. 1970). William and the Werewolf (1832. see The English Romance in Time: Transforming Motifs from Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Death of Shakespeare (Oxford: Oxford University Press.NotES to C hAPtER 2 · 1 8 9 Knight.” Modern Philology 1 (1903–4): 355–71 . 92. Twomey. 90. who may be killed and yet not sacrificed. In Guillaume. Samuel N. Marlowe. A. ed. overstimulated by the erotic charge of the disguises. “Morgain la Fée in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. ed. 37–38. Shepherd (New York: W. 86. ed. The lovers’ putting on the skins of aggressive animals that are also prey ritually sexualizes their bodies in courtly terms. Stephen H. 96. 85. 82. Le Morte Darthure. see Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation. Warner. “Langland. 66–70. 78–86. “La Sicile dans la littérature française du moyen âge. John Cummins. ed. trans. Madden offers no explanation for his use of only two of the three protagonists in his title. 235. 1605–18. 2. and Bacon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ed. Frederic Madden. Language and Symbolic Power. Agamben defines “bare life” as “the life of homo sacer (sacred man). Sheila Fisher and Janet E. 91–115 . 1996). 328. 84. momentarily forgets that Melior is not nude beneath her bearskin (4060–64). see Graham L. and he even notes that the “original” title. Thomas Malory. Morgan in the Vulgate Lancelot manipulates a lover’s mind-set. Warnke. 83. After returning to his native Cornwall. 1324–61. Vantuono. Bourdieu. ed. in Gottfried’s Tristan. the “Roman de Guillaume de Palerne.
Teutons. Fradenburg. ed.. 109. 109. See. 31–50. Agamben. “Alliterative Revival. Hound and the Hawk. 113. 107. 40–41. 108. 100. 117. Pearsall. “Alliterative Revival. the original text is from Gaston Phébus. 35–50. Chism aptly argues that the more critics produce disciplinary histories of literary criticism.” 16. Oakden. 106. 111. 1982). Alliterative Revival. On Love. Ibid. for example. 110. French Fetish. 32–83. Ibid. 54. 39. G. 114–31. 27. 102. Sacrifice Your Love. Hunting Law and Ritual in Medieval English Literature (Cambridge: D. Alliterative Poetry. 1916). Hound and the Hawk. The “bukkes” [bucks] catalogued in William (1684) could be goats or deer. G. That deer are intended is suggested by the qualification that they are of “fair venorye. “Mandeville’s Travels and the Anglo-French Moment. 25. “Unity. Ibid. 114. Fradenburg here connects the corporal risks and pleasures in the medieval hunt with the courtly life constructed from lovers’ physical sufferings in Chaucer’s Book of the Duchess (79–112). 20. 2006). 98. 22. 99.” 53. Michael J. ed.” 91. and Frantzen. Desire for Origins. Racial Myth in English History: Trojans. see Hugh MacDougall. “Origins. Homo Sacer. 116.87. The English poet’s omission of the serpent excises a creature alien to venery’s symbolic world. Gunnar Tilander (Cynegetica 18. 97–99. Livre de Chasse. On the Englishing and expansion of Gaston Phébus’s Livre de la chasse into Edward. In Guillaume. Bennett. see William Perry Marvin. Everett. A History of English Literature (New York: Century.” 53. Remains Concerning Britain. and Anglo-Saxons (Hanover. Brewer. 97. 105. 104. See Cummins. Hanna. Duke of York’s The Master of the Game. 101. Everett.. 1982). S. See Turville-Petre. 108. 112. On Anglo-Saxonism’s rise.1 9 0 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 2 the Channel that both binds and separates medieval English and French culture. 115. and Lawton. Alexandrine reports that “chevrex” [goats] are among the beasts in the kitchen (3014). Walsh (London: Duckworth.” in Alliterative Revivals.. Andreas Capellanus. NH: University Press of New England.” In Guillaume. Johanssons. 33. Williams. Camden. “Alliterative Poetry. I take the translation from Cummins. according to the MED. Walter S. The blurriness of species borderlines seems evident in William’s supposition that the workmen would take Melior’s choice of a bear as a traveling and sleeping companion in stride. II. and trans. Hinchman.” 497. 121. Karlshamn. “English Alliterative Revival. P.” Medium Aevum 75 (2006): 273–92 [282–83]. Sweden: E. 118. 85. Alexandrine inexplicably acquires the skin of a “serpent” (3063) along with the bearskins. the “less shrill” will sound the nationalist antiquarians who have insisted on an alliterative English “archaism. 1971). 103. On the contestation among national fantasies competing for communal defini- . Moorman.” 80.
King’s Deer: Poaching in Medieval England. post-capitalist formation (see Anderson. while Gawain spends significant time with his host’s wife). “Men’s Games. 1997). 103–19 . 2. 123. 139–43). and the Temptation (according to which each player agrees to give the other each day’s winnings. 2nd ed. Madden. Queller and Thomas F. 2001). 11–15.” I prefer “Bertilak. 87–103. 37–46. On the cultural work performed by sumptuary legislation to render clothing a stable indicator of class. 3. Turville-Petre. Moysant. Performance of Self.NotES to C hAPtER 3 · 1 9 1 tion in medieval Britain. after having dealt the Green Knight himself one such blow). as Lavezzo has shown. English Nobility. chapter 3 1. 193–203. in which Felice’s clerk. my translations. see “Introduction. 120. 7–15. providing material out of which a future nationstate could be constructed. MA: Harvard University Press. see A Study of ‘Gawain and the Green Knight’ (Cambridge. Hanawalt. with Bertilak going hunting on each of three days. Whether or not we assume that the nation is a modern. see Donald E. The Greek prince is named Leternidon in Guillaume (3362). all citations from Sir Gawain are taken from Vantuono’s edition. Moysant’s rationale—that Felice should be “vestue tout ainsi quilz sont” [dressed just like they are] and so can lie near them and speak “a vostre ayse” [at ease] (191n–92n)—is nearly as opaque as the lack of explanation in earlier versions and suggests reception of the romance’s becoming-animal narrative as ritual. I here replace both Vantuono’s text and my translation with Twomey’s insightful redaction. Alliterative Revival. ed. Twomey’s punctuation captures Bertilak’s linkage of his lordly status with subjection to Morgan and suggests that Bertilak is just one of a number of knights in her service. Micha supplies from a sixteenth-century prose version a passage. see Ingham. 121. missing from Guillaume’s manuscript text.” in On Arthurian Women: Essays in Memory of Maureen Fries. it is clear. 41. see Barbara A. 191n-92n). Unless otherwise noted. and Gellner. in “Morgan le Fay at Hautdesert. advises her to dress as a deer (Guillaume. who engineers the False Guinevere plot whereby Arthur is convinced that his current queen has usurped the rightful place of Berthelai’s mistress. The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. On the rise of foresters as a police force that protected aristocratic recreative privilege. that fantasies of constitutive sameness and otherness were at work throughout medieval English history. 119. 7–9. 1916). Bonnie Wheeler and Fiona Tolhurst (Dallas: Scriptorium. Imagined Communities. Nations and Nationalism. 122. 125. Whereas Vantuono reads “Bercilak. Sovereign Fantasies.” vii–xxxiv. Guinevere’s .” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): 175–93. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. On atrocities during the sack of Constantinople. 124.” as it leaves open the possibility that the regional lord of Sir Gawain evokes the Vulgate Lancelot cycle’s Berthelai. Scholars typically deploy George Lyman Kittredge’s division of Sir Gawain into the Beheading Game (in which Gawain allows the Green Knight to strike at his head with an axe. Given-Wilson. 4. see Crane.
15. 44–80. in “‘How ladies . “Morgain la Fée. see Archer. Alliterative Revival. monosyllabic adverbs” (“Alliterative Patterning. see Saul. 1993–96).ii. “Morgain la Fée.” Duggan argues that words from “open classes. 29. insists that stress and alliteration must coincide. On the trend toward depopulation in the late-medieval Midlands.” xvi). adverbs ending in -ly or of 2 syllables. Twomey. Turville-Petre. see Vantuono.’” 149–81. “Feminine Knots and the Other: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight...” in Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society.” which would deliver a perfectly acceptable ax ax line.” 92–93 12. Ibid. Gloucestershire: Sutton. ed. Community.” 77–78). some verbs. One could also stress “Faye” rather than “myȝt. Goldberg (Phoenix Mill. On late-medieval estate management by women. On the Northwest Midlands’ sparse population due both to its remoteness and to military service. pronouns ending in -self. and trans. most verb forms.” 91–115. 5. See Rowena E. Duggan (77). 56–72. Ibid. For the False Guinevere plot. 8–10. see Geraldine Heng. 16. Brides and Doom: Gender. 9. ed. Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton. “‘How ladies. On the Gawain-poet’s immersion in French Arthurian tradition. and see Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian and Post-Vulgate in Translation. Bennett.” identified as “prepositions. 1000–1500 (Phoenix Mill. Class and Careerism. 10. (New York: AMS Press.x.” PMLA 106 (1991): 500–514. assuming that we place stress on “my” rather than “hous. Sir Gawain. like Skeat (“Essay. Asserting that a “hierarchy of word classes determines which words may appear in metrically prominent positions. auxiliaries. Frakes. 7. 48–50.” 137–42. 4. 6.’ 1–9. and Twomey. J. 241–42n. Archer’s extraction of such social realities from the anonymous women inhabiting fifteenth-century records. P. 1998).” meaning “nouns.” take “precedence over” words from “closed classes.” Even hypotheses of strict rules governing the disposition of stressed and unstressed syllables in alliterative verse acknowledge some flexibility in stress assignment. Community. ‘Sir Gawain.” 113. ed. Class and Careerism. see Bennett. vol. 245–78. . and Power in Medieval German Women’s Epic (Philadelphia: University of . 11. in “A New Approach to Middle English Dialectology.. see Putter. ed. On female economic power in the distribution of wealth in European feudal society. Since it is difficult to distinguish “c” from “t” in the hand of Cotton Nero A. Property. 1979). 1992). 8. 14. “Medieval Britain. The Lady in Medieval England. 13. 190–91. H. 149–81 [150–62]. Garland. 162–91. rpt. Most scholars accept Angus McIntosh’s narrowing of the dialect of the Cotton Nero poems to northeast Staffordshire or southeast Cheshire. both readings are possible. Oskar Sommer. see Peter Coss. 4 (New York. vol. who live on their manors ought to manage their households and estates’: Women as Landholders and Administrators in the Later Middle Ages.1 9 2 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 3 half-sister. Twomey. Norris J.” English Studies 44 (1963): 1–11 [5–6]. . On the significant social and economic power held by widows in late-medieval England. see The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances. P. pronouns. see Jerold C. “Morgan le Fay. adjectives. On anxiety concerning female power in criticism of the poem. Lacy et al.
182. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cicero. in Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. New York: Burt Franklin. In Lanval. rev. Burgess and Keith S. King Arthur’s Enchantresses: Morgan and Her Sisters in Arthurian Tradition (London: I. Glynn S. 172–75. see Ingham. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. trans. 114–24. ed. and trans. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Merlin challenges Utherpendragon’s men. 2006). 19. 73–81. and gender loyalties. On Cicero as a late-medieval authority on old age. 47–70. 21. 22. (New York: Penguin. ut in deponendo lapides istos appareat utrum ingenium uirtuti an uirtus ingenio cedat]. All citations and translations from Geoffrey are from Reeve and Wright. 30–51. vi. In supervising the removal of the “chorea gigantum” [Giants’ Ring (Stonehenge)] from its location on Mt. in “Alliterative Revival. 18. 23. see J. Powell. “Nature of Alliterative Poetry. For analysis of Morgan’s magic involving craft rather than otherworldliness. ed. Rosenthal. . 139– 55. 24. ethnic. The Lais. the Lady demonstrates superiority to Arthur by providing Lanval with seemingly limitless wealth (135–42). 17. X. Roger Sherman Loomis. After laughing at their failure. 165. On De Senectute’s classical and medieval popularity. see Geoffrey of Monmouth. 178–80. 25. 1970). see Bourdieu. Pierre Bourdieu. ed. See Chaucer.” 501. Ingham.20 [maximas res publicas ab adulescentibus labefactatas. 1999). See Salter’s urging of the reintegration of alliterative works with a national culture centered in metropolitan London and spread through aristocratic households. 47–95.18–19).1048–66. MA: Harvard University Press. 233–37.NotES to C hAPtER 3 · 1 9 3 Pennsylvania Press. 1994). see Shepherd. Cato here asserts the superiority of senators’ mental talents to young soldiers’ physical skills (vi. Cicero: Cato Maior. 2nd ed. see Carolyne Larrington. ed. see Joel T. iuuenes. “Employ your might. men. William Armistead Falconer (Cambridge. Sovereign Fantasies. G. Sovereign Fantasies. ed.” 64–65. Thomas Hahn (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. Studies in the Fairy Mythology of Arthurian Romance (1903. Canterbury Tales. 7–96.. “Alliterative Poetry. History of the Kings of Britain. Old Age in Late Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 26. 27. On legitimacy and symbolic communication. Killaraus in Ireland. see Marie de France. 20. ed. De Senectute. Benson. 1988). For a thoroughgoing study of otherworldly female figures in Arthurian romance. 1977). 234. 1923). see Lucy Allen Paton. The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. Language and Symbolic Power.” 146–49. B. Merlin easily moves the structure to Britain. 1239–57. and Hanna. Busby.. On the Gawain-poet’s use of geographical detail to figure multiple regional. Tauris. and trans. De Senectute (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. For Revivalist insistence that the alliterative poet is essentially old. 230. 1995). F. ed. to take down the stones and we shall see whether your brains yield to brawn or vice versa” [Vtimini uiribus uestris. Marie states that neither Octavian nor Semiramis could pay for a single flap of the Lady’s pavilion tent (80–86). That Lanval can only live publicly with the Lady in the otherworldly Avalon (641–45) marginalizes her power as geographically exceptional. a senibus austentatas et restitutas reperietis: ‘Cedo qui vestram rem publicam tantam amisistis tam cito?’]. 1991).
Brewer. 341. “Brutus Prologue. 197–219. trilingual . see MacDougall. 7–27. 1100–1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. On nationalism involving primacy in tests of loyalties with competing forms of identity. William Crashaw. 40. 1969). 30. 125–28. Ethnonationalism. On recent archaeological work examining the ethnic diversity of “Anglo-Saxon” cultures in post-Roman Britain. First English Empire.” in A Companion to the ‘Gawain’-poet. see Sykes. Racial Myth. Lavezzo. S. On the subversive potential of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Merlin and the prophetic tradition that appropriates his “oppositional discourse. Davies. 102. which was obtained by the antiquary Robert Cotton (1571–1631). in England the Nation. Scotland and Wales. 36–48. Race and Manifest Destiny. 12–16. Savile’s contemporary. See Barrett’s analysis of Wirral as a unique region within a larger English imperial frame. 33. See Hastings. R. 39.. 25–42. Myth. see Connor. 29. 35. in The Politics of ‘Pearl’: Court Poetry in the Age of Richard II (Cambridge: D. see Miles. 38. 37. Derek Brewer and Jonathan Gibson (Cambridge: D. Saxons. 39–40. 156–91. 115–18. see Horsman. 39–40. While most scholars situate the Gawain-poet in the Northwest Midlands dialect area. “Chaucer and Englishness”).” see Ingham. 10–13.. 137–38. xiv). Turville-Petre here concedes Pearsall’s claim that Chaucer evinces no signs of nationalism (Pearsall. 32. Ibid.1 9 4 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 3 28. On the contents and history of Henry Savile’s library. On recent genetic studies suggesting significant continuity of native “Celtic” populations from pre-Roman to post-Saxon times throughout Britain. in Against All England. ed. G. There is little certainty as to how Savile (1568– 1617) acquired the manuscript. The Manuscripts of Henry Savile of Banke (London: The Bibliographical Society. See Chapman. First English Empire. Tribes of Britain. John Bowers argues that a single poet responsible for the Cotton Nero poems resided in London. in Sovereign Fantasies. 340–46 . see A.” in Imagining a Medieval English Nation. Sir Gawain. and Geary. See Turville-Petre’s argument that late-medieval poets and chroniclers sought to make English the language of a medieval nation.” 353. Race and Manifest Destiny. Edwards. 116–21. 31–50. S. 31. “The Manuscript: British Library MS Cotton Nero A. Watson. Construction of Nationhood. S. Carter Revard assumes a mobile. 2001). Domination and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland. and passed to the British Museum in 1753 (Vantuono. 277–88. See Ingham’s analysis of Gawain’s journey as reflecting both English desire to colonize Welsh territory and the complexity of late-medieval ethnic identity.” 345. 1990).x. Davies. On the arbitrariness of modern concepts of Anglo-Saxons. see Andrew G. “The Brutus Prologue to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Manuscripts. On the medieval English appropriation of the Celtic King Arthur. ed. and on post-Romantic notions of racial classification. Davies. Horsman. and R. Turville-Petre. 4–5. 34. Brewer. ed. 1–26. 6). Sovereign Fantasies. joined the Cotton Collection in 1700. “Authorship. For a full description of the manuscript. 36. 1997). Turville-Petre. claims that Savile’s grandfather acquired a large collection of manuscripts “plundered” from “mostly northern” libraries (Watson.
41.” SELIM 11 (2001–2): 5–26. 1966). Duggan and Thorlac Turville-Petre argue for a Northwest Midlands origin for The Wars of Alexander in their edition. Skeat hypothesizes an originally Northumbrian dialect in his edition. Oakden’s sense of the “west” excludes northern English and Scottish works. “Early English Alliterative Verse. Hoyt N. “Theories of Authorship.s. in “Was the Pearl Poet in Aquitaine with Chaucer? A Note on Fade. bourgeois individualism. 7–23 . or to contemporary poets sharing language and literary taste.” 21–22. Hilton.” Medium Aevum 57 (1988): 264–69. “Alliterative Revival. The notion that the manuscript’s four poems were produced by a single author has not been decisively established. Turville-Petre.” 48. see “What Is an Author?” trans. see Clifford Peterson’s edition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. and Hanna. H. and French locales due to attachment to a noble court participating in Hundred Years’ War activities.” 43–63. 116–39). 43.s. 111–54 (updating her “Too Close for Comfort: Dis-Orienting Chivalry in the Wars of Alexander. 45. could be due either to a single redacting hand. On the dialect of the Gest Hystoriale and its unique attestation in Glasgow University Library MS Hunterian 388. Gest Hystoriale) and situates him in Whalley. Everett. 35. ed. “Defining Middle English Alliterative Poetry. On Wars as expressing both the chivalric ethos of the martial Northwest Midlands and a conflicted transnational reaction to rising Eastern powers. ed. 1977).153). 23–26. Walter W. L. On the distinction between “heteromorphic” meters. Alliterative Poetry. 47 (1886). EETS s. Josué V. On efforts to determine the authorship of the Cotton Nero poems. London. 23–33. 39. 1979). Tomasch and Gilles. 141–60 ). see George A. linguistic usage. see McIntosh. NY: Cornell University Press. and poetic technique. EETS e. which he holds to be both later and inferior to West Midlands poems (I. and though alliteration often binds stanzas through concatenation. see R. Bennett speculates that the author of Erkenwald was a native of the Northwest who moved to .” in Companion to the ‘Gawain’-poet. Alliterative Revivals.s. 86). Alliterative Revival. Though Pearl features frequent alliteration as an ornamental device.NotES to C hAPtER 3 · 1 9 5 author moving among Northwest Midlands. 46. Much as Revivalism insists on a single frame for alliterative verse. xxiii. I. Panton and David Donaldson’s edition (EETS o. as in Pearl. On the dialect and manuscript of Saint Erkenwald. and “homomorphic” poems with relatively regular foot patterns. A Medieval Society: The West Midlands at the End of the Thirteenth Century (New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1–11.” in Text and Territory. in Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism (Ithaca. such as common themes. 47. Harari. it is not composed in alliterative meter. in “The Author of the Destruction of Troy. though many scholars operate under this assumption. see Malcolm Andrew. 44.135. 10 (1989). 42. 149 of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. see Chism. Much of the evidence used to argue for common authorship. which feature variant feet (as with alliterative prosody). Oakden. so do single-author hypotheses risk functioning as what Michel Foucault calls the “principle of thrift” that reduces multiplicity by filtering data according to post-Enlightenment. Lancashire. TurvillePetre identifies John Clerk as the author of the Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy (hereafter. liii–lxii. Brewer and Gibson. On the “extremely vague frontiers” of the West Midlands region.
153–76 [170–72]. 231–40 [231–32].87. ed. Crown and Nobility: England 1272–1461. the Isle of Man. Warren analyzes Arthurian literature as a practice of “border writing. 108–33. Community. On tactics in Anglo-Scottish warfare and their impact on the English North. and Nottinghamshire meet. Scottish. xxvii–lxxiv. Offord and J. 2nd ed. Class and Careerism. EETS o. Wallace. 55. Oakden traces the “bulk” of late-medieval alliterative verse to the Northwest.” in “The Textual Transmission of the Alliterative Morte Arthure. (Oxford: Blackwell. 52. Saintsbury. ed.” 344.” in English and Medieval Studies Presented to J. On the late-medieval North (including the Northwest Midlands) as a militarized borderlands that grew increasingly important in English politics after Edward I’s 1296 invasion of Scotland. in Alliterative Poetry.” see Rosalind Field.1 9 6 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 3 London as a clerical careerist (Community. 53. II. R. ed. he joins Langland in providing evidence that knowledge of an author’s regional origin must often be supplemented by research into relocations throughout a literary career. Angus McIntosh places both poems in the Northeast Midlands. “not very far from where the counties of Yorkshire. see Trigg. Hulbert. Wrenn (London: Allen & Unwin. 1962).” 495. 1066–1400. Wales. On the “veritable flowering of literary culture” in the Northwest Midlands. History of English Prosody.. see Bennett. 233). 1999). 118–54. On the Northwest Midlands as part of a transnational economic zone that included England. and English communities each dealing with the Norman Conquest’s legacy (History on the Edge. Community. see Bennett. 49.” 405. The North of England: A History from Roman Times to the Present (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 54. P. L. “Hypothesis. 93–287. For Hanna and Lawton’s arguments for a West Riding (Yorkshire) dialect of the Siege of Jerusalem. The Wynnere-poet also foregrounds late-medieval militarist culture (see chapter 1). On distinguishing “chronicle” texts that intend military realism from more fanciful Arthurian “romances. Oakden in support of a Northwest Midlands origin for Wynnere and Parlement. Plantagenet England: 1225–1360 (Oxford: Oxford University Press.s 320 (2003). and Ireland. in Scotland. Norman Davis and C. Class and Careerism. Hulbert’s aristocratic bias can be seen in his inferring the noble status of Sir Gawain and the Awntyrs from their being “condensed and allusive in style” and “developed artistically” (412). see Bennett. Class and Careerism. Class and Careerism. Community. If the Erkenwald-poet indeed operated from London. Hanna. III. On Northwest Midlands careerist soldiers’ activities on the Continent. see their edition. Lincolnshire. On the provenance of Wynnere. 231–32.” reading Arthur as a locus for political contestation among Welsh. see Michael Prestwich. “Romance in England. and in Wales. The North’s status as a militarized frontier may explain the region’s frequent production of Arthurian romances. 1990). While Bennett cites M. . On the Hundred Years’ War’s political and administrative background. 50. 101. 1–16). Tolkien. xvii–xxi.” in Cambridge History. 162–91. 56. 51. see Anthony Tuck. R. “Alliterative Poetry. 48. see Frank Musgrove. 250–65. Turville-Petre suggests that we focus on the constructive energies of the Trojans who as “patrounes” become patrons of a Western culture translated from Troy’s ruins. in “Brutus Prologue. Y. 2005).
including the Northwest Midlands.” 240). On fourteenth-century opportunities for frontier-like “expansion into the Celtic fringe. Peterson). Against All England. Community. 61. II. 62. Class and Careerism. 60. Reform. see Bennett. On the manuscript context for Wynnere. On the need to resist land-based assumptions and to recognize the political. see David Hey. 174–76. who pursued self-interested negotiations with the Greeks. 59. Class and Careerism. Besides neglecting households lower on the social scale. 46–47. 64. Medieval Wales (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ed. 75–77. Class and Careerism.NotES to C hAPtER 3 · 1 9 7 57. 63. 68–103. Bennett discusses the importance of gentry residents in the Northwest Midlands. arguing that critics must assume an aristocratic household as the immediate context for such a “self-assured” and courtly Gawain-poet (“Alliterative Revival. and Britain’s Fortunate Founding: A Study in Comedy and Convention. though McIntosh does not discount the possibility of an originally West Midlands provenance (“Textual Transmission. see Barney. economic. For a survey of anti-militarist anxieties in late-medieval Troy narratives. 58.” 48). “Langland’s Prosody. 1990). 123–33. 119–43. in Community. Salter calls for a broadening of patronage research to include the numerous individuals in multiplex. See Turville-Petre’s argument that the gentry should be seen as the primary consumers of late-medieval alliterative texts.” Review of English Studies 4 (1928): 418–23. mobile aristocratic networks (“Alliterative Revival. Bennett. Ethnonationalism. 2005). McIntosh’s localization of the Morte-poet’s dialect. in “Sir Gawain. Theodore Silverstein analyzes the complex Trojan legacy processed by the Gawain-poet. see Barrett. and Oakden. and David Walker. Salter focuses primarily on London.” Modern Philology 62 (1965): 189–206 [192–94]. O. Panton and Donaldson. The provenance of the Alliterative Morte may yet be determined through analysis of the base-text used by Malory. For a thoroughgoing analysis of Chester. 139–64. 1987). 11192–350. A History of Yorkshire:‘County of the Broad Acres’ (Lancaster: Carnegie. The Trojan past features prominently in Saint Erkenwald. especially 2–23. On cultural and economic links between Yorkshire and surrounding areas. On Oakden’s metrical principles. Everett reveals Revivalist bias against Northwest Midlands culture.87–88. see Connor. 12. 248. On the settlement patterns of Northwest Midlands merchants and military careerists. The medieval reception of Trojan myth highlighted the treasonous acts of Aeneas and Antenor. Alliterative Poetry. has been widely accepted. Thompson. based on his argument that Thornton’s working copy derives ultimately from southwest Lincolnshire. For a Northwest Midlands alliterative version of Aeneas’s treachery. see Gest Hystoriale. S. 65. ed. 66. Andrew. Brewer. 87–89). Dear Brutus. and military connections produced by maritime proximity. Robert Thornton and the London Thornton Manuscript (Cambridge: D. in which the miraculously preserved body of an upright inhabitant of “New Troie” (25) is uncovered during work on London’s “New Werke” (38. 188. see Simpson. .” 237). 1. in Alliterative Revival. Class and Careerism. Thornton’s redaction in Lincoln Cathedral MS 91 provides the sole copy of the Alliterative Morte. Community.” 71–72. see John J. 67. Community.” see Bennett. 116–20. “The Dialect of Morte Arthure. Cable indicates Oakden’s seminal influence by explaining that the “empirical” genesis of his study of alliterative meter was “Revise Oakden” (English Alliterative Tradition. See S.
78. as it features textual links with the Awntyrs. The Gest Hystoriale should be included among the “bokes” [texts] that Chaucer’s Criseyde proclaims will “shende” [slander] her for her having “falsed” [betrayed] Troilus (Troilus. “Taken Men. A. Crane. . 73. see Eugène Vinaver’s notes to his edition of Malory.1360–97. (Geneva: Librairie Droz. Davies excludes the militarized regions of the Northwest Midlands from the essentially southern English zone of “sweet civility. 25–43. “lightly ho left of hir loue hote” [lightly she left from her passionate love] and “now is Troiell. Schofield. 76. The green girdle that Gawain accepts in the hope of avoiding decapitation represents Gawain’s single ethical lapse in the Temptation game. see Jewell. Racial Myth. ed.1 9 8 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 3 who apparently used a different text than Thornton did. Race and Manifest Destiny. states that it is better to join the winning side than be “murthert” [killed] (8157). and Horsman. (Oxford: Clarendon. locking herself up in the fortified Tower of London. After her father Calchas. 29–33. 72. 119–52. 127–30. James Cable (London: Penguin. ed. 71. 1964).. 171–81. Lawton. History of English Literature. Women in Medieval English Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. On the Morte-poet’s sources. Fisher. History of the Kings of Britain. 73–86. asked why he is “trewly” a “traitour” (Gest. 161–68. 7. 68. Hinchman. lavished with gifts from Greeks. 133–35. 1960). see Platt. 49–62. 70. she resists Mordred’s advances to the last. see William Matthews. “Unity. Shoaf. On the economic opportunities opened to women by widowhood and military service. Crane argues that the Green Knight’s actions take the form of a “staged interlude” (168). The Tragedy of King Arthur: A Study of the Alliterative Morte Arthure (Berkeley: University of California Press. for which breach he receives a slight neck-wound (2309–14). 254. King Death. The Alliterative Morte connects northern Midlands alliterative texts with works composed in the Anglo-Scottish marches. 1947). Tragedy of Arthur. 248–49. On Gawain’s adoption of the green girdle as his personal sign revealing his transition from absolutism to relativism.” 90. English Literature. 3–31. see Matthews. and trans. On the economic risks and opportunities for widows created by plague outbreaks. Sir Gawain. On the socioeconomic distinctiveness of the North. III. 114–17. 1999). in Jean Frappier. 22. The Poem as Green Girdle: Commercium in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida. 1984). 74. North-South Divide. 77–118. Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances. V. and The Death of King Arthur. England. All citations from the Gest Hystoriale are from Panton and Donaldson’s edition. Performance of Self. my translations. see Waugh. Mate. On now-discredited nineteenth-century historiographical idealism about Saxon origins. tynt of hir thoght” [now her true love Troilus is forgotten] (8174–77). 8109).” in First English Empire. Works. hir trew luff.” 92–93. Mavis E. see MacDougall. 61–62. Guinevere sees through Mordred’s forged letter claiming that Arthur has died. Bertilak’s trip to Arthur’s foreign court is a form of diplomatic travel. see R. On the late-medieval association of Gawain with the northerly regions of Britain. 151–77. 77. 75. 79. see Hahn. ed.1060). Geoffrey of Monmouth. 69. 169. and Golagros. 1971). 3 vols. Breisaid [Criseyde]. In La Mort le Roi Artu.
Brill. 1991). 82. particularly her discussion of the “pleasures” of “insular return” in the catalogue of British holdings that figure an idealized insular unity later undone by imperial ambitions. Geoffrey of Monmouth offers a precedent for such a dangerous Guinevere. On the anti-imperialist focus on civilian suffering in the Awntyrs. Anke Janssen. see Jerold C. Mordred’s intimacy relative to Arthur increased over the Arthurian legendary history. Shichtman argue that an analogous catalogue of Arthur’s conquests in Laȝamon’s Brut illuminates the multiplex and discontinuous nature of the political landscape in Arthur’s emphatically pre-national Britain. 84. 22. On the Morte-poet’s integration of Fortune within an anti-imperialist poetics. suggesting that the female voices marginalized in Bennett’s Northwest Midlands military history find an accusatory voice in the more northerly (and materially vulnerable) Anglo-Scottish borderlands (see chapter 4). anomalous figures like Guinevere’s mother in the Awntyrs and the alternately fair and foul female prophetess of Thomas off Erceldoune (253–54). 186–88. 132–33. L. Romans. 2001). the fourteenth-century understanding of Mordred was haunted by even more intimate relations. 1987). in Sovereign Fantasies. 81. Tragedy of Arthur.1135–54). 87–94. Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 23 (Leiden: E. J. Halleck. . Guinevere’s mother similarly indicts the agents of Arthurian expansionism in the Awntyrs. with an incestuous story becoming attached to his birth from the thirteenth century. Karl Heinz Göller (Cambridge: D. Laurie A. 688–91). “The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune. S. if Fiona Tolhurst is correct in holding that Geoffrey.NotES to C hAPtER 3 · 1 9 9 80. my translations. in “The Britons as Hebrews. see Incest and the Medieval Imagination (Oxford: Oxford University Press. moving him from Arthur’s nephew to his son. Sovereign Fantasies. City. Fradenburg here analyzes the conjunction of sovereignty and menace in the “Loathly Lady. All citations from the Alliterative Morte are from Krishna’s edition. Aranye Fradenburg. 115–50. Frakes. 112–15. and Normans: Geoffrey of Monmouth’s British Epic and Reflections on Matilda. O. The Fate of Fortune in the Middle Ages: The Boethian Tradition. The same marker of power used by the Morte-poet to figure Fortune’s female sovereignty is connected with Morgan’s blood even as she is named the “duches doȝter of Tyntagel” [Duchess of Tintagel’s daughter] (2465. Though Mordred’s “sibreden” [kinship] with Arthur is that of a nephew (Morte. History. The internal nature of Arthurian civil war is doubled by the rebellion’s leaders being Arthur’s wife and Mordred.” examining dangerous.” Arthuriana 8. in King Arthur and the Myth of History (Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 89. Tournament: Arts of Rule in Late Medieval Scotland (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 88.4 (1998): 69–87 [73–75]. Marriage. see Matthews. highlights Guinevere’s Roman lineage and portrays her as a potential British empress. 83. On the pan-European influence of the Boethian Fortune. 85. 1–10. 86. my emphasis). in support of Matilda’s regnal claims against Stephen (r. As Elizabeth Archibald shows. 2004). Brewer.” in The Alliterative Morte Arthure: A Reassessment of the Poem. 87. 252–53. Finke and Martin B. 140–52 [140–41]. See Ingham’s analysis of the imperial nature of Arthur’s holdings in the Alliterative Morte. see Ingham. 1981). ed.
arguing that she is Morgan’s instrument. not her “other. 92. “Syr Gawayn and the Grene Knyȝt. and Literary Structure in Late Medieval England (New York: Palgrave Macmillan. . The Gawainpoet’s careful foreshadowing of Morgan’s pre-eminence undermines such assumptions. 2002). ed. in “‘Þat on . and J. the deep-seated violence of nature. .” Modern Language Quarterly 24 (1963): 333–41 [336n].” Modern Language Quarterly 23 (1962): 3–16. See Lawton’s indictment of “a modern criticism” that “mostly refuses to accept the poet’s own explanation of his plot. H.” in “The Characterization of Women in the Alliterative Tradition. in Absent Narratives. 68. 14–15. 528–40 .” in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History. See Elisa Marie Narin’s examination of rhetorical techniques that signal Morgan’s supremacy from her first appearance. Everett’s influential view that “poets of the tradition” are “most impressive when describing violent action—battles and storms at sea in particular” (“Alliterative Revival. Hulbert. in “Morgan le Fay in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Schofield’s assertion that “the old alliteration seemed appropriate to patriotic poets for the recounting of their warlike deeds” (English Literature. Fisher.” 89.” 98. her contention that the poem undermines the significance of Morgan’s role reproduces previous assumptions of aesthetic faultiness.” 58). Study of ‘Gawain and the Green Knight. Laura Hibbard Loomis.” and the “comitatus code” (“English Alliterative.” Pacific Coast Philology 23 (1988): 60–66. the uncertain swaying of warriors in battle” (History.” in Alliterative Tradition. Angela Carson. ed. For examples.’ 154. Ibid. 91. and Moorman’s claim that late-medieval alliterative verse is distinctive in exuding ancestral sensitivity to “violence. For an alternative perspective. referring to the former as Morgan’s “guise as temptress.. Manuscript Textuality. see Kittredge. “Taken Men. “Gawain and the Green Knight.” the “vendetta. Maureen Fries counters claims that the Lady is Morgan’s double. Roger Sherman Loomis (Oxford: Clarendon Press.” Speculum 35 (1960): 260–74 . Urien is sometimes described as Morgan’s husband. . see Hinchman’s argument that alliterative meter is “at its best in describing the din of war. 97. See Morgan’s deployment of both a messenger-maiden and a maiden tasked with testing her hostage Lancelot’s loyalty.” in “Morgan la Fée as Trickster in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. 95. while operating from her woodland holding.” in “Unity. 253). Levy and Szarmach. For similar aesthetic critiques. 96.2 0 0 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 3 90. “Gawain and the Green Knight as Entertainment.” Modern Philology 13 (1915): 433–62. 1959).” the “eye-for-aneye. tooth-for-a-tooth pagan ethos. Bowers. 25–45 . While Fisher argues cogently for a “deliberate marginalization” of Morgan (71–72). 62–68. Albert B. “Morgain la Fée as the Principle of Unity in Gawain and the Green Knight. 93. 689–730 . R.” 91).” Folklore 96 (1985): 38–56 . Friedman speaks for a number of critics in arguing that the poem’s sole flaw is the Green Knight’s explanation of Morgan’s responsibility for much of the plot. see Elizabeth Scala’s argument that Morgan’s absence structures the poem. 94. 22). with attempts to resituate Morgan’s centrality at the poem’s opening misrecognizing the narrative’s fundamental “reconfiguration” that follows the revelation of Morgan’s role. Edith Whitehurst Williams also conflates the Lady and Morgan. R. þat oþer’: Rhetorical Description and Morgan le Fay in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
See ibid.NotES to C hAPtER 3 · 2 0 1 the Val Sanz Retour. 2nd ed. 110. See Ingham. The Prose Merlin is a fifteenth-century rendering of the thirteenth-century. 103n. Barrett argues that geographical markers invite a regionalist reading of the poem. Henry B. Wheatley. 108. Merlin. R. Fisher. 79–80. arguing that “kyng” is “an error. 211. 106. channeling the anxietyproducing singleness that Karma Lochrie sees as triggering Lollard insistence on marriage and critiques of female sexual aloofness. Ibid. 103.. see Archer. 105. Fisher. 2005). 114–21. 8–10. 1998). Chism.. . 136–38.” 80.” Diacritics (1994): 205–25 [211–13]. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ibid. Ibid. 61–62. 1967). 196. (EETS o. I. 118. On the circumstances in which a woman might assume full control of an estate in her husband’s absence. ed. 111. All citations from the Prose Merlin are from Wheatley. 100. E. 98. 13–38. 102. Rosenberg and Carroll. On the legal implications of women’s classification as either married or unmarried. The Prose Merlin (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. 49–51. in Against All England. 90. 103. Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 156–85 . 2007). 104. in The Poems of the ‘Pearl’ Manuscript. 117. Alliterative Revivals. Morgan may also seek to highlight her unmarried status. Lacy. Howard Bloch.18 [At senatui quae sint gerenda praescribo et quo modo. 112 [1865–69]).168. Carthagini male iam diu cogitanti bellum multo ante denuntio]. 165–97 . 107. see Cordelia Beattie. Malcolm Andrew and Ronald Waldron also make this emendation in their edition. and not a mysterious vestige of a mythological analogue. Barbara A. “Taken Men. in Lancelot-Grail. 116. Fisher.. R. Medieval Single Women: The Politics of Social Classification in Late Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 99. which features Merlin as both prophet and war-adviser. my translations. Tolkien and Gordon emend the Gawain-poet’s description of Bertilak as “kyng” to “lord” (992). 1991).s. ed. De Senectute. vi. Chism. ed. 36. in Heterosyncrasies: Female Sexuality When Normal Wasn’t (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 115. 1998). Women. Hanawalt and David Wallace (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 61–66.” in Medieval Crime and Social Control. J. 21.’” 150–51. 2 vols. Ibid.” in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.. Tolkien. see John Conlee. 314–25. Mate. R. 80. Sovereign Fantasies. “Taken Men. trans. 10.” 89. ed.” 80. 101. Carolyn Dinshaw. Gordon. and Mate. Cicero. (Exeter: University of Exeter Press. “‘How ladies. Alliterative Revivals.. 113. “A Kiss is Just a Kiss: Heterosexuality and its Consolations in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. “Taken Men. 114. Women. 112. Christopher Cannon. 4th ed. Old French Vulgate Cycle. and Norman Davis. ed. 109. 2002). V. “The Rights of Medieval English Women: Crime and the Issue of Representation.
.55 [et senectus est natura loquacior]. 125. however. is a study in overkill. Hahn. On Morgan’s ill-fated affair with Guiomar. elle pierdi si otreement sa biauté que trop devint laide” [was a beautiful woman up until the point when she began to learn spells and tricks.” Modern Language Review 78. Ingham refers to Fradenburg’s study of the Loathly Lady as figuring idealized sovereignty transformed by the “right” form of rule (City. Outline. see Paton.” 34. De Senectute. “Morgain la Fée. On the primacy of economic issues over religious authority in the Parlement.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 78 (1977): 27–30. Cicero. 1996). ed. See Heng’s argument that a “masculine” criticism’s desire for mastery leads to a “fantasy of textual closure and command. interpreting as supporting evidence Bertilak’s “bright” and “bever-hwed” [beaver-colored] beard (845) and energetic hunting activity. in La Suite du Roman Merlin. my translation. In the passage upon which Tolkien and Gordon lean. 122. Ingham. 126. in “Characterization. I. Fries assumes that Morgan’s foul appearance would be known from this “French anecdote” and argues that the Lady is destined to become like Morgan.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 51. On the relation of Merlin’s shape-shifting to Celtic analogues. Cicero. 60–73. Eiichi Suzuki. 130n. 129. Merlin argues that Morgan “fu bele damoisele jusques a celui terme que elle commencha a aprendre des enchantemens et des charroies. ed.” Philological Quarterly 66 (1987): 303–14. 128.17 [Non viribus aut velocitate aut celeritate corporum . she lost so utterly her beauty that she soon became ugly]. Sovereign Fantasies. xv. 165. Studies in the Fairy Mythology. Marjory Rigby compares temptations of Lancelot and Gawain. Madden. 132. eds. Elde’s lengthy speech. my translation. (Geneva: Librairie Droz.. 193n. ed. in “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Vulgate Lancelot. On Elde’s idiosyncratic and bloated speech.19–20. Bourdieu. argues that Bertilak is elderly. 133. Gilles Roussineau. Marriage. see Vantuono. 41–80. with its rambling religious message shutting down Youthe and Medill-Elde’s social and economic debate. in “A Note on the Age of the Green Knight. 253–54). see Lisa Kiser. 120. On various interpretations of Morgan. Ingham. Syr Gawayne. Tournament. Sir Gawain. 23–24. 181–84. Sovereign Fantasies. 130. De Senectute.” 91–115. But since the enemy had installed himself within her and she was inspired both by luxury and deviltry. 127. see Randy P. vi.” 500. Tolkien. see Twomey. Studies in the Fairy Mythology.” ed. “The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. Most editors of Sir Gawain take this phrase as signifying middle age.. 123. “Elde and His Teaching in The Parlement of the Thre Ages. Gordon. 124. Even if the Vulgate Lancelot’s Berthelai the Old is intended by Bertilak. 325–26n. we can imagine that this is some years before his acquiring the moniker. “The Loneness of the Stalker: Poaching and Subjectivity in The Parlement of the Thre Ages. aimed at undermining earthly interests by showing the inevitability of death. Mais puis que li anemis fu dedens li mis et elle fu aspiree et de luxure et de dyable. 131. 121. Schiff. 183. and Davis. see Paton.3 (2009): 263–93 [267–74].2 0 2 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 3 119. arguing for the Gawain-poet’s familiarity with the Vulgate tradition.” in “Feminine Knots. On interpretations of this description.2 (1983): 357–66. 2 vols.
Bertilak’s story of Morgan’s love-affair may well be a tale designed to deal with the anxiety of Morgan’s unsettling female power. in Les Prophecies de Merlin. Critique of Judgement. First English Empire. my translations. 3. Ibid. see 86–89.NotES to C hAPtER 4 · 2 0 3 res magnae geruntur. J. Bernard (New York: Hafner Press. the overall description is restrained in comparison with such extreme loathsomeness as depicted in the Wedding (231–45). The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyne (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 171–73. vol. with “sellyly blered” [wondrously bleary] and “soure” [sour] facial features (961–63). 2008). 18–36 . explaining to him. 188. 1966). because of which I am proclaimed a whore by the very mouth of Morgan]. Golagros and Gawane) are from Ralph Hanna’s edition (produced with material by W. Suzanne Conklin Akbari. Scala. 138. ed. All citations from The Knightly Tale of Golagros and Gawane (hereafter. 1988). Ralph Hanna (Manchester: Manchester University Press. For Kant’s definition of the sublime. Barron). Lynch. or in the hag’s description in Chaucer’s Wife as “fouler” than anyone could imagine (III. 5. Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski (Athens: University of Georgia Press. The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyn. 86–195. 19. 107–11. Anderson. On modern nations’ appropriation of political legitimacy formerly dominated by .999). ed. 96.” in Chaucer’s Cultural Geography. 1926 (New York: Kraus Reprint Corporation. “Public Power and Authority in the Medieval English Countryside. 1991). Sarah Stanbury. differs from the “loathly dame” figure analyzed by Whitehurst. 1969). while grotesque. 136. “Orientation and Nation in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. 4. R. H. 7. 2. In the thirteenth-century Prophecies de Merlin. Scottish Text Society Fifth Series 7 (Woodbridge: Boydell. Seeing the ‘Gawain’-Poet: Description and the Act of Perception (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. my translations. 66. 19–21. 137. see Robert J. 140.” 49. For manuscript variants. chapter 4 1. 134. sed consilio auctoritate sententia].. 1. 203. Gates’s edition. “Saches vraiement que je t’ai mis ici dedens pour ce que tu aloies disant en tous les lieus ou tu aloies que tu avoies jeu a moi. 418. 79–81. my translation. reading her ongoing absence as figuring the “text’s unconscious” (65–66). in “Morgan la Fée. Judith Bennett. 6. Scala steers criticism away from merely “retrospective” readings of Morgan’s absence from early portions in the narrative. J. Immanuel Kant. ed. with such gossip explaining Morgan’s need to manage her reputation. Morgan’s appearance. trans. While Morgan’s disguised Elde is unsightly. 135. 102–34 [117–18]. 1974). 169.” in Women and Power in the Middle Ages. ed. Absent Narratives. the Lady of the Lake traps Merlin in a magical tomb (167–68). Lucy Allen Paton. 139. Imagined Communities. dont je en fui pute clamee par la bouche meisme(s) Morgein” [Know for certain that I have put you in here because you were going around saying everywhere you went that you had your fun with me. 1951). Davies.
See Dinshaw. See especially Ingham’s discussion of negotiating common cultural characteristics with political differences in the analysis of “antagonistic intimacies” in the fourteenth-century Anglo-Welsh borderlands (232–33n). Ingham. 38–40 20. see . Akbari. 9. 18. See Fradenburg. 76. 90–117 15. Hobsbawm. For a historiographical justification of medieval empire as an object of study. in Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 3. Imagined Communities. 1.. Hardt and Negri define Empire as an overarching “concept” defined “fundamentally by a lack of boundaries. Ethnic Origins. 5–6. xiv–xv. 24. see also Ingham and Warren’s methodological discussion in “Introduction: Postcolonial Modernity and the Rest of History. Ibid. see Anderson. and some argue that imperialism is a product of nineteenthcentury industrial expansion. Ibid. 10–11. see Bill Ashcroft. First English Empire. 13. 145. 1–15. Ingham’s rejection of the goal of locating the modern nation’s “teleological ancestor” renders her methodology particularly powerful for marcher zones.” Speculum 77 (2002): 1195–1227.” in Postcolonial Moves. 10. 23. in Empire..” see Cohen’s introduction to Postcolonial Middle Ages.1 (2002). See Davies.” aimed at dealing with a globalized economy in which national and ethnic boundaries give way to transnational corporate interests. On debates concerning the timeframe for imperialism in post-colonial theory. 8. Anderson. 191–203. in “Medieval Studies. some emphasize Enlightenment ideologies. “Contrapuntal Histories. While some post-colonial critics insist that imperialism post-dates the mercantilist capitalism of the sixteenth-century age of European expansion. 8. Imagined Communities. 11. Ibid. Cohen. Ingham. 76–77. Getting Medieval. Kathy Lavezzo usefully urges caution in linking post-coloniality with “any type of social oppression. 17. On the critical possibilities enabled by replacing a progressivist vision of history with a systematic sensitivity to “difficult similarity conjoined to complex difference. and Helen Tiffin. 16. traced in the impact of Annales historiography on the Subaltern Studies group. 2000). 26. 21. Postcolonial Studies. 122–27. For analysis of the critical possibilities for medievalist literary history opened up by postcolonial criticism. in her review of Cohen’s Postcolonial Middle Ages. introduction to Postcolonial Middle Ages. See Connor. First English Empire. 206–8. post-colonial theorists generally assign imperialism to the modern era. Sovereign Fantasies.. 8. 46–78.. 10. Ibid. Gareth Griffiths.” 48. introduction to Postcolonial Moves. Sacrifice Your Love.” suggesting our need to justify our recourse to models of empire.” 117. 10. Holsinger’s analysis of the foundational influence of medieval studies in postcolonial theory. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts (London: Routledge. Nations. Ethnonationalism.2 0 4 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 4 religious authorities. and the Genealogies of Critique. 160–62. 135. see Davies. 12. See also Bruce W. 22. Smith. 43–78. Ingham and Warren. 19. 25. 14. “Orientation.
Matthews lists textual links among these poems. King Arthur. “Introduction: Infinite Realms. “The English Nobility. largely splintered into local lordships.” in Practical Reason. Ingham and Warren. R. 35. 1997). B. ed. On Edward I’s empire-building efforts. see Michael Prestwich. see Field. see Jeffrey Jerome Cohen.. only much later appended (50–51. 33. see Michael Brown. in The Political Development of the British Isles. Custom and Law: The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 6–8. ed. James Goldstein. 4–5. 1998). see Cynthia J. Rhiannon Purdie and Nicola Royan (Cambridge: D. 79–82. CT: Yale University Press. 1993). Sovereign Fantasies. Rhiannon Purdie dates Golagros from between the “early fifteenth century” (when the Awntyrs and the Alliterative Morte begin to circulate) and 1508 (the date of Walter Chepman and Andrew Myllar’s print). Neville. 156–61. 51n). 1–16. 27. 1998).NotES to C hAPtER 4 · 205 Finke and Shichtman. “The Anglo-Scottish Marches in the Fifteenth Century: A Frontier Society?” in Scotland and England: 1286–1815. Hanna explains. 21. Cohen. 1988). 1300–1455 (East Linton. 34. 95–107 [95n]. 71–90. “Rethinking the State. while recognizing the marginal political and economic status of Anglo-Scottish border culture. 32. 1–141 [19–20]. see Ingham.” in The Scots and Medieval Arthurian Legend. For strategies for rethinking modern concepts of nationhood within a British context. On recent postcolonial scholarship on empire building in the medieval West.” in Cultural Diversity. 1–18. McFarlane. For a thoroughgoing study of late-medieval Anglo-Scottish marcher culture. to which a copy of the Awntyrs was. 30. S. in Tragedy of Arthur. Edward I. who. 29. Ibid. 1990).” in The Nobility of Later Medieval England: The Ford Lectures for 1953 and Related Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 202–3.” in Postcolonial Moves. 2005). 79–103. (New Haven. Many scholars’ earlier assessments derive from the presence of early fourteenth-century manorial records in the Ireland MS. ed. Hanna’s rough estimate of 1400–1430 seems sound (Awntyrs. For a rejection of the chronicle–romance distinction in the Alliterative Morte. Although there is no secure means for dating the composition of the Awntyrs. nevertheless insists that such regional uniqueness was developed within larger regnal and national frames. rev. On the persistence of identification with local lords rather than an overarching national identity in fifteenth-century Scotland. The Matter of Scotland: Historical Narrative in Medieval Scotland (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Roger A. see Anthony Goodman. his argument that the Awntyrs-poet borrowed from the Alliterative Morte Arthure rests on slim grounds . 18–33 . see Barbara Fuchs. 1100–1400 (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 52). see Robin Frame. see Bourdieu. and for analysis of the poem’s dialectics of history and poetry. Brewer. Although Matthews’s evidence for textual parallels is unassailable. ed. Mason (Edinburgh: John Donald. The Black Douglases: War and Lordship in Late Medieval Scotland.” 171. On “chronicle” Arthurian works. On the rise of the modern nation being tied directly to the diminishment of feudal privileges through the concentration of physical force capital in national armies. 1290–1536. East Lothian: Tuckwell Press. in “The Search for Scottishness in Golagros and Gawane. 1973). “Imperium Studies. 42–52. Violence. 31. On medieval Scotland as decentralized. K. “Romance in England. For an alternative view. 28. ed.
it is only as a single poem that the Awntyrs was presented to medieval audiences. Hanna’s evidence does not strike me as decisive. 37. 43. Oakden posits two “Revivals” in his commentary on the stanzaic meter of Sir Gawain.” 509. The provenance of the Bodley MS Douce 324 copy has been traced to the “south-eastern counties” by Doyle (“Manuscripts. Golagros was among the first works printed by Chepman and Myllar (see Hahn. 232). 49. see Michael Brown. Volume One: 1375–1650 (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. “Alliterative Revival. the version that has survived was clearly fashioned as a single poem—and. 44. I. 323–40. For Hanna’s dialectal localization. On civilian suffering in the Alliterative Morte. 41. For Musgrove.218. Hanna’s claim that the Awntyrs is a composite of two poems (“The Awntyrs off Arthure: An Interpretation. eds. Even if one grants Hanna’s arguments for the Awntyrs’s composite origin.” 151–64. since the relatively short length of the text exaggerates the significance of statistical variations (see especially 292–93). 6–16.” 37–38. see “Alliterative Poetry. in “‘Summer Sunday. 38. in Priscilla Bawcutt and Felicity Riddy.. Pearsall. On the Scottish adoption of the meter of the Awntyrs. and Ingham. while the Ireland Blackburn MS version was copied in the Lancashire area. while Gates describes the Lambeth Palace 491 copy as of the “southernmost” origin (Awntyrs. which he sees as a “compromise” between the syllabic and alliterative prosodies of “antagonistic” literary schools. since all copies present roughly the same text.” 97). ed. Longer Scottish Poems. in Knightly Tale of Golagaros and Gawane. Hanna has recently expressed uncertainty about the Northern English origins of the Awntyrs and has suggested Scotland as a possible origin. On postcolonial theorists’ recent attempts to “dislodge” the “national geographies” inflecting medievalist criticism. see Matthews. see Awntyrs. in “Diversity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry. The Awntyrs survives in three other manuscripts. Sovereign Fantasies. “Middle English Alliterative Revivals. 115–50. 118–54). ed. On the Black Douglas patronage of Holland’s Howlat. see Ingham and Warren’s introduction to Postcolonial Moves.’” 12. For full manuscript descriptions. For Hanna’s regionalization of the Alliterative Morte. 43–84. Lawton offers a searching analysis of the evidence for a thirteen-line stanza movement. 1987). in Alliterative Poetry. “‘Rejoice to hear of Douglas’: The House of Douglas and . The Alliterative Morte also resists precise localization and is best conceived within a generally militarized zone including the northern Midlands and the English North (see chapter 3). Blake. The Lincoln Cathedral Library MS 91 text of the Awntyrs comes from the West Riding of Yorkshire.2 0 6 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 4 (159).” 221–22. Awntyrs. Golagros. see Gates...” Modern Language Quarterly 31 : 275–97) is largely irrelevant to tracing the poem’s codicological history. Turville-Petre theorizes a single “school” of poets working within the thirteen-line stanza. since these poems resist certain dating. 45. Richard Holland.” 207. 42. 40. the Northwest Midlands are part of the North (see North of England. 15). Tragedy of Arthur. 87–100. see Craigie. 36. while his view of “poetic incompetence” in the latter part of the poem is too subjective (293). 1–15. as far as manuscript evidence informs us. “Scottish Alliterative Poems. The Buke of the Howlat. 39.
Lawton. Sovereign Fantasies. 226–35. Compare Alliterative ‘Morte.” in Alliterative Tradition. For a comparison of Scottish expansion into the Isles and the Highlands as “the best parallel for the English conquests in Wales and Ireland. 188. R. 1100–1500: Comparisons.” in Scotland: A History. ed. 37. 189–90. J. 54–69.NotES to C hAPtER 4 · 207 the Presentation of Magnate Power in Late Medieval Scotland. Derrick McClure and Michael R. R.” in Middle English Alliterative Poetry and Its Literary Background. Purdie contends that the oft-cited approximate date of 1470 reflects “the tendency of scholars to assign any undated Scottish text with a political slant to the troubled reign of James III. First English Empire. 51. Spiller (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Ingham. ed.2 (2008): 91–116.” in Matter of Scotland. 90–103. On Stewart tactics against noble families linked to a programmatic cultivation of transnational cultural and political prestige for a centralized Scotland. On the diminishing power of Christendom as an “imagined community” within expanding vernacular bureaucracies. 31. Levy and Szarmach. J. while aligning Arthur with England (162). 52. Edward I. Ibid. and on the absence of independent secular communities before the eighteenth century. Davies (Edinburgh: John Donald. see Prestwich. 183–202 . “The Awntyrs off Arthure. On the cultivation of the Arthurian legend by Edward I and Edward III. 13–15.’ 3342–44. See A. 53. Schiff. 54.2 (1997): 161–84. in The King’s Two Maps: Car- . 297–98.” in The British Isles. ed. C. see Randy P. 56. On a “royal cult” of Arthur maintained by English kings exploiting the Galfridian concept of a pan-British monarch. Golagros. Each of these empires differs from the modern nation in granting the church jurisdictional authority that overlaps with secular power. Higham. see N.” see Alexander Grant. Rosalind Field. Spearing. “Survival and Revival: Late Medieval Scotland. 204–5. King Arthur: Myth-Making and History (London: Routledge. “The Anglo-Norman Background to Alliterative Romance. ed. and MacDougall. See Elizabeth Walsh’s argument for a pacifist Golagros. 2002). see Michael Brown and Steve Boardman. ed. see Anderson. Imagined Communities. Racial Myth. 46. Davies. 190. 50. in “Golagros and Gawane: A Word for Peace. Daniel Birkholz links Edward I’s appropriation of Arthurian territorial models with the politics of English imperial geography. Contrasts and Connections. neither ever questions the status of “Christendom” as a second “imagined community. Goldstein marks Edward I’s subjugation of Wales as the beginning of the “history of English imperialism. Ingham. 1989). 48..” Mediaevalia 29.” Scottish Historical Review 76.” in Bryght Lanternis: Essays on the Language and Literature of Medieval and Renaissance Scotland. 118–41. Jenny Wormald (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown and Boardman. still leaves the “national” provenance of the Awntyrs open to question (184). 47. G.” with individuals subject to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 55. On the Howlat as a text informed by Anglo-Scottish marcher militarism.” in “Search for Scottishness. “Survival and Revival. 49.” 93. “Holland as Howlat: Shadow Self and Borderland Homage in The Buke of the Howlat. 77–106 [93–103]. However militaristic these empires appear. “Scotland’s ‘Celtic Fringe’ in the Late Middle Ages: The Macdonald Lords of the Isles and the Kingdom of Scotland. 1988).” 95n. 2005). 41–42.
ed. Such raiding was common in the Anglo-Scottish marches well into the fifteenth century and involved allegiance to local lords rather than national armies. see Michael Brown. Cohen. On the Scottish chronicle tradition and transnational marcher politics. Black Douglases. 59. The Wars of Scotland: 1214–1371 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.183–98. see Hahn. 153–72. “War and Society in the Medieval North. Black Douglases. see Jewell. On competing late-medieval English and Scottish claims in a “war of historiography. A. Brown. On Edward III and Scotland. The Three Edwards: War and State in England. “armed” [T]. and an omission [L]. Black Douglases. Brown. See Sir Gawain and the Carle of Carlisle. 134. 24–26. xii–xiii. in Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances. given the overwhelming importance of “personal” relationships in medieval political life. A. A.” in Scots. Amours’s claim for a Scottish Awntyrs (which.. 64. to my knowledge. 69. Terrell. 68. Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances. lxxii. ed. 128–30. 70. 2nd ed. Purdie and Royan. 29–33. Matter of Scotland. 2004). On class-based interests in Barbour’s Bruce. 2004). 188–90. Matter of Scotland. lxxii. see Brown. See the Avowyng of Arthur. ed. On the concentration of Gawain romances in the North. ed.” see Goldstein. see Brown. J. 119–50. Awntyrs. ed. see Goldstein. All Barbour citations are from Duncan’s edition. 65. Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances. Hahn. see Gates. Scottish Alliterative Poems. 83. ed.. ed. The very title of Amours’s collection silently argues his nationalist view of the Awntyrs. 57–103. 81–84.. 160. Tuck. M. Hahn. 1272–1377. “Subversive Histories: Strategies of Identity in Scottish Historiography. 63. 61. in Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances. This reading is derived from the Ireland manuscript. “The Fine Art of Faint Praise in Older Scots Historiography. 71. John Barbour. 66. 62. Black Douglases. and for the geographical settings of Avowyng and Carlisle. ed. On the historiographical need to resist exaggerating the scope of rarefied legal discourses about constitutional change or monarchical centrality. Goldstein observes of “heroic poetry” that among its basic ideological functions is impelling “soldiers to wage war to defend an idea” (144).” in Cultural Diversity. On the Black Douglases’ use of Howlat to cultivate their connection to the James Douglas who carried Robert the Bruce’s heart into battle against Muslim enemies. 3–6. On the “disinherited” and the conflicted nature of marcher land claims. 232–54. Nicola Royan. 1997). 67. 113–17.. Amours. For a fuller list of Arthurian works circulating in the North of England. Ibid. The Bruce. 85–103.. no recent scholars accept) contributed significantly to debate about Huchown (li-lxxxii). the other manuscripts offer “errant” [D]. 57. see Brown. see Smyth’s preface to Medieval Europeans. 57–62. ed. 95–98. see also Michael Prestwich. Duncan (Edinburgh: Canongate. 133–214. (New York: Routledge. 138. Black Douglases. 58. see Katherine H. and trans. North-South Divide. Hanna’s text has Galeron described as an “errant” knighte (349). 2003). 43–54 [43–44]. i. 60.2 0 8 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 4 tography and Culture in Thirteenth-Century England (New York: Routledge. Hahn.” Northern History 21 .
See Keith Stringer’s linkage of Scottish nation-formation with the unification of multiple ethnicities. 39–76 [74–75]. Black Douglases. Valerie M. Syr Gawayne. 234–67. Madden. Medieval Scotland. 72. and Kyle. 1990).” in Scots. ed. after which Scottish kings treated them as Scottish territory.. The Orkneys were pledged to the Scottish Crown by Christian I. On the ambiguity of national divisions in medieval Europe. Legurio and Mildred Leake Day (New York: Garland. 43–54. Scottish Alliterative Poems.” 236–37. see A. 86. 2000). 2000). xli. 82. in “The Emergence of a Nation-State. 76. 419–20.” 43–48. Awntyrs. 24–59. Scottish Place Names (New Lanark: Geddes and Grosset. The Lordship of Galloway: c.. On Malory’s channeling of English contempt for Scots in representations of knights responsible for the dissolution of Arthur’s regime. see Gates. 1480–1540. ed.” in King Arthur through the Ages. see John Gray. On similar developments in Scotland and in the Anglo-Scottish marches. King of Denmark and Norway. 1100–1300. see Cory J. On Galloway’s perennial ascendancy over its neighbors. ed. Rushton. Flora Alexander cautions that hostility to Arthur is not uniform in Scottish chronicles and romances. “Fine Art. Brown. 2000). Barrell.. Morte. 60. 418. George Mackay. see Tuck. Gawain’s ethnic ambiguity seems appropriate. Vinaver. ed. Making of English National Identity. 77. Purdie and Royan. 80. see Kumar. Malory. in “Late Medieval Scottish Attitudes to the Figure of King Arthur: A Reassessment. Colonization. Shichtman. NJ: Princeton University Press. Nicola Royan. For a sociological exploration of Anglo-Scottish borderlands culture. “Sir Gawain in Scotland: A Hometown Boy Made Good. see Robert Bartlett. ed. Wormald.NotES to C hAPtER 4 · 2 0 9 (1985): 33–52 . Cunningham. the scribes agree on identifying Carrick. M. 39. see Barrell. 950–1350 (Princeton. ed. 109–19. considering the multi-ethnic nature of Scottish and English identities. On the socio-economic benefits associated with constant militarization in the English North. 671. “‘Na les vailyeant than ony uthir princis of Britane’: Representations of Arthur in Scotland. 157–82. 79.” in Scotland. “Lawlessness on the Frontier: The Anglo-Scottish Borderlands in the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Century. On the multi-ethnic nature of English identity. see Royan. On traditions associating Gawain with Scotland. 75. ed. and Cultural Change. see Martin B. Though textual variation makes identification of the entire list of Galeron’s territories impossible. Awntyrs. For textual variants.” Scottish Studies Review 3 (2002): 9–20 .” History and Anthropology 12. 354. Black Douglases. Purdie and Royan.4 (2001): 381–408. D. 9–12. 1993). 1300 (Edinburgh: John Donald. Barrell. Medieval Scotland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. in Works. see Richard Oram. “War and Society. On trends in Scottish treatment of Arthur in romance and chronicle. see Brown. For a history of Galloway before the Wars of Independence.” in Scots. The Making of Europe: Conquest. and Amours. Medieval Scotland. 150. 74. which are located in Ayrshire. . just northwest of the powerful lordship of Galloway. 171–72. 900 to c. in a 1468 marriage treaty. 78. Shichtman. ed. “‘Of an uncouthe stede’: The Scottish Knight in Middle English Arthurian Romances.” Anglia 93 (1975): 17–34. 81. 73. “Sir Gawain. 86–90.
see Prestwich. 188n. ed. 16–17. ed. and Amours.2 1 0 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 4 83. 95. 18. On wild men as arms-bearers. see Barrell. demonstrating his commitment to the chivalric ethos— though with little expectation of being taken seriously. On the Douglases’ transnational identity. ed. 89. R. the trend of late-medieval political centralization throughout Western Europe is clear. x–xi. 1300–1450 (New York: St. On “social logic” and the irreducibly local nature of texts as “lived events. see Gates. ed. 93. 92. Tournaments: Jousts. Tuck ties the emergence of a “northern nobility” to wealth generated by crossborder conflicts and alliances. 60–64. see Brown. . for discussion of the difficulty of deciphering the locations. see Richard Barber and Juliette Barker. On centralization in Scotland..’” 3). ed. in Scottish Alliterative Poems. 304–6. 150n. Sovereign Fantasies. see Brown. 87. 417n. Martin’s Press. M. On the conquest of Galloway as depicted in the Douglas arms. Black Douglases. Awntyrs.” 43–45. As with the list of lands through which Galeron identifies himself. see W.” 29. 171–75. by Guillaume le Clerc (London: J. 90. Regardless of one’s acceptance of the existence of medieval nation-states. Awntyrs. 23.. Wild Man.” in Romance Reading on the Book. On Galloway’s traditions of unity and resistance to the Scottish Crown. On Black Douglas respect for Galloway’s distinct customs. 84. and trans. Wars. Dent. Medieval Scotland. 1991). For relevant variants. Political Life in Medieval England.” 77. The Douglas conquest of the Galwegians is commemorated in Holland’s thirteen-line stanzaic Howlat. Awntyrs. 171–95. ed. 207. 86. 94. Fergus of Galloway: Knight of King Arthur. 18–60. Three Edwards. Ingham. Ormrod. On knightly combats in borderland areas. 1989). Jennifer Fellows et al. in “War and Society. 303n.. Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances. see Husband. ed. Black Douglases. see Gates. Scottish Alliterative Poems. then the Awntyrs is also a borderlands text in literary history.” 101–6. 62–64. “History. Black Douglases. see Brown and Boardman.. 86–91. D. Edward III twice challenged the French king to fight for the French realm. 1996). Hahn.” 19. For variants. 203–26. 91. On political centralization in England. Hahn. Chivalry and Pageants in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell.” see Spiegel. 85. On Galloway during the Wars of Independence. “Anglo-Scottish Marches. “Survival and Revival. 129–42 [131–32]. Owen.. 140n. see Brown. 186. 224n. 88. Goodman. 34–44... Gellner argues that state centralization made medieval nation formation possible—but that the necessary binding of cultural identity and political power simply did not occur. If Turville-Petre is correct in suggesting that the Awntyrs brought the thirteen-line stanza into Scotland (“‘Summer Sunday. Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances. ed. M. and Rosamund Allen. see D. 217n.. “The Awntyrs off Arthure: Jests and Jousts. Amours argues that Galeron’s possessions cluster around Ayrshire. ed. in Nationalism. the lands that Arthur offers to Gawain are not easily identified and display significant textual variation. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press. 1995). see Hanna. “Anglo-Scottish Marches. On Anglo-Norman settlement in Galloway. see Brown. Goodman.
105. 22–30. Hulbert argues for a “baronial” patronage for the Awntyrs. North England. Medieval Scotland. 113. 109. On James II’s subsequent. see Brown.. 107. After James II murdered Earl William Douglas at the Stirling Castle “Black Dinner. see Davies. 103. Awntyrs. On the stakes of Edward I’s imperial experiments in the British Isles. ed. 327–32. approximate Welsh orthography. “Richard II and the Border Magnates. Bawcutt and Riddy’s conservative dating of the Howlat from 1445 to 1452 (Howlat. 228n. Black Douglases.” Northern History 3 (1968): 27–52. Brown. both unidentified. and “Wales” is again mentioned in line 669 of the Douce MS (Gates. “Gryffones castelle” [Griffon’s castle] (Lincoln MS) and “Criffones castelle” (in both the Douce MS and the Ireland MS). 675). On the mobilization of border-family interests against Richard II’s efforts to secure a treaty with the Scots. 101. Ibid. On dating Holland’s Howlat. 188–89). Arthurian) “lordscip” [lordship]. Awntyrs. 146–51. Goodman.. Black Douglases. Prestwich argues that Edward I’s failure to bring sufficient occupying forces precluded him from colonizing Scotland as he had Wales. A. 104. 111. Mason (Edinburgh: John Donald. ed. ed. 283–311. Riddy. First English Empire. with its reading of “your. First English Empire. 112. in “Hypothesis. On Hadrian’s Wall marking the frontier of the “Empire’s jurisdiction. 102.” has surely contributed to the editorial confusion addressed by Gates (228n). Smailes.” in Scotland and England: 1286–1815.” the Black Douglas house became fractured by internecine conflict. 103. 97. the Douce manuscript. brutally successful campaigns against Black Douglas threats. On the waning of Douglas family fortunes as border violence decreased after 1389. Arthur E. Black Douglases.” 29. ed. 52. 1968). (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons. in “Colonial Scotland: The English in Scotland Under Edward I. ed. ed.” see . Awntyrs.. 98. Gates. Barrell.” with its “defensive function” interrelated with an effort to manage “transfrontier traffic. On largely unsuccessful efforts to impose national consolidation. see J. 106. Hanna.” Review of English Studies 37 (1986): 1–10. See the variants to lines 683–85 (Gates. followed by the “worship of Wales” as the primary gift. rev. 100.. Tuck. 110. 42) supports the view that it served as Black Douglas propaganda aimed at reviving their marcher power-base. see Brown. see Goodman.” 414. 99.NotES to C hAPtER 4 · 2 1 1 96. in Works. see Felicity J. 6–17. “Anglo-Scottish Marches. The Welsh territory of Glamergan [Glamorgan] is the first territory mentioned in all of the manuscripts. 79–80. Awntyrs. The ghost asserts that the knight who will “encroche” [seize] Arthur’s sovereignty will be “crowned” at “Carlele” [Carlisle] (287–88). ed. 108. Vinaver. suggesting an attempted “revival” of an anti-monarchical aristocratic culture. 190). Roger A. “Dating The Buke of the Howlat. “Anglo-Scottish Marches. The Lambeth manuscript also has Gawain refer to “oure” (that is. Malory makes “Carlyle” [Carlisle] the site of the surprise of Lancelot that triggers the Arthurian civil war (Morte. See Davies.” 23–26. 1988). 134.
8–9. when he hears news from Craddok of the treason of Mordred. 231. 115. Medieval Wales. and trans. Medieval Scotland. 118. 117. On the ideological project of the Declaration. 88–103. and Golagros (2). 1985).” in War and Border Societies in the Middle Ages. On the Edwardian conquest and Owain’s later rebellion. Independence and Nationhood: Scotland. 127. Alliterative Poetry. North of England. see Walker. See Wales. 122. 126. Hanna emends from Chepman and Myllar’s “Rome” (57n). On Carlisle as a site of frequent Anglo-Scottish conflict. arguing for a medieval nation in Anderson’s sense. ed. Sovereign Fantasies.” 240. 178–92). Matthews argues compellingly for Arthur’s status as an English warlord in the Alliterative Morte and the Awntyrs (Tragedy of Arthur. 124. 121–22. see Goldstein. 227n. “Responses to War: Carlisle and the West March in the Late Fourteenth Century. 118–54. Vinaver. Northern England. see Walker. 123. 120. Andrew. Works. Owain’s uprising.’ 3522–56). Matter of Scotland. 62–63. non-topical critique of militarism. 2005). including the Awntyrs. 5. 56–57. 119. See Anderson. “Textual Transmission. 227. see Smailes. the Morte Arthure (3150). ed. “Dialect. Musgrove analyzes these regions as part of a generally militarized North. On Welsh mercenaries. 1999). 1992). 126–31. Anthony Goodman and Anthony Tuck (London: John Donald. Northern English. see Musgrove. On Carlisle’s military and economic history. Golagros. 675. 1306–1469 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. which drives him back to Britain (Alliterative ‘Morte. in North of England. 67–68. 122. and Oakden. ed. Arthur is encamped in Viterbo. Golagros. see McIntosh..2 1 2 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 4 Norman Davies. II. readying to take Rome.. each of which was complex. 132. and Henry Summerson. Hahn. 88–89. 164–75. The mention of Tuscany is one key textual link shared by the Awntyrs (284).” 418–23. ed. On the Morte-poet’s dialect. James Fergusson (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. That Arthur is holding court at Carlisle links the Alliterative Morte with a number of northerly Arthurian romances. 88–103. 114. 116. Hahn. Edward I’s conquest of Wales was completed by 1284. 165–74. 129. The Latin text and bracketed translation derive from the Declaration of Arbroath. Medieval Wales. 111–38. 140–54. While Matthews’s assertion that Edward III is the intended figure behind the Morte-poet’s Arthur fits awkwardly with the poem’s decidedly general. ed. beginning in 1400 and remaining explosive through 1410. following suggestions by Amours (261n) and Hahn (286n). See Malory. 128. Imagined Communities. 1970). in Forging Chivalric Communities in Malory’s ‘Le Morte Darthur’ (New York: Palgrave Macmillan. See Alexander Grant. Ingham. 130.87–88. Hodges discusses Malory’s adaptation of the Morte-poet’s narrative of the Roman campaign. See Goldstein. The Isles: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press. . 125. 131. Matter of Scotland. 121. 155–77 [156–61]. Barrell. On various efforts to assert an English-dominated unity for imperial holdings throughout a medieval Britain destabilized by competing ethnicities. could be contemporary with the Alliterative Morte.
A failure in alliteration in this line calls attention to the term. On literary and chronicle evidence that pillaging and property destruction were common practice throughout late-medieval Europe. 1999). xiii–xxxvii.” on metrical grounds (51n). Cohen. and considering the northerly origins of the geographic spread of the poem (Hanna and Lawton.” in Cultural Diversity. Hanna here replaces the printed text’s “lord” with “maister. see Fradenburg. ed. S. ed. a tactic in medieval warfare involving the destruction of goods. and trans.” arguing that its two incidents form a “diptych. see Randy P. see Nigel Bryant.” 183–202. Making of English National Identity. D.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 28 : 309–40). “The Instructive Other Within: Secularized Jews in The Siege of Jerusalem.NotES to C hAPtER 4 · 2 1 3 see Smyth’s preface to Medieval Europeans. highlighting the diptychal relation of the Arthurian armies’ encounters with provincial lords.. 60–88. 133. where raids and counter-raids were aimed primarily at villages and outlying farms. ed. Golagros’s two plotlines derive from the First Continuation of Chrétien de Troyes’s Perceval. 138–39. 135–51 [137–42]. I restore the text’s reading because the term “lord” seems intended to create a link with Golagros’s introduction as the “lord” who holds the desirable property that Arthur besieges (255–65). 122–23. On anti-imperialist elements in the depiction of divinely-authorized warfare in the Siege as mirroring anti-militarism in the Awntyrs and Golagros. Spearing challenges Hanna’s view of the Awntyrs as “composite. The Alliterative Morte offers numerous examples of Arthur’s brutal campaigns. Even as Golagros gestures at the brutality of medieval warfare. the value of which is only increased by Arthur’s status as both a great conqueror and his “cousing of kyn” [relative] (191). with anxieties about Judaism’s anteriority to Christianity magnifying the violence. Considering the popularity of the Siege of Jerusalem (clear from the nine extant medieval texts). see Richard W. Chism argues that the Siege-poet uses Jews to found a Christian empire. Hahn. Perceval: The Story of the Grail (Cambridge: D. S. it also smoothes over such violence with a conventional style of tournament combat common in Arthurian romances. On the pronounced theatricality of Golagros’s violence. in “Arthur’s Pilgrimage: A Study of Golagros and Gawane. in Alliterative Revivals. such as when Arthur overturns towers and “turmentez the pople” [torments the people]. 139. R. Such warfare was common in the AngloScottish borderlands. 135.” Studies in Scottish Literature 12. xii–xiv. 1982). 137. 136. the Golagros-poet may have known the Siege-poet’s brutal depictions of the Roman siege and sack of Jerusalem. eds.. . Kaeuper. despite chivalric idealism.. Brewer. making many “wedwes” [widows] worry and wring their hands (3153–55). 138. lxvii–lxviii). 176–85. and Kumar. Such “routis” are synonymous with the chevauchée. see Brown. Black Douglases. 291n. Schiff.” in “Awntyrs. and the starvation and plundering of civilians. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press.1 (1974): 3–20 . 155–88 (updating her “The Siege of Jerusalem: Liquidating Assets. 134. Jack argues that Arthur’s releasing of his claim to Golagros’s lands reveals his having benefitted spiritually from visiting Jerusalem. This unnamed lord of Golagros’s opening encounter displays the aristocratic virtue of generosity. Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances.
chapter 5 1. whereby book culture enables the self’s multiplication and extension. Language and Symbolic Power.. Justice and Kerby-Fulton. while doing little to restrain the destructive practices of pillaging commoners’ lands. Ibid. Race and Manifest Destiny. 1919). Boston: Ginn and Company. 23–66 [24–25]. Lavezzo. History. ed. Fiona . see Horsman. Lawton. Saintsbury. I will explore a related but contrary movement. I. 9. Tournament. Larry Scanlon argues that this transition presents a “national vision” juxtaposing the “agrarian west” and the “more mercantile. See Bourdieu. 2008). 36–41. 64–65. On Piers Plowman as a “national” poem. 10. On theories of a Germanic identity encompassing Saxons and Normans. English Literature: Its History and Its Significance for the Life of the English-Speaking World (1909. Marriage. 1993). 11. 46. 3.110. History. see Ralph Hanna. more industrialized southeast..” in “King. 191–233 . Commons. in “Will’s Work. ed. Chivalry and Violence. see Kaueper. 169–88. 12. 6. discussing writing technology. Hahn argues that Golagros’s defeat is due partly to the happenstance of losing his footing on “an uneven battlefield. who introduces technology as a key concern for medieval culture in Middle English Literature: A Cultural History (Cambridge: Polity.” in Middle English Alliterative Poetry.” in Written Work. 141. 2. Long. 1–10.2 1 4 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 5 City. Ibid. 47. 21. Race and Manifest Destiny. 101– 23. focuses on medieval confessional narrative as an uncannily modern “technology of the self” (27–35). ed.” whereas the “Revival” was otherwise “a local affair” (“Audience of Piers Plowman. Backus and Shaw. 140.” in Imagining a Medieval English Nation. Ibid. 30–31. 7. Ibid. On the influence of Carlyle’s view of Germanic superiority in Britain. 142. 129–33. 13.” which calls attention to the “honorable conduct” that ensues (Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances. Halleck. Shaw’s New History. and Kind Wit: Langland’s National Vision and the Rising of 1381. William J. “The Audience and Public of Piers Plowman. 17–26. Hanna links Will’s self-presentation as a hermit with the “relative discursive freedom” of a wandering minstrel (24–25). 182. 5. On chivalry as an ideology that often insulated aristocratic knights from severe violence. 302n). While Cannon. 31. 8. 15. and on Nott’s arguments against a single Creation and that interbreeding weakens Saxon purity. 118–19. 4. 147–54 [103–4]. I take this phrasing from Christopher Cannon. William Langland (Aldershot: Variorum. 49. 8. Ibid. On biographical evidence for Langland.. and see Burrow’s argument that Piers Plowman alone intended a “Reading Public” that transcended any “specific locality.” 373–77). see Anne Middleton. see Horsman. 14.
NotES to C hAPtER 5 · 2 1 5
Somerset argues that Will authorizes his clerkly role through the negotiation of “lewed” [lay] texts with Latin discursive modes, in Clerical Discourse and Lay Audience in Late Medieval England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 22–61. See Kellie Robertson’s argument that Langland conceives of literary labor as hybrid, being both “immaterial” (like preaching) and “material” (like agriculture), in The Laborer’s Two Bodies: Literary and Legal Productions in Britain, 1350–1500 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 49–50. Ethan Knapp maintains that Langland’s Will conflates scribal and agricultural labor in the C-Text’s autobiographical passage (V.42–48) by intentionally “misapplyin[g]” the trope of pastoral spirituality to books, in “Poetic Work and Scribal Labor in Hoccleve and Langland,” in The Middle Ages at Work: Practicing Labor in Late Medieval England, ed. Michael Uebel and Kellie Robertson (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 209–29 [214–15]. 16. See Anne Middleton’s analysis of Langland’s increasingly sophisticated forms of autobiographical self-presentation, in “William Langland’s Kynde Name: Authorial Signature and Social Identity in Late Fourteenth-Century England,” in Literary Practice and Social Change in Britain, 1380–1530, ed. Lee Patterson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 15–82 [55–60]. On late-medieval economic emigration from rural areas to London, see Saul, “Medieval Britain,” 137–42. 17. On the circulation of Piers Plowman manuscripts within the London book market, see Ralph Hanna, London Literature, 1300–1380 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 243–314. On the provenance of Piers Plowman, see A. I. Doyle, “Some Remarks on Surviving Manuscripts of Piers Plowman,” in Medieval English Religious and Ethical Literature, ed. Kratzmann and Simpson, 35–48. On manuscript evidence for Langland’s return to Malvern, see Derek Pearsall, “Langland’s London,” in Written Work, ed. Justice and Kerby-Fulton, 185–207 ; M. L. Samuels, “Langland’s Dialect,” Medium Aevum 54 (1985): 232–247 ; and Hanna, William Langland, 14–17. 18. After London, which dwarfed all other late-medieval British cities in size and wealth, Bristol and York were the two most important towns. On the distribution of population and wealth in medieval towns, see Saul, “Medieval Britain,” 133–37. Simon Horobin argues for a Bristol dialectal origin for both Richard and Mum in “The Dialect and Authorship of Richard the Redeless and Mum and the Sothsegger,” Yearbook of Langland Studies 18 (2004): 133–52. 19. The Crowned King is uniquely attested in Bodleian Douce MS 95, a miscellany dated by Barr to the mid-fifteenth century. It features English and Latin poetic and prose contents with “explicit connections with Westminster and London,” including lists and descriptions of London churches and their staff. See Helen Barr, ed., The ‘Piers Plowman’ Tradition: A Critical Edition of ‘Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede,’ ‘Richard the Redeless,’ ‘Mum and the Sothsegger’ and ‘The Crowned King’ (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), 30. 20. A. I. Doyle, “An Unrecognized Piece of Piers the Ploughman’s Creed and Other Work by Its Scribe,” Speculum 34 (1959): 428–36 . Doyle here adds to the known output of the scribe identified by Eleanor Prescott Hammond in articles such as “A Scribe of Chaucer,” Modern Philology 27 (1929): 26–33. 21. Kerby-Fulton and Justice, “Langlandian Reading Circles,” 59–76. On bureaucratic culture and political centralization in late-medieval Britain, see M. T. Clanchy,
2 1 6 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 5
From Memory to Written Record, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 44–184. 22. On the spread of scribal culture through bureaucratic forms, see Kerby-Fulton and Justice, “Langlandian Reading Circles,” 59–83. See also Frank Grady’s study of bureaucratically informed poets, in “The Generation of 1399,” in The Letter of the Law: Legal Practice and Literary Production in Medieval England, ed. Emily Steiner and Candace Barrington (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002), 202–29; and see Knapp’s argument that bureaucratic identity shapes late-medieval English literary culture, in Bureaucratic Muse, 27–44. 23. I take this phrase from Emily Steiner, Documentary Culture and the Making of Medieval English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 10. 24. I take this phrase from Helen Barr, Signes and Sothe: Language in the ‘Piers Plowman’ Tradition (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1994), 22; see Barr’s survey of evidence for this Langland-generated community, 1–22. The concept of a “Piers Plowman tradition” is first explicitly offered by David A. Lawton in “Lollardy and the Piers Plowman Tradition,” Modern Language Review 76 (1981): 780–93; Turville-Petre also groups works influenced by Piers Plowman in Alliterative Revival, 31–32. Kathryn Kerby-Fulton suggests adding the Wycliffite broadside poem “Heu quanta desolacio” to this tradition, seeing its Langlandian allusions as predated only by the 1381 rebel writings, in Books Under Suspicion: Censorship and Tolerance of Revelatory Writing in Late Medieval England (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007), 174–87. 25. Beginning with his edition of the A-text in 1868, Skeat produced six volumes covering the A-, B-, and C-texts, as well as an excerpt volume. Most scholars of Piers Plowman accept an A-B-C composition sequence. On the evidence for three discrete Piers Plowman texts, see Charlotte Brewer, Editing ‘Piers Plowman’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 182–209; and C. David Benson, Public ‘Piers Plowman’: Modern Scholarship and Late Medieval English Culture (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 43–75. Jill Mann argues for a B-C-A sequence, in “The Power of the Alphabet: A Reassessment of the Relation between the A and B Versions of Piers Plowman,” Yearbook of Langland Studies 8 (1994): 21–50. On the vexed critical history concerning the authorship of Piers Plowman, see Bowers, Chaucer and Langland, 56–79. 26. See John Manly, “The Lost Leaf of Piers the Plowman” (EETS o.s. 135b, 1906). 27. Kane and Donaldson’s eclectic edition of the B-Text weaves editorial intuition into the construction of a text from heterogeneous manuscript data; see their introduction to William Langland, Piers Plowman: The B Version (London: Athlone Press, 1975), 131. Assuming a consistent, multi-generational abyss between editor and the poet, Kane uses a stunning metaphor to explain his eclectic editing method: he likens Langland’s authorial “quality” to an invisible sun that “shines through the damage done at the archetypal stage,” penetrating the darkness of inferior scribal work; see “The Text,” in A Companion to ‘Piers Plowman,’ ed. John A. Alford (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 175–200 [175; 194]. On debate surrounding Kane and Donaldson’s enabling idealization of Langland, see Tim William Machan, “Middle English Text Production and Modern Textual Criticism,” in Crux and Controversy in Middle English Textual Criticism, ed. A. J. Minnis and Charlotte Brewer (Cambridge:
NotES to C hAPtER 5 · 2 1 7
D. S. Brewer, 1992), 1–18 [10–17]; and see Lee Patterson’s seminal analysis of Kane and Donaldson’s reliance on editorial intuition concerning authorial writing habits, in a systematic rescue of Langland’s uniqueness from the “ruins” of scribal noise (Negotiating the Past, 77–116 ). 28. Rigg and Brewer maintain that the text in MS Bodley 851 is an authorial draft that pre-dates the A-text; see Piers Plowman: The Z Version, by William Langland (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1983), 2. Few critics have supported the Rigg-Brewer hypothesis. See George Kane’s virulent reaction, in “The ‘Z Version’ of Piers Plowman,” Speculum 60 (1985): 910–30; Kane’s argument that the “puerile” readings of Bodley MS 851 fail to meet the “Langlandian” standard (920) ironically reinforces Rigg and Brewer’s basic contention that the A-Text improves a Z-Text deemed unready for release by an aesthetically uncompromising Langland. On dating the AText, see Hanna, William Langland, 14–17. 29. See Lawton, “Diversity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry,” 143–72; and Lawton, “Unity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry,” 72–94. 30. See Duggan, “Alliterative Patterning,” 85; Duggan also excludes Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede (79). 31. E. Talbot Donaldson, “Piers Plowman: Textual Comparison and the Question of Authorship,” in Chaucer und seine Zeit: Symposion für Walter F. Schirmer, ed. Arno Esch (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1968), 241–47 . 32. Foucault, “What Is an Author?,” 159. 33. Donaldson, “Piers Plowman,” 245; 244; 241. 34. Ibid., 245. 35. Bowers, Chaucer and Langland, 23. See Bowers’s analytical survey of appropriations of Langland’s work (103–56). On the use of Piers Plowman in rebel communications, see Steven Justice, Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 231–54. 36. Kerby-Fulton, “Piers Plowman,” 524. 37. On the tense political conditions surrounding Richard II’s 1399 deposition, see Michael Bennett, Richard II and the Revolution of 1399 (Phoenix Mill, Gloucestershire: Sutton, 1999). On the censorious atmosphere for theologically oriented texts in latemedieval England, see Nicholas Watson, “Censorship and Cultural Change in LateMedieval England: Vernacular Theology, the Oxford Translation Debate, and Arundel’s Constitutions of 1409,” Speculum 70 (1995): 822–64; and Kerby-Fulton, Books under Suspicion, 11–37; 71–124. James Simpson sets satirical literature in the context of sociopolitical tensions in “The Constraints of Satire in Piers Plowman and Mum and the Sothsegger,” in Langland, the Mystics, and the Medieval English Mystic Tradition: Essays in Honour of S. S. Hussey, ed. Helen Phillips (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1990), 11–30. 38. On the 1381 rebels’ demands, see Rodney Hilton, Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (New York: Viking, 1973), 195–98; 224–28. 39. Fradenburg, Sacrifice Your Love, 75–77. Fradenburg urges scholars to eschew fantasies of absolute alterity and instead to channel their inevitably subjective investments into connecting modern and medieval political desires (43–78). For an alternative view, see George Kane’s argument that contemporary political concepts such as
John . Skeat. 62–88. 76–84. see ibid. All citations from Mum. C. Philip Cohen (New York: Garland. Piers Plowman Tradition. 137–216. Hewett-Smith (New York: Routledge. 150–54. see Justice. Pierce the Plowman’s Creed (EETS o. In each version a knight. mobility. Parchment. 25–57 [40–43]. Gordon McMullan and David Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kathleen M. See William Langland. Skeat. 47. ed. ed. Reform. see Barr. ed. “Scribes and Hypertext.s. 42. Hardt and Negri here question postcolonial critics’ tendency to celebrate hybridity. see George Russell and George Kane’s introduction to Piers Plowman: The C Version (London: Athlone Press. 9–10.VIII. diversity. and Walter W.. 115–22. 40. in “Some FourteenthCentury ‘Political’ Poems. 214–19.” in Piers Plowman: A Book of Essays. Hardt and Negri. Greetham’s argument that electronic editions enable reproduction of the “mouvance” of manuscript culture that print cannot capture. 2005). Empire. with “circulation. see Deibert. 45. On the topical evidence for dating Crede to 1393–1400. and see D.” in Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England.. ed. Writing and Rebellion. For comparison of digital and scribal textualities. 41. Richard.” and tells him to go and hunt hares and foxes (C. 28 (1867). 1997). and mixture” proving key to global capital and the logic of Empire (143–51). 46. Walter W. Chaucer and Langland. is moved by Piers Plowman’s speech to abandon allegorical for actual plowing.2 1 8 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 5 “protest” are “unhistorical” except in clearly Wycliffite works. On rebel appropriation of Piers Plowman. and the Crowned King are from Barr’s edition. i–vi. see Helen M. 30. ed. ed. On Langland’s reactions to contemporary socioeconomic conditions. Scanlon critiques the view that Langland’s C-revisions reveal a “latent social conservatism. my translations. 43. 8–10. leaving agricultural labor to peasants. Theory.27–29). and Interpretation. 7–31. “Piers Plowman—A Poem of Crisis: an Analysis of Political Instability in Langland’s England. Ehud’s Dagger: Class Struggle in the English Revolution (London: Verso. 1867). 2000). 51–73. For an epochal analysis of transformations in communications techniques and their impact on social relations in the digital age.” in “Langland. ed. Kratzmann and Simpson. 2007).” in Texts and Textuality: Textual Instability. 82–91 . The Vision of William Concerning Piers Plowman: The ‘Vernon’ Text: or Text A. 1997). For descriptions of the three manuscripts and two prints in which Crede survives. 238–43 [54–55]. while leading a communal plowing project. 42–45. Jewell. Early English Text Society O. in “Reading in and Around Piers Plowman. On Langland’s revisions to the C-Text of Piers Plowman. see Bowers.S. 48. Andrew Galloway links Langland’s work with late-medieval communal struggles concerning law and authority. 44. and all from Crede..” in Reading the Medieval in Early Modern England. 231–54. in “Making History Legal: Piers Plowman and the Rebels of Fourteenth-Century England.” in Medieval English Religious and Ethical Literature. Apocalypse and the Early Modern Editor. On postcolonial theorists’ over-confidence in determining sites of resistance. Simpson. see David Burnley. Piers tells him that it is his class-based duty to protect the community from “wastoures” [wasters] and “wikked men. ed.” Yearbook of English Studies 25 (1995): 41–62. see James Holstun. On Langland’s response to 1381.
49. ed. 513–38 . Katherine Hayles. Crede is openly Lollard: the narrator urges readers to “wytnesse” the “trewth” [truth] delivered by “Wycliff” (528–30). “Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede. Gloucestershire: Sutton.” 780–93. id est Christus” [Peter—that is. 1996). 30–31. On describing the socioeconomically diverse 1381 insurgency as “the Rising” rather than “the Peasants’ Revolt. NJ: Princeton University Press. in Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts (Princeton.xv.. 1997). especially of the Worcestershire in which Langland introduces his dreamer (135–44. Christ] (B. “Lollardy.NotES to C hAPtER 5 · 2 1 9 Taylor and Wendy Childs (Gloucester: Alan Sutton. 56. and lordes kyn to serue” [bondmen. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Paul Strohm analyzes chroniclers’ efforts to efface the Rising’s socioeconomic diversity by stigmatizing all critics of the economic status quo as peasants. 59–80 [63–67]. 55. see E. 1994). Bond Men. my translations. whose heretical status is firmly denied (657–62). unless otherwise noted. 1992). In what is typically read as an autobiographical insertion unique to the C-text. 169–84). glossing “Piers the Plowman” as “Petrus. MA: MIT Press.” in Lollardy and the Gentry in the Later Middle Ages. Hayles. in “Piers Plowman. and looks forward to when these patterns will have “ychaunged” [changed] (81). Fryde’s studies of West Midlands estates (54–75. ed. 33–56. All citations from Piers Plowman. while “bondemen and bastardus and beggares children . John Scattergood.12. 51. Peasants and Landlords in Later Medieval England (Phoenix Mill. “Ac sythe” [However. Anima spiritualizes agricultural labor. 77–94 . 176–213.” 83–84. Will argues to Reason that society should not “constrayne” a clerk to “knaues werkes” [peasants’ labors] and claims that clerks should come only from the classes “of frankeleynes and fre men and of folke ywedded” [gentry and noble men and married people]. 52. 185–208). On tensions between an upwardly mobile peasantry and a reactionary landholding class in fourteenth. See Kerby-Fulton’s analysis of the Crede-poet’s and Langland’s C-Text classist rants against self-improving laborers. and refers to the “sothe” [truth] told by Walter Brut.” see Hilton.and fifteenth-century England. N. Media Specific Analysis analyzes the inflection of content by medium. .” in Cambridge History. 50. ed. ed. B. 95–132. “Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede: Lollardy and Texts. . Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton. lately] (53–80). 53. provide a crucial background for the Piers Plowman tradition. Kane and Donaldson). On legal texts and their relation to Piers Plowman and Langland-influenced . bastards and beggars’ children belong to a laboring class who serve the land-owning class] (V. 2002).54–66). Scattergood. 6. 49–50. Fryde. 54. Wallace. bylongeth to labory. On indirect evidence for Lollardy elsewhere in the Piers Plowman tradition. see Lawton. Will proceeds to lament current examples of laborers’ upward social mobility in a passage beginning. and Barr. Writing Machines (Cambridge. Writing Machines. 30. Margaret Aston and Colin Richmond (Stroud. are from Derek Pearsall’s C-Text edition (rev. The Crede-poet’s strategic management of multiple media in critiquing spiritual culture is also seen in his analysis of the ecclesiastical exploitation of individuals’ desire to see their identities etched in stained-glass windows (118–33) and in his social reading of secular patronage and architectural style (192–218). 1990). tracking how a “rhetorical form mutates when it is instantiated in different media” (31). Signes and Sothe.
’ etc. Ibid. Ex venatione Nicolai Brigani’” [Mum and Soth Segger.” Notes and Queries 220 (1975): 4–12 ..111. Grady. see Steiner.2 2 0 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 5 works. Bristollensi in vrbe. 133–66. 9 70. Dan Embree discusses layout as a factor dissociating these two texts... From the collection of Nicholas Brigham]. Mum and the Sothsegger (EETS o. where documents accumulated writing as they passed through departments. eds. Ibid. 1990). ix. 67. 73. 1936). 227. 57. Piers Plowman Tradition. 340). in “Manuscripts. 74. Mum. with the scribe’s Cambridgeshire language presenting editorial difficulties. Index Britanniae Scriptorum. Barr corrects Day and Steele’s claim that two folios of text have been lost after folio 12 (Piers Plowman Tradition. 16. and Samuels. Samuels. Barr.” 98. Day and Steele. (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Barr. in “Richard the Redeless and Mum and the Sothsegger: A Case of Mistaken Identity. See Barr’s discussion of Piers Plowman received “not as an ‘auctored’ act of literary play but as a communal work for society. soth segger id est Taciturnitas..” 241. in the city of Bristol. Ibid. Documentary Culture. 63. which means Taciturnity and Teller of Truths. who agree to support the power-broker’s interests in legal and political venues) was the subject of much satirical complaint in late-medieval England. Cambridge: D. S. Day and Steele.. xii. Ibid.. in “Manuscripts. Day and Steele. ed. Mabel Day and Robert Steele. Brewer. Piers Plowman Tradition. The full note reads. The book is English. “Mum. 1986). See A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. 69. verorum dictrix. “Langland’s Dialect. and Grady. ed. Doyle argues that there is “no firm localization” for the Mum-poet’s dialect. 181–82. Day and Steele. in John Bale. Reginald Lane Poole and Mary Bateson (1902.. “While I was walking in prayer by the priests standing by the altar. See Knapp’s argument that Hoccleve’s literary sensibilities were shaped by training in the Privy Seal office. 58.” 98. ed. 71. L. see Barr. x.” in Signes and Sothe. On the dating of Richard and Mum. ed. x. Ibid. M. Liber est Anglicus. 60. .” 222–29.s. and it begins. Signes and Sothe. xii.” 133–52. 4 vols. 199. eds. Mum. 68.. The practice of maintenance (the use of liveries and fees to form associations between a powerful individual and retainers. see Strohm.” 204–6. “Dialect and Authorship. Hochon’s Arrow. 22. eds. ix. qui incipit ‘Dum orans ambularem presbyteris altari astantibus. 61. 72. “Generation of 1399. 66. in Bureaucratic Muse. Angus McIntosh. 143–90. eds. Doyle argues that BL Additional MS 41666 dates “probably” from the “third quarter” of the fifteenth century. “Generation of 1399. 65. my translation. and Michael Benskin. III. 59.. 62.. eds. Horobin. Day and Steele do not significantly distinguish the prosody of the fragments from that of either Piers Plowman or William of Palerne (xlii-xlvi). The dialect of Richard has elsewhere been localized only very generally as Southwest Midlands. 64. 479. Mum. 179–85. 75. ix–x.’ etc.
127a–148b) and on “physionomie” (ff.. “Theories of Monarchy in Mum and the Sothsegger.” and “schroup” (II. Editing ‘Piers Plowman. and Scrope. in Political Allegory in Late Medieval England (Ithaca. Brewer. Bushy. such as the appearance of Richard II’s executed favorites. and a “doctrine of Fishing and foulyng” (ff. Embree lists Helen M. in “The Dates of Richard the Redeless and Mum and the Sothsegger. eds. 77. 83.” Yearbook of Langland Studies 4 (1990): 270–75. Psalms in Latin (ff. a C-Text of Piers Plowman (ff.’ 185–86. Derek Pearsall (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press. who posits separate authors for distinct Piers Plowman texts.” “grene.” 84. J.’ 186. see Matthews. see Alcuin G. 78.4. Ibid. 64–79. On the impact of printed editions on later scholarship. ranging from philosophical to historical treatises. xvii–xxi. Editors and Readers of Piers Plowman. 76. Making of Middle English. Collaborative composition entails multiple authorship within each manuscript instantiation of a poem. The manuscript is a miscellany. 82. in Fictions of Advice: The Literature and Politics of Counsel in Late Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. V. 2000). with items as disparate as treatises on arithmetic (ff. 4. Congenial Souls: Reading Chaucer from Medieval to Postmodern (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. David Benson. Embree. 156b–159b). and Arthur Ferguson as scholars who assume single authorship.. 81. Chaucer and Langland. are numerous enough to lead Oakden to describe the poem as a “pamphlet of the hour” (Alliterative Poetry. Kane and Donaldson. see C.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 76 (1975): 583–604 . 79. 161a–163a). a paper manuscript dated to the second quarter of the fifteenth century.” 11. Piers Plowman. Barr argues that the text was to remain “secrette” due to “strictures on writing political poetry. and Stephanie Trigg. On trends in theorizing scribal participation in Piers Plowman. 1996). Brewer.14 (ff. Spiegel. see Richard Firth Green. Cam.” in Piers Plowman Tradition.” PMLA 59 (1944): 26–44 . Piers Plowman. For further examples. 8–9. “Another Fine Manuscript Mess: Authors.” 6. Editing ‘Piers Plowman. For a full description. On long-running editorial assumptions of Langland’s individual authorship. 109–43. in “Richard the Redeless. 173a–174b). 84. Richard the Redeless is uniquely attested in Cambridge University Library MS. Poets and Princepleasers: Lit- . Scattergood. Barr discusses topical evidence for dating Mum around 1409. 15–28. 107b-119a).” in New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies. eds. see Bowers. L1. 4. and Ruth Mohl. 80. Green. 4–6. ed. Astell’s discussion of the “material” concerns related to audience and circulation in late-medieval political satire. Richard’s thinly veiled topical references. “Mum & the Sothsegger and Langlandian Idiom. See also Ann W. Such “collaborative” authorship differs strikingly from the “multiple” authorship proposed for Piers Plowman by Manly. See Judith Ferster’s survey of “camouflage” techniques used to avoid constraints on literary speech. in “Langlandian Reading.” 77–78.. in puns on “busshes. 1–107a). “History. II. 4. 252n. Kerby-Fulton and Justice speculate that Richard circulated in Westminster circles. 2002). Blamires. NY: Cornell University Press.NotES to C hAPtER 5 · 2 2 1 14–16. “Richard the Redeless.152–54).61). 1999). see Kane and Donaldson. For a critical survey of texts deployed to advise princes. 22–23.
1998).2 2 2 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 5 erature and the English Court in the Late Middle Ages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 90. 31. 118–39. ‘Richard the Redeles. 85. The narrator of The Crowned King similarly addresses his audience: “And ye like to leer and listen a while” [And if it pleases you to learn and listen for a while]. 1873). 86. vol.” 88–90. and Sir Gawain. 244–46. 3–35. 89. Piers Plowman Tradition. Clanchy’s view that “in manuscript culture reading and writing were separate skills” (From Memory to Written Record.” Chaucer’s narrator prays in Troilus and Criseyde that no one “myswryte” his “litel bok” (V. Piers Plowman Tradition. S. ed. see Anne Middleton. ed. ed.” in A Guide to Editing Middle English.’ ed. Douglas Moffat and Vincent P. only later referring to the “crouned kyng” of his dream (35). 29. Nicolas Jacobs argues that the “main culturally determined peculiarity of English textual traditions before Chaucer is the predominant anonymity of authors and the phenomenon of cumulative composition. 3–14 . I.” in The Pelican Guide to English Literature. Recognizing the “gret diversite / In Englissh and in writing of oure tonge. in “Piers . Walter W. since the Prologue may be looked upon as a sort of preface” (ciii). Skeat has “not the slightest hesitation in ascribing” Richard to “William. with a Westminster scribe who contributed to the close of an A-text manuscript. 87. A red capital is used for the initial letter of the line. For other examples. 247n). 91. For a comparison of John But. 251n). 1: The Age of Chaucer. McCarren (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.” claiming it “must be his. John Bowers speculates that John But authored both Richard and Mum. Languages of Power in the Age of Richard II (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.s. Edward Donald Kennedy. 88. 54. the author of Piers the Plowman.. Vantuono. ed. 2005). Brewer. together with clerkly help. For both written and iconographic examples of addressing Richard II.’ and ‘The Crowned King.. Skeat argues in his edition that this is “really the first line of the Poem. Fictions of Advice. 47n. ‘Piers the Plowman. ed.’ Text C. A. 83–103 [88–90]. such initial red capitals introduce passus 2–4 of Richard. Barr’s argument that there is no “firm” manuscript “authority” for Skeat’s and Day and Steele’s “insertion” of a “Prologue” before line 88 is unconvincing (Barr. see also 225–52) supports Barr’s argument that these “clerkys” need not represent the king’s administrators: audience members who could read the text might be expected to engage a clerk to write out their corrections.” in Medieval Studies Presented to George Kane. “The Social Context of Medieval Literature. See Doyle. 135–67. “Making a Good End: John But as a Reader of Piers Plowman. then “the soth y shall you shewe” [I shall show you the truth] (13–15).1793–96). Ronald Waldron. and his only” (cvii). who added 19 lines to Passus XII of a Piers Plowman A-text. 505n. ed. 93. 1980). see Lynn Staley. as well as the passus of Piers Plowman immediately preceding Richard. 92. Doyle. 1988). see Wynnere and Wastoure. Barr argues that the narrator urges the reader to use his or her “faculty for counsel. Boris Ford (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Wittig (Cambridge: D. see also Ferster. and Joseph S. ‘Social Context. Trigg.” to “correct” the text (Barr. ed. Skeat (EETS o.” in “Kindly Light or Foxfire? The Authorial Text Reconsidered.
105. On Bale’s note. Kerby-Fulton. The OED’s speculative dating of Mum to 1399 would be a decade too early. 1–9. 1995). by 1502 a “mummer” is an actor performing the silence of the “dumb-show. 97. see n73 (above). See Elizabeth J.” Yearbook of English Studies 13 (1983): 270–87 [273–75]. Politics and Poetry in the Fifteenth Century (London: Blandford Press. in “Truth-telling and the Tradition of Mum and the Sothsegger. 1971). The OED traces Definition A2 to an allegorical use made in 1562 by John Heywood.ix. On the physical risks run by Lancastrian satirists.. Books under Suspicion. see V. 17–18. The primary MED definition of “mum” (listed under the heading “mom”) includes the “poetic character” Mum. See Kerby-Fulton and Justice’s discussion of Westminster scribal habits. 103. as well as their argument that the author and scribe of Richard worked in the Chancery. 145–65 .” see George Russell. 12–21. Scattergood. according to Barr (“Dates. see Andrew Wawn’s reflection on the proverb. On the editorial hand in BL Additional 41666. James Simpson. 94.” 205–10).” in Piers Plowman: A Book of Essays. Writing the Author’s Life. 2005). Mum is the sole text in the manuscript. See also Carol Braun Pasternack’s study of scribal collaboration as the norm in a fundamentally intertextual tradition that precluded individual authorship in Old English texts.” 76–80. . 101. ed. Bryan’s study of the collaborative enterprise of producing the “enjoining” text of Laȝamon’s Brut in BL MS Cotton Caligula A. 100. Bureaucratic Muse. 99. My own analysis of the manuscript leads me to concur with Barr’s view of a “single hand” being responsible for the corrections and insertions (36).” Yearbook of Langland Studies 9 (1995): 87–124. On the risks assumed by critics of policy in Lancastrian England. which consists of nineteen vellum leaves and is dated by Barr as “probably” from the “third quarter of the fifteenth century” (Piers Plowman Tradition. and hence authoritative. which reveals a communal process lacking print culture’s fixed author–copyist hierarchy. Doyle suggests that the manuscript represents preparation for recopying the poem. Hewett-Smith (New York: Routledge. in Collaborative Meaning in Medieval Scribal Culture (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. On anxiety concerning mumbling as a dangerous force competing with plain speech. 102. “Some Early Responses to the C-Version of Piers Plowman. 21.” Viator 15 (1984): 275–303. 98. Ibid.38. in “Langlandian Reading. 96. 2009). “who sayth soth shalbe shent” [who tells the truth will be harmed]. 3–46. Knapp. On scribes behaving like editors in copying a Piers Plowman C-text released without a final “authorial. The Inarticulate Renaissance: Language Trouble in an Age of Eloquence (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. in “Manuscripts. 22). 95. in The Textuality of Old English Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. Kathleen M. 181. “The Power of Impropriety: Authorial Naming in Piers Plowman. formal structure. see Barr’s critical notes (291–368). 1999).” 98. ranging from medieval Titivullus stories to early modern dramatic works.” 104. see Carla Mazzio. The use of “mummer” follows the same trajectory of sound to silence in “mum”: the earliest recorded instance (1440) is “one who mutters or murmurs”.NotES to C hAPtER 5 · 2 2 3 Plowman’s William Langland: Editing the Text.
” imagery of unquestioned majesty set against threats of popular rebellion (England’s Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of Legitimation.” deeming Richard. 80.” in Signes and Sothe. who does not mention Mum. Mum. 64–67. 2007). As the Mum-text is fragmentary. ed. 112. 237–52. I take this phrase from Steve McCaffery’s description of the poetic “adventure” opened up by the violent dislodging of sound from meaning. Piers Plowman. 108.3 (1995): 552–75 .2 2 4 · N ot ES to ChAP t ER 5 20–31. 2001). Day and Steele (Mum. See Barr’s analysis of Mum as “the personification of the self-interested use of speech. See Giancarlo’s analysis of the Mum-poet’s focus on political “health” and parliamentary rhetoric concerning civic remedy. Marsh. CT: Yale University Press.4:14) [Biblia Sacra Vulgata. 5–41. my translation]. 114. 117. as well as Mum’s statement that he who knows of a storm and does not warn others to take shelter is “auctor of al the harme and th’ache / And so pryuy to the peynes that peeres induren” [engenderer of all the harm and pain. Mum. Langland.” while holding that the Piers Plowman that they imitate is “timeless” (Alliterative Poetry. 2007). 106. 116. 301–18. 111. 178). 119. Oakden exemplifies the Revivalist reduction of the Piers Plowman tradition to works of merely “historical interest. and on its dominance in the medieval world and persistence as an obstacle to modern industrialization. 113. 115. 120n.” Speculum 70. describes Richard . 1998]. Walsh. and that the monarch virtuously desires to follow it.. Frank Grady exposes the fantasy of such sonically figured politics. see James G. 109. On the tradition of Luke as physician. 118. dearest doctor] (C01. among “the notes most consistently congenial to Lancastrian legitimacy. On “entropy-resistance” as the use of identifiable features to consolidate class divisions. II. Nations and Nationalism. Day and Steele. with rebellious activities organized against Henry IV. Strohm lists. see Gellner.61–63). 161–86. is often identified as a physician. Old-Time Makers of Medicine: The Story of the Students and Teachers of the Sources Related to Medicine during the Middle Ages (New York: Fordham University Press. we do not know for how long the narrator’s opening monologue has gone on before Mum’s self-referential interruption. Literature and Complaint in England. On the interplay of literary complaint and legal reforms allowing increased peasant access. based on Paul’s reference to “Lucas medicus carissimus” [Luke. arguing that the Fürstenspiegel genre’s “mutually reinforcing fictions” are the “presumption that the king’s subordinate has worthwhile advice to give. in Prior to Meaning: The Protosemantic and Poetics (Evanston: University of Illinois Press. 326) link this insistence on a proactive clergy.” in “The Lancastrian Gower and the Limits of Exemplarity. Pearsall. Luke. in Parliament and Literature in Late Medieval England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 110. 7–8. eds. xxiv) and Barr (Piers Plowman Tradition. 107. 1911). Barr argues that lines 760–62 refer to tensions between Henry IV and the Percy family (Piers Plowman Tradition. 1399–1442 [New Haven. and responsible for the pain that peers endure] (733–42). see Wendy Scase. traditionally held to be the author of the eponymous Gospel and Acts. 1272–1553 (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 327n). and The Crowned King merely “topical.
. See Barr’s analysis of the poet’s strategic use of multiplicity. 121. On Mandeville’s virtual travels and the text’s literary-historical impact. Signes and Sothe. . 1976). 165. in Documentary Culture. in Piers Plowman Tradition. Simpson argues that legislation. 284.” 239n–40n. 163–66. Writing East: The ‘Travels’ of Sir John Mandeville (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. The Mum-poet derives the Genghis Khan exemplum from Mandeville. purely spiritual Vita. The Coming of the Book. 124–26.” 220–22.” 17–20. 1997). 228–54. Wawn. see Dreaming in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001). 109–29. 123.” in Cambridge History. 126. 132. stating “I am gardyner of this gate . he hints at his possible legal control. “Medieval Literature and Law. “Truth-telling. 334). The transnational dimension of the Mum-narrator’s travels emerges in the treatment of his Orléans visit as an unexceptional stop in his corruption investigation (322–23). 124. ed. Marsh displays a signal lack of interest in Langlandian poems: he confines his discussion of Richard to a single passage of nautical interest (334). 70–72. After speaking at length of Piers Plowman (301–27) as the key work sustaining the “revived” Anglo-Saxon meter (317). While the Gardener seems a laborer. 1992). 348n. On the Mum-poet’s use of Bartholomaeus and of John Trevisa’s translation. Such a unique blend of dream-vision extremes contributes to the jarring effect created by presenting a bag of books rather than a transcription of the Gardener’s speech. On the complex understanding of justice in late-medieval political theory.NotES to C hAPtER 5 · 2 2 5 as an “imitation” of Piers Plowman that is “exclusively political in character” (Origin and History. . “Generation of 1399. On the Mum-poet’s discomfort with the implications of such political philosophy. London: Verso. David Gerard (1958. 179–208. 125. dating from the late 1370s. the grovynde is myn owen” [I am the gardener of this plot . 122. 130. see Helen Barr. 129. Scanlon critiques the view that the B-text moves from a politically self-conscious Visio to an apolitical. Wallace. Parliament and Literature. Richard Firth Green. trans. 120. 127. See also Barr. Kruger sees as polar opposites of the traditional dream vision—both the transcendent moral instruction of the “educative vision” typified by Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis and the gravitation “toward the things of the world” seen in Ovid’s Amores. in “Constraints of Satire. 133. the ground is mine] (976). . restricting communication rendered any criticism of the Council politically dangerous. 1–27. 128. 178. In terms of medieval literary theory. See Steiner’s analysis of public availability as key to the Mum-poet’s presentation of the archive. 407–31 [419–21]. see Grady. 131. 24. in “Langland. see Ormrod. see Ian Macleod Higgins.” 280. and Giancarlo. 43–44. Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin. The Gardener’s combination of timeless political wisdom and practical publishing advice suggests that it participates in what Steven F. Socioliterary Practice in Late Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Political Life. the Mum-narrator can be seen as strategically avoiding the coincidence of attribution and responsibility in the auctor by .
” 106. Epilogue 1. conjoining the medieval and the early modern. Periodization and Sovereignty: How Ideas of Feudalism and Secularization Govern the Politics of Time (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 4. Kerby-Fulton argues that Langland’s target audience. 35–52 [36–37]. “King. supplanted by the fictional Piers Plowman “widely taken to be the center and source of authority for the poet’s powerful innovation” (“William Langland’s Kynde Name. observing that. Grady. Imagined Communities.” 613) 7.” 191–93. Ibid. For medievalist critiques of Anderson’s reductive view of medieval culture. stable authorship. “Generation of 1399. Piers Plowman Tradition. 66–70.” 9. who inserts “no opinion of his own” into the work. 108 [cited in Barr. A. 6. See Nichols’s discussion of the “manuscript matrix” and “social context” generating a dialectics of meaning. Betsy Wing (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2.. and Kind Wit. “Coming out of Exile: Dante on the Orient Express. The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism. progressively developing set of forces. see Benedict Anderson. see Davis.” 227. Such a reconfigured timeline. 2010). and see Bernard Cerquiglini’s argument that scribal variation is a medieval norm obscured by nineteenth-century philology’s obsession with single.” Modern Literary Quarterly 65 (2004): 391–421 [410–16].” 612–13. See also Lisa Lampert’s argument that alteritist insistence on a secular modernity postdating a religious Middle Ages leads scholars to underestimate the role of modern religious identity in racialist discourse. see Alastair Minnis. 1–11. ed. argues against Davis’s claim that modernist theories of the nation such as Anderson’s depend upon a “totalizable Middle Ages” (“National Writing. 135. Cohen. despite his having produced the first “national” poem. “Langland. 2nd ed. 1998). ‘Piers Plowman’: A Glossary of Legal Diction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blake. 349n]. 2008). Ingham. ed. Periodicity.2 2 6 · N ot ES to EP Ilo guE presenting the transcription of the dream vision as produced by the activities of a compilator [compiler]. “Middle English Alliterative Revivals. Commons. Alford. trans. “National Writing. 70–71. the unbeneficed clergy. 134.” 15–16).” in Postcolonial Middle Ages. See Anderson. Sovereign Fantasies. 1988). in “Race. in “Introduction. . produced circles of readers and rewriters much like those imagined in Richard (122). in In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology. Langland appears to disappear in the sixteenth century. 1999). and Scanlon. and the (Neo-) Middle Ages. On capitalism as an ongoing. 70–71. Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages. 628–29. (1988. 5. Kathleen Davis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 136. J. 94–95. See Ingham’s discussion of Anderson’s evolutionary historiography. Middleton historicizes the ambiguous authorial presence in Piers Plowman. 138. 3. Southeast Asia and the World (London: Verso. Kerby-Fulton.” 206. 137. 9–65. Kathleen Biddick. 5. in Sovereign Fantasies.
On the Anglo-Saxon origins of English nationalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.NotES to EPIloguE · 2 2 7 8. producing a sixteenth-century English nationalist discourse. 22. see Helgerson. 13. While Hastings criticizes Anderson for emphasizing technology. which is of great antiquity and is oriented exclusively toward external threats. See especially Gellner’s argument for nationalism’s equation of culture and politics. 16.” 9. on a range of cultural forms of self-writing. “Scribes and Hypertext. in Nationalism. Printing. “Piers Plowman and the National Noetic of Edward III. Britons. 47–65. D. Pearsall argues that late-medieval statements of vernacular pride imagined as a general “wave of English nationalism” are just as readily interpreted as “fragmentary. Sign. On eighteenth-century Francophobic intellectual culture spurring English nationalism. Alan Bass (1967. and Davis. Turville-Petre outlines his argument for medieval English nationalism. Nichols. On Reformation England as the first nation. and Hypermedia. v–vii. All interpretations of modernity. 10. 17.” in Ethnic Origins. 1–18. Multitudes: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (New York: Penguin. 35–44. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. and Burnley. 2004). 19. with the former paralyzed by guilt over his inability to offer a totalizing view and the latter reveling in the possibilities for interpretive play produced by awareness of the impossibility of totalization. 87–156. Nations and Nationalism. 1–9.” 41–62. 15. See Newman’s distinction between patriotism. see Anderson. see Hastings. Nationalism. “Introduction. 23.” in Writing and Difference. in “Structure. “Introduction. 162–63 (emphasis in original). 12. see Deibert.” in .” 9) would benefit immeasurably from Hayles’s analyses of the dynamic interrelation of text and material context in the digital epoch. 9. Parchment. 25. see Greenfeld. including cartography and jurisprudence. on the 1707 union of Scotland and England triggering British nationhood. On the ongoing impact of global migration in shaping nationalist culture. Construction of Nationhood. On parallels between manuscript and digital cultures. 29–87. regional responses to particular circumstances. see also their analysis of current crises concerning borders (314–15). 11. in England the Nation. he himself foregrounds religious identity in suggesting Bede as an origin for English identity (see Construction of Nationhood. and the more systematic nationalism. sporadic. Vance Smith.” 288–89. Imagined Communities. See Anderson. 20–21. 18. 1978). in Writing Machines (19–33). Forms of Nationhood. 58–74. 137–216. and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences. 52–54. in Rise of English Nationalism.” 614–28. See Smith’s study of nationalist critics’ appropriation of ethnic history for “poetic. See Derrida’s analysis of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s and Friedrich Nietzsche’s opposed hermeneutic views. didactic and integrative purposes. trans. Rise of English Nationalism. “National Writing. 26–38). 125. Gellner. 24. 20. see Colley. The New Medievalist return to the “manuscript matrix” (Nichols. 278–93 .” in “Chaucer and Englishness. see Newman. are arbitrary. Spectre of Comparisons. whether Hastings’s or Anderson’s. 14. 21.
“Diversity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry. See Gellner’s argument that nationalism “preaches and defends cultural diversity. 197–205. Qu’est-ce Qu’une Nation?. 45–47. Smith insists that a past sense of ethnic homogeneity and territorialism is part of the modern nation (11). Lavezzo. . 212. Nationalism. and Gellner. 26. On the crucial role of forgetting in the modern imagination of the nation. see Renan. 125.” in Nations and Nationalism. Ethnic Origins. Anderson. 25. producing a temporally complex entity (see 212–14). ed.2 2 8 · N ot ES to EP Ilo guE Imagining a Medieval English Nation. Smith. Lawton. when in fact it imposes homogeneity. Imagined Communities. 214–54 . 25–26.” 27. 27.
In Hahn. 1605. The ‘Piers Plowman’ Tradition: A Critical Edition of ‘Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede. 1902.s. 1990. Amours. Gates. 1903–14. J. John. Bryant. New York: Burt Franklin. 1976. P. 6 vols. London: Duckworth. Of Arthour and Merlin. EETS o. S. Walsh. Edinburgh: Canongate. O. The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyne. Ed. William. and trans. S. The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyn. ———. Cambridge: D. 1974. 1.’ Ed.BI B lI o g R A Ph y Primary Sources The Alliterative ‘Morte Arthure. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. John. Ed. 113–68. Brewer. Andrew of Wyntoun. Macrae-Gibson. In A Lycanthropy Reader: Werewolves in Western Culture. Nigel. Duncan. The Original Chronicle of Andrew of Wyntoun. A. Carley. Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature 8 (1903): 149–275. Perceval: The Story of the Grail. Robert Weber et al. Robert J. 4th ed. 1994. 268. Ed. Brewer. Ed. Ed. Edinburgh: W.’ ‘Richard the Redeless. Kittredge. F. Arthur and Gorlagon. Ralph Hanna. London: John Russel Smith. Ed. Scottish Alliterative Poems in Riming Stanzas. M. ed. Ed. Cambridge: D. 1982.’ ‘Mum and the Sothsegger’ and ‘The Crowned King. Ed. Milne. Bale. and trans. The Avowyng of Arthur. 1966. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 234–55. George L. Trans Frank A. Andreas Capellanus.. Vol. Rpt. Camden. ed. 1969. Barbour. Thomas Hahn. Otten. 229 . A. Ed. Reginald Lane Poole and Mary Bateson.’ London: J. Dent. 1986. G. 1982. The Bruce. 1993. Index Britanniae Scriptorum. 1870. Introduction by Caroline Brett and James P. ed. Biblia Sacra Vulgata: Iuxta Vulgata Versionem. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. London: Johnson Reprint Corporation. Ed. Amours. Valerie Krishna. ed. M. The Scottish Text Society 27. and trans. Ed. F. 1897. Blackwood and Sons. On Love. Remains Concerning Britain. Barr. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 1973. 38. 1997. D. Charlotte F. J. Helen.
and trans. F. 1987. J. Richard. Middle English Debate Poetry. Scottish Text Society Fifth Series 7. 1991. New York: Garland. Warren. Ed. Guillaume de Palerne: Roman du XIIIe Siècle. Norris J. The Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy. D. De Divinitatione. New York: Norton. 1988. 1960. EETS o. William. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ed. Panton and David Donaldson. Lacy. Rosenberg and Carleton W. and trans. Guillaume le Clerc. Guillaume de Palerne: An English Translation of the 12th Century French Verse Romance. 1971. ed. The Knightly Tale of Golagros and Gawane. In Longer Scottish Poems. NC: McFarland. East Lansing. Woodbridge: Boydell. Ed. Holland. 1970. 1923. Ed. Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. De Senectute. Talbot . Ed. Ralph Hanna (with material by W. Hatto. ———.’ Ed. George Kane and E. Baltimore: Penguin. 2. Trans. Sweden: E.s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ed. J. 86. Dunbar. ed. 1995. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Geoffrey. Leviathan. Ed. London: Longman. Larry D. and trans. Norris J. Ed. 323–40. 1651. and trans. T. Ed. 2008.’ Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. 2004. M. Priscilla Bawcutt and Felicity Riddy. Priscilla Bawcutt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. 1990. and trans. The Death of King Arthur. and trans. London: J. Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum. Sconduto. 3rd ed. Neil Wright. Ed. 39. R. William. New York: Garland. MA: Harvard University Press. Thomas. Hobbes. Ed. Ed. Ed. De Senectute. In De Senectute. G. The Buke of the Howlat. Ed. Leslie A. 1869. R. A. James Cable. Karlshamn. De Amicitia. Livre de Chasse. 1874. MI: Colleagues Press. Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation. Benson et al. Cato Maior. George A. Ed. Powell. Dent. Alexandre Micha. 1993. Cambridge.” Scottish Historical Review 8 (1911): 101–4. Fergus of Galloway: Knight of King Arthur. and trans. Selected Poems. ‘Wynnere and Wastoure’ and ‘The Parlement of the Thre Ages. Samuel N.2 3 0 · B I B lIo gR AP hy Chaucer. John W. Ed. Ed. Cynegetica 18. Flathman and David Johnston. Volume One: 1375–1650. Piers Plowman: The B Version. Jefferson. Ed. Gottfried von Strassburg. Langland. Obituary. Gaston Phébus. 1993–96. Geneva: Librairie Droz. Cecile O’Rahilly. Trans. Barron). Owen. ed. The History of the Kings of Britain. Ed. 1997. Michael D. Reeve. 1992. Richard E. Isidore of Seville. Woodbridge: Boydell. Tristan. James Fergusson. 1971. 1911. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. ———. G. Lacy et al. 1987.. 5 vols. “Francis Joseph Amours. 2007. Hahn. The Declaration of Arbroath. Ginsberg. Cicero. London: Penguin. Ed. Eachtra Uilliam: An Irish Version of ‘William of Palerne. 1996. Geoffrey of Monmouth. William Lindsay. William Armistead Falconer. Vol. Carroll. Gunnar Tilander. Conlee. D. 1991. The Riverside Chaucer. 43–84. 1949. Johanssons. Thomas.
Ed. Rev. Ed. 2nd ed. Ed. 1975. Wheatley. Early English Alliterative Poems. 81–112. Ed. Burgess and Keith S. “The Defence of Poesy. 2002. EETS o. Jean Frappier. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1947.’ EETS o. 2nd ed. Puttenham. EETS o. Shepherd. In Hahn. 1966. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1964. Prose Merlin. ed.s 320. Ed.s. R. Marie de France. Merlin. Ed. Le Morte Darthure. Morris. ‘Richard the Redeles. Ed. 4th ed. Richard. Ed. Y. W. Lucy Allen Paton. ———. Trans. Ed. ed. Ed. 1936. Derek Pearsall. Saint Erkenwald. ed. In Les Lais anonymes des XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Ed. Busby. EETS o. Thomas Hahn. and trans. 1994. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.BIBlIogRA Phy · 231 Donaldson. London: Athlone Press. 1925. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Skeat. Katherine Duncan-Jones. Alice Miskimin. The Stacions of Rome. 10. 1999.s. Katherine DuncanJones.” In Sir Philip Sidney. Susannah: An Alliterative Poem of the Fourteenth Century. 1864. Geneva: Librairie Droz. Mum and the Sothsegger. M. William Vantuono. G. Stephen H. J. EETS o.s. Thomas. Ed. Madden. Paris: Librairie Générale Française. Ed. Sir Gawain and the Carle of Carlisle.s. Mélion. Geneva: Librairie Droz. 1865–69. ‘Piers the Plowman. Ed. 1977. Malory. The Parlement of the Thre Ages. J. Gilles Roussineau. ———. Ed. ed. Pierce the Plowman’s Creed. EETS o. Ed. Geneva: Librairie Droz. V. New York: Kraus Reprint Corporation. Ralph Hanna and David Lawton. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. 2 vols. A. EETS o. in The Poems of the ‘Pearl’ Manuscript. ———. by Norman Davis. Malcolm Andrew and Ronald Waldron. 1990. Ed. Prudence Mary O’Hara Tobin. 2 vols. 1959. Ed. ———. 1971. 1976. 21. Piers Plowman: The C-text. Ed. 1873. The Old Arcadia. and trans. 2 vols. Ed. ———. 1839. 36. Ed. EETS o. Offord. 2004. Henry B. Rigg and Charlotte Brewer. 30. 1994.’ Text C. 1926. 1968. 1999. The Siege of Jerusalem. New York: Penguin. Tolkien and E. R. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ed. Piers Plowman: The Z Version. F. New . Rev. 54. John Conlee. A. Mabel Day and Robert Steele. La Mort le Roi Artu. 112. Ed. The Lais. 1. 1983. Sidney. Philip. Menston: Scolar Press. Walter W. by Scottish and English Authors.’ and ‘The Crowned King. Rev. Notre Dame.s. George. 1589. Skeat. 199. The Arte of English Poesie. IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Ed. Ed. 1867 Les Prophecies de Merlin. 1967. Rpt.s. La Suite du Roman Merlin. 1994. 2003. Rev. 1867. 1998. Frederic..s. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eugène Vinaver. 3 vols. New York: AMS. ———. 246. Walter W. Ed. Lais. 24. Works. Laurence Harf-Lancner. ———. Syr Gawayne: A Collection of Ancient Romance Poems. Furnivall. Clifford Peterson. Karl Warnke. 1996. Norton. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. New York: W. ed. Gordon. Glynn S. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances. 1990. Bunt. 1970.2 3 2 · B I B lIo gR AP hy Haven. . William of Palerne: An Alliterative Romance. 10. Giorgio. Trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. New York: AMS Press. H. The Wars of Alexander. Thorlac. Wynnere and Wastoure. 297. Benedict. ed. Jennifer Fellows et al. 102– 34. Ed.” In Lynch. Ed. EETS s. “Orientation and Nation in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.. 1979. Suzanne Conklin. The Wars of Alexander: An Alliterative Romance. 1985. 1998. Reflections on Literary Critics Writing the ‘History of the Subject. 1988. 2004. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. Identities and Writing. ed. 1350–1600: Essays on English Communities. 17–37. Rev.s.” In Medieval English Political Writings. William and the Werewolf. EETS o. The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism. Akbari. “Late Medieval Scottish Attitudes to the Figure of King Arthur: A Reassessment. 1992. Ed. ———. Daniel HellerRoazen. London: Verso. 177–202. J. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. ———. Ed. Flora. Allen. 1969. Ed. Frederic Madden. “The Awntyrs off Arthure: Jests and Jousts. Washington. V. 1989.s. Duggan and Thorlac Turville-Petre. Netherlands: Bouma’s Boekhuis. Ed. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. ———. A. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Obituary. Walter W. EETS e. Rpt. Southeast Asia and the World. Alliterative Poetry of the Later Middle Ages: An Anthology. Reinhard Haferkorn. 47. David Aers. CA: Stanford University Press. Groningen. Alford. Leipzig: Verlag von Bernhard Tauchnitz. The Open: Man and Animal. Alexander. 1991. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Secondary Sources Aers. David. James Dean. Ed. Skeat.” In Romance Reading on the Book. 129–42. “Francis Joseph Amours. “A Whisper in the Ear of Early Modernists. Stephanie Trigg. ed.” Anglia 93 (1975): 17–34.s. DC: Catholic University Press of America. ‘Piers Plowman’: A Glossary of Legal Diction. Trans. or. “Between Diaspora and Conquest: Norman Assimilation in Petrus Alfonsi’s Disciplina Clericalis and Marie de France’s Fables. Hoyt N.” Scottish Historical Review 8 (1911): 101–4. 1989. ed. When Rome Is Removed into England. Stanford.’” In Culture and History. 1996. 1908– 16. Stanford. 1996. G. Agamben.” In Cohen. 1932. New York: Burt Franklin. Kevin Attell. Ed. 1832. Ed. CT: Yale University Press. CA: Stanford University Press. 1886. Cultural Diversity. Anderson. Turville-Petre. H. Rosamund. “Thomas of Erceldoune’s Prophecy. 8 vols. Oskar Sommer. Ed.
. 1195–1656. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tournaments: Jousts. eds. ed. Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton. “Alliterative Romance and the French Tradition. Beckwith. 2001.” Yearbook of Langland Studies 4 (1990): 270–75. and Cultural Change. M. and Thomas B. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. Ann W. Notre Dame. Long Grove. “Introduction. Malcolm. “Public Power and Authority in the Medieval English Countryside. 1998. IN: University of Notre Dame Press. . 1994. Bartlett. Barber. Trans. Barr. and Helen Tiffin.” In Lawton. Signes and Sothe: Language in the ‘Piers Plowman’ Tradition. P. Berrisford. S.” Review of English Studies 4 (1928): 418–23.” In Brewer and Gibson. IL: Waveland Press. O. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Truman J. Barney. 1992. Jr. Medieval Single Women: The Politics of Social Classification in Late Medieval England. and Juliette Barker. London: Routledge. Cambridge: D. Barth. D. “Theories of Authorship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Andrew. Elizabeth. Richard. 2001. P. Fredrik. Athens: University of Georgia Press. ed. 1998. Stephen A. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. 1884. Barrett. Roger. Ed. Ed. Brewer. A. J. Barrell. Gareth Griffiths. Carl T. Robert W. Backus. Andrew.. 2007. Signifying God: Social Relation and Symbolic Act in the York Corpus Christi Plays. Bennett. Bill. Astell. 1989. Ashcroft. Archer. The Making of Europe: Conquest.. 1874. R. J. Bartra. 1999. Woodbridge: Boydell. Phoenix Mill. 23–33. Incest and the Medieval Imagination. “‘How ladies . 149–81. Rowena E. “The Dates of Richard the Redeless and Mum and the Sothsegger. New York: Sheldon and Company. Helen. Colonization. “Langland’s Prosody: The State of Study. Rev. Against All England: Regional Identity and Cheshire Writing.” In Women and Power in the Middle Ages. NJ: Princeton University Press. 1994. ———. With new preface. Political Allegory in Late Medieval England. 65–85. Socioliterary Practice in Late Medieval England. 1988. Goldberg. Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski.” In Tavormina and Yeager. Barron.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. 70–87. Cordelia. “The Dialect of Morte Arthure. Medieval Scotland. Sarah. 950–1350. 2009. 1969. W. 9–38. . Shaw’s New History of English Literature together with A History of English Literature in America. 2000. eds.BIBlIogRA Phy · 233 London: Verso. Princeton. ———. Wild Men in the Looking Glass: The Mythic Origins of European Otherness. Robert. who live on their manors ought to manage their households and estates’: Women as Landholders and Administrators in the Later Middle Ages.” In Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society. Shaw. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1993. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chivalry and Pageants in the Middle Ages. NY: Cornell University Press. Beattie. Ithaca. S. Judith M. Ed. 18–36. Archibald. 2000. Fredrik Barth.
The King’s Two Maps: Cartography and Culture in ThirteenthCentury England. Birkholz. Public “Piers Plowman”: Modern Scholarship and Late Medieval English Culture. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New Haven. ———. 1983. Alcuin G. Trans. The Postcolonial Middle Ages. “Mandeville’s Travels and the Anglo-French Moment. Sentiment and Demonology. ———. Blake. Doryjane. Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love.” In Cohen. NC: Duke University Press. 1977. 1974. ———. ——— and Stephen G. MA: Harvard University Press. 15–28. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: A Stylistic and Metrical Study. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. J. John. Richard II and the Revolution of 1399. “Mum & the Sothsegger and Langlandian Idiom. “Another Fine Manuscript Mess: Authors.. The Shock of Medievalism.” Journal of Narrative Theory 37. Benson. Bloch. Trans. Pierre. 1996. “Chaucer and the Alliterative Romances. F. London: Methuen. Paula. Borroff.2 (2007): 217–45. 1977. Community. ———. 1991. Trans.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Practical Reason. Richard Nice. N. IN: . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Broken English: Dialects and the Politics of Language in Renaissance Writings. Blamires. 1994. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phoenix Mill. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Cambridge. John B. Cambridge. 2004. CA: Stanford University Press. Stanford. New York: Routledge. Nichols. David.” In Pearsall. Biddick. “Coming Out of Exile: Dante on the Orient Express. Durham. Satire and Allegory in Wynnere and Wastoure. Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. 2004. 1996. Michael J. Bestul. Dr. Bernheimer. Language and Symbolic Power. Norman. OK: Pilgrim Books. 1998. Blank. William. Gloucestershire: Sutton.” Review 1 (1979): 205–14. Bourdieu. Wild Men in the Middle Ages: A Study in Art.2 3 4 · B I B lIo gR AP hy Bennett. Marie. Ed. Loïc Wacquant and Samar Farage. The English Language in Medieval Literature. ———. Editors and Readers of Piers Plowman. “Middle English Alliterative Revivals. Chaucer and Langland: The Antagonistic Tradition. Birrer. 1999. Thomas H. 1983. Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Bowers.” Medium Aevum 75 (2006): 273–92. 1991. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. ———. 1998. 35–52. Benzie. R. C. 1952. Medievalism and the Modernist Temper. 1962. Howard. Thompson. London: Routledge. F. MA: Harvard University Press. ed. CT: Yale University Press. Richard. ed. ———.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 76 (1975): 583–604. Daniel. Kathleen. eds.” Chaucer Review 3 (1969): 163–69. Furnivall: A Victorian Scholar Adventurer. “A New Species of Humanities: The Marvelous Progeny of Humanism and Postmodern Theory. Notre Dame.
73–86. “The Audience of Piers Plowman. A. Groningen. Burrow. 2007. Cambridge: D. “‘Rejoice to hear of Douglas’: The House of Douglas and the Presentation of Magnate Power in Late Medieval Scotland. “The Son of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographical Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods. 1999. Caroline Walker. Morse. 1990. Jacek Fisiak. The New Edinburgh History of Scotland. The English Alliterative Tradition. East Lothian: Tuckwell Press. New York: Zone Books. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. J.” Anglia 75 (1957): 373–84. Cambridge: D. Bynum.” Yearbook of Langland Studies 9 (1995): 87–124. “Localizing William of Palerne. “Piers Plowman’s William Langland: Editing the Text. A. Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art. Ed. Collaborative Meaning in Medieval Scribal Culture. Cambridge: Polity.” In Wormald. R. “Patron. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. . Minnis. Mediaevalia Groningana 5. S. Oxford: Clarendon Press. eds.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burnley. A Companion to the ‘Gawain’-poet. “French Culture and the Ricardian Court. Michael. Bunt. and Jonathan Gibson. 1991. G.” In Historical Linguistics and Philology.” Yearbook of English Studies 25 (1995): 41–62. MA: Harvard University Press. Metamorphosis and Identity.2 (1997): 161–84. 1992. Brewer. Braude. The Politics of ‘Pearl’: Court Poetry in the Age of Richard II. Editing ‘Piers Plowman. David. ——— and Steve Boardman. Burrow.” Modern Language Quarterly 24 (1963): 333–41. Elizabeth J. Derek. H. “Gawain and the Green Knight as Entertainment. 82–120. 2008. “Scribes and Hypertext. John. ed. Charlotte C. Middle English Literature: A Cultural History. Ardis. ———. “Survival and Revival: Late Medieval Scotland. Bryan. Brewer. Ed. ———. Benjamin. V. Butterfield. Christopher. Brewer. ———. 2005. Author and Audience in a Fourteenth-century English Alliterative Poem. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.” William and Mary Quarterly 54 (1997): 103–42. H. 1300–1455. ———. 25–36. Brown. Camille. The Black Douglases: War and Lordship in Late Medieval Scotland. ———. East Linton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. The Wars of Scotland: 1214–1371. Charlotte. Cambridge.” In Essays on Ricardian Literature in Honour of J. Brewer.” In Non Nova. S. 2002. Michael. 2001. William of Palerne: An Electronic Edition. 1998. sed Nove: Mélanges de civilisation médiévale dédiés à Willem Noomen.” Scottish Historical Review 76. Writing the Author’s Life.BIBlIogRA Phy · 235 University of Notre Dame Press. 1997. Thomas. Netherlands: Bouma’s Boekhuis. Martin Grosman and Jaap van Os. Cable. ———. 1997. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Society for Early English & Norse Electronic Texts A:3. Ed. Bowers. 2004. 1984. 1996. 77–106. and Thorlac Turville-Petre. Cannon. ed.
Helen. Colley.” Modern Language Quarterly 23 (1962): 3–16. Alliterative Revivals. 1945. Court. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. “The Authorship of the Pearl. NY: Syracuse University Press. 1999. London: Library of University College. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. The Postcolonial Middle Ages. Barbara A. Oxford: Blackwell. Angela. 2000. Jeffrey Jerome. “The Pardon of Piers Plowman. ———. Colls. Alice. Gloucestershire: Sutton. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 56–72. 1066–1272. T. ed. Trans. Bernard. Ed. ———. The Papers of Raymond Wilson Chambers (1874–1942). Coghill. ———. Hybridity. ———. W. ed. Chakrabarty. 2002. Robert. 1707–1837. 116–39. Cooper. A Dream of Order: The Medieval Ideal in Nineteenth-Century English Literature. NJ: Princeton University Press. England and Its Rulers. 2000. Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Dipesh.” PMLA 47 (1932): 346–53. “Morgain la Fée as the Principle of Unity in Gawain and the Green Knight. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———.” In Tomasch and Gilles. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. NJ: Princeton University Press. eds. The Scottish Connection: The Rise of English Literary Study in Early America. Syracuse. 2004. “Too Close for Comfort: Dis-Orienting Chivalry in the Wars of Alexander. The Lady in Medieval England. 2nd ed.s. Betsy Wing. The English Romance in Time: Transforming Motifs from Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Death of Shakespeare. . Cerquiglini. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. On the Continuity of English Prose from Alfred to More and his School. Of Giants: Sex. R. Monsters. 191. Chapman. Peter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Identity. New York: St. Clanchy. Chambers. Princeton. Carson. 1970. Ed. 1994. Cohen. Hanawalt and David Wallace. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.” Proceedings of the British Academy 30. 1993. Ed. London.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 28 (1998): 309–40. ———. M. Linda. Christine. 1932.2 3 6 · B I B lIo gR AP hy ———. Identity of England. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. “The Siege of Jerusalem: Liquidating Assets. Coolidge Otis. 156–85. Walker. 2006. Nevill. 2002. Chandler. London: Humphrey Milford. 1978. Princeton. 1992. 1998. 1998. ———. New Haven. and Monstrosity in Medieval Britain: On Difficult Middles. Janet Percival. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. Medieval Identity Machines. England. “The Rights of Medieval English Women: Crime and the Issue of Representation. 2008. and the Middle Ages. ———. EETS o. Chism. Connor. Franklin E. Britons: Forging the Nation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2003. 1999. Coss. CT: Yale University Press. Martin’s Press. 2001.” In Medieval Crime and Social Control. 1000–1500. Island. 1998. Oxford: Blackwell. Phoenix Mill. In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology. Cultural Diversity in the British Middle Ages: Archipelago. From Memory to Written Record.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Gilles. ———. “National Writing in the Ninth Century: A Reminder for Postcolonial Thinking about the Nation. The St. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. I. ———. “A Kiss Is Just a Kiss: Heterosexuality and Its Consolations in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. ———. 1988. Martin’s. Diefendorf. vol. R.” Speculum 65 (1990): 537–63. Derrida. Donoghue. Davies. and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences. Carolyn. Ronald J. Durham. Dinshaw. 1100–1300. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Brian Massumi. 2nd ed. Davies. 1968. Doyle. A.” In Writing and Difference. 35–60.and Postmodern. Pre. Schirmer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Printing. 2000. ed. Class.” In Wallace. London: Humphrey Milford. 2002. 1990. 2009. Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 278–93. R.” In Chaucer und seine Zeit: Symposion für Walter F. New York: Columbia University Press.” In Lawton. The First English Empire: Power and Identity in the British Isles. The Hound and the Hawk: The Medieval Art of Hunting.” In The Pelican Guide to English Literature. Boris Ford. Gary. Cummins. Douglas. and Identity during the Hundred Years War. William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact upon England. 241–47. . “Some Remarks on Surviving Manuscripts of Piers Plowman. “Laȝamon’s Ambivalence. 1987. The Isles: A History.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 28 (1998): 612–37. 88–100. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: A Brief History with Documents. 83–103. Devolving English Literature. ed. Clothing. “The Manuscripts. Ed. eds. 1999. “Anglo-Norman Cultures in England. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Daniel. The Performance of Self: Ritual. and Félix Guattari. 1978. Deibert. 1: The Age of Chaucer. “Structure. 1959. 1999. John.” Proceedings of the British Academy 28. Deleuze. Trans. ———. 2000. ———. Jacques. 1997. Kathleen. 1066–1460. 1964.BIBlIogRA Phy · 237 Craigie. Crawford. 1093–1343. Susan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Norman. David C. Parchment. Alan Bass. Davis. “The Social Context of Middle English Literature. Domination and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland. Day. Crane. London: Routledge. Ed. 2008. New York: Bedford/St. “Piers Plowman: Textual Comparison and the Question of Authorship. Talbot. Sign. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Barbara B. E. Arno Esch. Robert. Periodization and Sovereignty: How Ideas of Feudalism and Secularization Govern the Politics of Time. NC: Duke University Press. and Hypermedia: Communication in World Order Transformation. ———. 2001. 35–48.” In Kratzmann and Simpson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Donaldson. “The Scottish Alliterative Poems. London: Phoenix Press. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Scotland and Wales. 1942. William. Oxford: Oxford University Press.” Diacritics (1994): 205–25. 1967. Trans.
“Taken Men and Token Women in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. London: Verso. Josué V. Sheila Fisher and Janet E. Sampson. Edwards. Ed. NY: Cornell University Press.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 8 (1986): 73–105.2 3 8 · B I B lIo gR AP hy ———. 1066–1400. New York: Garland. City. Lucien. Aranye. 1960.” In Brewer and Gibson. 1–12. eds. 2009. English Traits. 1959. and Elizabeth Scala. Dunn.” In Seeking the Woman in Late Medieval and Renaissance Writings.. David Gerard. Ed. Everett. Review of English Studies 9 (1933): 213–18. Jerold C. ———. 197–219. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. New York: Vintage. Michel. O. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Judith.” New Literary History 28. 1978. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Vol. Charles W. A. Fictions of Advice: The Literature and Politics of Counsel in Late Medieval England. 1998. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ———. “Getting Post-Historical. Ithaca. Ralph Waldo. 1996. “Richard the Redeless and Mum and the Sothsegger: A Case of Mistaken Identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 1976. and Henri-Jean Martin. and Power in Medieval German Women’s Epic. G. The Coming of the Book. ———.” Modern Language Quarterly 48 (1987): 3–19. Finke. and Company. Fein.” In Essays on Middle English Literature. Rosalind. The History of Sexuality. Pinti. “What Is an Author?” Trans. Fradenburg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. and Martin B. S. Trans. Death and Liffe. London: Oxford University Press. Foucault.2 (1997): 205–30. Sheila. 1857. “The Ghoulish and the Ghastly: A Moral Aesthetic in Middle English Alliterative Verse. “The Scottish Chaucer.” Speculum 34 (1959): 428–36. Frakes. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 1.’ Toronto: University of Toronto Press.’ ed. “Romance in England. Chaucer. Sacrifice Your Love: Psychoanalysis. Ed.” In Wallace. Sylvia. “The Manuscript: British Library MS Cotton Nero A. Historicism. Harari. 1994.x. The Foundling and the Werwolf: A Literary-Historical Study of ‘Guillaume de Palerne. Duggan.” Notes and Queries 220 (1975): 4–12. Robert Hurley. Winner and Waster. Fisher. 1991. “The Alliterative Revival. ed. ———. Federico. Dorothy. “‘So That We May Speak of Them’: Enjoying the Middle Ages. 1958. Embree. Susanna G. “An Unrecognized Piece of Piers the Ploughman’s Creed and Other Work by Its Scribe. Laurie A. King Arthur and the Myth of History. Field. 152–76. Ferster. Daniel J. Marriage. of Israel Gollancz. Trans. Rev. Property. “Alliterative Patterning as a Basis for Emendation in Middle English Alliterative Poetry. Halley. Patricia Kean. Shichtman. 2004. 46–96. In Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism.. Emerson. 2002. Boston: Phillips. Dan. 1979. Hoyt N. ———. Brides and Doom: Gender. 1984. 141–60. L. Febvre. Elizabeth Scala and Sylvia Federico. .” In Writing after Chaucer. 71–105. 167–77. Ed.” In The Post-Historical Middle Ages. Tournament: Arts of Rule in Late Medieval Scotland.
B. The Return to Camelot: Chivalry and the English Gentleman. ed. Ithaca. Edinburgh: John Donald. 2007. 1997. 1997. Fryde.” In Lavezzo. Goodman. Nations and Nationalism. Gates. 18–33. Desire for Origins: New Language. Gollancz. 2005. Phoenix Mill. The Political Development of the British Isles. London: Continuum. Girouard. J. Jr. 1990. Ed. E. “The Characterization of Women in the Alliterative Tradition. and Teaching the Tradition. Gellner. “Latin England. 1–14. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1981. London: Humphrey Milford. John. The Fate of Fortune in the Middle Ages: The Boethian Tradition. Gadamer. ed. R. Leiden: E. 2002.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Roger A. 1990. NJ: Rutgers University Press. 71–90. “Nationality and Language in Medieval England. 4th ser. Galloway. 23 (1941): 113–28. The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The FourteenthCentury Political Community. Hans-Georg. James. 41–95. ed. Patrick J. Giancarlo. New Haven.1 (1985): 1–21. “Writing ‘Race’ and the Difference It Makes. Trans. Old English. Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 23. Galbraith. with Modern English Rendering. Frantzen. Kathleen M. 1988. eds. eds. Parliament and Literature in Late Medieval England. Nationalism. ———. Ed. Princeton. Israel. . Allen J. Fuchs. eds. “Making History Legal: Piers Plowman and the Rebels of Fourteenth-Century England. 1996. Truth and Method. Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton. Albert B. New York: New York University Press. 7–31. Brill. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe.” Speculum 35 (1960): 260–74. Frame. Robin. 1983. eds. 1987. Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity. Mason. Fries. 1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ernest. Marshall. Given-Wilson.” In Frantzen and Niles. 1987. 148–66. CT: Yale University Press. The Matter of Scotland: Historical Narrative in Medieval Scotland. Chris. ——— and John D. Geary. Mark. ———. Niles. Andrew. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hewett-Smith. V.” Critical Inquiry 12. “The Anglo-Scottish Marches in the Fifteenth Century: A Frontier Society?” In Scotland and England: 1286–1815. A Good Short Debate between Winner and Waster: An Alliterative Poem on Social and Economic Problems in England in the Year 1352. 1100–1400. Friedman. New Brunswick. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. “Anglo-Saxonism and Medievalism. 1993. Matthew. Goldstein. Barbara. Anthony. Ganim. Henry Louis. 25–45. C.BIBlIogRA Phy · 239 ———. 2nd ed. ——— and John D. “The Myth of Medieval Romance.” In Levy and Szarmach. New York: Routledge. NJ: Princeton University Press. 2004.” In Ingham and Warren. “Morgan le Fay in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Peasants and Landlords in Later Medieval England. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G.” In Bloch and Nichols.” In Piers Plowman: A Book of Essays. “Imperium Studies. Rev. NY: Cornell University Press. Maureen. Niles.
1900. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ed. eds. “National Politics and the Publishing of the Troubadours. Hardt. John. Hammill. ———. “The Awntyrs off Arthure: An Interpretation. “Reading in and Around Piers Plowman. 1300–1380. Hanna. 1992. and Antonio Negri. Ed. History of English Literature. 2002. Grant. “Men’s Games. ———. 1993. Aldershot: Variorum.” Speculum 70. 488–512. 1100–1500: Comparisons. ———. C. D.” In The British Isles. Alexander.4 (2001): 381–408. Empire. 1997. New York: Garland. Davies.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): 175–93. 25–57. ed. Green. 2000. R. and Interpretation. Halleck. Eleanor Prescott.1 (2001): 1–37. 57–94. Edinburgh: John Donald.” History and Anthropology 12.” In Justice and Kerby-Fulton. Thomas. Gray. London Literature.” In Tavormina and Yeager. MA: Harvard University Press. John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. eds. “Alliterative Poetry. John M. ———. Hammond. William Langland. Theory.” In Texts and Textuality: Textual Instability. Marlowe. King’s Deer: Poaching in Medieval England. Barbara A. 43–63. Guillory. “Scotland’s ‘Celtic Fringe’ in the Late Middle Ages: The Macdonald Lords of the Isles and the Kingdom of Scotland. Sexuality and Form: Caravaggio.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 31. Greenfeld. “The Generation of 1399.” Modern Language Quarterly 31 (1970): 275–97. . “Will’s Work. and Bacon. Greetham. Ralph. Richard Firth. “Defining Middle English Alliterative Poetry.” Modern Philology 27 (1929): 26–33. ———. ———. 23–66. Independence and Nationhood: Scotland. MA: Harvard University Press. 1985. “The Difference the Middle Ages Makes: Color and Race before the Modern World. 202–29. Hanawalt. 407–31. 1306–1469. Emily Steiner and Candace Barrington. ed. Philip Cohen. Poets and Princepleasers: Literature and the English Court in the Late Middle Ages.” In Bloch and Nichols. Cambridge. “Medieval Literature and Law. “Lawlessness on the Frontier: The Anglo-Scottish Borderlands in the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Century. Ithaca. Contrasts and Connections. R. 2000.” In Wallace. Graham L.” In The Letter of the Law: Legal Practice and Literary Production in Medieval England. Liah. NY: Cornell University Press. Reuben Post. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. New York: American Book Company. III. 2005. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation.2 4 0 · B I B lIo gR AP hy Grady. Frank. 118–41. ———. Graham. Hahn. “The Lancastrian Gower and the Limits of Exemplarity. 1988. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.3 (1995): 552–75. Cambridge. 1980. “A Scribe of Chaucer. eds. ———. 1993. Michael.” In Wallace. Ed.
Holstun. Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo—Saxonism. David. Vol. Hilton. “The Dialect and Authorship of Richard the Redeless and Mum and the Sothsegger. “Medieval Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Higham. “Indeterminacy in Winner and Waster and The Parliament of the Three Ages. Ehud’s Dagger: Class Struggle in the English Revolution. eds. 1999.” Chaucer Review 20.” In Library of Southern Literature. Christopher. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381.” Yearbook of Langland Studies 18 (2004): 133–52. Helgerson. 58–125. Religion and Nationalism. Katherine. 3889–94. New York: Century. Reality. Kenneth. 1983. Geraldine.” In Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. Hayles. 9. New Orleans: Martin & Hoyt. Hodges. Horobin. Cambridge. Shaping the Nation: England.’ Lancaster: Carnegie. 2005. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. A History of English Literature. 1992. “The Norman Yoke. James R. A History of Yorkshire: ‘County of the Broad Acres. Hastings. N. ed.” PMLA 106 (1991): 500–514. Hudnall. 1981. Edwin Anderson Alderman and Joel Chandler Harris. Ed. 2005. London: Routledge. N. 1997. Ed. Cambridge. 2005. Higgins. 2004. ———. Heng. and the Genealogies of Critique. Eric. Myth. Horsman. Chris Wrigley. Reginald. Holsinger. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity. 1997.” Speculum 77 (2002): 1195–1227. Forging Chivalric Communities in Malory’s ‘Le Morte Darthur. Hulbert. 1973. New York: New Press. James. A Medieval Society: The West Midlands at the End of the Thirteenth Century. Rev. ——— and Terence Ranger. Postcolonial Studies.3 (1986): 246–57. Simon. 2000. Harriss.” Modern Philol- . 1966.BIBlIogRA Phy · 241 ———. Gerald. 2nd ed. 1917. Richard.’ New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Writing Machines. Ian Macleod. Industry and Empire: The Birth of the Industrial Revolution. Hey. The Invention of Tradition. David V. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrington. New York: Viking. MA: Harvard University Press. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme. Adrian. 2002. “Feminine Knots and the Other: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Writing East: The ‘Travels’ of Sir John Mandeville. “Franklin Verzelius Newton Painter. 1360–1461. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1958. Rodney. J. 1986. Richard Henry. London: Verso. New York: Penguin. 2002. “A Hypothesis Concerning the Alliterative Revival. Hill. Walter S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruce W. King Arthur: Myth-Making and History. Multitudes: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. 1992. MA: MIT Press. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1916. Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England. Hobsbawm. Hinchman.
Jewell.” Review of English Studies n.” In Ingham and Warren. 662–89. 1–12. 1994. Ingledew. R. London: Athlone Press. A Literary History of the English People from the Origins to the End of the Middle Ages. 1980. Syr Gawayn and the Grene Knyȝt. “Kindly Light or Foxfire? The Authorial Text Reconsidered. ——— and Michelle R. S. Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law. Written Work: Langland. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hunt. “The Typology of Debate and the Interpretation of Wynnere and Wastoure. Warren. Alan. Enchanted Ground: The Study of Medieval Romance in the Eighteenth Century. ———. ed. 1998. “The Dream of the Wheel of Fortune. Arthur. Jack.1 (1974): 3–20. ———. The North-South Divide: The Origins of Northern Consciousness in England. 3–14.” Modern Language Quarterly 25 (1964): 243–58. 689–730. ———. Timothy. ——— and Kathryn Kerby-Fulton. “The Book of Troy and the Genealogical Construction of History: The Case of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae.” In Wallace.” Studies in Scottish Literature 12. J. “The Problems of Authorship and Date of Wynnere and Wastoure. ———. 1981. 140–52. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Labor. 2003. Francis. Steven.s. 1996. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. “Introduction: Authorial Work and Literary Ideology. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Anke. Husband.” Speculum 69 (1994): 665–704. 1997. Justice. “Arthur’s Pilgrimage: A Study of Golagros and Gawane. “Contrapuntal Histories. eds. Ed.” In The Alliterative Morte Arthure: A Reassessment of the Poem. 1893. eds. 1990. Jusserand. Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381. Jacobs. Jerry D. “The Undercutting of Conventions in Wynnere and Wastoure. 59–80. and Authorship. Brewer. Gloucester: Alan Sutton. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sovereign Fantasies: Arthurian Romance and the Making of Britain. 1964. 36 (1985): 481–500. Patricia Clare. John Taylor and Wendy Childs. The Wild Man: Medieval Myth and Symbolism. McCarren. Postcolonial Moves: Medieval through Modern. Karl Heinz Göller.” In Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England. Nicolas. New York: G. Helen M. D. ed. ———. Johnston. eds. “Lollardy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Douglas Moffat and Vincent P. ———. New York: St. University of Chicago Library.” Modern Philology 18 (1920–21): 31–40. “Piers Plowman—A Poem of Crisis: an Analysis of Political Instability in Langland’s England. Cambridge: D.” In Justice and Kerby-Fulton. ———. Ed. 2001. Ingham. Martin’s Press. James. 47–70.” In A Guide to Editing Middle English.2 4 2 · B I B lIo gR AP hy ogy 28 (1931): 405–22. ———. . P. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Putnam’s Sons. J. Janssen.” Modern Philology 13 (1915): 433–62. Papers. 1994. Ed. eds. Special Collections Research Center. S.
Lisa. 209–29. “Piers Plowman. 145–60. “Analytical Survey 3: The New Philology. “The Text. 59–83. and James Simpson. Kruger. “Professional Readers of Langland at Home and Abroad: New Directions in the Political and Bureaucratic Codicology of Piers Plowman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1916. Elie. 1995. ———. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.” In The Middle Ages at Work: Practicing Labor in Late Medieval England. Trans. “Langland and the Bibliographic Ego. John A. Bernard.” Studies in Bibliography 36 (1983): 11–19. Books under Suspicion: Censorship and Tolerance of Revelatory Writing in Late Medieval England. Immanuel. F. Nicolaisen. “Langlandian Reading Circles and the Civil Service in London and Dublin. “Some Fourteenth-Century ‘Political Poems. and David Lawton.’ Cambridge. Rita Copeland. The Dark Ages. 175–200. London: Hutchinson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1904. ———. Steven F. Wendy Scase. MA: Harvard University Press.” In Justice and Kerby-Fulton. George. ed. Piers Plowman: The Evidence for Authorship. 1987. ———. Rita Copeland. Kerby-Fulton. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. Vol. eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University . 1966.” Speculum 60 (1985): 910–30. Wendy Scase. “The ‘Z Version’ of Piers Plowman. Knapp. eds. Kane. ———. Kinser. London: Athlone. Ethan The Bureaucratic Muse: Thomas Hoccleve and the Literature of Late Medieval England. ——— and Steven Justice. ed. IN: University of Notre Dame Press.BIBlIogRA Phy · 243 Kaeuper. Kathryn. 103–29.” In A Companion to ‘Piers Plowman. 1951. Sarah. 1958. Ed. 2004. New York: Hafner Press. S. ———. Kittredge. Gregory. J. Rpt. 1380–1427. 513–38. Ed. Cambridge: D. Alford. George Lyman.’” In Kratzmann and Simpson. Critique of Judgement. NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies. Ker.” In Pearsall. H.” In New Medieval Literatures. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———.” In New Medieval Literatures. 3rd ed. Notre Dame. Ed. ———. 1989. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. W. 82–91. ———. 3. “More Light on the Life of Robert Thornton. eds. “Lincoln Cathedral Library MS 91: Life and Milieu of the Scribe. and David Lawton. Binghamton. 2001. 1997. Medieval English Religious and Ethical Literature. Kratzmann. Kedourie.” In Wallace. H. “Elde and His Teaching in The Parlement of the Thre Ages. Samuel. 1965. 67–143. Michael Uebel and Kellie Robertson. Kiser. George R. Kay. 1999. W. Ed.” Philological Quarterly 66 (1987): 303–14.” In Oral Tradition in the Middle Ages. 1999.’ Ed. P. Brewer. A Study of ‘Gawain and the Green Knight. Nationalism.” Studies in Bibliography 32 (1979): 158–79. 295–326. 2007. “Wildmen in Festival. Dreaming in the Middle Ages. New York: Mentor. Kant. Richard W. Keiser. 1300–1550. Oxford: Clarendon Press. “Poetic Work and Scribal Labor in Hoccleve and Langland.
Chaucer’s Cultural Geography. . Ed. and the (Neo-) Middle Ages. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. ed. and AngloSaxons. Charlton T. B. Laura Hibbard. A. S.. 1–19. 1982. ———.. ed. 1890. Machan. S. and Paul Szarmach. Lavezzo. 1–18. “Concerning Huchown. 1986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.” PMLA 25 (1910): 507–34. ed. “The Diversity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry. Postcolonial Middle Ages. MacCracken. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. London: I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 125–29. NY: Cornell University Press. Krishan. 2003. ———. OH: Kent State University Press. Angus McIntosh.” Modern Language Review 76 (1981): 780–93. in Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 3. 2004. 1998. Hanover. L. Kathy. 1959. eds. Minnis and Charlotte Brewer. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. Lynch. Loomis. Henry Noble. Levy. Lerer. Brewer. King Arthur’s Enchantresses: Morgan and Her Sisters in Arthurian Tradition. MacDougall. Periodicity. Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late-Medieval England. ed. “Introduction. 1919. “Middle English Alliterative Poetry: An Introduction. The Alliterative Tradition in the Fourteenth Century. and English Community. Heterosyncrasies: Female Sexuality When Normal Wasn’t. Kumar. 1992. 2002. Bernard S. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ithaca. “Middle English Text Production and Modern Textual Criticism. Kent. English Literature: Its History and Its Significance for the Life of the English-Speaking World. 2006. Boston: Ginn and Company. ed. William J. Lewis. 1000–1534. Teutons. M. “Lollardy and the Piers Plowman Tradition. 1982. Review of Cohen. 4 vols. 2006. 1993. The Making of English National Identity. ed. 1992. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Larrington. Kathryn L. NH: University Press of New England. Tauris. New York: Routledge.” In Crux and Controversy in Middle English Textual Criticism. Lisa. ———. Hugh. Ed.1 (2002). “Gawain and the Green Knight. Carolyne. Lochrie. ———. NJ: Princeton University Press.2 4 4 · B I B lIo gR AP hy Press. 528–40. and Michael Benskin. Brewer. vii–xxxiv. David. Tim William.” In Lavezzo. 1909. Long. Lawton. Cambridge: D. 2005. ———. Middle English Alliterative Poetry and Its Literary Background. Lampert. ———. Imagining a Medieval English Nation. An Elementary Latin Dictionary. Literature..” In Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History. Cambridge: D. Karma. 1982. Ed.” In Lawton. Angels on the Edge of the World: Geography.” Modern Literary Quarterly 65 (2004): 391–421. ———.” Leeds Studies in English 20 (1989): 143–72. “Race.” Speculum 58 (1983): 72–94. “The Unity of Middle English Alliterative Poetry. J. Samuels. Seth. Roger Sherman Loomis. Racial Myth in English History: Trojans. Princeton.
” In Lawton. Women in Medieval English Society. Ruth. 20–33. 2000. Wrenn. “William Langland’s Kynde Name: Authorial Signature and Social Identity in Late Fourteenth-Century England. Jill. Brewer. ———. 2000. Alastair. Miles. K. S. Evanston: University of Illinois Press. Literary Historicity: Literature and Historical Change in EighteenthCentury Britain. 135b.” EETS o. “The Power of the Alphabet: A Reassessment of the Relation between the A and B Versions of Piers Plowman. George.” In English and Medieval Studies Presented to J. Hunting Law and Ritual in Medieval English Literature. 1906. The Making of Middle English. Scottish Place Names. Ronald Waldron. L. Ed. 1–141. ———. David. Mavis E. S. 1962. Edward Donald Kennedy. 1380–1530. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Anne. 1290–1536. CA: Stanford University Press. Carla. R. Mackay. William. 2005. Prior to Meaning: The Protosemantic and Poetics. The Tragedy of Arthur: A Study of the Alliterative Morte Arthure. Mann. “The Textual Transmission of the Alliterative Morte Arthure. Norman Davis and C. 1765–1910. Berkeley: University of California Press. ed.” In Lawton. 2009.BIBlIogRA Phy · 245 Mack. Matthews. London: Allen & Unwin. R. “The English Nobility. 1991. 243–63.” In Medieval Studies Presented to George Kane.” Yearbook of Langland Studies 8 (1994): 21–50. 1999. New Lanark. 2001. ed. Stanford. 15–82. 147–54. Ed. Cambridge: D. Marvin. Brewer. George Perkins. 231–40. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1862. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McIntosh. London: Sampson Low. ———. In The Nobility of Later Medieval England: The Ford Lectures for 1953 and Related Studies. Tolkien. McFarlane.” In Literary Practice and Social Change in Britain. The Inarticulate Renaissance: Language Trouble in an Age of Eloquence. 2005. John. William Perry. and Joseph S. 2006. ———. Matthews. Minnis. Origin and History of the English Language. “Early English Alliterative Verse.” English Studies 44 (1963): 1–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Middleton. Steve. 1999. Wittig. 1988. South Lanarkshire: Geddes and Grosset. 2009. London: Phoenix. Reclaiming Difference: Caribbean Women Rewrite Postcolonialism. Mate. Berkeley: University of California Press. The Invention of Middle English: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Lee Patterson. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. ———. Mazzio. McCaffery. “A New Approach to Middle English Dialectology. David. Marsh.s.” 1953. ed. Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the . 1960. Angus. Carine M. ed. Cambridge: D. Manly. Mardorossian. “Making a Good End: John But as a Reader of Piers Plowman. 101–23. Ed. “The Lost Leaf of Piers the Plowman. The Tribes of Britain: Who Are We? And Where Do We Come From? Rev. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1973. “The Audience and Public of Piers Plowman. B.
and Robert Morss Lovett. Oakden. Political Life in Medieval England. Susan Signe. ———. Pasternack. 1998.” In Bloch and Nichols.’ 1889. . 1902. 1997. Glasgow: James MacLehose and Son. Including a Number of Classic Works with Notes. 25–56. New York: Penguin. The Lordship of Galloway: c. Huchown of the Awle Ryale. 2000. “Theories of Monarchy in Mum and the Sothsegger.2 (2005): 422–41. Alliterative Poetry in Middle English. Violence. Shewell. Introduction to English Literature. 2 vols. P. W. “‘With Tresone Withinne’: Wynnere and Wastoure. Ormrod. Chivalric SelfRepresentation. . “‘Þat on . and Sanborn. Hollingdale. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Rev.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 26. Mohl. ‘The Twilight of the Idols’ and ‘The Anti-Christ. 1894. Frank. 1995. George. “Modernism and the Politics of Medieval Studies.” Pacific Coast Philology 23 (1988): 60–66. the Alliterative Poet: A Historical Criticism of Fourteenth Century Poems Ascribed to Sir Hew of Eglintoun. eds. William Vaughn. Edinburgh: John Donald. Gaston. Neville. ———. Charleston: Tempus. Cynthia J. Rev. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Elisa Marie. F. Paris. . ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. þat oþer’: Rhetorical Description and Morgan le Fay in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Painter. Nolan. and the Law. Ed. N. Moorman.2 4 6 · B I B lIo gR AP hy Later Middle Ages. 1988. 1968. ed. A History of English Literature. Ruth. R. “La Sicile dans la littérature française du moyen âge. 2010. The North of England: A History from Roman Times to the Present. 900 to c.1 (1981): 85–100.” PMLA 59 (1944): 26–44. 2000. Martin’s Press. Morrison. 1300–1450. Maura. Stephen G.” PMLA 120. J. 1895. Oram. The Reign of Edward III. Richard. Excrement in the Late Middle Ages: Sacred Filth and Chaucer’s Fecopoetics.1 (1996): 1–28. “Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture. Custom and Law: The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Later Middle Ages. 2008. Musgrove. Gerald. ———. 1300. Neilson. J. Carol Braun. Moody. The Textuality of Old English Poetry.” Southern Quarterly 7 (1969): 345– 72. ———. The Rise of English Nationalism: A Cultural History. and trans. Martin’s Press. 1930–35. 1740–1830. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.“The Origins of the Alliterative Revival. New York: St.” Romania V (1876): 108–13. Friedrich. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. “The English Alliterative Revival and the Literature of Defeat. Narin. V. Boston: Leach.” Speculum 65 (1990): 1–10.” Chaucer Review 16. M. Charles. 2nd ed. 1990. 1905. 1995. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Nietzsche. “Writing the New Middle Ages. Newman. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Nichols. New York: St.
Prestwich. Ed. 6–17. Woodbridge: York Medieval Press. The Three Edwards: War and State in England. eds. William S. Studies in the Fairy Mythology of Arthurian Romance.” In Scotland and England: 1286–1815. Rev. Rev. L. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. Percy. 2000. 1272–1377. 3. Reynolds. “The Search for Scottishness in Golagros and Gawane. 2nd ed.” SELIM 11 (2001–2): 5–26. Derek.” In Lynch. Putter. 34–53. Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature. Bhabha. Susan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1988. ———. New York: Burt Franklin.BIBlIogRA Phy · 247 Paton.” In Purdie and Royan. Brewer. Peck. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 185–207. ed. King Death: The Black Death and its Aftermath in Late-Medieval England. Ernest. “‘In the Beginning Was the Word’: Germany and the Origins of German Studies. Edinburgh: John Donald. Ad. Pearsall. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Michael: “Colonial Scotland: The English in Scotland under Edward I. New Haven. ———. “Alliterative Verse in the York Cycle. Ed. ———. Qu’est-ce Qu’une Nation? 1882. ———. Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe. Purdie. 1903.” In Justice and Kerby-Fulton. ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’ and French Arthurian Romance. Perkins. “Chaucer and Englishness. A History of Long Island. “Dating The Buke of the Howlat. 1869. 2005. Mason. In Nation and Narration. Plantagenet England: 1225–1360. eds. 1903. Roger A. Vol. Rhiannon. “What Is a Nation?” 1882. 1997. New York: Lewis Publishing.” In Bloch and Nichols. ——— and Nicola Royan.” Studies in Philology 48 (1951): 639–68. Is Literary History Possible? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.” In Levy and Szarmach. 1765. Felicity J. 2003. Lucy Allen. ———. ed. Cambridge: D. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Patterson. 127. Rpt. eds.” In Lawton. ———. 1970. eds. “The Origins of the Alliterative Revival. Thomas. 900–1300. 2005. ed. Jesse Byers. 149 of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Arthurian Studies LXI. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. Pelletreau. ———. New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies. Reese. CT: Yale University Press. ed. Carter. 95–107. 1997. Old English and Middle English Poetry. 1934. Edward I. eds. 1984. Platt. 1995. Trans. “Langland’s London. Revard. ———. Martin Thom. London: Routledge. 281–301. Jeffrey M. Riddy. New York: Routledge. 1977. “Was the Pearl Poet in Aquitaine with Chaucer? A Note on Fade. ed. Helleu. David. Homi K. Reliques of Ancient English Poetry.” Review of English Studies 37 . 1990. Afterword by Roger Sherman Loomis. S. 1988. “The Alliterative Revival: Origins and Social Backgrounds. The Scots and Medieval Arthurian Legend. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1992. Renan. Colin. 1–24. Lee. Paris: R. 8–22. ed.
The Making of the English Literary Canon: From the Middle Ages to the Late Eighteenth Century. Donald E. and Kind Wit: Langland’s National Vision and the Rising of 1381.” In Purdie and Royan. Madden. “The Fine Art of Faint Praise in Older Scots Historiography. M. New York: Routledge. 43–54. “Langland’s Dialect. from the Twelfth Century to the Present Day. 2007. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Phoenix Mill. Saintsbury. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. “Some Early Responses to the C-Version of Piers Plowman. Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton. Ed. Joyce E. 233–37. Nicola. 2006. ed. Robertson. “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Vulgate Lancelot. Jr. Royan. Saul. Cambridge: D. Commons. A Theory of Middle English Alliterative Meter with Critical Applications.” In Reading the Medieval in Early Modern England. “‘Na les vailyeant than ony uthir princis of Britane’: Representations of Arthur in Scotland. Ed. Saunders.” Scottish Studies Review 3 (2002): 9–20. London: Macmillan. L. Nigel. MA: Medieval Academy of America. 1994. “Medieval Britain. Wendy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2002. Ross.” Medium Ævum 54 (1985): 232–47.” Modern Language Review 78.” In Lavezzo. Elizabeth. Literature and Complaint in England.. Scanlon. 115–204. Trevor.” In Lollardy and the Gentry in the Later Middle Ages. Larry. Joel T. The Laborer’s Two Bodies: Literary and Legal Productions in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenthal. Nigel Saul. Kellie. 1993.” In Purdie and Royan. Arden. eds. Sapora.” Viator 15 (1984): 275–303. 1998. Salisbury. “The Timeliness of Wynnere and Wastoure. 3 vols.” Modern Philology 64 (1966–67): 146–49. eds. 109–19. The Beast Within: Animals in the Middle Ages. Gordon McMullan and David Matthews. Samuels. Salter. 2nd ed. Cory J. Elizabeth. Queller. ———. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Brewer. Marjory. . 1272–1553. 1480–1540. 77–94. “The Alliterative Revival. “Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede: Lollardy and Texts. Russell. Gloucestershire: Sutton. Stroud. Cambridge. Corinne J. 1994.2 4 8 · B I B lIo gR AP hy (1986): 1–10. George. John. 191–233. The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. 238–43. 2007. Margaret Aston and Colin Richmond. 1997.2 (1983): 357–66. Scattergood. 1997. Robert William.” Medium Ævum 47 (1978): 40–65. George. Scase. ———. Absent Narratives. “King. 1991. S. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 1977. and Literary Structure in Late Medieval England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. The Forest of Medieval Romance: Avernus.” In The National Trust Historical Atlas of Britain: Prehistoric to Medieval. and Thomas F. “Langland. Broceliande. Manuscript Textuality. “‘Of an uncouthe stede’: The Scottish Knight in Middle English Arthurian Romances. Scala. Rigby. Ed. 1350–1500. 1906–10. A History of English Prosody. Old Age in Late Medieval England. 51–73. Rushton. Apocalypse and the Early Modern Editor.
” In King Arthur through the Ages. ———. Simmons. Vol..” In Levy and Szarmach. D. Shichtman. Smyth. “Holland as Howlat: Shadow Self and Borderland Homage in The Buke of the Howlat. Valerie M. 1971. 1957. Geoffrey. “The Power of Impropriety: Authorial Naming in Piers Plowman. Vol. Speirs. Kathleen M. Politics and Poetry in the Fifteenth Century. eds. Shepherd. R. Ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard. C. Trübner and Co. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Hussey. The Poem as Green Girdle: Commercium in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.. Cambridge: D. 1986. ed. “The Constraints of Satire in Piers Plowman and Mum and the Sothsegger. 1990. 1868. London: Blandford Press. Medieval Europeans: Studies in Ethnic Identity and National Perspectives in Medieval Europe. Schofield. ———. S. “Sir Gawain.” Proceedings of the British Academy 56 (1970): 57–76. 135–51. John W. Alfred P. 3. ed. Medieval English Poetry: The Non-Chaucerian Tradition. Simpson. “Sir Gawain in Scotland: A Hometown Boy Made Good. Vance. Smith. and the Medieval English Mystic Tradition: Essays in Honour of S. Anthony D. 214–54. 1990. Arthur E. and Britain’s Fortunate Founding: A Study in Comedy and Convention. and the Social Logic of the Text in the .” In Langland. 1998. Smailes. Walter W. William Henry. Brewer. New York: St.” In Lavezzo. Outlines of English Literature.BIBlIogRA Phy · 249 ———. 2002. A. Ed. 2: 1350–1547. “Piers Plowman and the National Noetic of Edward III. Reform and Cultural Revolution: The Oxford English Literary History. ed. English Literature from the Norman Conquest to Chaucer. London: Faber and Faber. ———. Legurio and Mildred Leake Day. Spearing. New York: Routledge. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons. 1968. Ed. 1849. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford: Blackwell. 2005. Ed.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 51.3 (2009): 263–93. Cultural Diversity. North England. Fiona. 183–202. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Gabrielle M. New York: Macmillan.” Modern Philology 62 (1965): 189–206. New York: Garland. 11–30. 234–67. Smith. “The Instructive Other Within: Secularized Jews in The Siege of Jerusalem.. Randy P. NJ: Rutgers University Press. “History. 1984. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998.” Mediaevalia 29. 1990. Reversing the Conquest: History and Myth in Nineteenth-Century British Literature. Furnivall.” In Piers Plowman: A Book of Essays. “The Loneness of the Stalker: Poaching and Subjectivity in The Parlement of the Thre Ages. John. ———. Somerset. “An Essay on Alliterative Poetry. London: N. the Mystics. Helen Phillips. ed. Martin B. Schiff. Clare A. Dear Brutus.” In Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript: Ballads and Romances. S. “The Nature of Alliterative Poetry in Late Medieval England. Clerical Discourse and Lay Audience in Late Medieval England. Theodore. 145–65. 1906. Skeat.” In Cohen.2 (2008): 91–116. A. xi–xxxix. New Brunswick. Shaw. Shoaf. Silverstein. James. “The Awntyrs off Arthure. Thomas B. Rev. Historicism. Hales and Frederick J. Martin’s Press. Spiegel. Hewett-Smith.
Bryan. London: George Bell & Sons. Saxons.” In Crossing Boundaries: Issues of Communal and Individual Identity in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. ———. Epilogue by Carol Lansing. van Laun.” In Tomasch and Gilles. “The Date of ‘Winnere and Wastoure. Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts. Stott. Sally McKee. ———. Sarah. Joseph R. Geschichte der Englischen Litteratur. Emily. Summerson. Trans. Israel Gollancz. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. History of English Literature. Kennedy. J.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 78 (1977): 27–30. Teresa M. Hippolyte. eds. NJ: Princeton University Press. 1399–1442. ed. Horace M. History of English Literature (from the Fourteenth Century to the Death of Surrey). 1908. 1877. 1992. “Making History English: Cultural Identity and Historical Explanation in William of Malmesbury and Laȝamon’s Brut. Documentary Culture and the Making of Medieval English Literature. 97–115. F. Dora Schmitz. H. Steiner. Alois Brandl. Ed. Stanbury. Berlin: Robert Oppenheim. Lynn. 2005. Turnholt: Brepols. 1998. Strohm. 1863– 64. “Responses to War: Carlisle and the West March in the Later Fourteenth Century. 1100–1300. 1891. 2006. . Vol II.” In Wormald. Taine. ———. 2005. Eiichi. 1992. Yeager.” Speculum 65 (1990): 79–86. Ed. 2 vols. “A Note on the Age of the Green Knight. The Endless Knot: Essays on Old and Middle English in Honor of Marie Borroff. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 155–77. Modern Language Notes 36 (1921): 103–10. New York: Routledge. Bernhard. 1971. eds. New Haven. “Medieval Documentary Poetics and Langland’s Authorial Identity. ed. 39–76. New York: W. Trans. 1896. Early English Literature (to Wiclif). 1991. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.2. Tavormina. Staley. L. London: 1992. Keith. Andrew. Anthony Goodman and Anthony Tuck. Trans. Henry. ten Brink. W. Review of Winner and Waster. ———. “The Emergence of a Nation-State. 2003. Stringer. Norton. M. Stein. 79–105. 2 vols. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. and R. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Ed. Sykes. England’s Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of Legitimation. Cambridge: D. 1995. 4 vols. Languages of Power in the Age of Richard II.’” Modern Philology 19 (1921): 211–19. S.” In War and Border Societies in the Middle Ages. Princeton. Comedy.. The Albigensian Crusades. and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland. Paul.2 5 0 · B I B lIo gR AP hy Middle Ages. Suzuki. LHistoire de la littérature anglaise. ———. Strayer. Seeing the ‘Gawain’-Poet: Description and the Act of Perception. Paris: Librairie Hachette. CT: Yale University Press. Steadman. Vikings. 1999. Robert M. Brewer. ———.
A. ———. Derek. England the Nation: Language.” Northern History 21 (1985): 33–52. 990–1992. “Der Dichter Huchown und seine Werke. Congenial Souls: Reading Chaucer from Medieval to Postmodern.’ and ‘The Awntyrs off Arthure: Three Poems in the Thirteen-Line Stanza.” In Cohen. Thompson. Capital. S. “Morgain la Fée in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Crown and Nobility: England 1272–1461.” In The Pelican Guide to English Literature. Rev. ———. and Sealy Gilles.” Arthuriana 8. 1992. Norris J. ‘Summer Sunday. “Obituary: Bernhard ten Brink. ———. 1: The Age of Chaucer. John J. ———. Tuck.” Medium Aevum 57 (1988): 264–69. Tibbals. Text and Territory: Geographical Imagination in the European Middle Ages.” Modern Philology 1 (1903–4): 355–71. . Tolhurst. ———. ———. The Alliterative Revival. “The Brutus Prologue to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” Anglia 1 (1878): 109–49. “The Emergence of a Northern Nobility. “War and Society in the Medieval North.’ Review of English Studies 25 (1970): 1–14.” Northern History 3 (1968): 27–52. Ed. Thorlac. ———. 1987. Harmondsworth: Penguin. New York: Garland. 1977. Brewer. Anthony. “The Author of the Destruction of Troy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. “Elements of Magic in the Romance of William of Palerne.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75 (1974): 260–62. “Langland’s Piers Plowman. vol.” Northern History 22 (1986): 1–17.BIBlIogRA Phy · 251 Terrell. 1250–1400. Charles. Tolman. Fiona.’ ‘De Tribus Regibus Mortuis. “Richard II and the Border Magnates.” In Lavezzo. eds. 2002. Oxford: Blackwell. “The Prologue of Winner and Waster. Katherine H. 1290–1340. Stephanie. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.” Leeds Studies in English 18 (1987): 19–29. 1996.. Tomasch. Literature. ———. Michael W. 340–46. Moritz. Robert Thornton and the London Thornton Manuscript. Cambridge: D. a. Coercion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. “Israel Gollancz’s Wynnere and Wastoure: Political Satire or Editorial Politics?” In Kratzmann and Simpson.” In Text and Intertext in Medieval Arthurian Literature. 1996. “The Britons as Hebrews. Oxford: Blackwell. Twomey. Traversi. 153–72. ed. and Normans: Geoffrey of Monmouth’s British Epic and Reflections on Matilda. Ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kate Watkins. Sylvia. Lacy. ed.d. “Humphrey de Bohun and William of Palerne. Trautmann. and European States. 1999. 115–27. 1998. Cultural Diversity. H. Romans. 91–115. ———. Boris Ford. “Subversive Histories: Strategies of Identity in Scottish Historiography. 127–45.4 (1998): 69–87. and National Identity. eds. Tilly. 1959.” Modern Language Notes 7 (1892): 191–92. Trigg. Turville-Petre. ed.
“Langland and the Problem of William of Palerne. J. A. Walsh. Dallas: Scriptorium. Whitehurst. Watson. 3 vols. Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Manuscripts of Henry Savile of Banke. G. Rpt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edith Williams. 188–212.” Yearbook of English Studies 13 (1983): 270–87. Michelle R. “Morgan le Fay at Hautdesert. Thomas. 1774–81. 2006. “The History That Literature Makes. Old-Time Makers of Medicine: The Story of the Students and Teachers of the Sources Related to Medicine during the Middle Ages. Ed. 2000. Wallace. eds. Dodsley. Carew Hazlitt.” In Bryght Lanternis: Essays on the Language and Literature of Medieval and Renaissance Scotland. Gregory A. Tom Shippey and Martin Arnold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. “Truth-telling and the Tradition of Mum and the Sothsegger. 1990. Blyth. W. Spiller. Ed. ed. David. from the Close of the Eleventh to the Commencement of the Eighteenth Century. Andrew. Premodern Places: Calais to Surinam. from the Twelfth to the Close of the Sixteenth Century. Walker. 1991. 27–73.” In Frantzen and Niles. ———. New York: Oxford University Press.” In A Saintsbury Miscellany.” Viator 37 (2006): 397–415. Politics. 1999. Waswo. Warren. Warner. 1989. Lawrence. Northern English: A Cultural and Social History. Chaucer to Aphra Behn. Richard. David. Medieval Wales. London: J. Rev. “Morgan la Fée as Trickster in Sir Gawain and the Green . Waugh. Nicholas. Bonnie Wheeler and Fiona Tolhurst.” New Literary History 19 (1988): 541–64. 1911. Wales. Utz. 4 vols. Webster. 2004. The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature. 2001. “Byrthnoth in Dixie: The Emergence of Anglo-Saxon Studies in the Postbellum South. Wawn. Derrick McClure and Michael R. 1947. 90–103. “Enthusiast or Philologist? Professional Discourse and the Medievalism of Fredrick James Furnivall. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ed.” In Studies in Medievalism XI—Appropriating the Middle Ages: Scholarship. New York: Haskell House. 1970. “A Biographical Memoir. New York: Fordham University Press. the Oxford Translation Debate.” In On Arthurian Women: Essays in Memory of Maureen Fries. Elizabeth. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.2 5 2 · B I B lIo gR AP hy ———. James G. Katie. Ed. The History of English Poetry. Watson. ———. and Arundel’s Constitutions of 1409. History on the Edge: Excalibur and the Borders of Britain. Fraud. Andrew G. Warton.” Speculum 70 (1995): 822–64. ed. 1871. Malden: Blackwell. London: The Bibliographical Society. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Augustus Muir et al. 157–72. 2001. 103–19. 1969. History of English Poetry. Scott L. Richard J. “Censorship and Cultural Change in Late-Medieval England: Vernacular Theology. “Golagros and Gawane: A Word for Peace. VanHoosier-Carey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. England in the Reign of Edward III. Walsh.
Jenny.” Folklore 96 (1985): 38–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deanne. 2004.BIBlIogRA Phy · 253 Knight. 2005. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The French Fetish from Chaucer to Shakespeare. Williams. . Wormald. Scotland: A History.
137. 197n65. 199n88. and gender. 190n97 Alfred. 54. 196nn49–50. 140–42. critical. 46–47. 62. 107. 49. 107. 178–79n135. 214n13. 24. 8. 179n145. 101. 168n61. 76. 209n76 Alexandrine. and dream-vision. 57. 37. 163n5. 212n128. 152. 77. 61–66. as heteromorphic. 190n117. 221–22n84. 131. 100. 131–32. 15. 47–48. 119. 39–40. 17–18. 1. 9–10. 156. 90. 87–89. 124. thirteenline. 177n116 Alexander. 38–39. 153. 14. 136. authorship of. 54–55. 143. 176nn99–100. syllables in. 50. 182n186. 184n15. dialect of. 212n125. 14–15. 170n79. 48. 154. 14. 179n44. 60–61. 168n61. 71. and alliteration. 186n31. 255 . 99. Flora. political. 197n65 alliterative prosody. Suzanne Conklin. 168n59. 73. 33. 44. 99. 106–11. 33–34. 171nn9–10. 197–98n67. 14. 15. 76–77. 224n108 Aers. 192n6. 213n137. 56. 188n76. 20. 189n90 Akbari. 13–14. 23–24. 44. 200nn92–94. 136. 211n99. 157–62. 1. 218n45 Allen. King. 5. 210n91 Alliterative Morte Arthure (Anonymous). 28. 124 Agamben. 80–81. stress in. 137. 179nn149–50. 217n28. 127–29. 4. 210n85 Alliterative Revivalism. 144. Rosamund. 83. and law. 178n135. 152–53. 1. 94–99. 18. 225n119. 10. reception of. 161. 179n137. 2–17. 206n40. 23–24. 35. to princes. 33. 61. and authenticity. 74. 99. 121–24. 66. 103–4. 212n123. and war. 180n158. 183n8. 135–36. 23. 168nn73–74. 151. 91. 18. 162. 68–69. 171n10. 225n128. 198n79. 51–52. 74. and language. 29. 1–4. 185n26. 151. 18. 7. 132. 33–34. on love. 33. and empire. manuscript of. 196n50. 121–22. 174–75n65. caesura in. 12. 213n135. 174n57. 172–73n29 Alexander and Dindimus. 212n115. 20–36. and editing. 50. 111–12. 206n37. 199nn82–84. 175n86. 167n52. 57. 14. 51. 28. 156. 32–36. 45–49. 27.I N d Ex advice. 126– 27. 202n130. 1. 205–6nn33–35. 128–31. 206n43. 136. and textuality. 147–48. animalized. 68. 169n74. 164n11. Giorgio. 142–43. 195n44. 78 allegory: and age. David. 135. 77. 212nn130–32. 77. 41–43. 173n34. 198n68. 37–44. 40–41. and dating. 97. 164n15. 61. 167nn55–57. 170n82 aesthetics. 182–83n2.
192n15. 50. 141. 49–50. 217–18n39. 189n92. 177n109. 7. 12. 158. 103. 28. J. and nation. 75. 228n24 Andreas Capellanus. 26 antiquarianism. and race. 47. 37. 171n4. 40. 50. 156. 177n113. 71. 161. Rowena E. 210n85. 133. 69. 104. 171n10. 7. 113–14. 3–5. 103. 78. 59. 200n91. 142. 191n121. and Native Americans. 128. 48. 2. 152–53. 173n32. 125–26. 11. 222n89. 185–86n30. 21. neo-Saxons. 19–21. 121. and ethnicity. 184n15. 45–49. study of. English. 6. 164n15. 104. nostalgia. 83. 66. 21. See also death. 64–67. 139. and poetics. 190n117. 129. sheep. and empire. 128–30. 103. 59. 161. goats. 63. 33. and region. 208n66. 7. 195n45. 161–62. 188n65. bees. 173n40. 185n21. 30. 11. 188n79. 142. 60. 33. 13. 183–84nn8–9. 169n67. 188n65. 171n11. 38. 225n119. 19. 189n94. 50. See also Alliterative Revivalism. 185n22. 48–50. 8–9. and Civil War. 182n197. 177–78n122 Amours. leopards. 190n97. 191n118. 157–59. 21. 74. 226nn3–6. 42. 68 America. wild. 175– 76nn86–87. 100–101. 29. 164n12. 34–35. 184n15.2 5 6 · I Nd Ex 82. baronial. 32. and war. 169n69. and Englishness. 24. 8. 2. 56. 196n49. . and Ronald Waldron. 31–32. 128. and ancestry. 161. 29. 40. 191n123. 175n84. 45–46. 110. 165n23. 182n183. 21. and war. 181n174. and criticism. 191n118. 66 Andrew. 101–3. 99. 26–27. monkeys. 44. and archaism. 4–5. 28. 103. 165n23. 32. 190n97. 206n40. 189n92. 159. as reductive. 161. the South of. 38–39. 201n108 Archibald. 165n29. 26–27. 32. 35–37. 57. 173n34. 3. 71 Archer. and racism. 188n76. 22. oxen. 8. 45–46. See also traditionalism Apulia. factitious. 198n71. 193n22. 21–23. 19. 130. 187n52. 21. and Revivalism. wolves. 109. 80. 8. 4. 56. and gender.. 32. nostalgia. 175n86 Anglo-Saxonism. 161. 172n27. 14. 32. 201n101 Andrew of Wyntoun. 193n17. 227nn11–12. 190n117 antiquity. 22. and Revivalism. 70.. 58. Saxon-Norman animals. 199n83 aristocracy. 177n121. 187n53. 166n31. and humanity. 214nn5–6 Anglo-Saxons. 22. 14. 65–67. and modernity. 19–20. 132. F. 27. 169n69. 162. 188n69. 57. 28. 169n67. 89–90. 152–53. 211n99. bears. Elizabeth. 46. 226n3. boar. 170n82. 191n123. 66–67. race alterity. 186n27. skins of. Malcolm. 15. 7. 78. 63. 30–31. 61. and desire. 44–45. 172n16. 83. 180n158. 15–17. 40. 99. 88. 175n84. 11. 78. 6. 18. 163– 64n10. 161. and empire. 4. 54. 121. 190n113. 79. 178n22. 80–83. 190n103. 32. 175n84. 142. 173n33. 113. 94. 5. 53–55. 152. 158–59. and England. 11. 227n8. 66. serpents. 61–68. Northern. 133. and Mexico. Benedict. 203–204n7. 54–55. 31. and race. 59–61. dogs. 12. 103–4. 69. 56–57. 54. 173n40. 5. 176nn98–100. 32. 106–7. 129. 18–19. 166n35. 18. 194n33. eagles. 14. 29–32. 167n57. 14. 189n95. 190n97. See also werewolves anonymity: and agency. Germanic. and alteritism. 207n48. 165n23. 156. 24. horses. 189n94. deer. and fables. and nation. 31–32. 20. 2–3. character of. and language. 192nn15–16. 50. 210n93 Anderson. 54. 69. 54–70. 99. 43. 7. 76–77. 58–62. 17. 212n126. and nation. 195n45. 112. 89–90.
23. 212n128. 112. 84–89. 49. 221n80. 210n91 bare life. 175n86. 169n74. 222nn86–87. 206n40. 115 banning. Sarah. 60. 57. 180n170 Bertilak. 63. 207–8n56. romance Arthur and Gorlagon (Anonymous). 210n85 Backus. 211n99. William. See also Shaw backwardness. 116. 64. 201n112 Barth. 204n21 assimilation. and minstrelsy. 209n79. 216n25. 206n42. 63–64. 220n71. 195–96n47. 13 Bennett. 44. See also feudalism. 100–127. 209n79. patronage Arthour and Merlin (Anonymous). 199nn82–84. 121–22. and history. 195n45. 215n19. 144. 71 barbarism. Richard. 188n73 Ashcroft. Robert. 119. 68. and vision. 209n74. 72–75. 170n78. 164n12. 213n137. 198n68. 35. 199n86. 38. 121. 36. 128. 211n96. 43–44. Garreth Griffiths. 226n138. 73. 112 Astell. David. 47. 152. 81. and class. 41. 156. 36. 154–55. 81. 174n54 Barber. 212n123. See also technology Bale.. 212n128. 201n101. 225n133 Barrell. 84–87. 141. 208n59 Awntyrs off Arthure (Anonymous). dialect of. 181n179. 27. 136. 224n114. 79–80. 37. See also civil war. 33. Roger. 70–71. 170n79. 219n51. 183n5 Bartra. 207n55. 4.. 205n32. Richard. 221n83. 208n66. 118. 216–17nn27–28. 129. 38–39. 212n132. 199n86. 182n189. singularity Avowyng of Arthur (Anonymous). 209n75 Beattie. 24. 224n116. 220n73. 57. 197n59. 225–26n133. 90. 207n55. 100. 221n83 authorship. 14. and prosody. 89–93. and Scotland. 22. 194n28. and Juliette Barker. 184n15. 154–55. 132. 223n101. 191–92nn2– 4. 74–75. 210n83 Barrett. 20. 189n90 Barney. See also anonymity. 160. and Helen Tiffin. 175n86. 5. 191–92n4.. 179n144. 15. 47. scribes. 199n80. 47. 117. 202n124 Beckwith. Jr. 29. Bill. 92. 15. 38 Bartholomaeus Anglicus. M. 5. and empire. animal. 79. 206n43. 201n108 beauty. 76–77. 225n130. 122. 223n104 Balliols. multiplicity. Fredrik. 169n74 becoming. and responsibility. and origins. 50. 56–68. 135. King. 55. 30. 192n8. 191n123 Bede. 196n53. 179n135. 14. 225n124. 217n37 Benson. Robert W.. 114. 176n100. 211n112. 114. 176nn90–91 Bernheimer. 212n132. 99 Bennett. 86. Ann W. 96–97. A. 208n60. 111–12. 15. 128. 50. 218n46. 216n24. collaboration.. 107. 61. 196n54. 225n124 Bartlett. 220n62. 40. and England. 213n138. Helen. manuscripts of. and editing. 15. . 196n52. 212n115.. Truman J. 113. 103–19. date of. Celtic. 91–93. 196nn50–51. 10. 197n65 Barr. 51. D. 221n80 Benzie. 95. 126–27. 138. 199n86. 210n94. 205–6n35. Cordelia. 98. 76–77. 76–78. 220–21n75. C. 71. 27–29. 198n75.. 59–60. Stephen A. 209nn76–78. 197nn60–62. and prosody. John. Michael J. 112. 194n31. 219–20n56. 94–99. 200n92. 45. 15. 5. 94–96. 49. Judith M. 208n58. 136. of outsiders.INdEx · 257 187n43. and language. 52 Arthur. 98–99..
127. 220n73 Bristol. Charlotte. 207n49. manuscripts. 204n23. 108–9. 61–62. 81. 208n69 Bruce. and multiplicity. 100. Vulgate. Elizabeth J. Daniel. and Empire. 186nn37–38 bureaucracy. 175n80... 71 Brewer. See also Rigg Brigham. 76–77. and nation. 43 Bryan. 215–16n21. and markets. 173n31 book production. 19. 100–127. 199nn82–84. 208n69 Brutus. 113. 210n85. and Arthur. 83. and cities. 6. 182n194. 106. 221n80. 211nn106–7. 211n104. 227n15 Burrow. 81–82. 194n40. 119–20. 166n39. 208n57. 28. 168n59. 131. 207–8n56 Birrer. 22 Camden. 199n86.. 153–54. Nichols. 44. 186n36. and community. 206–7n45. 104–7. Caroline Walker. 206–7n45. 166n43. 96. 198n68. 203n138 Bestul. 183n5. 59. 136. 222n93. 154. 205n31. Anglo-Welsh. 156. 117. R. 139. 170n80. 112–13. See also centralization. 221n81. 116. and Stephen G. 166n39. 141. 194n33. John. 23. Paula. 167n55. print. 157. 5. 49. 168n64. 58. 168n62 Bloch. Nicholas. 205n31. 213n137. 220n57. 186n34. 158. 208n61. 107. 167n52. 138. John. 207n48. 170n78. 167n55. 29. 214n5. David. 57. and Westminster. 20–22. 113. 15. 204n18. 93. 196n54. 137. 190–91n118. 176n94 Braude. 210nn88–89. 106. 169–70n69. 183n7 Bynum. 179n150 Blank. gender. 209n72. 216n25. 218n44. Michael. 208n69. 220n73. 210n91. 87–89. 184n13 . R. Marie. Henry. 169n72. 131. 12. AngloScottish. 208nn61–62. 154–55. 122. See also Southwest Midlands Britain. 166n34. 44. 212–13n132. 105–17. 8. scribes Burnley. 172n18. and war. 88. 3. 15. 216n22. 80. 153. 214n13 But. 196n53. 57. 196n53. 94. Thomas. Pierre. 218n42. 36. William. 182–83n2. 109 Bruce (Barbour). 58–59. H. 40. 96. 180n158. 52. 3. John. 117. 159. 111. 223n98. 15. 12. and empire. 213n137 Borroff. and power. 157. Thomas H. Benjamin. 36. and Steve Boardman. 169n69. 227n10. 6. 205n26 Brown. 11–12. 142. 76 Bourdieu. 6. 205n30 Bowers. 136–37. Howard. 118–19.. 69. 206–7n45. 164n12. 82. 224n117 Biddick. 208n69. 211n104 Bunt. Kathleen. 129–31. 161. 175n84. F. 26. G. 182n186 Bible. 211n111. 103. 9. 210n85. 8. 215n19. 4. and fluidity. 215n18.2 5 8 · I Nd Ex 202n132. 108. 222–23n93 Bowers. 126. 226n3 biopolitics. 209–10nn82–83. 159. 112–13. class. 63–64. 188n69 Cable. 8. 188n69 Blake. and poetry. Robert the. 222–23n93. 215n17. 78. and nation. 165n29. 197n65 Caedmon. 114. 104. N. V. 27. ethnic. 209nn71–72. H. 90 Bradley. 130–31. and states. 177n116. 1. 54–55. clergy. scribes borderlands. 33. 215–16n21. See also scribes Butterfield.. 10. 212n128. 211n106. 178n135 boundaries. 81. See also collaboration. 167n55. 217n35. 186n31 Birkholz. Doryjane. 223n97 Buke of the Howlat (Holland). 105–6. 100. 58. 147–48. 114. 216n25. Ardis. 193n18. 165n29 Braunde. 207n56. 211n104. 130.
96. 114. 94. 167–68n58. 202n119 censorship. 197n60. 203n137 Chepman. 194n36. See also provincialism. Dipesh. and the Pardoner. 191n118. 82. 101. 168n58. 37. 38. 10. 225n120. 76–78. 80. religion chronicle. 210n91. 208n57. 177n103. 215–16n21. 2–5. symbolic. 119. 56. 186n31. 126. 45. 106. 170n78. 177nn108–9 Chandler. 7. 36. narrative. 147–48. and the Parson. print-. 51–52. London centralization. 121. 13. and force. 202n119. and Andrew Myllar. 63. Bernard. 15. 87. 43. 87. wealth capitalism. 167nn54– 55. and the Wife of Bath. 20. and biopower. 79. 226n138 Chakrabarty. 29–30. 42. 110–12. and Troilus and Criseyde. 125–26. 25. 6. 204n21. 5. 11. 221n83. 79. 93. 44. 89. royal. 23. 207n48. 49. 156. 45–46. 76. 16. 213n138 chivalry. 36. 159. 180n173. 100–101. 76. See also capitalism. 213n137. 96. cultural. R. 87–89. 200n94. 129. 5. 90–91. 249n50. Arthurian. 77. 82. 224n112. 84–85. 212n114. 77. 31. 90. See also community. 20. and difference. 11. 98. 208n69. 95. 7. See also romance Cicero. 96–97. 5. 13. 224n114. S. 64. 23. 36–37. Chaucer and. See also industrialism Carlisle. 174n52. 168n59. 214n5 Carson.. 37 Chambers. and the French. 104. 69–70. 190n117. 36. 105. 32. 85. 9–10. 212n137. 49. 69–70. 167n53. instability. 115–17. 183n8. 133. 197n59. 114–15. Christine. 5. metropolitan. 141–42. 205n30. 159. and power. 78. and France. 108. 9–12. 94. 61. 22. 194n28. 38. proto-. 128. 205n30. 194n33. 41–42. 198n77. 208n58. 55. 215–16n21. M. 129. 51. 161–62. and language. 186n34. 3. 185n22. 11. 134. See also Northwest Midlands Cheuelere Assigne (Anonymous). and class. 47. 125. 93. 33. 115. hierarchy. 40. 135. 6. 42. 19. 166n39. 11–13. 40. 25–26. 100–102. and land. 98–99. 201n113. 91. and modernity. 3–4. 29–30. 219n49. 226n4. 199n83. 129. 222n91. 107. 79–81 Chaucer. 102. metrical. Thomas. 208n68. Walter. 110. 46. 13. 133. 46. corporate. 125–26. 139–44 centrality: authorial. 169n74 Chism. 178n22 civilization. 31–32. 22. 39. Angela. 193n17. 80. 56. 180n170. 214nn140–41 Christendom. 126. 7. 187n60. 84–85. 91–93. 5. 59. and difference. 21.. 121–22. 121. 210n88. and . 157. Geoffrey. 97. 68. as Western. 218n45. state. 172n16. See also courtliness Clanchy. 214n12 capital. 117–19. Alice. 64. 206n44 Chester. 195n46. 105. Michael. See also Arthur Camille. 168n58. See also state Cerquiglini.INdEx · 259 Camelot.. 111. 127. 166n39. 82. W. 217n37. 19–20. 168n64. 224n110. 43. 218n40. and peripheries. 125. 21. 50–52. 187n50. 212n128. 141. 211n112. 219n49. U. and surveillance. 79. T. 112. 98–99. 209n76. 125–26. 17. and Empire. 90 Celts. 158–59. 56 Cannon. 167n57. 74–75. 128–29. 225n128 civil war. 11. 175n80 Chapman. 184–85n21. 119. 52. 30–31. 211n112. 131–32. 202–3n133. Christopher. 118. Coolidge Otis. 193n21. 207n49. and war. 78. 222n86 class. and anxiety. 158. 75. 168n58. 205n33. 130. See also North Carlyle. 57. 195n46.
216n24. 69–70. 14. 170n38. 187n60. Peter. 178n30. 194n28. 77. 225n119 Crusade: Albigensian. 129. violence Cleanness (Anonymous). and land. 80. and aristocracy. 65. 50. 33. and love. 190n101. 175n84 Crowned King (Anonymous). 136–39. symbolic. 168n58. Robert. 166n39. 159. 89. 161. 73–75. 134. 38. 59. 189n82 Coss. 56. 36. 173n33. 86–87. 183n8. 19. 158. 158. 198n72 Crawford. . 38. 100–103. 14. 54. 196n53. 219nn49–50. Norman. 135. 3. 19. Norman. 51–52. 78. 41–42. 217n35. 161. 112. 79. 192n16 courtliness. 120. 27. 195–96n47. 7–9. 204n22. 50–52. 193n19. media community. Susan. 18. and desire. 134–56. and coteries. 49. 100. 56. Robert. 166n34. 41–42. and literature. 190n98. 22–23. 198n69. local. 81. and nation. 59. 62–67. 180n173. 218n43 consumption: of material goods. 13. networks. 82. 188n79. 168n59. 182n183. 189n95. 187n52. and rebellion. 221n80. 52. 222n87. Fourth. 166n43. 94–99. 223n97. 18. 224n114. 169–70n77. See also epochality. 96. 218n40. 198n78 Coghill. 227n10 Colls. and women. 136. 16. See also Britain Conlee. 150–51. 205n26 collaboration: on estates. 131. and historiography. 173n40 comedy. 76. 207n48. 169–70n77. 92–93. 50. 220n71. 31. 7. 150. 226n6. 5–8. 215n19. 84. 76–77. 171n11. 42. 78. 62. 75. 191n120. 191n123. William. See also aristocracy. 65. 52–56. 222n88. 109. 94. 165n26. 193n18. 227n8 Davis. and intellect. 167n53 Day. 58. 97. 8. Jeffrey Jerome. 8. 178n124. and textuality. 226n3. genealogy Cooper. 133–34. 187n60 communication. working. 84. 153. 197n62 continuity. 136–43. 214–15n15. and romance. 218n42. 158. political. John. peasants. 56. 80–81. and Robert Steele. 211–12n113 Davies. 156. 139. 165n26. 206n40 Crane. textual. 194n38. and empire. John W. 113. 24. 211n111 Davis. 96. 191n120. 148. 121. 222n86 Clerk of Tranent. and language. 172n18. 38. 219n50. labor. 41–42. 175n84. 70. 82. Linda. See also censorship. 188n65. 220n62. 176n88 clothing. 14. 182–83n2. 80. 50. 220n67. 50. Helen. Walker. Kathleen. 159. 37 Cohen. 193n26. and hunting. 48–49. R. 99. political. 181n177. 201n18 Connor. 191n2. 132. 155–56. 45–47. 105. 218n45. 76–77. 130. 15. 99.. 68–70. 162. 129–31. 56–57. 74. of poetry. 80 clergy. 149–50. 58. 93. 32. 68. 66. 175n83 Creole identity. 20. 49. 173n30. R. 190n102 Davies.. 197n62 Craigie. and prosody. Mabel. and America. 96–97. 131. 4–5. 226n136. 13. 15. and ethnicity. 41. 204n22. 165n29. 52. and technology. 71. 185n27. 8. 80. 48–49. 7. 27. 153. 7. 197n59 conservatism. medieval-modern. 79. 181n182. 85. 166n35. 36–37. 193n21. 156. 100–104. 77. 223n97 Colley. 191n124 Cummins. 142. 194n33. 172–73n29. 55–57. 158–59. 130. 11–12. 225n120. 67. 72. 61. and writing. 166n41. 131. 5. 184n15. Nevill.2 6 0 · I Nd Ex socioeconomic mobility. 29–30. 70. 50. 86–90. 33.
45–46. 176n90. 108–9. 4. 98. 202n130. 123. 161 doubleness. 170n82. 160. Gilles. 27–28. 34. and anti-imperialism. 158n80. 171n9. 15. 153. See also Kane Donoghue. 206n42.. and Revivalism. 77. 211n104. 101 Early English Text Society (EETS). 10. 179n143. 212n119 Deibert. scribes Donaldson. 62. law. 221n79 Emerson. 212n130 Edward III. 181n177. 157 Diefendorf. 39.. 13. 156. 186n31. 12. 220n57. Ronald J. 108–11. 16. 166n39. 81. and ethnicity. 159. 223n101 dreams. I. 220n66. 51. 207n56. and Turville-Petre. 200n96 Douglas. 15. and power. 173n30 Douglases (Black). 120. 4. 16. 183n7. 221n78. 19. 132. 117. 37. 159. Carolyn. A. 179n144. 132. 170n82 documents. 105. 12. E. 210n85. and militarism. and language. 196n53. 61. 34. 219n49. 195n46. 16. 127. 166n43. 114. 71. 132. 35. Ralph Waldo. 139. 48. EETS. 157. 68. 8. 175n84. 191n124 Edinburgh. Talbot. 189n82. 174n52 Duggan. recovering. 16. 41. 210n89. Barbara B. 199n83. 19. 88. 136–43. 22. 112. 30. and Félix Guattari. 220n68. 34. 205n31. 8. 32–33. 132. Jacques. 110–11. 5. 14. 192n6. 28. William. G. 176n88 Dunn. S. 189n83 demographics. 39–40. 168n62. 135 Edward I. 11. 2. post-national. See also bureaucracy. 42. 178n124 Dinshaw. 98. 199nn85–86. 185n27. 119. 212n132 Edwards. 92–93. 86. 4. 54. digital. 88. 211n106 Doyle. 211n111. 182–83n183 Declaration of Arbroath. 14. 159. 132. 225–26n133. 118–19. 75. 181n180. 202n125. 108. Revivalist. 215n17. 16. 96. 194n30. 6. 20. 71. 141. 126. 6. 42. 142–43. Hoyt N. 89–93. 189n84. 227n15 Deleuze. 50. and immigration. 103. 182–83n2 doom. .. 42–43. 171n11. 187n57. 162. 106. Charles W. 208n69. 197n61. 222n88. 210n84. occlusion of. and criticism. and literary history. 218–19n39. 208n69. 204n22. 217n30. 100. 28. 2–3. 182n196. 43. 38. 88. 61–62. 19. 122. 14–15. 207n47. and variation. 201n101. 41–43. 210n91. 9. 119. 216–17n27. 176n92 Eastern culture. economic. 32. 63. 180n158. 35. 189n82. 20. 107–8 editions.. 227n20 desire. 184n13. 106... 195n46 Dunbar. medieval. 215n17. 95. imperial. 37–38. 100–104. 218n42. 172n18. 218n42. 71. 14. and gender. 136. 93. 117. Daniel. 84. Byzantine. 50. emendation in. 8. 219n53. 74. 17. 9. and collapse. 34. 138. 39. nationalist. 108. rural. and anxiety. 154–55. 50. 76. 36. 46–47. 208n62. 115. 136. 74. 173n40. 13. 159. 112. 131.. 151–53. 5. 21. 37–38. 112–13. 2–4. 187n57 dynamism. 186n33. 73. 50.INdEx · 261 224n114 death: and identity. 78. 169n71 empire. 225n128. 186n36. 18–19. religious. 36–37. 118. 75. and criticism. 204–5n26. 121–22. 7. 194n39 Embree. 207–8n56. 77. 192n8 Derrida. 106. 220n74. and titles. 37. 227n12. and print. 78. 131. 110. 70. 103. 194n33. 206– 7n45. A. David C. 110. 211n109 education: and nation. 215n20. Dan.
race Europe. 20. militarism. 121–22. 224n108. 69–70. 28. Northern. Susanna G. Scotland. and conquest. and nation. 199n87. 140. 68–69. 158. 181n177. 2. 161. 121–22. 11. 7. 54–55. 18. 164n21. 69–70. 185n27. 185n18. 9. 101–103. 48–50. 52. and . 222n91. 1. 44. and atavism. 101–104. 69. 56–57. 158. 26. 14. 83. 2. 15. language. 129. Anglo-Saxons. 68–69. 12. 227n21. 115. 212–13n132. 105. 104. 7. 112. 23. 2. 160. 175n84. 17. 197n62. 5. 169n67. 184n15. 52.2 6 2 · I Nd Ex 126. 225n129 Federico. 20–26. 62. 121–22. 6. 103–4. 87. 9. and modernity. 128 exceptionalism: aristocratic. 161. and history. 100–101. 161. See also alterity. 77–78. 30. 39. 204n21.. 66. 201n108. 74. 17.178n130. and Elizabeth Scala. 13. 13. 15. 24. England. 80. 9–12. 129. as state. and war. 35 Ferster. 202n125. English. 2–4. state England. 1. 14. and patriotism. 3. 117. 36. 7. 5. 170n78. 47. 169n71. and criticism. 161–62. 6. 21. 194n33. 18. Lucien. 9. 109. 170n78. 109. and nation. 7. and Henri-Jean Martin. 147. 126. 29–32. Old. 46–47. 13. 20. Revivalist. and empire. 211n111. 27–32. 51–52. 103. 6. 43. 213n137 Everett. 199n86 fantasy. 5. 120. 15. as Continental culture. 175n84. 78. 45–48. 171n16. 89. Middle. 1. 217n39. 56. 26–28. 14. 51–53. and historiography. 19. and Englishness. 114. 122. 115. 99. 190– 91n118. 14. 104. 5. and Revivalism. 227nn8–11. 154. 192–93n16. 128–29. 104–5. 79. 22. 64. 8. 157–60. 196n54. 110. and modernity. and difference. 219n49. Britain. 170n78. 9. 210n88. 79. 8. 209n78. 19. 13. 20–26. 163n6 Fein. 105. 50. 42–44. 21–22. Normans English. 7. 109. 39. 16. 31. 128. 69–70. 171n10. 164n11. and ethnie. 209n75. 7. 68. 79. 9. 107. 166n35. 132. 46. 218n42. 7. 186n31. 2. 71. Arthur. Sylvia. 39. residents. 20. 194n36. 26. and race. 25. 210n88. 71. 14. 44. 20. 88. 183n7. 36. and criticism. 212–13n132. 30–31. 48. 69. 22. 167–68n58. and assimilation. 112–15. 4–5. 46. medieval. 182n194. 177n105. 18. 29– 30. 177n109. 22. 48. 227n17. Judith. and race. 111. 195n45. 16. 32 Febvre. 184–95nn7–8. 33. and nation. 169n71. 20. 11–13. 187n50. 184n13. 45–49. 18. and war. 114. 36. 6. 183n5. 85–87. 33. 173n34. 25–37. 103. See also Alliterative Revivalism. 4. 200n91 evolutionary criticism. 7. 33. 17. and Scots. 221–22nn83–84 feudalism. 4. 219n49 ethnicity. 73. 87. 14. 102 estate: management. and nation. 4. 2. 2–3. 169n68. See also Arthur. 175–76n87. medieval. 172n26. 135. 75. 9. and anxiety. 90–92. 10. 14–15. 164n19. 161 expansionism. 228n26. 13. 5. 8. 125. continuity. 19. and nation. 174n52. 109. 106–7. 157–62. rulers of. 204n21 epochality. 47. 25. 7. and French. 17. language. 148. borderlands. and race. 37. genealogy. 207n47. and class. 189–90n96 Enlightenment. 192–93n16. and law. 99. 20. 23. 128. and empire. 22. 25–26. 5–6. 8–9. 32–36. 29–30. 4. 43. 75. 209n78. 175n83 English Channel. Dorothy.
205n31. 63–64. 73–74. 210nn83–85 Galloway. Albert B. and race. 9. 194n30. 82. 87. 99. 200n96. 2. 174n52. 90. 114. 52. 228nn24–25 gender. 192–93nn15–16. 161. 189–90n96. 200n92 Fries. 209n81. 210n91. and misogyny. 83. 77. 77. 227n10. 90–93. 48–49. 208n58. 224n112. 80. 103. 14. 90. 88–89. 44. 87–88. and language. 198n78. 118–19. 176n90. 85 French (language). 86. 209n79.. Shichtman. 105–6. 96. 177n116.. 72. 166n39. 51–52. 183–84n9. 50. and maintenance. 202n125. Niles. 15. and modernity. Rosalind. 205n26 Furnivall. 133. and aristocracy. 29. 68–70. See also civilization. Sheila. 187n52 Finke. O. 182n194 Gellner. 14. 208n63. 169n69. 15. 14. 3. 202n121. and lordship. 190n96 Gates. 142. 14. 121–22. 157. 83–99. 74. 164n19. 191n121. 29. 188–89n91. 61. and masculinity. Robert J. Henry Louis. Laurie A. 74. Jerold C. 204–5n26 Fisher. 53–54. 76–77. 158–59. 175n79. 3.INdEx · 263 gender. 210n88. 90–92. 190n13. 160. 91–92. 54. 203n138. 217n39 Frakes. 68. Normans Frantzen. 11. 194n31 Fortune (Lady). 199n87 Frame. and Revivalism. 199n85. Maureen. 13. 46. 199nn87–88 Foucault. and Martin B. 191n2. Galloway. 47–48. 184n11. Jr. 94. 15. 176n92 Gadamer. 218n44 Ganim. 7. 186n30. 31. and empire. 19. 210n94. 199n80. 65–66. 145. 22. 206n42. 126. 5. 184n13 Galeron. 192n4. 56.. 205n31 France. 186n31. 78. and England. 111–12. agents. 36. 219n49 Fuchs. 22. 49. B. 184n13 Friedman. 198n68. C. 183n3.. 105. Hans-Georg. 78. and nation. 7. 174n52. 84–87. 50. 195n45 Fradenburg. 189n82. 124–26. 193n26. 49. and anxiety. 110. 112–13. 185n21. and female power. Biblical. 213–14n139. 19–20. Ernest. and Francophobia. 148. 63–64 foreignness. 83. 21. 8–9. 194–95n40. 173n32. 110–18. 15. 192n10. 89–90. 4. 85–87. 177n104 Gates. 32. 205n34 filth. 73. 178n133 Gardener. 27. 136. 105. 23. 4. 86–87 genealogy. 165n23 freedom. 202n124 Fryde. Wirral. 192n4. 76. Allen J. Robin. in England. 160. and Chaucer. 50–51 Field. 186n31. 209n78. 152–56. 5. 6. 227n16. and criticism. 74. V.. 114–16. 117–18. 200–1n97. 211n109 Geary. 171n10. 22. 199n82.. 54–66. and xenophobia. 110–15. 72–78. 210nn93–94. 185n22. 191n118. 28. 127. 108. 178nn124–25. 41. 80. 168n59. Andrew.. 95–98. 76–78. 161. 132. 24–25. 174n52. 15.. 202n127. 225n123. and Francophilia. Barbara. 104. 42. 72. 86. 46. 87. 199n88. 185n25. 155. 30. 192–93n16. 188n67. 14. 32. and John D. . 57–58. 190n101. 118. 63. 21. 183n7. Patrick J. 45–49. 67. 99. 46–47. 31. 134. 164n13 Galbraith. 33.. 172n25. 110–19. 196n56. and queens. and gender. 225n128 Gaston Phébus. 23. 209n79. F. 123–27. 5.. 183n7. J. 220n59. 42–43. 163–64n10. 200n94 food. 20. Aranye. 62. 43. 211n109 Gawain. 123–26. 99. 213nn135–36. 26. Michel. and poetry. 119–20. 66. 194–95n40. 187n60. 25. 209n73. E. 49. 31 forest. L. John.
103–9. antiquity Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy (Clerk). 21. 187n43 Golagros. 68. and desire. 92–94. 15. 55–56. 23. and poetry. 12. 107–8. 181n177. 179n145. 9. 227n9 Greetham. 214n140. 120. 212n119 Gollancz. 111. Israel. 37–41. 131. 122. 78. 109. 71. 46–71. 106. James. 174n44. 112. Revivalist 3. 184n10.2 6 4 · I Nd Ex 165n29. Eleanor Prescott. 87. 39. and class. 198–99nn79– 80. 160. 216n22. 48. 118. 173n32. 183n3. 31. 155. 48. 15. John M. Liah. 85–86. 115. 110–11. 154. 182n194. 121. and ethnicity. R. 168n64 Given-Wilson. print of. 27–28. 165n23. 50. 181n177 Girouard. 178n30. 28. and race. 188n65. False. 176n94. 191–92n4. 206n40. manuscript of. 8. 205n33. 207n56 geography. and ethnicity. 225n127 Graham. Richard Firth. 35–39. 32. 80–81 Germanic culture. 14. 158–59. 107. 193nn26–27. 89. 87. 208n57. 75. and England. 219–20n56. 38. 85. 169n69. 93. 167n47. John. C. Thomas. meter of. 74. 153. and Guido delle Colonne. 128–29. 99. 198n68. dialect of. 68. dating of. 213nn138– 39. 197n62 Geoffrey of Monmouth. 76. 114. 207n47. III. 4. 212n116 Gray. 57. See also AngloSaxonism. and criticism. 211–12n113 Hahn. 51. 182n183 Goodman. 3. 161. 199n84. John. D.. 132. 79. 81. 65. 214n14. medieval. John.. 184n10. 34. 187n60. 221–22n84 Greenfeld. as audience. 100. 22–23. 183n3. 199n84. 203n137 Guillaume de Palerne (Anonymous). 127. 87–99. 18–19. 213n138. 228n21. 219n50. 108. 15. Graham. 163–64n10. 208n69. 116. 69. 189n84. 2. 228n26. 14. 166n31. 49. 214n140 Golagros and Gawane (Anonymous). and Guinevere’s mother. 170n82. 2. 80. 19. Ralph. 183n7. source for. 193n19. 225n126 gentry. 189n92. 224n115 Ginsberg. See also ghosts Hadrian’s Wall. Frank. 206n44. 128 Hammill. 208n58. 87. date of. 25. 198n71. 187n60. 212n123. 215n20 Hanawalt. 191n123. 214nn5–6. 211n112 Giancarlo. 4. Barbara A. 76–77. 165n29. 209n71 Greeks. 116. 171n4 Genghis Khan. 103. 25–26. 114. 40. 179n143. Chris. and nation. 34.. 21. 89–90. 165n23. 195n46. 207n53. 218n42 grotesquerie. 119. 163n5. 213nn134–36. 207n50. 96. 81. 201n112. 163n15. 167n48. 213n135. Matthew.120. 136. 199n86. 120. Anthony. 189–90nn96–97. 150. 182n194. 208n58. Warren. 213n134. 189n94 Gower. 22. 198n77. 191n120 Hanna. 17–18. 114. 12. 78. 10 Grady. 207n47. 194n28. 179–80n158. 197n58. 183n3 Grant. 227n10. 175n86. 205n31. 107. 74. 43. . 55–56. 224n108. 5 Guinevere. Alexander. 198n68. 176n90. 164n20. 198n77 Green. Mark. 81 ghosts. 122–27. 207–8n56. 206n38. reception of. 119–27. Reuben Post. 117. 169–70n77. and Revivalism. 185n25 Guillory. 214n140 Halleck. 189n95 Hammond. 108–9. 213n133 Goldstein. 11. 27. 47. 42. 6. 211n103 Gottfried von Strassburg.
8. 114. Ian Macleod. 162. 30–31. 29. Eric. 179n145. and nation. 69–70 Hundred Years’ War. 80. 6–11. 57. 38. 26. 204n18. 97–99 Hayles. 195n41. 133. 190–91n118. 227n15 Helgerson. 164n21. 162. 11. 196n50. 206nn42–43. 175n83. 38. ethnic. 175n84. 135. 54. and the green girdle. Thomas. 6–9. 95. 148. 224n114. 213n133. 7. 189n94. 224n112 Ingham. 188n79. 217n28. 175–76nn86–87. Bruce W. 214n6 Huchown of the Awle Ryale. and ideology. 13. Michael. 100–101. 166n39. 219n53. 195n44. 172n27. R. 207n55. David V. 182n191. 158–59. 20–21. and race. 210n85 hybridity. 27–29. 79. 176nn99–100. cultural. 129. 198n71. 14. 205n34. 7. 193n22. 168n58. James. 87–88. 21. 227n9 Henry IV. 119. 177n103. 142. 74. 194n33. 77. 102. 166n39. 218n45. 184n11 Hoccleve. N.INdEx · 265 169n73. continuity. 180n158. 46–47. 166n39. 9–11. 81. 103. 133. 190n97. 206n38 Ingledew. 76. 6. Thomas. 92. 204n23. and positivism. 204nn21–23. 59. 207n47 . 46–47. 189n90 Horobin. 121. 137. 111. 81–82. 59–60. 5. 42–43. 192.. 224n116 heraldry. and historicism. 182n191. 173n40. 21. 24–25. 191n2. 215n17. 196n54 Hunt. 50. 183n8. bodily. and desire. Adrian. 65. 200n92 Humphrey de Bohun. 57.. and Michelle R. Katherine. 5. 204n21 Holstun. Richard. 218n40. Reginald. 151. 182n194 Ireland. 90–93. 199n82. 17. 204n21. 116. 202n121. 36.. Patricia Clare. Walter S. 165n23. 69. 146–47. N. 103. 200n91 historiography. 5. 81–82. 157–62. 196n51. 104. 212n126 Holsinger. 70. 63. 159. epochality. 174n44. 218n40. 225n126 Higham. 173nn31–32. 78. 162. and politics. 124. 135. 189–90n96. 194n30. 177n105. 15–16. 4. 181n181 hunting. 185n25. 169n69. 85. 103. 122. 12. 11. 214n15. 97. 176n94. 117–18. 21–22. Alan. 19–20. 108. 6. 213n135. Kenneth. 63. 20. 188n69. 213n138 Hardt. 7. Warren. 206n37. 227n8 Hautdesert. 218n40 homogeneity. 100. 150. Rodney. manuals. 198n78 Hey. 207n56 Hill. 142.114. 219n49 Hinchman. 78. 58–59. 83. 137. 21. 215n15. 105–6. 202n132. 72–73. 26. 67. 135. 158. J. J.. 165n29. 190n101. 185n27. 158. 46–47. 197n63 Higgins. 25. 10. 19. cultural. 226n4. Frances. 208n68. 215n18 Horsman. 21–22. 222n57 Hodges. 193–94nn27–28. 178n122. 217n38. 166n34. David. 93. 208n66 Hulbert. 60–61 Hobsbawm. 61. Simon. 51–52. economic. 182n183 Hastings. 67. 169n67. 158. 75–79. 159. See also alterity. 7. 167–68n58. 102. literary history Hobbes. and invasions. 204n22. 26. Christopher. 166n33. 116. 99. 221n77 Husband. 104. 63. 172n27 Hilton. 227n13 Harrington. 228nn25–26 homo sacer. 193n19. 78. 194–95n40.. 117. 60–61. 49. and Antonio Negri. 171n10. Timothy. 210n185. 199n86. 205n32. 208n57. and David Lawton. 3. 169n71 industrialism. 180n158. 48. metrical. 13. 166nn33–34. 43.
and power. 28 Jusserand. 66. 219n48. George. peasants Lady (Sir Gawain). 170n80. 10–11. 114 Johnston. 173n30. 113. 88–91. 122–23. 178n133 Kerby-Fulton. 115. See also sovereignty. 45–49. 153. 73–78. 224n115. 220n57 Kruger. 191n2. 99.. 66–67. 202n124 Lady of the Lake. 208n60. 133. and desire. 105. 218n44. scribal. 156. and anxiety. 200–1n97. 133. 101. George.. agricultural. 160. 10. 90189n84. 185n25. 215n19. 77. 200n96. 59. 134. 95–96. 42. W. and justice. 14. 214–15n15. 191– 92n4. 82–83. 46–47. 216n24. 15. 33. 122–24. 120. 197n59. 211n112 Lancelot (Vulgate). 225n125. Kathy. 217–18n39. 163n8 Kedourie. 202n132 land. 42. 109. 43. Jerry D. 150. 202n127. 17. 13. 56. 214–15n15. 22. and empire. and class. 144–45. 19. grants. 25. 165n26. 219nn49–50. 43. J. 26. S. 183– 84n8. 51. 45–46. and Steven Justice. 165n30 Keiser. Carolyne. 31. 63. . 104–5.. forest. 226n3 Lancelot. Lisa. D. and literature. 171n11 Joseph of Arimathie (Anonymous). 223n98 kingdoms. 50. 218n44. Samuel. 216n22. 219n50. as territory. 185n22 Justice. 27. 170n78. 200n92 Knapp. state Kinser. and corruption. Lisa. 182n183. Steven F. and class. 209n79. J. 15. 116–17. Steven. 63–66. Krishan. 187n43. 108–19. 217n44. 166n33. 139. See also Russell Kant. 219n50. 119. 224n111. clerkly. P. 171n8. 79. 114. 212– 13n113. and vernacularity. George Lyman.. 213n137 Kane. 97–99. 184n11. 68 Isidore of Seville. 59. 6. literary. 1. 170n80. and nation. sales. 182n184. 226n136. Immanuel. 142. 217n37. 222n89 James. 190n97 Kittredge. 114. 132. 53. 29–30. 208n68. See also class. 202n127. 204n22 law. and power. 7. 168n62. 136. 148. and dialect. 32.. 212–13n132 labor. 169n74 Ker. Nicolas. 217n35. 19. 37. 100–101. 184n11. 214n138. Arthur. 136. Helen. 138. 225n123.. 154. 14. See also Kerby-Fulton Kaeuper. 191n121. 141. 46. and nation. 20. 152. and marriage. 221n77 Lavezzo. 191n118. 7.2 6 6 · I Nd Ex irony. Elie. R. 216n22. 21. Richard W. 70. 130. 221n81. 189n84. 202n130 kitchens. 132. 70. Sarah. 73. 180n173 Janssen. 207n48. 52–56. 98. 216–17nn27–28. 85–87. 215n15. 13. 20. 194n30. 35. and language. 218–19n48 John of Fordun. 114. 165n29 Jack. 131. 164n20. 14. 219–20n56. 194n36. 89–94. 95. 183n7. 147. 113. 213n134. 191n2. 203n139 Lampert. and ethnicity. See also Siege of Jerusalem Jewell. 51. 210n94. 216–17n27. Ethan. 79 Larrington. 225n128 Kumar. 213n134 Jacobs. 109. 209n78. Kathryn. 159. 211n96 language. 203n136 Kay. 22–23. 165n27. 122–25. 180n170 Kiser. and jurisdiction. 193n26 Latin. 89 Jerusalem. 6. and dispossession. and E. 181n179. 5. Donaldson. 168n58. 82. 48–49. Anke. 133–34. 49. 198n69. 215n15. . 38–40. 45–49.
191n120 Lawton. 21. Lancastrian. 129–31. 20–26. 170n79. 47. 159. 164n19. 12. and patronage. 141. 12–13. 160–61. 169–70n77. 169n68. 35. 79. See also Hanna Laȝamon. 157–62. 171n11. 108. 205n31. 130. 224n117 Lydgate. 199n82. 95–96. 210n86. and nation. 13. 147. 215n19. 6–7. Harley 78. 182n196. 71. 19. 199n80. 106. 85. Bodley 851. Jill. 112–13. 153 Lerer. and disciplinarity. 132. 207n56 Machan. 85. 135. 75. 215n19. 11. 193n27. Frederic. 128. 123. 195n45. 11. 171n8. 81–82. 6565. 164–65n22. 10 MacCracken. 166n33. 216n24.INdEx · 267 75. 179nn149–50. 223n97 legitimacy (political). 223n97. 226n138. 114. 21. Tim William. 14. and identity. and empire. 224n110. 24–26. and modernity. 93. 167n55. 61–63. 195nn46–47. Douce 95. 101. 177n121. 2–5. 225n131 literary history. 198n71. 215nn16–18. 77. 201n117. 206n42. and speech. 9. records. 84.ix. 214n13. and violence. 15. 154–55. and nation. 193n18. 40. Hugh A. 44. 45. Arsenal Fr. 197n57.38. 119–20. John. 156. 15. 227n15. 191–92nn4–5. 90. 221n80 Mann. 223n101. 14. 219n51. 18–21. 95. 6. 70. 175n84. 75–76. philology Loathly Lady. 197n62. 159–60. 184n15. Henry Noble. 171n11 Madden. 38–44. 101–2. 76. 184–85n17 libraries. 39. militarized. foundational. 83. 169n74. 184n10. 176n87 Macdougall. 219n51 London. 182–83n2. 216n25 manuscripts. Seth. 163n6. 203n139 Malory. 39. 202n121. 81. William J. 164n12. 13. 69. 107.14. 137–38. 137–38. and demographics. 79. 98. Laura Hibbard. CUL L1. 2–4. 25–26. 113. 150. 103. 12. 80. 167n52. 209n77. 198n79. 172–73n129. 217n28. 104–5. 21. 193n17. 133. 194n38 Luke. and race. 26–32. 119. 9. 160. 220n74. 147. 16. 79–81. and the Midlands. Ruth. 166n33. 174–75n65. 208n61. 200n93. 84. and nation. 31. 181n181. David. John. 13. 203n137 locality: and audience. 2–3. 44. 70. 197– 98n67.x. BL Additional 31042. 194n28. 201n117 Lollardy. See also Alliterative Revivalism. 162. 27. 84–85. 204– 5n26. 61. 222n87. Cotton Nero A. 85–86. and war. 221n77. 185n27. 13. . 136. 193n26. 195–96n47. 202n124. 77. 128–29 Loomis. 216–17n27 Mack. John. Cotton Caligula A. 30. 44. 173n30. 164n14. 194–95nn39–40. 184n11. 161. 177n104. 94–96. 34. 18–36. Digby 202. 106. 1–4. 156. 182n197. 211n112. 72.4. 115–17. 31. 136. 28–29. 200n91. 156 Long. 160. 7–9. 78. 117. 154. 90. 114. 114. 217–18n39. 133. 15. 196n51 Mandeville. 142–43. 185n27. 177n116. 127 Lochrie. Thomas. 106. 190n109. 189n82 magic. 190n113. Douce 324. 2. historiography. 87. 48. 194n39. 194–95n40. 125. 206n40. 132. 29. 63. 130.. 201n108. pressure of. 206n42. 127. and criticism. loyalties (political). 5. 9. 76–77. 217n29. 203–4n7. 121. 130–41. 157. sumptuary. and archives. 212n126 Man (Isle).. 82–83. 216n24. 59. 68. 225n126 Manly. 27–28. 170n80. 35–37. Karma. 37. BL Additional 41666.
1–2. literary history Mélion (Anonymous). 105–6 McIntosh. 70. See also antiquarianism. 212n132 Mazzio. 15. 56. 154. 107. 122–27. 15. 206n42. 23. 44 Marie de France. See also book production. 212n125 media. 159. 197n65. King’s College Cambridge MS 13. 14. manuscripts. 201n117. 188n79. 6. 99. 190n96 Mate. 19. 206n42. 226n137 Miles. 62. 106. 206n38. 47–48. 50. 197n57. and Robert Morss Lovett. 191n3.. 194n28. editions. 200n91 morality. 28. 68. 59. 194n33 militarism. 113. 13. and arbitrariness. 85. Harley 2253. See also trauma merchants. 204m22. 178n124. digital. 68. 164n21. 155. Pre-Raphaelite. 41. Anne. 31. 218n42. 181n182. and forgetting. 163n9. 1. 60. 172n16. 164n19. 61. 183n7. 163–64n10. 103. 72–79. 94–95. 83. Hunterian 38. 193n26 marriage. 25. 185n21 Moorman. 22 Minnis. 224n115. 212n129. Lambeth Palace 491. 118. 83. 199n85. 31–32. artificial. 66–67. 4. 116. 65. Charles. 121. 112. 13–14. See also borderlands. William. 114. 155. William Perry. 202n124. 224–25n119 Marvin. 214n14 Merlin. 35. 166n45 marginality. 171n10. 173n31. 227n15. David. 198n79. 198n79. 172n16. 195n46. 11. 148. Alastair. 224n117 medievalism. 94–95. 200–201nn92–97. 221n78 Matthews. Ireland Blackburn. See singularity Moody. 11. and Romanticism. 219n53. 160. 188n79. 199n88. 193n26. 8–12. 117. 44. 197n67. 81. 24–25. John. 88–99. 122. 201n108 Matthews. William Vaughn. 21. 201n117. 203n139 metamorphosis. 84–87. and nation. 209n74 Marsh. 69. 43–44. B. 173n34. scribes Mardorossian. and fear. 126. 106. 27. 14–15. 58. 181n174. Northwest Midlands. 215n16. 205–6n35. 82. 77. 176n92.. illuminated. and economics. 59–60 memory. 117. 61. 205n30. 101. 176n90. 13. 77. Carla. 202n124. 208n69. 133. 214n13. George Perkins. Angus. 176n90. David. 198n68. 202n119. 118–19. 202n119 Middleton. 153. 38. print medicine. 70–71. 85. 172n26. 60–61. 75. 196n50. 223–24n105 McCaffery. Carine. 50. amateur. 62. 72. 213n137. Mavis E. 145. 225n128 Mordred. 158–60. 225–26n133 Miskimin. 112. 69. 60–61. 169n74. 177–78n122. 105n32. 193n19. 21. K. 89. 150. media. 85. 202n126. Lincoln Cathedral 91. 199n83. 53–54. anti-. 171n8. 83. 156. Steve. 189n84. 227n15. 69. 108–11. 155–56. 62. 196n56. and ethics. 100–101. and Media Specific Analysis. 81–82. 207n53. 222n93. 210n85. 176n87 monolithic criticism. 21–22. 186n36. 83. 130. and conquest. 63. 87–88. 206n37. 160. . 11. mass. 64. and centrality. 54. 188n69. 110–11. 195n44. 193n26. ethnic. 74. 73–76. See also communication. 142. 206n42. 184n10. 63. 87. 15. 212n115 Morgan le Fay. 181n174. 168n64.2 6 8 · I Nd Ex 131. 168n58. and New Medievalism. 173n40. 163n6. 52. 76. 171n11. 173n34. and class. literary history. 26–27. 105–6. 129. 165n23. 158. 197n61. 41–44. 19. 54–55. 192n5. 224n107 McFarlane. and poetry. 135–36. professional. 8. 130. suffering Milton. Alice. 108. natural.
147. and Cumberland. 2. 9. 164n20. 20–27. 20. 224n107. 223n105. 13. 184n11. 136–43. 220n68. 215n18. 100–102. 219n53. 49. 196n50. 105. 172n27. language. and reduction. 227nn8–11. dating of. 190–91n118. See also Alliterative Revivalism. 178n124. 31. 19. 210n88. 5–7. 170n78. 227nn16–19. 146. 102–3. 203n135. 182n184. 131–33. and Lincolnshire. 136–43. medieval. 190–91n118. 164n20. and mythology. 40. 112–18. and capitalism. 137. 14. 12. 204n23. 44. 14. and fantasy. and desire. Susan Signe. 227n10. 197n67 Northwest Midlands. 220n66. 121. 22. 83. 225nn126–28. 166n39. 79. 184n15. 26. philology. and poetry. literary history. and state. 227n18 Nichols. 228n25. 168n64. 154–55. 12–13. dialect of. 175–76n87 Northeast Midlands. 5–6. 11. ethnicity. 35. 6–7. 156. 68. 48–49. and empire. George. authorship of. 12. 21 27. and criticism. 8. 20–22. 82. 210n89. 83. and modernity. 225n121. 143–44..INdEx · 269 202n128. 227n15. 4. 184n13. 126. and language. 21–22. 44. manuscript of. 214n13. See also SaxonNorman North (English). 134–39. 173n40. 74. 191n118. See also education. 206n36. 224n109. 105–6. 214n12. 199n82. industrialism. 81. and Conquest. 200n94 nations. homogeneity. 212n125. 180n170 Normans. 29. 106. 197n62. 101. 166n39. 161–62. 143–46. and anxiety. 53. 159. 186n35. 50–51. 228n24. 19. 13. 162 nature. 87. 79. 152. 132. 206n36. 183–84n8. and poetry. Richard. and ethnicity. 194n38. ethnicity. 175n84. 63–65. 14. 158–60. 76. 208n60. 205n31 Newman. 224nn114–16. 220–21n75. 101. 156. Gellner. 157. rhetoric nativism. 5–6. Stephen G. 4. 221n79. 186n30. 23. 115. 159. 195n41. 9. 25. 82. 223–24n105 Nolan. 183n3. 217n27. . 96. 187n60. 11. 225–26n133. 29. 225–26n133. Frank. Friedrich. Cynthia J. 209n72. and locality. 161–62. 173n40. and race. 46–48. 200n91 Neilson. 102–3. 16. 31–32. and textuality. 32. character of. 18. 196n50. 31. 144–45. 160. socio-material. 168n58. 227n20 noise. 176n94 Neville. 38. See also borderlands Northernness. and war. 26. and anachronism. 25. 220n73. 225n131. 11. 154–59. 198n79 multiplicity: and books. 196n53. and origins. 146. 187n52 Mort le Roi Artu (Anonymous). 7. Maura. as natural. 148–53. See also Bloch Nietzsche. 14. See also collaboration Mum. sovereignty nationalism. 142–56. 177n105. 161. 222–23n93. 87. 224nn113–14 Mum and the Sothsegger (Anonymous). 128. 209n78. 221n80. 129. Norman Yoke. 2. 203nn137–39 Morris. 195n45. 11. 45–49. 124. 38. 16. Gerald. 76. Elisa Marie. 212n128 Narin. 205n30. 83. 164n20. 11. 45–48. 5. 193n27. 80. 48. 2–5. 39. 172n27. 226n138. 27–28 Morrison. 78–85. 15.. 196n53. 107. 223n101. and forgetting. 227n21. 220n74. 157–59. 15. 169n68. 225n124. 156. 160. 223n104. 105. Anderson. 164n20. 56–61. 18. 28–29. 166n35. 19. 20–21. and Romanticism. 8. 103. 4. 224n119 Musgrove.
62–63. 164n14. 87. M. 196nn49–51. 180n158. 108. See also struggle orality. oppression of. 81. 52–56. 36. 199n86. 198n69. 221n80. 163n9. 152. 80 Paton. 187n60. 22. 212n130 Painter. 227n18. 131. 117–18. 151–54. 164n11. 80. public. 190n109. 77. 214n13. 77. 19. 68. 147. 218n43. 193n26. 44. 41. 111. 227n19 peasants.. 68. 41. 179n145. 96–97. 131. 51–52. 27. Richard. 202n130 parliament. 74. 219n53. 221n82. 51. and criticism. 182n189. 182n184. 81. 150. 211n99. 38.. 10. 195n46. 225n121 Ormrod. 195n44 Pearsall. 80. 133–34. 160. 134.. 215n17. 209n74 Orléans. 17. contempt for. and Cheshire. 27. 197nn61–63. 216–17nn27–28. 79. 46. 148. 197nn65–66. 218–19n48. 62–63 Parlement of the Thre Ages (Anonymous). 170n79. 147. England nostalgia. 114. 27. 74. 218n46. 28. 99. 1. 41. and power. 143. 14. 49. 174n52. 105. W. 193n26. 202n132. 155. 26–32. 28. editions of.. 50. 171n4. 57. 173n31. 181–82n183. 160. 147. 200n91 Patterson. 45. See also alterity. 183n3 Percies. 212n125. 92. 193nn21–22. 47. 33. 171nn8–10 performance. 218n45. 180n170. 17. 51 patriotism. 33. 184. 115. 183–84n8. 105. 156. 176n90. See genealogy Orkneys. 192n8. 214n5 Oakden. 117–18. 224n119 old age. 151. 219–20n56. 223n97 Patience (Anonymous). 130–35. 184n13. 80. 143–45. and Revivalism. 169n74. 110–11. 203n137. 153–54. 20–21. 202n119 patronage. 206n42. 59. 217n27 Pearl (Anonymous). binary. 219nn50–53 Piers Plowman (Langland). 18. 194n28. 106. and transcription. 209n82 origins. 56. 196nn49–50. 60. 45. 129. 134–35. 113. F. 151. 122. 170n79. 135–36. . 15.2 7 0 · I Nd Ex 93–94. 35. 66–67. 69. See also rural life Peck. 30. 206n36. 224n116 Percy. David. and nationalism. 77. 194n37. 37. 125. 219n50. 219nn49–50. 41–44. ghosts Owain Glyn Dŵr. 160 Nott. 9. 37. 73–76. 156. 152. 81. 37. 130. 38–39. 2. 15. 54. 225n125 otherworldliness. 196n55. 210n88. 90. 183n3 Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede (Anonymous). 226n138. and complaint. Lee. 94–99. 195n46. 113. 224n115 Pasternack. 157. 83. 227n20. literary. 40–42. 88. 13. 194–95n40. 207–8n45. 185n26. 30. 106. See also allegory opposition. 131. 197n62. 84. 63. 33. 160. 198n72 Perkins. 45. 18. 94–99. 195n41. 81. 32. political. V. 177n113. 216n25. 197n58. 134–35. Thomas. 85. 169n68 philology. 206n40. 11. 154–55 Oram. 64. 79. Carol Braun. Langland. 211n99. Lucy Allen. 127. 11–14. Gaston. 225n128. 81. Josiah C. 122. 30–31. 176n87. 131–32. 129. 182n197. 196nn53–54. 170n82. 192n5. 9. 76–77. 66. 218n45. 185n26. and pleasure. N. 135. Jeffrey M. and Lancashire. 125–26. 128. 69–70. 18. 4. prosodic. 196n50. 219n48. Derek. and militarism. 147. 83. 211n99. J. 202n130. and theatricality. P. 30–31. 182n194. 38–40. 3. 14. 169n67 Paris. See also empire. 129.. 217n30.
167n57. 185n26. 29. 103. and . 83. 214n5. 41. and criticism. 19. 38. 37. literary history. 117. Michael. and science. 222n93. 206n38. 52. 167n57. 210n91. 74. 93. 14.INdEx · 271 17–19. and language. See also America. 134. manuscripts of. racism. 38. 25. 191n121 postcolonialism. identity. 66–67. 27. 208n62. 214– 15nn15–16. 81. 95–96. 41. 24. 218n40 pragmatism. 76. 191n124 quest. 186n31 recursivity. 170n78. 221n78. 120. 201n118 Prose Merlin (Anonymous). and language. 169n71. 183n3. AngloSaxonism. 15. heteromorphic. capitalism. 159. 25–26. 86. 105. 63. and difference. Rhiannon. 84. 175–76n87. 172n18. 137. 12. 181n174. 118. and ex- change. 115. 4–5. 38–40. 23. 1. 54. 47–48. and nation. 171n10. 151. 35. 194n33. Germanic culture. genealogy. and prosody. 174n44 provincialism: claims of. 170n82. 221n77. 134–35. manuscripts propaganda. 198n71. 157. 15. 2. 211n104 Prophecies de Merlin (Anonymous). 128. 103. 227n20. ethnicity. Colin. 161. 10–11. 183n8. 11. 109. 196n47. 7. 160. and games. 12. 49–50. 23. 194n33. 20–26. 60. 98. 149–50 Pistill of Swete Susane (Anonymous). 15. 107. 177n116. 143. 194n28. 144. 222n87. 216n24. 173n30 prejudice. 3. 94–99. 217n35. 172n26. 205n31. 133. 129–56. 128–34. 187n60 Prestwich. 44. 148. 4. 43–44. 36. 169n74 Queller. 164n13. 107. 18. 74. 17. 21. 175n84. 30– 32. 153–55. 29–30. 40. 207n50 Puttenham. Pontius. 4. and policing. 198n74 play. 169n69. 10. Madden. 79–83. 16. 104. 198n74 Platt. 126. 7. 152 race. 48. 222n85. 175n84. syllabic. 85. 35. 45–46. 139–43. 224–25n119.103. See also media Reese. 18. 226nn136–37 Piers Plowman tradition. 9. 48. 130. 6. 78. 222–23n93. 110–11. 220n62. 141. 218n44. 8. and authorship. 161. 220n62. 168n61. 152. George. 48. 119. 63. 137. 171n10. 172n16. 219nn49–51. 177n104. 177n13. 219–20n56. See also alliterative prosody Protestantism. Chepman.. 181n180. Ad. 24. 91. reception of. 68. 99. 162. 196n54. 157. 207n56. 199n80. 176n99 plague. and identity. 181n174. 167n57. 2. 6. Jesse Byers. 226–27n133 Pilate. 204–5n26. 2. 52. 203n139 prophecy. 151. 133. and Romanticism. 173n32. 80. and England. 41. 171n10 Putter. 213n35 Purdie. 160. 33. 185n22. 43. 94. 46. 167n53. and prosody. 175n83. 5. 3. 159. 5. 177n108. 211n11 print. 161. 155. homomorphic. 226n3. 185n22. 195n44. 192n4 Quatrefoil of Love (Anonymous). See also book production. 22. 223n97. 38. and Thomas F. 7. 2. 215n17. editions. 214n6. 72. 39. 201n118 prosody. 185n22. 156. 63–69. 185–86n29. 135–36. 181n182. 169–70n77. 157. Saxon-Norman recovery. 156. 96. 195n44. 15. 118. 165–66n31. 19. and philology. 198n78. 57. 16. 204n22. 183n3. 130–31. 185n25. and empire. 75–76. 130. 205n33. 11. 169n74 region. Donald E. 13. 36–37. 184n15. 107. 71.
114. 83–99. and heresy. 203–4n7. 197n62. 207n48. 200n94. 182n186. 143. 112. 134. 218n43 Saint Erkenwald (Anonymous). 151. 70. as Revival locale. Ernest. and class. 55–56. Kellie. 31–32. A. 194n33. 165n26 rhetoric. 167n53 Richard the Redeless (Anonymous). M. 218n44. 114. 51. 131. 23.. 16. and poverty.. land. 73. 13. 134–35. 221n83. 192n4. 212n115. 188n76 Robertson. and social power. and power. 117. Nigel. 221–22n84. 186n34. 178nn124-n25 Revard. 121–22. 119. 222n85. 211n104 Rigby. Joyce E. 20. disregard for. and Charlotte Brewer. 142. 213–14n139. 215n16. 10. 36. 214n14. 214n14. 77. 121. 227n11. 171n11 Rousseau. See epochality rural life. 15–16. 17. spirituality Renan. 125. 217n35. 137–38. Jean-Jacques. 106. 152–54 rhyme. 49–50. . 29–31. 1. 133. 71. 187n53 Salter. 195–96n47. 81. 129. 21. 21. 159–61. 156. 61. 213n137. 57. 6. critical. 71.. and aristocracy. 87–88. 81. 131. 148–49.. 54–55. 223n93. 160. 134–35. 180n158. 14. See also geography. 15. 154.. 193n26. 52. 1. Arthurian. 222n84 Riddy. Felicity J. 136–43. dialect of. 114. and violence. 129–30. 217n37. 129. 217n38. 140. 215n15 Robin Hood. 4. 191n123. and chronicle. and identity. 222–23n93. 92. 135. and theology. 10. 163n9. 197n62 Samuels. 174n52 romance. 22. 118. 101. authorship of. 193n21 Ross. 9. and flattery. 208n58. 60. Cory J. 216n24. Nicola. 162. 26. 177n121. 186n34. 197n57 Saintsbury. and community. 15. 29. 193n17. 52. 128. 220n66. 224n115. 196n56. 158–59. and race. 202n130. 130–31. 56–68. 219n49 ritual. Susan. 220n68. 10. G. See also medievalism. 224–25n119. dating of. 57–61. 6–7. 115. manuscript of. 133–35. 145. 129. 178n133. Joel T. 56. 194–95n40 Reynolds. 54. 59. 219n53. 223n102 Saul. L. 227n20 Royan. 30–31. 72–78. 213n138 Rosenthal. George. 130 Rushton. 182n197. Carter. and Revivalism. and texts. 24–25. 41. and raiding. 3. 76. 215n16. 212n126. 138. 24–26. 221n82. 80.. 54. 175n84. 147–48. 109. 132. political. 148–51. 130. 60. and George Kane. 72–127. 209n77 Russell. 8.2 7 2 · I Nd Ex networks. 192n8. race Rome. 196n53. 147–48. 62–68. 133. 29. See also clergy. regionalism. 130. 178n133 Salisbury. 211n107. 209n76 rupture. 3. 221n79. and speech instruction. 29. 175n77. Elizabeth. 178–79n135 satire. 14–15. 126. 181n182. Robert. 134. 183n3. 215n17. 164n11. 37–38. 111. 182n194. 48. Jr. 181n174. 172n14. 212n128. 13. 181n180. locality religion. 38. 150. 155. Marjory. 142. 220n66 Sapora. 221n77 Richard II. 132–34. and criticism. 145–47. nationalist. 14. and historiography. 215n18. 219n53.. 202n127 Rigg. 2. 155–56. 164n20. 217n37. 205n34. 217n37. 24. 226n3. courtly. 191n123. 160. 8. George. 18–19. 220n59. 217n28 Rising of 1381. 220–21n75. 11. nationalism. 69 Romanticism. 1511iterary. 199n84. and passage. 118. Trevor. 79–90. legal.
205n31. and Chaucer. 119–20. 178n135. 79–81. 191–92nn4–5. 20–27. and war. 103. Arthur E. 168n61. 213n138 Silverstein. 14. 28. Clare A.. 28. 224n111 Scattergood. 172n16. See also Finke Shoaf. 213n138 Schofield. 176n91 sexuality. 192n5. 140–41. 7. 202n127. 4–5. 184n13. Corinne J. 33. 132. and literary history. 172n27 Simpson. 210n83. 194–95n40. 135. 164– 65n22. 34. 10. 98. 18. 78–79. 169n69. 124.. Philip. 102. See also Anglo-Saxons. 222n85. 185n21. 169n67. 136. 197n57. 198n68. and Revivalism. 14–15. Martin B. 202n132. 45–49. 189n92. 107. 12. 203nn138–39 Shaw.. 36. 141. and competition. 169n69 Scase. 126–27 Sidney. 104. Wendy. 174n52. and empire. 56. 12. 99. 13. 136–43 Sir Gawain and the Carle of Carlisle (Anonymous). 132. 103. 171n10 Siege of Jerusalem (Anonymous). 225n120 singularity. and nation. 15. Walter W. 12. 194n39 Saxon-Norman conflict. 222n91. 177n109. as state. and prosody. 209n78. 100. 215n20. 35. 44. and authorship. 222n87 Smailes. 221n79.INdEx · 273 215n18 Saunders. 208n58 Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Anonymous). 196n50. 161–62. 168n59. 164n12. 218n42. 189n94. Backus. 31. 202n130. 114–15. 173n40. 201n101. Normans Scala. 169n74. R. and race. 200n94. 161. 128. 122.. 223n102 Schiff. 49. 61. 197n58 Simmons. 68–69. 203n135. editions of. 15. 207n49. 34. 133. 164–65n22.. 38. 184n11.. 11. 2. 27–29. and criticism. 167n57. 163n2. John Robert. 195n45. 226n138. 20. 192n10. 226n3 Scandinavia. 197n62. 12. 17. 109. 197n58. 175n86. 169n83. 15. 189n95. 201n117. 8. textual. 225n122. 1. William Henry. 2. 83. 196n53. 130–32. 106. 157. 118. and Norse identity. Geoffrey. Thomas B. 161. 29. and ethnicity. 196n52. 24–25 Scotland. 216–17n27. 34. 222–23n93. 65. 117–18. 87. 24–26. 151. 218n43. 17. 221n80. 139. 111. 114. and labor. 209n78. Larry. the Gawainpoet. 21–22. and Scottishness. 120. 200n91 school (literary). 212n114 Smith. 25. 16. 183n6. 79–80. 209n73. 74. 192n6. 184n15. See also borderlands scribes. 27. 128–29. 72. 112. 9. 114. Theodore. and Truman J. 137 Seeley. southern. 177n108. 221n80. 184n15 Shepherd. 188n67 Savile. 141–43. See also Federico Scanlon. 117. 17. 115. A. Randy P. 211n111. 28. 81. 222n86. 79. 105. 223n97. 191–92nn2–4. 30–31. 29–30. 44. 113–15. Henry. 206n40 Skeat. and anxiety. 12. 198n78. and layout. 207n45. and Stewart power. 195n41. 32. dialect of. 27. 32–36. manuscript of. 215n15. 172n14. 139. 202n128. 12. 192n6. 214n14. 88. John. 195n45. 218n46. 222n88. 193n27. 13. 211n104. 83. 72–99. 65–66. 198n78 side-switching. 217n37. 38. and authorship. 109. clerks as. and Danes.. 26–29. 117. 193n22 Shichtman. 195n46. 2. 166n33. and prosody. Anthony D. James... 200nn92–97. . 194–95nn39– 40. 141. 216n25. 81. 6. Elizabeth.
and Scotland. 39. 218n44.. 77. 77. 31. 219– 20n56. Gabrielle M. imperial. 114. 186n37. 159. and nation. Joseph R. 9–10. 173n33. 133. Robert M. 108–9. 19. 21. 103–4. 55. 187n50 . power. and authority. 212n114 Suzuki. 85–86. 31. 88. See also religion Staley. 126. John J. 146–47. regional. and truth-telling. 60–64. 199n80. 134. 83. 9. 179n143. 4. 32. and law. 206n37. 56. 130. 44. 57. 110–12. 148. 12. 202n121. 46 173n38. 166n33. 104. 197–98n67 Tilly. 57.. 111. 210n86 spirituality. 121. See also militarism. 186n31. 128. 96. 5. 15. 132 Stott. and historiography. 99. 43. 18–32. 169n74. 136.. England. Fiona. 100–101. 61. C. 220n59. 48. 13. 202n132 Sykes. 80. 175n83 Southwest Midlands. 7–13. 212–13n132 Somerset. 94. Eiichi. 70 Spearing. 183n3. 56. 14. 208n57 terror. 176n87 Terrell. SaxonNorman sublimity. 100–101. 12. 197n64 Thornton. 131. and ethnicity. 39. opposition. 100. imperial. 80. 116. 219n48. 124. 227n11. 98. 183n5. 214–15n15 sophistication. 77. 42–44. 78–79. 104. 58–61. and backwardness. 54–55. 88. 116. 151. 87. 202n174 Summerson. 177n109 Steiner. and nation. 219n49 sovereignty. 183n5. 173n33. Bryan. 134. 59. and penance. Bernhard. 14. 67–68.. 97 state. 204n23 Ten Brink. 3. and Worcestershire. 161 Smyth. 35. 37. 47. 13. 35. See also centralization Steadman. 116–17. 161. and the Malvern Hills. 31. 143. 156. 43. and London. 13. 30. 109. 6–7. 2. 143–45 Suite du Merlin (Anonymous). literary. Lynn. 49–51. 211n99 Spain. 110–11. 100–101. and royalty. 170n78. 220n66. metrical. 30. 105–7. 213n134. 216n23. 60. 70. 70. 227n21. 15. 95. 141. 83. D. 24–26. 214n12. 150. Emily. and empathy. 77. 57. 181–82n183 Spiegel. 52–53. 194n28 suffering. 47. Hippolyte. 147. 6. 199n86. 2. and Revivalism. 225n131 sternness. 67–68. 38–41. 92. 208n68. 190n101. national. 128–29. John.. Katherine H. 24. 129. 180n158 Stein. 201n101. 213n133 Speirs. 15. 65. 219n49. 219n53. 144–45. 68–69. 84. 207n54. 188n79. Robert. 178n124 Stringer. 175n79. 25–26. Keith. 7. 224n110 struggle. 6. 53. 129. 111. 186n36 Thompson. 152–53.. 80. 21. 148. 225n122. 156. 21–23. 130. 152. 8.. 173n36. 204n23. 215n15. 47. Henry. 197n64. 23–24. 131. 33. 42–43. 166n33. 187n60 Strayer. 222n84 Stanbury. 36. 16. 209n78 Strohm. and anti-royalism.. 100. 134. 182n183 South. 159. 62. 35–36. 194n33 Taine. 174n57. 31. 130. 115. 141. See also communication teleology. 203n136 subversion. 211n112. Sarah. Charles. 63. 139. Andy. 197n65. Paul. J. 88–89. 43. A. 199n88. 170n78. Vance. 66. and ethnicity. 101. 84. 57. civilian. 35. 15–16. 170n79. 80.2 7 4 · I Nd Ex 165–66n31. 37. 49. Alfred P. 129–31. 106. 228n26 Smith. 98. M. 154. 49. 32. 183n6 technology.
191n124. 8. Thorlac. 200n91. 62. 78. 91. 101. and ritual. and E. 159. 38. and class. 196n55 truth-telling. and prosody. 49–52. 189n95. and religion. 101.. 79. 209n72. 197n60. and ritual. 78. 14. 81–83. 118–19. Katie. 150. 182n189. 58–60. 31. 65. 136. and England. 37. 42. 138. 199n84 Tolkien. 68–70. 93. 164n11. 50. Richard J. 30. 196n51. 54. chivalry. 166n33. 166n45. 81–82. predatory. 204n23. 31–32. 183– 84nn7–8.INdEx · 275 topicality. 152. and economics. 177n116. 87. 194n182. 138. 151. 196n55. 78–79. 227n17. 125. 194nn36–37. 7. 135. 130–31. 76. 14. and post-nationality. 185n26. 140. 195n46. 2. 96. 213–14n139. Elizabeth. 169m74. Fiona. 36. and war. 212nn129–30 Wales. and class. 69–70. 153. 48. 188n65. R. 191n3. 178n124. 82. 10. 160. R. 76. See also memory Trautmann. 12. 194–95n40. 2.. See militarism . 37–38. 180n158. 87–88. 76. and risk. 152–53. 211n107 Turville-Petre. 116–17. 85–86. 151. 124. 81. 85. See also borderlands. 29. 223n94. 160. 46. 156. V. 211n96. 184n10. 113. 207n53 Walsh. 105. 60. 182n194. 32–33. 189–90n96 transnationality. 202n124 totalization. 169n72. 196n54. and origins. See also conservatism. 207n47. 23. 211n111. 8. 170n82. 34. 79–80. 215n18. 48. 40. 188n67. 206n40. 43. 222n88 Tristan and Iseult. 212n132. 37–38. 127. 181n174. 143–44. James G. 52. 51–52. 6. 85–86. 221n82. 201n101. 110–11. 15. 102–4. 194n30. David. 43. and region. 225n121. 168n61. 82. of French. 178nn124–25.. 196n51. 157. 185n25–26. 179–80n158. 148. 58–61. 39–42. 151. 202n126 urban life. 106. 159. 70. 196n50. 14. 1. 181n177. 69–71. 181–82n183. 121–24. 227n20. 177–78n122 violence. 181n174 Trigg. 221n78. 182n184. 83. 213–14nn138–39. 226n7. 155 Tuck. 108–9. 212n123 Twomey. 59. 160. 211n104. 210n91. 63. and the Sothsegger. 74. 197n60. 74. nostalgia translation. 210n85. 59. 3. 120. 62. 37. and learning. 174n65. state. 176n90 VanHoosier-Carey. 66. 196n54. 2–3. community trauma. 188n73. 197n62. 69–71. 167n54.. 188–89n91. 170n78 Walker. 181n174. 58. 192n10. 191n3. 103. 125. Anthony. 189n94 Troy. 144. 224n117 War. 44. 42–44. 216n24. See also militarism Wales. 213n137. 160. 3. 224–25n119 Tolhurst. J. 58. 188n76. 65. 200n91. 54. 16. 12. 210n89. 225n124. 196n55. 187n50. 70. Gregory A. 115–16. Moritz.. See also borderlands. 130. 147. 17. 121–22. 176n99 Traversi. 162. Michael W. 61. 182n189. Gordon. 220n73. 197nn57–58. and brutality. 22 Walsh. and networks. 123–24 Utz. 2–3. 47–48. See also Duggan Tuscany. Stephanie. 196nn53– 54. Derek. 80. 143. See also singularity tournaments. in Revivalism. violence traditionalism. 20. 212nn129–30 Wallace. 82. David. 178n133. and class.
185–86n29. 182n184. 76. See also Ingham Wars of Alexander (Anonymous).. 181–82n183. 219n49 Western culture. 12. 210n85. 75. Deanne. the Black Prince as. 180nn173–74. 32. 81. 165n29. 172n14. 5. 223n94 wealth. 196n55. 47. 215n18 Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (Anonymous). 13–14. 180n170. 206n42 zones. 81. 189n82. 126. 54–55 56–61. 34. 169n74. 181n177. alliterative. 32. 130. 38. 182n194 Watson. 160. 80. 43. See bureaucracy When Rome is Removed into England (Anonymous). 192n16.. 12. 173n30. 68–71. and drama. 181n182 widows. 182n186. 17. 107. 14–15. 79. 129. Midlands. 50. 14. Lawrence. 210n88 Westminster. Thomas. Andrew. 115–17. 149. 185–86n29 William I (Conqueror). 68. 160. 172n16. 130. 193n26. 74–76. 108. 179–80n158. 210n89. manuscript of. 66. 222n88. 47. 37–44. 14. 27. 38–39. Nicholas. 73–77. 169n74 Yorkshire. 83. 213n137 wild man. 180n170. 157–58. 77. Richard. 196n50. 160. 81. 39–42. 186n37. manuscript of. 122. 14. 196n56. 154. 51. 188n65. 62. 171n11. 169n73.2 7 6 · I Nd Ex Warner. 48. 124. 147. 48. 195n41. 190n103. 71. 19. 217n37 Waugh. 187n41 Warren. 151. 206n35 . 189n82 West. 115. William (poet). 197n63. 91– 94. 41. 113. 50. 111. 171n4. 215n18. 203n137 werewolves. 51–54. 198n74. Edward. 76. 186n35 Williams. 125. 180n58 William of Palerne (William). 83. 20. 95. 68. 187n60. 79–81. 133. 186n38. 192–93n16. England. 2. 85. 57. reception of. dialect of. 185n25. 108. 82–89. 195n46 Warton. Michelle R. 184–85nn17–18 Waswo. 177n113. See also Normans Williams. 196n53. 168n61. 21. 190n97. 184n10. 107. 37. dating of. dating of. 90. 185n26. 104. 37. 28. 49. 9. dialect of. 205n26. 127. 74. 182n191. Scott L. 188n79. 200n96 Wynnere and Wastoure (Anonymous). 178n130. 196n50. 196n64 York. 179n143. 104. 73. 82–83. 68. 214n14. Edith Whitehurst. 198n74 Wawn. 152. 14. 197n67. 99. 46–71. 52. 18–19. 62. 63–68. 12.
Series Editor Interventions: New Studies in Medieval Culture publishes theoretically informed work in medieval literary and cultural studies.Interventions: New Studies in Medieval Culture Ethan Knapp. We are interested both in studies of medieval culture and in work on the continuing importance of medieval tropes and topics in contemporary intellectual life. Revivalist Fantasy: Alliterative Verse and Nationalist Literary History RaNdy P. SChIff Inventing Womanhood: Gender and Language in Later Middle English Writing TaRa WIllIaMS Body Against Soul: Gender and Sowlehele in Middle English Allegory MaSha RaSKolNIKov .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.