Chapter 2

Icc hafe sett her o thiss bocAmang Godspelles wordess,All thurrh me sellfenn, manig wordThe rime swa to fillenn.[45]

Such additions, he says, are necessary if the readers are to understand the text and if the metrical form is to be kept.

Forr whase mot to laewedd follcLarspell off Goddspell tellenn,He mot wel ekenn manig wordAmang Godspelless Wordess.& icc ne mihhte nohht min ferrsAyy withth Godspelless wordessWel fillenn all, & all forrthiShollde icc wel offte nedeAmang Godspelless wordess donMin word, min ferrs to fillenn.[46]

Later translators, however, seldom followed his lead. There are a few comments connected with prose translations; the translator ofThe Book of the Knight of La Tour Landryquotes the explanation of his author that he has chosen prose rather than verse "for to abridge it, and that it might be better and more plainly to be understood";[47]the Lord in Trevisa'sDialogueprefixed to thePolychronicondesires a translation in prose, "for commonly prose is more clear than rhyme, more easy and more plain to understand";[48]but apparently the only one of Orm's successors to put into words his consciousness of the complications which accompany a metrical rendering is the author ofThe Romance of Partenay, whose epilogue runs:

As ny as metre can conclude sentence,Cereatly by rew in it have I go.Nerehand stafe by staf, by gret diligence,Savyng that I most metre apply to;The wourdes meve, and sett here & ther so.[49]

What follows, however, shows that he is concerned not so much with the peculiar difficulty of translation as with the general difficulty of "forging" verse. Whether a man employs Latin, French, or the vernacular, he continues,

Be it in balede, vers, Rime, or prose,He most torn and wend, metrely to close.[50]

Of explicit comment on general principles, then, there is but a small amount in connection with Middle English translations. Incidentally, however, writers let fall a good deal of information regarding their theories and methods. Such material must be interpreted with considerable caution, for although the most casual survey makes it clear that generally the translator felt bound to put into wordssomething of his debt and his responsibility to his predecessors, yet one does not know how much significance should attach to this comment. He seldom offers clear, unmistakable information as to his difficulties and his methods of meeting them. It is peculiarly interesting to come upon such explanation of processes as appears at one point in Capgrave'sLife of St. Gilbert. In telling the story of a miracle wrought upon a sick man, Capgrave writes: "One of his brethren, which was his keeper, gave him this counsel, that he should wind his head with a certain cloth of linen which St. Gilbert wore. I suppose verily," continues the translator, "it was his alb, for mine author here setteth a word 'subucula,' which is both an alb and a shirt, and in the first part of this life the same author saith that this holy man wore next his skin no hair as for the hardest, nor linen as for the softest, but he went with wool, as with the mean."[51]Such care for detail suggests the comparative methods later employed by the translators of the Bible, but whether or not it was common, it seldom found its way into words. The majority of writers acquitted themselves of the translator's duty by introducing at intervals somewhat conventional references to source, "in story as we read," "in tale as it is told," "as saith the geste," "in rhyme I read," "the prose says," "as mine author doth write," "as it tells in the book," "so saith the French tale," "as saith the Latin." Tags like these are everywhere present, especially in verse, where they must often have proved convenient in eking out the metre. Whether they are to be interpreted literally is hard to determine. The reader of English versions can seldom be certain whether variants on the more ordinary forms are merely stylistic or result from actual differences in situation; whether, for example, phrases like "as I have heard tell," "as the book says," "as I find in parchment spell" are rewordings of the same fact or represent real distinctions.

One group of doubtful references apparently question the reliability of the written source. In most cases the seeming doubt is probably the result of awkward phrasing. Statements like "as the story doth us both write and mean,"[52]"as the book says and true men tell us,"[53]"but the book us lie,"[54]need have little more significance than the slightly absurd declaration,

The gospel nul I forsake noughtThaughit be written in parchemyn.[55]

Occasional more direct questionings incline one, however, to take the matter a little more seriously. The translator of aCanticum de Creatione, strangely fabulous in content, presents his material with the words,

—as we finden in lectrure,I not whether it be in holy scripture.[56]

The author of one of the legends of the Holy Cross says,

This tale, quether hit be il or gode,I fande hit writen of the rode.Mani tellis diverseli,For thai finde diverse stori.[57]

Capgrave, in his legend ofSt. Katherine, takes issue unmistakably with his source.

In this reknyng myne auctour & I are too:ffor he accordeth not wytz cronicles that ben olde,But diversyth from hem, & that in many thyngis.There he accordeth, ther I him hold;And where he diversyth in ordre of theis kyngis,I leve hym, & to oder mennys rekenyngisI geve more credens whech be-fore hym and meSette alle these men in ordre & degre.[58]

Except when this mistrust is made a justification for divergence from the original, these comments contribute little to our knowledge of the medieval translator's methods and need concern us little. More needful of explanation is the reference which implies that the English writer is not working from a manuscript, but is reproducing something which he has heard read or recounted, or which he has read for himself at some time in the past. How is one to interpret phrases like that which introduces the story ofGolagros and Gawain, "as true men me told," or that which appears at the beginning ofRauf Coilyear, "heard I tell"? One explanation, obviously true in some cases, is that such references are only conventional. The concluding lines ofYwain and Gawin,

Of them no more have I heard tellNeither in romance nor in spell,[59]

are simply a rough rendering of the French

Ne ja plus n'en orroiz conter,S'an n'i vialt manconge ajoster.[60]

On the other hand, the author of the long romance ofIpomadon, which follows its source with a closeness which precludes all possibility of reproduction from memory, has tacked on two references to hearing,[61]not only without a basis in the French but in direct contradiction to Hue de Rotelande's account of the source of his material. InEmare, "as I have heard minstrels sing in sawe" is apparently introduced asthe equivalent of the more ordinary phrases "in tale as it is told" and "in romance as we read,"[62]the second of which is scarcely compatible with the theory of an oral source.

One cannot always, however, dispose of the reference to hearing so easily. Contemporary testimony shows that literature was often transmitted by word of mouth. Thomas de Cabham mentions the "ioculatores, qui cantant gesta principum et vitam sanctorum";[63]Robert of Brunne complains that those who sing or say the geste ofSir Tristramdo not repeat the story exactly as Thomas made it.[64]Even though one must recognize the probability that sometimes the immediate oral source of the minstrel's tale may have been English, one cannot ignore the possibility that occasionally a "translated" saint's life or romance may have been the result of hearing a French or Latin narrative read or recited. A convincing example of reproduction from memory appears in the legend ofSt. Etheldred of Ely, whose author recounts certain facts,

The whiche y founde in the abbey of Godstow y-wis,In hure legent as y dude there that tyme rede,

and later presents other material,

The whiche y say at Hely y-write.[65]

Such evidence makes us regard with more attention the remark in Capgrave'sSt. Katherine,

—right soo dede I lereOf cronycles whiche (that) I saugh last,[66]

or the lines at the end ofRoberd of Cisyle,

Al this is write withoute lygheAt Rome, to ben in memorye,At seint Petres cherche, I knowe.[67]

It is possible also that sometimes a vague phrase like "as the story says," or "in tale as it is told," may signify hearing instead of reading. But in general one turns from consideration of the references to hearing with little more than an increased respect for the superior definiteness which belongs to the mention of the "black letters," the "parchment," "the French book," or "the Latin book."

Leaving the general situation and examining individual types of literature, one finds it possible to draw conclusions which are somewhat more definite. The metrical romance—to choose one of the most popular literary forms of the period—is nearly always garnished with references to source scattered throughout its course in a manner that awakens curiosity. Sometimes they do not appear at the beginning of the romance, but are introduced in large numbers towards the end; sometimes, after a long series of pages containing nothing of the sort, we begin to come upon them frequently, perhaps in groups, one appearing every few lines, so that their presence constitutes something like a quality of style. For example, inBevis of Hamtoun[68]andThe Earl of Toulouse[69]the first references to source come between ll. 800 and 900; inYwain and Gawinthe references appear at ll. 9, 3209, and 3669;[70]inThe Wars of Alexander[71]there is a perpetual harping on source, one phrase seeming to produce another.

Occasionally one can find a reason for the insertion of the phrase in a given place. Sometimes its presence suggests that the translator has come upon an unfamiliar word. InSir Eglamour of Artois, speaking of a bird that has carried off a child, the author remarks, "a griffin, saith the book,he hight";[72]inPartenay, in an attempt to give a vessel its proper name, the writer says, "I found in scripture that it was a barge."[73]This impression of accuracy is most common in connection with geographical proper names. InTorrent of Portyngalewe have the name of a forest, "of Brasill saith the book it was"; inPartonope of Bloiswe find "France was named those ilke days Galles, as mine author says,"[74]or "Mine author telleth this church hight the church of Albigis."[75]In this same romance the reference to source accompanies a definite bit of detail, "The French book thus doth me tell, twenty waters he passed full fell."[76]Bevis of Hamtoun kills "forty Sarracens, the French saith."[77]As in the case of the last illustration, the translator frequently needs to cite his authority because the detail he gives is somewhat difficult of belief. InThe Sege of Melaynethe Christian warriors recover their horses miraculously "through the prayer of St. Denys, thus will the chronicle say";[78]inThe Romance of Partenaywe read of a wondrous light appearing about a tomb, "the French maker saith he saw it with eye."[79]Sometimes these phrases suggest that metre and rhyme do not always flow easily for the English writer, and that in such difficulties a stock space-filler is convenient. Lines like those in Chaucer'sSir Thopas,

And so bifel upon a day,Forsotheas I you telle maySir Thopas wolde outride,

and

The briddes synge,it is no nay,The sparhauke and the papejay

may easily be paralleled by passages containing references to source.

A good illustration from almost every point of view of the significance and lack of significance of the appearance of these phrases in a given context is the version of the Alexander story usually calledThe Wars of Alexander. The frequent references to source in this romance occur in sporadic groups. The author begins by putting them in with some regularity at the beginnings of thepassusinto which he divides his narrative, but, as the story progresses, he ceases to do so, perhaps forgets his first purpose. Sometimes the reference to source suggests accuracy: "And five and thirty, as I find, were in the river drowned."[80]"Rhinoceros, as I read, the book them calls."[81]The strength of some authority is necessary to support the weight of the incredible marvels which the story-teller recounts. He tells of a valley full of serpents with crowns on their heads, who fed, "as the prose tells," on pepper, cloves, and ginger;[82]of enormous crabs with backs, "as the book says," bigger and harder than any common stone or cockatrice scales;[83]of the golden image of Xerxes, which on the approach of Alexander suddenly, "as tells the text," falls to pieces.[84]He often has recourse to an authority for support when he takes proper names from the Latin. "Luctus it hight, the lettre and the line thus it calls."[85]The slayers of Darius are named Besan and Anabras, "as the book tells."[86]On the other hand, the signification of the reference in its context can be shown to be very slight. As was said before, the writer soon forgets to insert it at the beginning of the newpassus; there are plenty of marvels without any citation of authority to add to their credibility; and though the proper name carries its reference to the Latin, it is usually strangely distorted from its original form. So far as bearing on the immediate context is concerned, most of the references to source have little moremeaning than the ordinary tags, "as I you say," "as you may hear," or "as I understand."

Apart, however, from the matter of context, one may make a rough classification of the romances on the ground of these references. Leaving aside the few narratives (e.g.Sir Percival of Galles,King Horn) which contain no suggestion that they are of secondary origin, one may distinguish two groups. There is, in the first place, a large body of romances which refer in general terms to their originals, but do not profess any responsibility for faithful reproduction; in the second place, there are some romances whose authors do recognize the claims of the original, which is in such cases nearly always definitely described, and frequently go so far as to discuss its style or the style to be adopted in the English rendering. The first group, which includes considerably more than half the romances at present accessible in print, affords a confused mass of references. As regards the least definite of these, one finds phrases so vague as to suggest that the author himself might have had difficulty in identifying his source, phrases where the omission of the article ("in rhyme," "in romance," "in story") or the use of the plural ("as books say," "as clerks tell," "as men us told," "in stories thus as we read") deprives the words of most of their significance. Other references are more definite; the writer mentions "this book," "mine author," "the Latin book," "the French book." If these phrases are to be trusted, we may conclude that the English translator has his text before him; they aid little, however, in identification of that text. The fifty-six references in Malory'sMorte d'Arthurto "the French book" give no particular clue to discovery of his sources. The common formula, "as the French book says," marks the highest degree of definiteness to which most of these romances attain.

An interesting variant from the commoner forms is the reference toRom, generally in the phrase "the book ofRom," which appears in some of the romances. The explanation thatRomis a corruption ofromanceand thatthe book of Romis simply the book of romance or the book written in the romance language, French, can easily be supported. In the same poemRomalternates withromance: "In Rome this geste is chronicled," "as the romance telleth,"[87]"in the chronicles of Rome is the date," "in romance as we read."[88]Two versions ofOctavianread, the one "in books of Rome," the other "in books of ryme."[89]On the other hand, there are peculiarities in the use of the word not so easy of explanation. It appears in a certain group of romances,Octavian,Le Bone Florence of Rome,Sir Eglamour of Artois,Torrent of Portyngale,The Earl of Toulouse, all of which develop in some degree the Constance story, familiar inThe Man of Law's Tale. In all of them there is reference to the city of Rome, sometimes very obvious, sometimes slight, but perhaps equally significant in the latter case because it is introduced in an unexpected, unnecessary way. InLe Bone Florence of Romethe heroine is daughter of the Emperor of Rome, and, the tale of her wanderings done, the story ends happily with her reinstatement in her own city. Octavian is Emperor of Rome, and here again the happy conclusion finds place in that city. Sir Eglamour belongs to Artois, but he does betake himself to Rome to kill a dragon, an episode introduced in one manuscript of the story by the phrase "as the book of Rome says."[90]Though the scenes ofTorrent of Portyngaleare Portugal, Norway, and Calabria, the Emperor of Rome comes to the wedding of the hero, and Torrent himself is finally chosen Emperor, presumably of Rome. The Earl of Toulouse, in the romance of thatname, disguises himself as a monk, and to aid in the illusion some one says of him during his disappearance, "Gone is he to his own land: he dwells with the Pope of Rome."[91]The Emperor in this story is Emperor of Almaigne, but his name, strangely enough, is Diocletian. Again, inOctavian, one reads in the description of a feast, "there was many a rich geste of Rome and of France,"[92]which suggests a distinction between a geste of Rome and a geste of France. InLe Bone Florence of Romeappears the peculiar statement, "Pope Symonde this story wrote. In the chronicles of Rome is the date."[93]In this case the wordRomeseems to have been taken literally enough to cause attribution of the story to the Pope. It is evident, then, that whether or notRomeis a corruption ofromance, at any rate one or more of the persons who had a hand in producing these narratives must have interpreted the word literally, and believed that the book of Rome was a record of occurrences in the city of Rome.[94]It is interesting to note that inThe Man of Law's Tale, in speaking of Maurice, the son of Constance, Chaucer introduces a reference to theGesta Romanorum:

In the old Romayn gestes may men fyndeMaurice's lyf, I bere it not in mynde.

Such vagueness and uncertainty, if not positive misunderstanding with regard to source, are characteristic of many romances. It is not difficult to find explanations for this. The writer may, as was suggested before, be reproducing a story which he has only heard or which he has read at some earlier time. Even if he has the book before him, it does not necessarily bear its author's name and it is not easy to describe it so that it can be recognized by others. Generally speaking, his references to source are honest, so far as theygo, and can be taken at their face value. Even in cases of apparent falsity explanations suggest themselves. There is nearly always the possibility that false or contradictory attributions, as, for example, the mention of "book" and "books" or "the French book" and "the Latin book" as sources of the same romance, are merely stupidly literal renderings of the original. InThe Romance of Partenay, one of the few cases where we have unquestionably the French original of the English romance, more than once an apparent reference to source in the English is only a close following of the French. "I found in scripture that it was a barge" corresponds with "Je treuve que c'estoit une barge"; "as saith the scripture" with "Ainsi que dient ly escrips";

For the Cronike doth treteth (sic) this brefly,More ferther wold go, mater finde might I

with

Mais en brief je m'en passerayCar la cronique en brief passe.Plus déisse, se plus trouvasse.[95]

A similar situation has already been pointed out inYwain and Gawin. The most marked example of contradictory evidence is to be found inOctavian, whose author alternates "as the French says" with "as saith the Latin."[96]Here, however, the nearest analogue to the English romance, which contains 1962 lines, is a French romance of 5371 lines, which begins by mentioning the "grans merueilles qui sont faites, et de latin en romanz traites."[97]It is not impossible that the English writer used a shorter version which emphasized this reference to the Latin, and that his too-faithful adherence to source had confusing results. But even if suchcontradictions cannot be explained, in the mass of undistinguished romances there is scarcely anything to suggest that the writer is trying to give his work a factitious value by misleading references to dignified sources. His faults, as inYwain and Gawin, where the name of Chrétien is not carried over from the French, are sins of omission, not commission.

No hard and fast line of division can be drawn between the romances just discussed and those of the second group, with their frequent and fairly definite references to their sources and to their methods of reproducing them. A rough chronological division between the two groups can be made about the year 1400.William of Palerne, assigned by its editor to the year 1350, contains a slight indication of the coming change in the claim which its author makes to have accomplished his task "as fully as the French fully would ask."[98]Poems like Chaucer'sKnight's TaleandFranklin's Talehave only the vague references to source of the earlier period, though since they are presented as oral narratives, they belong less obviously to the present discussion. The vexed question of the signification of the references inTroilus and Criseydeis outside the scope of this discussion. Superficially considered, they are an odd mingling of the new and the old. Phrases like "as to myn auctour listeth to devise" (III, 1817), "as techen bokes olde" (III, 91), "as wryten folk thorugh which it is in minde" (IV, 18) suggest the first group. The puzzling references to Lollius have a certain definiteness, and faithfulness to source is implied in lines like:

And of his song nought only the sentence,As writ myn auctour called Lollius,But pleynly, save our tonges difference,I dar wel seyn, in al that TroilusSeyde in his song; lo! every word right thusAs I shal seyn(I, 393-8)

and

"For as myn auctour seyde, so seye I" (II, 18).

But from the beginning of the new century, in the work of men like Lydgate and Caxton, a new habit of comment becomes noticeable.

Less distinguished translators show a similar development. The author ofThe Holy Grail, Harry Lonelich, a London skinner, towards the end of his work makes frequent, if perhaps mistaken, attribution of the French romance to

... myn sire Robert of BorronWhiche that this storie Al & somOwt Of the latyn In to the frensh torned heBe holy chirches Comandment sekerle,[99]

and makes some apology for the defects of his own style:

And I, As An unkonning Man trewlyInto Englisch have drawen this Story;And thowgh that to yow not plesyng It be,Yit that ful Excused ye wolde haven MeOf my necligence and unkonning.[100]

The Romance of Partenayis turned into English by a writer who presents himself very modestly:

I not acqueynted of birth naturallWith frenshe his very trew parfightnesse,Nor enpreyntyd is in mind cordiall;O word For other myght take by lachesse,Or peradventure by unconnyngesse.[101]

He intends, however, to be a careful translator:

As nighe as metre will conclude sentence,Folew I wil my president,Ryght as the frenshe wil yiff me evidence,Cereatly after myn entent,[102]

and he ends by declaring that in spite of the impossibility of giving an exact rendering of the French in English metre, he has kept very closely to the original. Sometimes, owing to the shortness of the French "staffes," he has reproduced in one line two lines of the French, but, except for this, comparison will show that the two versions are exactly alike.[103]

The translator ofPartonope of Bloisdoes not profess such slavish faithfulness, though he does profess great admiration for his source,

The olde booke full well I-wryted,In ffrensh also, and fayre endyted,[104]

and declares himself bound to follow it closely:

Thus seith myn auctour after whome I write.Blame not me: I moste enditeAs nye after hym as ever I may,Be it sothe or less I can not say.[105]

However, in the midst of his protestations of faithfulness, he confesses to divergence:

There-fore y do alle my myghthheTo saue my autor ynne sucche wyseAs he that mater luste devyse,Where he makyth grete compleynteIn french so fayre thatt yt to paynteIn Englysche tunngge y saye for meMy wyttys alle to dullet bee.He telleth hys tale of sentamentI vnderstonde noghth hys entent,Ne wolle ne besy me to lere.[106]

He owns to the abbreviation of descriptive passages, which so many English translators had perpetrated in silence:

Her bewte dyscry fayne wolde IAffter the sentence off myne auctowre,Butte I pray yowe of thys grette labowreI mote at thys tyme excused be;[107]Butte who so luste to here of hur a-raye,Lette him go to the ffrensshe bocke,That Idell mater I forsokeTo telle hyt in prose or els in ryme,For me thoghte hyt taryed grette tyme.And ys a mater full nedless.[108]

Her bewte dyscry fayne wolde IAffter the sentence off myne auctowre,Butte I pray yowe of thys grette labowreI mote at thys tyme excused be;[107]

Butte who so luste to here of hur a-raye,Lette him go to the ffrensshe bocke,That Idell mater I forsokeTo telle hyt in prose or els in ryme,For me thoghte hyt taryed grette tyme.And ys a mater full nedless.[108]

One cannot but suspect that this odd mingling of respect and freedom as regards the original describes the attitude of many other translators of romances, less articulate in the expression of their theory.

To deal fairly with many of the romances of this second group, one must consider the relationship between romance and history and the uncertain division between the two. The early chronicles of England generally devoted an appreciable space to matters of romance, the stories of Troy, of Aeneas, of Arthur. As in the case of the romance proper, such chronicles were, even in the modern sense, "translated," for though the historian usually compiled his material from more than one source, his method was to put together long, consecutive passages from various authors, with little attempt at assimilating them into a whole. The distinction between history and romance was slow in arising. TheMorte Arthureoffers within a few lines both "romances" and "chronicles" as authorities for its statements.[109]In Caxton's preface toGodfrey of Bullognethe enumeration of the great names of history includes Arthur and Charlemagne, and the story of Godfrey is designated as "this noble history which is no fable nor feigned thing." Throughout the period the stories of Troy and of Alexander are consistently treated as history, and their redactors frequently state that their material has come from various places. Nearly allthe English Troy stories are translations of Guido delle Colonne'sHistoria Trojana, and they take over from their original Guido's long discussion of authorities. The Alexander romances present the same effect of historical accuracy in passages like the following:

This passage destuted isIn the French, well y-wis,Therefore I have, it to colourBorrowed of the Latin author;[110]Of what kin he came can I nought findIn no book that I bed when I began hereThe Latin to this language lelliche to turn.[111]

This passage destuted isIn the French, well y-wis,Therefore I have, it to colourBorrowed of the Latin author;[110]

Of what kin he came can I nought findIn no book that I bed when I began hereThe Latin to this language lelliche to turn.[111]

The assumption of the historian's attitude was probably the largest factor in the development of the habit of expressing responsibility for following the source or for noting divergence from it. Less easy of explanation is the fact that comment on style so frequently appears in this connection. There is perhaps a touch of it even in Layamon's account of his originals, when he approaches his French source: "Layamon began to journey wide over this land, and procured the noble books which he took for authority. He took the English book that Saint Bede made; another he took in Latin that Saint Albin made, and the fair Austin, who brought baptism hither; the third he took, (and) laid there in the midst, that a French clerk made, who was named Wace, who well could write.... Layamon laid before him these books, and turned the leaves ... pen he took with fingers, and wrote on book skin, and the true words set together, and the three books compressed into one."[112]Robert of Brunne, in hisChronicle of England, dated as early as 1338, combines a lengthy discussion of style with a clear statementof the extent to which he has used his sources. Wace tells in French

All that the Latyn spelles,ffro Eneas till Cadwaladre;this Mayster Wace ther leves he.And ryght as Mayster Wace says,I telle myn Inglis the same ways.[113]

Pers of Langtoft continues the history;

& as he says, than say I,[114]

writes the translator. Robert admires his predecessors, Dares, whose "Latyn is feyre to lere," Wace, who "rymed it in Frankis fyne," and Pers, of whose style he says, "feyrer language non ne redis"; but he is especially concerned with his own manner of expression. He does not aspire to an elaborate literary style; rather, he says,

I made it not forto be praysed,Bot at the lewed men were aysed.[115]

Consequently he eschews the difficult verse forms then coming into fashion, "ryme cowee," "straungere," or "enterlace." He does not write for the "disours," "seggers," and "harpours" of his own day, who tell the old stories badly.

Back to Index Next