practising angers in late-medieval English chronicles

Writing with Feeling: Practising Angers in Late-Medieval English Chronicles

HannahElizabethKilpatrickStudentnumber:319627

ORCID:0000-0003-1520-8501Submittedinfulfilmentof101AAPh.D.–Arts

October2019FacultyofArts:SchoolofCultureandCommunication

Principalsupervisor:ProfessorStephanieTrigg

Co-supervisor:ProfessorStephenKnight

This dissertation explores depictions of anger in fourteenth-centuryEnglishchronicles.IbringchroniclesinLatin,French,andEnglishintoconversationwithadjacentnarrativegenrestorevealthevocabularyofemotionalbehavioursinthesetexts.This approach illuminates the tropes and conventions thatchroniclers use to shape meaning, and reveals underlyinganxieties about socially dysfunctional emotional styles.Treating chronicles both aswitnesses to and participants inemotionalpractices,Iconsidertheroleofhistoricalwritinginrecording,teaching,andalteringemotionalnorms.

HannahKilpatrick—WritingwithFeeling2

Declaration

I,HannahElizabethKilpatrick,declarethat:

This thesis comprises only my own original worktowardthedegreePh.D.,Arts(101AA);

Dueacknowledgementhasbeenmadeinthetexttoallothermaterialused;and,

Thisthesisisfewerthanthemaximumwordlimitinlength,exclusiveofbibliographiesandappendices.

______________________________

This thesis was funded by the Commonwealth Government(AustralianPostgraduateAward,2013–16)andtheARCCentreof Excellence for the History of Emotions (RHD Studentship,2013–16).

HannahKilpatrick—WritingwithFeeling 3

Table of Contents

Abstract 4

Abbreviations 5

Preface 6

Introduction 8

SectionA:Narratingangers 30

Chapter1:Findingangers 38

Chapter2:Shamedanger 57

Chapter3:Honourorsin? 77

SectionB:Feudalanger 89

Chapter4:Thescriptoffeudalanger 92

Chapter5:Anger’sopposite 104

Chapter6:Aproportionateresponse 112

Chapter7:Uneasyangers 124

SectionC:Writingthefeelingbody 135

Chapter8:Theactoffeeling 140

Chapter9:Thecompletebody 152

Chapter10:Angrydole 164

Chapter11:Differenceanddeviation 174

Coda 186

Appendix 189

Workscited 245


Abstract Thisdissertationexploresdepictionsofangerinfourteenth-centuryEnglishchronicles.Indoingso,itasksquestionsaboutmethodologyinthehistoryofemotions:howweinterrogateourtexts,andwhatwebringtoourunderstandingoftheemotionalitiesofadistantculture.Fewchroniclerswereimmediatewitnessestotheemotionsofthepeopletheydepict,nordomanychroniclesallowanunequivocalviewintothechronicler’sownemotionallife.How,then,doweapproachtherelationshipbetweenliteraryrepresentationandhistoricalreality?

Istudychroniclesinthreelanguagesandavarietyofstyles,includingthechroniclesofJeanFroissartandGeoffreyleBaker,theVitaEdwardiII,theAnonimalle,theAnnalesPaulini,LesVoeuxduHéron,andtheMiddleEnglishproseBrut.Ibringtheseintoconversationwithworksinadjacentnarrativegenressuchaschansondegeste,particularlythealliterativeMorteArthure,RaouldeCambrai,andSirGawainandtheGreenKnight.Comparingthechronicletextstotheirmoreovertlyemotionalcousinsilluminatesthepatternsofemotionalbehavioursinmedievalnarrativeculture.Whenwethinkintermsofemotionscripts—structuredandrepeatedsequencesofemotionalbehaviour—webegintorecognisevocabulariesofreferenceandmeaningacrosstextsandgenres.Thisisparticularlyappropriateformedievaltexts,duetoaculturalhabitofthinkingintermsoffiguresandauctoritas:recognisingtropesandallusionisanessentialpartofaccessingmeaninginatext.Thisapproachilluminatesthetraditionsandconventionsthatchroniclersusetoshapemeaning,andrevealsunderlyinganxietiesaboutsociallydysfunctionalemotionalstyles.

Angerisnotasingleemotionbutacomplexclusteroffeelingsandpractices.Itintersectswithmanydifferentsocialinstitutions,fromreligiousethicstothenegotiationofpersonalhonourandfeudalrelationships.Inallitsforms,however,itisassociatedwithmomentsofsocialdysfunction,wherepressureisputonexistingrelationshipsandemotionalnorms.Studyingangerscanthereforeelucidatethewaysinwhichnormativemedievalemotionalityisimaginedandperformed,butcanalsoexposethe“cracks”wheredominantemotionalstylesareunderpressureorintheprocessofrenegotiation.

Iemployaformofpracticetheorythatcentresonnarrativeculture:examiningtheemotionalnormsandstylesoftextsasifthechronicleswerethemselvesemotionalactorsinhistory,aswellaswitnessestoemotionalacts.Expressioncategorisesemotions,butitalsoshapesthem.Ifindthatexpressionincludesnotonlywordsandemotionalbehavioursbutscriptsandstories:semi-predictableseriesofactionswithanaccumulatedweightofculturalmeaning,performed(ornarrated)overaperiodoftime.Withthatinmind,Isuggestthatweshouldreconsidertheroleofnarrative(andespeciallygenreswithauthoritativeculturalcachesuchashistoriography)inrecording,sorting,teaching,shaping,regulating,andultimatelychangingemotionalnorms.


Abbreviations

AND:Anglo-NormanDictionary

AP:AnnalesPaulini

DMF:DictionnaireduMoyenFrançais

EETS:EarlyEnglishTextSociety

EMC:EncyclopediaoftheMedievalChronicle

GB:ChronicleofGeoffreyleBaker

GCF:GrandesChroniquesdeFranceinterpolationsintotheSHFeditionofFroissart’s

Chroniques

MED:MiddleEnglishDictionary

SGGK:SirGawainandtheGreenKnight

SHF:Froissart’sChroniques,collatedaccordingtothechaptersoftheSociétédel’Histoirede

Franceedition(seeAppendix)

VEII:VitaEdwardiII

Preface

Someyearsago,Iwasstruckbythesimilaritybetweentwoscenesinapparentlyvery

differenttexts:EdwardIII’sfamousconfrontationwiththeburghersofCalaisinBookIofJean

Froissart’sChroniques,andArthur’sresponsetotheRomanemissariesatthebeginningofthe

alliterativeMorteArthure.1Eachscenefollowsthesamepattern:thespeechlessnessinthose

firstfewmomentsoffury;thoseflashingeyes,communicatingroyalwrath;theterrorthey

strikeintotheirtargets,whoprostratethemselvesandpleadformercy;theunitedemotional

responseoftheking’sfollowers,topityinonecaseandsharedangerintheother;anappealto

thekingthatinvokeshisnobilityandcourtesy/gentilesse;andfinally,oncetheperformanceof

angerhashaditseffect,theactsofcounselthattemperitintoamoreconsideredresponse.

Bothexpressionsofangeraretrulyperformances,andarefeltassuch:displaysofgloryand

triumphbeforeafullcourt,andonthestage(inaslightlybroadersense)ofwarand

internationalpower.Butaretheyperformancesofemotioninanothersense—conventional

ratherthansincere,rehearsedratherthanspontaneous?Andwhatarewetomakeofthefact

thatoneisfictioninallsenses,whiletheotheris,atleastostensibly,history?

Froissart2recountsindetailthespeechesandactionsofpeoplewhowerestilllivingat

thetimeofwriting,andhisChroniquesbecameincreasinglypopularinEnglishandFrench

societyoverthelastfewdecadesofthefourteenthcentury.Theywerecirculatedtoan

audiencethatincludedeyewitnessestotheeventsinquestion,andwhichwouldhavebeen

familiarwiththealliterativeMorteorsimilartextswrittenintheculturalclimateofEdward

III’snewCamelot.

Butthissceneisnotrestrictedtothesetwotexts:displaysofroyalangerfollowingthe

samepatternappearinfictionalandhistoricalliteratureinEnglandovertheprevioustwo

centuries.WouldFroissarthaveusedthattropetodisplayEdwardIII’sangerintheflattering

patternofpowerful,positivemonarchsofliterature,nomatterwhathesaidordidatCalais?

1SHF1–312;MorteArthure116–38.Fornotesoneditionsandtranslationsofmymostcommonlyusedprimarytexts,seetheentryforthattextinquestionintheappendix,whichcontainstheoriginalandatranslationofseveralangereventsfromeachtext.Inthebodyofthethesis,anunderlinedcitationdenotesthatthepassageinquestionisamongthoseincludedinAppendixB.

2FortheseearlyyearsofhisChroniquesFroissartiscopyingandeditingthewritingsofJeanleBel.IwilldiscussthelittledifferencesofwordinghemakestoleBel’sversioninmoredetailinSectionB,butfornow,IamspeakingofFroissart’stextaswehaveittoday,andinthecontextofitspopularityintheEnglishandFrenchcourtsthroughthelaterfourteenthcentury.


OrdidEdwardIIImakethatconnectionhimself,deliberatelyactingoutafamiliarsceneof

royalangerpreciselybecauseitcarriedallthatinheritedpowerofmeaning-making?Doesart

imitatelife,orlifeart?Oristhereamoresubtleinterplayofcauseandeffectatwork?Inother

words,whatroledoeshistoricalwriting(orwritinghistory)haveontheculturalmemoryof

emotionandonhowitislearned?

Thesequestionsprovidedtheseedsforthisdissertation,andtheymultipliedasit

grew.Medievalhistoricalwritinghasreceivedrelativelylittleattentionsofarinthefieldof

emotionshistory,anditpresentsitsownuniquechallenges.Howcanwestudyemotionin

historiographicaltexts,wheretherelationshipbetweenexperienceandrepresentationisso

deliberatelyentwined,andwheremeaningisoftenembeddedwithinstoriesbyconventions

andreferencesthatarenotnecessarilyobvioustotheforeign(modern)eye?Werarelyhave

directaccesstotheemotionofthesubjectsofthestories,butnorcanwedivorceachronicle

entirelyfromtheeventsitnarratestostudyitentirelyascreativefiction.Whosefeelings,

then,doweaskittowitness:EdwardIII’sorFroissart’s?orthoseofanentireemotional

community?

Historiographyhasoneparticularlyenticingtrait:itisadeliberateandconscious

attempttoimposeorderonachaoticworld,tostringeventsintoaknownand

comprehensibleshape.Inshort,historiographytriestomakemeaningoutofhuman

experiencebymeansofstory.Theimpulseisfundamentallyhuman,veryinnate,butthe

processishighlyacculturated;andthatisaparadoxwithwhichthehistoryofemotionsis

veryfamiliar.Storytellingissharedacrossallhumancultures,asameansofshapingand

sortingexperiences,andoftransmittingandrecordingthem.Themodelsandshapesthatit

uses,however,arelearned:learnedfromveryearlyinlife,andsteepedinculturaland

individualexperience.Therelationshipbetweenmedievalchroniclesandtheemotionsthey

representisalmostalwaysopaque,butthetechniquesbywhichchroniclersshapetheir

narrativescanbetraced;andthesecanteachusagreatdealabouthowtheyshare,explore,

andparticipateintheemotionalnormsoftheworldaroundthem.

Introduction

Defining anger

Areemotionsprimarilybiologicalorculturalphenomena?The“naturevsnurture”question

hasbeencentraltothefieldofthehistoryofemotions,3notleastbecausethepush-pull

betweenthemisnecessaryfortheprocessofhistoricisinginthefirstplace.Ifathingiseither

absolutelybiological(andthereforetranshistorical)orabsolutelyculturallydetermined

(ahistorical),howcanitbetrulysaidtohaveahistory?Foranyconversationtobemeaningful

wemustpositionourselvessomewherebetweenextremes:betweentheinherentandthe

acquired,betweenanthropologyandliterature,betweenthegeneralandtheexceptional.In

doingso,wearenotdeclaringafinalanswer,onlychoosingthebestpositionfromwhichto

holdthatparticularconversation—and,moreimportantly,acknowledgingthatachoicehas

beenmade.

Inanystudyofasingleemotion,oneofthefirstofthesechoicesisaboutdefinitionand

scope.WhatdoImean,forexample,bythewordanger?Wheredowestartwhenitcomesto

studyinganemotionacrosssuchaculturalgap?Consider,firstly,theworditself.Thenoun

angerenteredtheEnglishlanguagefromOldNorse,buttheearliestattestedusesinthe

MiddleEnglishDictionaryarefromthe1320s—wellafterthecompositionofmanyofthetexts

thatIamusing.Evenoncethewordwasestablisheditwasnotthemostcommonlyusedword

inmedievalEnglandforwhatwenowmeanbythesameword.Wratthe(fromOldEnglish)is

morecommon;andthenMiddleEnglishsharessomewordswitheitherorbothLatinand

French,suchrageandire/ira.4Thereareplentyofothercommonwordsinallthree

languages:Latinfurorandiracundiaandtheverbcommovere;MiddleEnglishtene,furour,

greme,indignaciounandgreven,grouchen;Frenchferté,irur,andennoier,corucer.

Usageandconnotationsareperpetuallyshiftinginconversationwithotherlinguistic

andculturalcurrents,acrossandbetweenallthreelanguages.Forexample,theMiddleEnglish

Dictionarylists“distress,suffering,anguish,agony”astheprimarymeaningofanger:its

3Forthefullesttreatmenttodateofthetwosidesofthisdebate,seeChapters2and3ofJanPlamper’sHistoryofEmotions.

4SpellingsusedherearetheheadwordformsgivenintheMiddleEnglishDictionaryandAnglo-NormanDictionaryasofJune2019.Ikeeptothispracticethroughoutexceptwhenreferencingaspecifictextthatusesvariantspelling.WhereappropriateIfollowtheDictionnaireduMoyenFrançaisinsteadofusingtheAnglo-Normanform.Latinisstandardisedexceptindirectquotations.


associationswithwrath,hostility,rage—inshort,our“anger”—comesecond.Incontrast,

Latincommoverealmostalwaysmeans“tobecomeangry”,thoughsemanticallyitcouldjustas

wellmean“tobemoved”byanyotherpowerfulemotion.LatinandEnglishdol/dolorusually

referonlytophysicalpainorsorrow,whiletheFrenchequivalent(duel)ismuchclosertothe

Englishgref—asurgeofpassionatehurt(andusuallyanger)inresponsetoaphysicalor

emotional“wound”.5Some(butnotall)wordscarrythesamerangeofconnotationsastheir

cognatesintheothertwolanguages;someexistasnouns,adjectives,andverbs,whileothers

arerareornon-existentincertainpartsofspeech:angren,forexample,wasmorecommon

thananger,andbeginstoappearinMiddleEnglishtextsalittleearlier.6StephenWhitehalf

acknowledgesthisflexibilitywhenhesaysthat,despitethenumberofanger-relatedwordsin

FrenchandLatin“thesedifferenttermsdonotnecessarilymarkmorethanoneclearly

identifiableformofanger”(“PoliticsofAnger”134–35).WhileIfindthatthereare,infact,

severalclearlydifferentiatedtypesofangerinthesetexts—ofwhichmorelater—noneof

themhasastablerelationshipwithanyoneofthesewords.Noristhereanysingle

contemporarytermthatcouldstandinasablankettermtocovertheconceptofangerasa

“basicemotion”.Wrattheandiracometheclosest,perhaps;buttheirassociationswiththe

deadlysinaretoopowerfultoletthemstandinasneutraltermsintheirculturalcontext.

InsteadIuseangerinitsmodernsense:arelativelyneutral“meta-concept”within

which“Iwillnotshyawayfromthenecessarylaboursofhistoricization”—asJanPlamper

sayswhenheprivilegesthewordemotionoveraffect,passion,orfeeling(HistoryofEmotions

12).AngerisrareenoughinthewritingofmedievalEnglandtoberelativelyunencumbered

withculturalbaggage,andisontheotherhandcommonenoughinmodernEnglishtobeall-

encompassing.Beneaththisbroadumbrellaofaword,Icanhuntoutthefinernuancesof

meaning,genre,language,style,andcontextinthelexiconappropriatetotheperiod,letting

thewordchoicesinindividualtextscomeintoconversation(orargument)witheachother.

Thecomplexityofthelexicalfieldismirroredintheculturaldiscoursesaroundthe

varioustypesofangersandtheotherideasthattheyintersect.Fromtheiconographyofvices

andvirtuestoEdwardIII’sArthurianrage,differentangersdodifferentkindsofworkin

5DuelandgrefarediscussedinChapter10.61300,ratherthan1325—althoughthereisoneisolatedexamplefromthelastquarterofthetwelfthcentury.UnlikethemodernEnglishverb“toanger”,angrenisusuallyintransitive:reflexiveinsense,andsometimesinsyntax(thatis,itmeans“tobecomeangry”,not“toprovokeangerin”;andappearsintheconstruction“Ianger[myself][ather]”,withthereflexivepronounandindirectobjectbeingoptional).ThisischaracteristicofmanyMiddleEnglishemotionwords:anactiveverbisusedmoreoftenthanapassiveoradjectivalconstruction.


differentcontexts:theological,political,interpersonal,cultural,literary,orhistorical.Where

dowebegin,whencomparinganytwoinstancesofanger?Dotheyinteractconceptuallyat

all?Iflate-medievalconceptsofangerwerenotneatlyorderedalongdifferentlexicallines

(wratthealwaysmeaningonekindofanger,grefandragetwomore),howthenwerethey

structured,andhowdoweaccessthoseconceptualpatterns?

Onewaywouldbetousecontemporarytools:thatis,tobuildaworkingdefinitionor

theoryofvarioustypesofangerfrommedievaltheoreticalapparatus(suchasThomas

Aquinas’discussionsofangerintheSummaTheologiae,schematicrepresentationsinvisual

culture,orthe“flow-chart”analysesofsininconfessionalmanuals),thenusethattheoryto

analyseone’schosentexts.Curiouslyenough,however,Ihavefoundmedievaltheoriesof

emotion,sin,andthebody,havelittlerelevancetothekindsofangerconceptualisedinthese

texts.So,forexample,confessionalmanualslikeLorensd’Orleans’highlypopularSommele

Roi(anditsfourteenth-centurytranslationintoTheBookofVicesandVirtues)anatomise

anger,almostliterally,withdetailedreferencetoeverydaybehaviourandactions,simplifying

andmakingpracticalagooddealofmorecomplexandabstractcanontheory.Wemight

expectsuchmanualstohavesomeinfluenceonhowpeoplefeelabouttheirfeelings—andin

othersituationstheyalmostcertainlydid7—buttheirmodelofprivateself-analysisconstructs

averydifferentemotionalselftothatfoundinanyofmytexts,andIfoundthatTheBookof

VicesandVirtuesrarelyprovidedmewithanymeaningfulcomparison.

Galenichumoraltheoryisanothermedievaltheoreticaltoolthatonemightexpectto

findusefulhere,buttheonlytracesofitareanassociationofangerwithheatandthecolour

red.Thereisinthiscontextnomentionofcholer,nosuggestionofangerbeinglocatedinany

particularorganorsectionofthebody,noranyideaofitaffectingthebodyinanyway

consistentwithmedical(orastrological)theory.Nordomostchroniclersexplicitlyrespondto

orengagewithongoingscholasticdebatesaboutthestatusandpermissibilityofangerunder

certaincircumstancesorwhenexpressedincertainways.Ihavefoundthesetypesof

medievaltheoreticalapparatusalmostentirelyirrelevantwhenitcomestoclassifyingand

interpretingtheangersofthesetexts.Noparticularbranchofmedievaltheoryseemstotouch

thewaypeopletellstoriesaboutanger:thekindsofangerconceptualised,themechanismsby

whichtheyareproducedinthebody,thewordsandbehavioursusedtodescribethem,their

effectsonthenarrativeoronhowchroniclersinterprethistoricalevents.Consequently,Ihave

7Forexample,JenniferBryanemphasisesthepopularityoftheseconfessionalmanualsandtheirroleinconstructinganideaoftheheartasasiteofsilentmeditation(LookingInward121andelsewhere).


usedmedievaltheoryverysparingly.Itmustbeacknowledgedhere,butitwouldhavebeena

weakanalyticaltoolformostofmytexts.

Whatofmodernapproachestomedievalanger?RobBoddice,inhis2018summaryof

thefield,hasafootnotethatbegins,“Angerhasproducedadisproportionatenumberof

works”(65n.17).Hemayberight,objectively,butIfindthatwehavenotyetreallycometo

termswithhowtoapproachangerasasubjectofahistoricalstudy.Thoseworksthat

consideraperiodaftertheMiddleAges—mostnotablytheStearns’bookonangerin

twentieth-centuryAmerica—foregroundcontrolandrestraint.Thisideaofangerasan

explosive,destructivesocialforceispresent(thoughnotsoubiquitous)inagooddealofwork

onmedievalangeraswell.Iwillconsidertheexistingliteratureonmedievalangerinmore

depthinChapter1;but,broadlyspeaking,mostcriticseitherstudyangerassin,orroyal

anger.8Lesscommon,butstillprominent,arestudiesofangerinothergroupsofpeople,9or

studiesfocussedononeparticularauthorortext.10ThesubtitleofSilvanaVecchio’sarticle

maybetakenasasummaryofthewhole:“Storiadiunviziochequalchevoltaèunavirtù”

(“Historyofavicewhichissometimesavirtue”).Inotherwords,criticalfocushasusually

beenonaskingwhetherandwhenangeristobepermitted:underwhatcircumstances,in

whichpersons,towhatextent.Thisnarrownessoffocuslimitsthekindsofquestionswecan

ask.True,itisimpossibletodisentanglemedievalangerentirelyfromitsstatusasoneofthe

principalvices;andtrue,itishasthepotentialtobeaverydestructivesocialforce;butwecan

askagooddealmoreaboutemotionalproductionandpracticesifourquestionsarenot

filteredthroughconsiderationsofwhetherangerispositivelyornegativelycodedinany

giveninstance.

8Forthefirstapproach,apartfromstudiesalreadymentioned,seeworkssuchasPaulMegnaon“RighteousAngerManagement”;MaureenFlynn,“TamingAnger’sDaughters”;MichaelRota,“TheMoralStatusofAnger”;LilianaSikorska,“DealingwithAnger”;SilvanaVecchio,“Iramala/irabona:Storiadiunviziochequalchevoltaèunavirtù”;MarcB.Cels,“God’sWrathAgainsttheWrathful”;andAlbrechtClassen,“AngerandAngerManagementintheMiddleAges”.WorksonroyalangerincludeChrisGiven-Wilsonon“TheEarlofArundel,theWarwithFrance,andtheAngerofKing

RichardII”,andHansJacobOrningon“RoyalAngerbetweenChristianDoctrineandPractical

Exigencies”.Evenhere,however—asthesecondtitleimplies—questionsofsinandviceareusually

inplay,asroyalangerisusuallydiscussedwithreferencetoitsacceptablelimitsandapplications.9As,forexample,threepapersinAnger’sPast:LesterLittleonmonasticanger,WendyDaviesonangerintalesofCelticsaints,andPaulFreedmanondepictionsofpeasantanger.

10SuchasRonNewbold,“TheNatureofAngerinGregoryofTours’LibriHistoriarum”.


Thepredominanceofthissomewhatlimitedapproachisthemoreremarkablebecause

Anger’sPast,editedbyBarbaraRosenweinin1998,putusinaverygoodpositiontobeginthe

workoflookingbeyondthat.Forexample,asweseeinStephenWhiteandGerdAlthoff’s

papersinthatvolume,“royalanger”isnotexclusivetokings.Thesamesemi-ritualised

behavioursappearinothermeninpositionsoffeudalpower.Iraregisisamedievalterm,and

angerinkingsspecificallyisanimportantsubjectofmedievalrhetoricaldiscourse,butthatis

clearlynotthewholestorywhenitcomestothesebehavioursasemotionalpractice.

Moreover,bothWhiteandAlthoffacknowledgeaplacefor“royal”angerasaproductivesocial

tool.

SincethepublicationofAnger’sPastthefieldofemotionshistorieshasblossomed,and

wehavedevelopedmanymorenuancedwaysofthinkingaboutemotionthanwereavailable

upto1998.Medievallove,forexample,hasbeenthesubjectofmanysubtleandinteresting

studiesonquestionsofsocialfunction,expression,embodiment,acculturation,sincerity,and

learning.Beyondstudiesofsingleemotionswehavesimilarquestionsbeingaskedof,for

example,affectivepiety;ofemotionsingeneralastheyengagewithobjects,withspaces,with

theenvironment,andsoforth;emotionsastheyarefeltandexpressedandspokenofin

relationtothephysicalbody;andthekindsofemotionalengagementthattextscanrequireof

theirreaders.“Anger”asasubjectseemstohavevanishedinthelastfewyears,subsumed

perhapsby“violence”,“conflict”,“pain”—arguablymorenuancedkeywordswhichhavethe

potentialtobringthesamepromisinginquiriestospecificinstancesofmedievalanger—and

yet,Idonotthinkwehaveeverquitecometotermswithangerinitsownright.Nor,perhaps,

havewequitemovedawayfromtheassumptionthatitissuchafundamental(primitive?)

emotionthatitsdestructivepoweristranshistorical,anditisonlytheexpression(or

suppression)ofitthatchanges.

Aswewillsee,takingmedievalangeronitsowntermsleadstounexpected

revelations—Iwasquiteunprepared,forexample,bywhatangertaughtmeaboutloveina

feudalcontext(seeChapter5).Meaningisalwaysnegotiatedbyreferenceandcomparison.

Thisisnolesstrueofemotion:noneoftheseconceptsofangerexistsinisolation(onlyof

kings,onlyasinornotasin,theonlywaytobehavewhileangry).Aprojectofthisscopelets

mebringdifferenttypesofangeranddifferentnarrativestylesintoconversationwitheach

other,tostudytherelationshipsbetweenthemaswellastheangersthemselves.AsIexplain

inmyfirstchapter,Iidentifyfivetypesofangerinthesetexts,ofwhichtwo—feudalanger

andshamedanger—accountforthevastmajorityofangereventsinmedievalhistoriography.

Eachseemstobeconsideredasadistinctemotion:theyhavedifferentpatternsoflanguage


andnarrativestructure,theyarisefromdistinctcauses,theyarecontrastedtoadifferent

opposingconcept(fromlovetocowardice),theyhavedifferentscriptsofemotional

behaviour.LikeC.StephenJaegerandUteFrevert’s“lostemotions”—ennoblinglovein

Jaeger’scase,honourinFrevert’s—theseangersare“boundupintimatelyandintrinsically

withdynamicsofpowerandsocialpractice”(Boddice90).11Theyaredeeplyembeddedin

socialrolesandthenegotiationsofanacculturatedemotionalself,andsotheytooaretoa

certainextent“lost”:theymustbereconstructedbeforetheycanbeunderstood.

Whatdoeslate-medievalangerlooklike?ItincludesIrabattlingagainstPatientiain

thepopulariconographyofvicesandvirtues,aswellasthejust(butvengeful)wrathofGod.It

includesformaldisplaysofthedisfavourofprinces,andstatementsofwar.Thesemayallbe

playedoutinhighlypersonaltermsinthecourtandonthebattlefield.Itincludesimpulses,

sensations,behaviours,andcontinuousstates,aswellasvariouscultural,religious,legal,and

interpersonalmeanings.Angercanbeaviceoraweakness,orevidenceofvirtueandstrength.

Itmayuniteacommunity,ordisruptit.Itcanbediscussedintermsofmanydifferentsocial

codes:religiousethics(e.g.,asaspiritualvice,orthevengeanceofarighteousGod/monarch),

thehonourcode(asaresponsetoshameorameansofdisprovingaffront),feudaland

politicalinteractions(signalandtoolofconflictanditsresolution),andsoforth.Itmaybe

portrayedpositivelyornegatively—itisrarelyneutral.Finally,itintersectswithmany

differentkindsofstoriesandsocialinstitutions.Angerisnotonesingleemotionbuta

complexclusteroffeelingsandpractices.Allare,however,associatedwithmomentsand

timesofsocialdysfunction,wherepressureisputonexistingsocialinstitutionsandemotional

norms,exposingthecracksalreadythere.Anger,therefore,doesnotonlyteachusabout

anger:itteachesitaboutfeelingsanddominantemotionalstyles,anditdrawsattentionto

theirfailures.

Defining chronicles

ItisovertwentyyearsnowsinceGabrielleSpiegelcalledforthevernacularhistoriographyof

thirteenth-centuryFrancetoberead“withinthecontextofOldFrenchliteratureandnot

solely—ashasbeencustomary—inrelationtotheLatinsourcesthatservedasthebasesof

11Jaeger,EnnoblingLove:InSearchofaLostSensibility;Frevert,EmotionsinHistory:LostandFound.ForacomparativediscussionoftheseandotherworksonlostemotionsseeBoddice88–92.


thefirstworks”(RomancingthePast7);butitisstillrelativelyrareformedievalchroniclesto

beconsideredinthecontextofabroaderliterarycanon,orindeedincomparisontoanytexts

buteachother.Thisdistinctionisanachronisticandunhelpful:itresultsfromourmodern

disciplinarydivisions,notfromanythingintrinsictothetexts.Historiographydidnotbelong

toaseparatecategoryintheMiddleAges.Thissituationischanging,butthereisstillagood

dealofcatch-upworktobedonetobringchroniclesproperlyintoconversationwithother

contemporarynarrativetexts.Ifanything,Latinchroniclesarenowmoreisolatedthanthe

vernaculartexts,duetotherecentinterestinFrenchandEnglishchroniclesoftheBrut

tradition.Someofthisworkhasbeguntoconsiderchroniclesinliteraryterms—thatis,as

beingcapableofcreativityandimagination,ratherthan(crudelyspeaking)assourcesfor

diplomaticorculturalhistory—butonlyafewscholarsstudytheminrelationtoother

popularnarrativegenreslikeromanceandchansondegeste.Thisisratherodd,since

chroniclesthemselvesareremarkablydiverseinformandstyle.Thelongerthechronicle,

afterall,themore“stories”itcontains,oftenfrommanydifferenttimeperiodsandplaces;and

often,too,drawingonthestorytellingtechniquesofmanydifferentgenres.Thisdoesleaveus

withaproblemofdefinition—whatcountsasa“chronicle”(and,byimplication,whata

chronicleisfor)—aswellasofinterpretation.

Mostscholarlydefinitionsof“chronicle”focusonthedistinctionsbetweenchronicle

andhistoriaorannales.Chronicleismostoftenusedtorefertomedievalhistoriographical

worksingeneral,butifadistinctionismadethenannalstypicallymeansaworkwithshort

point-formentriesorganisedbyyear,withlittlediscussionorparatacticconnection;histories

arefullyrealiseddiscursive,analyticalprosewithareasonablyhighdegreeofliterary

decisionandorganisation;andchroniclesliesomewhereinbetween,withtheexact

boundariesvarying.DavidDumvilleinitiatedanongoingdebateintheMedievalChronicle

Societywhen,attheirsecondconferencein1999,hedeliveredakeynoterespondingdirectly

totrendshehadobservedattheinauguralconferencethreeyearsearlier.Hedecriedthe

“looseness…whichallowsalmostanynarrativetextdealingwithsupposedlyhistorical

personsandeventstobecalledachronicle”,andcalledforaveryclearandnarrowdefinition

(“Whatisachronicle?”1).Dumvillebuildsuphisdefinitionsofchronicleandannalfromthe

classicalterms,refutingBernardGuenée,whosedefinitionisgroundedinmedievalusageandis


deliberatelyvague.Guenéeadmitsthat,inpractice,thereismuchslidingbetweentheforms.12

Dumvilleisnotsatisfiedwiththis.Tosummarise:Dumvillearguesthatchronicle,fromchronos,

isconceptuallyacognatewithLatin’sannaleslibri,sotheyoughttobetreatedasessentially

synonymous(1–4).Ifthereisadistinctionitisthatanannalisasingleentrybasedonayear,

whereasthechronicleisacollectionofthoseannals(6).Byimplication,ahistoryisanythingwith

morenarrativestructureandcontent.Theproblemwiththisisthatheinsistsonthisverynarrow

usagedespitethefactthatitisgroundedinclassicalinheritance,ratherthanmedievalusage,and

thetoolsheusestobuildthedefinitionwouldnothavebeenavailabletowritersintheninthto

thirteenthcenturies,ofwhichhemainlyspeaks.Italsodeliberatelyexcludesagooddealof

medievalhistoricalwritingthatcomplicatesthisnarrowdefinition,andtherebycreatesan

artificialdistinctionandavoidstheconversationsthatchronicles,byhisdefinition,werehaving

witheveryotherformofhistoriographyatthetime.

BurgessandKulikowskitakeadifferentangle:theyattempttobreakdown“the

fundamentaldichotomybetweenannalsandchroniclesthatisobservedbymodern

medievalists”(165).LikeDumville,theydedicatetheirfirstseveralpagestoantecedentsin

classicalantiquity,including(inthiscase)MesopotamiaandAncientGreece.“Antecedents”in

thiscasearebothstylisticandetymological:thatis,BurgessandKulikowskiareinterestedin

boththehistoryofthewordchronicleandthesortoftextthatitdescribes.Theyseekacross-

culturaldefinitionforaperiodspanningmorethanamillennium,andarguethatnoreal

consistentdistinctionheldtrueacrossthattimebetweenthebriefyear-entriesthatwehave

cometocallannalsandfull-scaleanalyticnarratives.Theirconclusionisthatthewordannals

shouldbedroppedcompletely—“itsbaggageissimplytooheavyforittobear”—that

chronicleshouldbeusedinsuchawayastomatchitsuseinclassicalstudies(proseworks,

butshortandparatactic);andthathistoriashouldbeusedtoincludeanylong,narrativework

suchasthoseofFroissart(181–82).Theyalsosuggestseveralotherlesscommontermslike

chronographtocovervarious“sub-genres”(182),butthedetailsarenotimportanthere:the

keypointisthattheirdefinitions,likethoseofDumvilleandGuenée,centreonthedifference

betweenterseyear-entrytablesandnarrativeprose.Othercriteriasuchas,forexample,

contentselection,language,narrativestyleandstructure,length,temporaldistancefrom

narratedevents,orinstitutionalaffiliation,arerarelydiscussedinmuchdetail.

12Guenéealsosummarisesthisdebateofterminologyasitproceededoverthetwentiethcenturytodate.Hisworkwasinstrumentalinembeddingthesethreetermsandtheirapproximatemeaninginacademicusage—aswellastheideathatthisparticularaspectofformandstructurewastheonebywhichmedievalhistoricalwritingshouldbeclassified(997–1016).


Nevertheless,theseandsimilarworksdocontainapervasiveassumptionaboutwhat

thecontentsofa“true”chroniclewilllooklike,twinnedwithanimplicitvaluejudgementon

whataworkofhistoryoughttodo.InherfoundationaloverviewofmedievalEnglish

historicalwriting,AntoniaGransdennotedtheambiguityaroundthewordchronicleand

sidesteppedit,decliningtoenterthedebatebutrestrictingherownstudyto“general,serious

historicalwritings”(HistoricalWriting129,emphasismine).Dumvilledoesnotspecifyhis

criteriaforcontentevensomuchasthat:hesimplydecriesthe“loose…attitude”that,for

example,allowsGeoffreyofMonmouth’sHistoriaRegumBritanniaetobecalledachronicle

(1).Inhisclosingremarks,too,hejokinglypromisesfellowpresentersattheconferencethat

hewillnotsendaroundthe“chronicle-police”toeachsession—“exceptperhapsthaton

GeoffreyofMonmouth!”(24).

Dumvilleishardlyaloneinnominatingthisoneparticularfiguretorepresentall

stylisticinterlopers.Geoffrey’sincorporationofArthurianaandaTrojanoriginmythintohis

versionofBritishhistory—andhispopularity—havemadehimafavouritetargetofthose

whofeelthatwordslikechronicleandhistoriaareappliedtoogenerously.Hisentryinthe

EncyclopediaoftheMedievalChronicleundercutshimquitefirmly—“AlthoughGeoffrey

claimedtobeahistorian,theHistoriaisnotbaseduponfact”—andmentionsEchard’s

suggestionof“anewcategory[forhim],historiafantastica”.13Moreintriguingly,asan

unexplainedcommentinintroducingthetext,JoannaBellisremarksthattheTrojanelements

“conferredprestigeandglory[but]strainedatthelimitsofacrediblehistoricalgenre”

(“Mappingthenationalnarrative”321).ThepasttenseimplicitlypositionsBellis’criticismin

thecontextoftheHistoria’simmediatecontemporaryreception—butitdoessowithout

specifyingjustwhatthoselimitsmaybe,orhowfarthatidealofa“crediblehistoricalgenre”

maytranscendcenturyandculture.14

13BealandKennedy,“GeoffreyofMonmouth”.TheinternalreferenceistoSiânEchard,ArthurianNarrativeintheLatinTradition.

14CriticismoftheHistoriaandquestioningofitsstatusasaworkofhistoryarenotlimitedtothepresentday—itsArthurianelements,inparticular,weretargetedwithinafewdecadesofitscomposition—butthesecriticismsshouldsurelybetakeninthecontextoftheculturalandliterarychangestakingplaceinEnglandatthetime,notleastwithregardtothisquestionofwhat“history”shouldbe.MypointhereisnotthatthestatusoftheHistoriawasunproblematicinitsowntimebutthatwedonotalwaysstoptoexamineexactlywhatmadeitso.ItwouldbeaworthwhileandcuriousprojecttocomparethetermsofthosecriticismswiththoselevelledatGeoffreyinthispastcentury,toaskexactlywhatviewstheyimply:ofhistoricalwriting,offactandstorytelling,andofthehistorian’sresponsibilitytothepastandfuture.


Thisimpulsetoseparatefactfromfantasy,ortheseriousfromthesensational,iseven

moreevidentwhenweconsidermodernreceptionofthevariousBrutchronicles,which

reworkGeoffrey’sversionofthehistoryofBritainintovernacularverseandprose(and

eventuallyLatinagain).TheseformastrongmajorityofsurvivinghistoriographyinEngland

fromthemid-thirteenthcenturytotheriseoftheprintingpress—indeed,oneMiddleEnglish

proseversionwasamongthefirstbooksthatWilliamCaxtonchosetoprint—andtheir

exclusionwouldseriouslymisrepresentthekindsofstoriesthatfourteenth-centuryEngland

wantedtohearandtellaboutherpast.15AsImentionedearlier,thesetextsarereceiving

increasedattentionlately,andratherdifferenttreatmentinacademiccirclesthanother

chronicles.So,forexample,Brutchroniclesaremorelikelytobeallowedasvernacular

literature,andthereforetobedrawnintoculturalandlinguisticstudies.16Thischangein

focusdependsonprotestingthattheBrutsareexceptional,forbetterorforworse—thatthey

areeithermoreinteresting(orbetterwritten,ormoreculturallyrelevant)thanmere

chronicles,orthattheyhardlycountastruechroniclesatall.

TheBruttradition,infact,providesanexampleofmanyoftheissueswithdefinition

andgenre,andouracademicdesireforcleardefinitions.Itsstatusiscomplicatedbythe

questionofwhatitactuallyis:whetherasingletextwithvariations(translations,additions,

errors,emendations)forwhichanUr-textmightreasonablybesought,ora“tradition”

comprisingseveralmaintranslations/adaptationsandvariantsonthose.However,thesame

changeinfocusisperhapsleadingtoanexaggeratedperceptionoftheactualdifferences

15ProminentamongtheBrutsareWace(French,rhymingcouplets,12C);Laȝamon(English,alliterativeverse,late12Corearly13C);PierredeLangtoft(French,verse,early14C);RobertMannyngofBrunne(English,rhymingcouplets,completed1338);“the”FrenchproseBrutanditsMiddleEnglishtranslationandcontinuations(divergingprimarilyafter1333,butalsoincludingtheAnonimallewhichdivergesfrom1307).ThereisalsoaLatinBruttradition.Ingeneral,IrefertomostBrutchroniclesbyindividualnames(Mannyng,Anonimalle,etc)andusethewordBrut(unitalicised)torefertothemcollectively.Italicised,IusetheBruttoreferspecificallytoBrie’seditionoftheMiddleEnglishversion.Forconvenience,IusuallycitetheMiddleEnglishproseversionaswitnesstothewholetradition,theAnonimalleasanindependentchroniclefortheyears1307–34,andMannyngforlinguisticcomparison.

16See,forexample,LanguageandCultureinMedievalBritain,editedbyWogan-Browneetal.,inwhichBrutchronicleshaveastrongpresence;ReadingLaȝamon’sBrut,editedbyAllenetal.;andJuliaMarvin’sworkontheBruttraditionoverthepastdecade.Amorecommonapproachtobringingchroniclesandliterarytextsintoconversationwitheachotheristousechroniclestocontextualiseliterature;so,forexample,GeraldMorgan’seditedvolumeChaucerinContextincludesonepaperconsideringthepowerpoliticsintheMiddleEnglishBrutandthecourtcultureinwhichChaucerwaswriting(WilliamMarx).


betweenBrutchroniclesandothers.Onecouldassembleasimilarclusteroftextsbasedon

descentfromBede,orfromHenryofHuntingdon.Alternatively,ratherthanforegrounding

textual“ancestry”,onecouldgrouptogetherthosemonasticworksbornfromaneedto

establishtheirownhouse’slegendaryorhagiographicaloriginsandestablishrightstocertain

landsortraditions,inresponsetovariousroyallandgrabsfromtheeleventhcenturyonward.

Here,too,ismutualinfluence—instyle,motivation,andcontent—includingfrequentcopying.

AndwhatoftheLatincousinsoftheBrut,descendedfromgrandfatherGeoffreybutnever

turnedintothevernacular?

ErikKooper’srecentsuggestionisanintriguingresponsetothesituation:hecallsfor

Brutchroniclestobeconsideredasanentiregenreoftheirown,classedasagroupofdistinct

texts“whoseultimatetextualbasisshouldbe,orcanbetracedto,theOldestVersionofthe

Anglo-NormanProseBrut”(93).Thissuggestionseemstocombinetheimpulsetoseparate

themfrom“true”chronicleswiththedesiretoacknowledgetheirinterestandimportanceby

givingthemanotherequalcategoryoftheirown.Kooper’sargumentincidentallyrevealsan

underlyinghazinessofdefinitionthathasdoggedthiswholedebate:notonlyoftheword

history,butofgenre.

Allthisisnotintendedasapreambletosomenewdefinitionofeitherword.Iuse

chroniclesimplyandinclusivelyasashorthandfor“medievalhistoricalwriting”.Thisisstill

themostcommonandcasualusage—as,forexample,inthenameoftheEncyclopediaofthe

MedievalChronicle,andthatoftheMedievalChronicleSocietyitself.AnnalsandhistoriaIhave

demotedalmosttothestatusofadjective,usingthemtocharacterisetheendsofaspectrum

betweensparseyearentriesandfullydevelopedliterarynarratives:Ifindthatmost

chroniclesfallsomewherealongthisspectrumratherthanbeingentirelyoneortheother,

andmostmovefreelybackandforthalongit.Ihavedweltonthisquestionofdefinitionto

showup,firstly,someoftheunderlyingassumptionsinthewayweapproachmedieval

historicalwriting,andsecondly,thepervasivenessofthisurgetodefineandsegregate.

Chroniclesvarywildlyinalmosteverycharacteristic,andwewant,naturally,tocomparelike

withlike.Butthisdebateisinitselfasymptomoftheporosityofgenreboundariesinthelate

MiddleAges,andofourreluctancetoworkacrossthem.

TheafterlifeoftheHistoriaRegumBritanniaeisamongthegreatestexamplesof

genericboundary-crossinginthelaterMiddleAges,withthestoriesofArthurandCamelot

branchingoutacrossromance,lay,fabliaux,andsomethingthatlooksverylikehagiography—

evenwithoutconsideringallthevariousbranchesoftheBrutchroniclesthemselves.Manyof

thesenon-chronicletextsemployaframingdevicewhereintheauthorialvoiceassertsthe


interestandauctoritasofthetalebyclaimingtohavefounditinanoldbookofhistory—and

thisisallthemorecrediblebecausechronicleswillthemselvesfrequentlychangeregisterto

tellonestoryoranotherasromanceorhagiography.InmostversionsoftheBrut,thestoryof

KingLeirandCordeliaissandwichedbetweengenealogicallists—ortoputitanotherway,the

seriesofalmostliteral“begat’sprovideastructureandaunitytoalltheanecdotesthatmake

upGeoffreyofMonmouth’sviewofoldBritain.Universalchronicles—thatis,chroniclesthat

tell(orpurporttotell)theentirehistoryoftheworld,fromCreationonwards—wereof

necessityamiscellanyofdifferentstoriesarrangedchronologically.Consequently,asingle

textmightincludeepisodesofhagiography(say,thereignofEdwardtheConfessor),chanson

orromance(Arthuriana),collectionsofprophecy(Merlin)orsayings(Alfred),digressionson

geography(descriptionsofthelandsandriversoftheBritishisles),culturalor

anthropologicalanecdotes,storiesfromtheBible(particularlytheCreation),Virgilian-style

epic(Brutus),andmoralisingauthorialcommentary—besidescharters,petitions,letters,and

similardocuments(sometimesforged),insertedtoillustratethestoriestold,ortoverifythe

privilegesandpossessionsofthereligioushousetowhomthemanuscriptbelonged.

Itisnowincreasinglyrecognised—atleast,whenitcomestothestudyofmedieval

literaturegenerally—thattheconceptofgenresisfluidintheMiddleAges.17Thisdoesnot

meanthattheideaofgenreismeaninglessinstudyingmedievalliterature,orthatmedieval

peoplethemselvesneverthoughtintermsofgenredivisions.KeithBusbylistsmanydifferent

medievaltermsfordifferentgenres,andpointsoutthattheirsheernumberindicates“an

awarenessonthepartofmedievalauthorsandaudiencesofboththesimilarityanddifference

betweentypesofnarrative”,butfindsthatmoderneffortstodefinegenres“haveobscuredor

evensacrificedthequalitiesofindividualtextsbyattemptingtoimposeconformityona

motleycorpus”(139).Busbyrejectsattemptstodefinebyafewinfluentialprototypes,

suggestingthat,inaworksuchasBéroul’sTristan,“[o]nelooksinvainformanyofthe

qualitiesprizedinaChrétienromance(say,queststructureorpsychologicalcharacter

development),andthetextcanremainapuzzleuntilitisseenasaconfluenceofmanykinds

ofnarratives:romance,epic,andfabliauforemostamongthem…thelexisofBéroul’spoem

17AsidefromAlfredHiattandKeithBusby,discussedbelow,otherswhohavedrawnonthissortofgenreflexibilityintheirworkincludeEmilyLeverett(“AnAffectiveRomance?”),MarianneJ.Ailes(“TheAnglo-NormanBoevedeHaumtoneasachansondegeste”),andRobertTurcanandYinLiu(“MiddleEnglishRomanceasPrototypeGenre”).Inaddition,ChristineElsweiler’sstudyofthelexicalfieldsofcertainwordsinLaȝamon’sBrutprovidesharddataonthecomparativefrequencyofthosewordsintheBrut,theOldEnglishheroictradition,andMiddleEnglishromance,withanemphasisonthegenericambivalenceoftheBrut.


shiftsfromthecourtlytothepopularinconformitywiththevariousintertextsitevokes”

(141).Heconcludesthat“[t]hereallessonintheendissurelynottobeobsessiveaboutgenre

definitions,toadmittheirelasticity,andtoappreciatetheinterplaybetweenthemany

varietiesofOldFrenchnarrative”(151).

AlfredHiattgoesfurther,arguingthatthelackofgenericcodificationinMiddleEnglish

literature“indicatesneitheraninabilitytothinkmetacriticallyonthepartofmedieval

authorsandtheirpublics,norastateof‘disintegration’,noranykindof‘immaturity’of

literaryproduction,butratheranactiveresistancetoclassificatoryschemas…[Authors]

revelledintheflexibility,open-endedness,andvaguenessofgenericexpectations”(279–80).

Inthiscontext,medievalauthors(andpresumablyaudiencesorreaders)couldbemore

flexibleinshapingthemeaningsofatext,reachingforawiderrangeofcontextualreferents,

movingintoneorstylefromchansondegestetohagiographyfromonepassagetothenext,or

glancingasideforjustamomenttothefabliauinthemidstofcourtlyromance.Strictly

definedgenredivisionsmust,underthesecircumstances,beratherlimitingthanhelpful.Any

medievaltextexistsinrelationtosharedculturalexpectationsformedbyothertextsthatbear

varyingdegreesofkinshipwithit.

However,thisawarenesshasbeenslowtoreachchroniclestudies,notleastbecause

chroniclesaregenerallyconsideredtolieoutsidethefoldofliterature.NeitherBusbynor

HiattincludeshistoriographyintheirotherwiseexcellentdiscussionsofmedievalFrenchand

Englishliteraturerespectively.Busbyconsiderstheboundariesofseveralothergenres—

anthologymanuscripts,saints’lives,theBretonlay—butdoesnotmentionchronicles,

implyingbyexclusionthattheyarenot“literature”butsomethingelse,eventhoughthey

overlapjustasthoroughlywithallthesegenresmentioned.Hiatt’spaperintroducespartIIIof

PaulStrohm’seditedvolumeMiddleEnglish,titled“Textualkindsandcategories”:eight

papers(notcountingHiatt’s)onvariousgenresofMiddleEnglishliterature.Noneofthemis

dedicatedtohistoriography,althoughMatthewGiancarlodoesdiscussthefascinationwith

familylineagethatappearsinbothromanceandchronicle(352–68).Thisisnotareflectionof

therelativepopularityofchroniclescomparedtogenressuchasautobiographyorvernacular

theology—bothofwhichdohaveachaptertothemselvesinMiddleEnglish—butofourown

priorities.Chronicleshavetraditionallybelongedtohistory,nottoliterature:wehave

perpetuatedanartificialdivisionalongourowndisciplinarylines,betweenhistoricalwriting

andotherformsofcontemporarynarrative.Thereisstillatendencytoreadchroniclesasthe

forerunnersofmodernhistoricalwriting,ratherthanaspartofalargernetworkofmedieval

narrativewriting.Thatis,theyarestilltoooftenreadtodiscover“facts”(aboutevents,about


years,aboutthelivesofmajorfigures),evaluatedfortheiraccuracyaccordingtopost-

Enlightenmenttastesandstandardsthatdonotpredatethenineteenthcentury,andfound

wanting.Thedistinctionbetweenhistoriographicalwritingand“literature”,inshort,is

irrelevantandunhelpfulwhenitcomestomedievaltextuality.

Withthisinmind,itwouldbedisingenuoustothinkthatonlychroniclescanilluminate

otherchronicletexts:thatchroniclersdrawonlyonotherchroniclesand“serious”textssuch

astheBibleinshapingtheirnarrative,orthatothertextsareneverinfluencedbychronicles.

Somescholarshavebeguntoconsidertheseintertexuallinks.AnneBaden-Daintree,for

example,considerstheimageryofviolenceinthealliterativeMorteArthurewithcomparative

referencetoGeoffreyofMonmouthandtwovernacularBrutchronicles(Wace’sinFrenchand

Laȝamon’sinEnglish)(“Visualisingwar”).JoannaBellisincludeschroniclesinher“literature”

oftheHundredYearsWar,thoughshetreatsitseparatelytopoetry(HundredYearsWarin

Literature).Giancarlo,asmentioned,comparesthetreatmentofonetheme(genealogy)across

romanceandchronicle,justifyingthatchoiceonthegroundsthattheyareboth“obsessively

concernedwiththestoriesofkingsandknights,theriseandfallofreignsandrules,the

‘subjectsofhistory’…thesheerimprobabilityofeventsandthestrangepotentialitiesof

temporalunfolding”(357—58).Engagingly,heturnsthatfamilialobsessionbackonthe

genresthemselves,callingthetwokindsofstory“demonstrablyclosekin”:“likestoriedtwins,

‘romance’and‘chronicle’havethesamepointofbirthandtheirwanderingsintersect”(355).

Chroniclesarenotisolatedfromothergenres.Theysharenarrativetechniques,tropes,

structures,allusions—andasimilarrepertoireofemotionalstyles.Infact,theyarenota

distinctgenreatall:theyaresimplytextsthatpurporttorecountrealevents,withsome

intentionof“writinghistory”.

Serious,factual,credible,“historical”:thesetermsarenotinthemselvestranshistorical,

noristheassumptionthattheyshouldcharacteriseaworkof“history”forittodeservethe

name.Oneoftheissuesatstakehereisthequestionofthepurposeofhistoricalwriting.As

NancyPartnerpointedoutin1977,historieswereuntilapproximatelythelateeighteenth

centuryrecentlyreadforpleasureasmuchasfor“solemn”educationandreference—as

witnessthemanysurvivingmanuscriptsoftheBrutchroniclesandcontinuations.18Besides,

ashertitleremindsus,entertainmentandseriouspurposearenotswornenemies;anda

certainflexibilitywithnarrativestyleandweightmightserveboththeseends.Narratingthe

18JuliaMarvin’sentryintheEMConthe“ProseBrut,Anglo-Norman”begins:“InitsdifferentversionsinAnglo-Norman,Latin,andEnglish,theProseBrutchroniclebecamethemostpopularsecular,vernacularworkofthelateMiddleAgesinEngland.OverfiftyAnglo-Normanmanuscriptssurvive”.


downfalloftheEarlofLancasterinaformdeliberatelyreminiscentofasaint’smartyrdomis

verygoodstorytelling,andverypersuasive“education”(seeChapter3below).Having

EdwardIIIactoutthesamepatternofrageasKingArthurisdeliciouslydramaticevenonly

onitsownterms,butevenmoresowhenitresonateswitheverytimeonehasreadasimilar

talebefore.Thereareotherkindsofedification,too,thatareservedbetterbyrhetoricand

effectivestorytellingthanbystricthistoricalaccuracy.RalucaRadulescuhasargued,for

example,thatchroniclesoftenfunctionedasmirrorsforprinces,“seeinghistoryintermsof

modelsofgoodandbadkings”and“creatingcoherenceoutofthechaosofearlierperiods,

includingtherecentpast”(RomanceanditsContexts24).

Thiswasmyoriginalreasonforbringingmymainchronicletextsintoconversation

withromancesandchansonsdegeste.Medievalnarrativetextsmakemeaninginconversation

witheachother,butthisintertextualmeaning-makingisdifficulttoaccessaftersomany

years.Genreisnotirrelevanttomedievalnarrativebutitisflexible,tothepointofbeingan

authorialtoolinitsownright.Theresultshavebeenilluminating.Iamlookingforemotion,

andthefactthatmanychroniclesareratherdryordistantmakesmanyemotionevents

difficulttocharacterisewithoutcomparisontomoreemotionallydescriptivetexts.19

Perhapsitisforthisreasonthatchronicleshavebeenrelativelyneglectedinthestudy

ofthehistoryofemotionssofar,justastheyhaveinthestudyofmedievalliterature.Two

chaptersinEmotionsandWarconsidermedievalhistoriography—thosebyLindsay

DiggelmannandAndrewLynch—andJoannaBellis’studiesofrepresentationsoftheHundred

YearsWarinchroniclesandotherliteratureoftenforegroundemotionalresponses(Hundred

YearsWarand“Readermightlament”).Chroniclesmakesomeappearances,too,inthe

volumewhichsheco-editedwithLauraSlater(RepresentingWarandViolence).Stephen

Justice’svolumeonthefifteenth-centurychroniclerAdamUskcomesclose:althoughhedoes

notexplicitlyengagewithemotionshistory,hissensitivitytotheeffectofUsk’semotionson

history-makinggivesJustice’sanalysisrichnessanddepth.Similarly,BarryWindeatt’spaper

onbodylanguageinLaȝamon’sBrutcoversgroundwhichisfamiliartothehistoryof

emotions,butwithouttakingnoticeofmuchexistingworkinthatarea.Onesilenceis

particularlyworthnoting:RobBoddice’s2018surveyofthefieldofemotionshistory.His

chapteron“historiansandemotions”(thatis,thehistoryofthehistoryofemotions)goes

straightfromThucydidestothenineteenthcentury(14).Thisimpliesthat,despitethe

19CarolyneLarringtonemploysasimilartechniqueintextswhicharemoredirectlyrelated,comparingemotionscriptsinOldNorsesagastothoseinthetextsthattheytranslate,toexplorethelanguageoffeelingintheemotionallyreticentNorsetexts.


numberofmedievalscholarsworkingonemotionsoverthelasttwodecades,medieval

thoughtsaboutemotionsinahistoricaltrajectoryhavebarelybeenconsidered.Andyet,

chronicleshavethepotentialtobeveryrewardingforemotionshistory:theysitatthe

intersectionofmanygenres,andatthepointwherefactandinterpretationofhistorymeet.

Theyrepresentinthemselvesthatinterplaybetweenexperienceandexpressionthatwesee

inemotions.Theyhavethepotentialtorevealagooddealabouthowwe(ashumans,oras

historians)interpretandshapestories,histories,andfeeling.Whyhavetheyreceivedsolittle

attention?

Onereasonmay,ironically,betheinfluenceofBarbaraRosenwein.Havingafellow

medievalistassuchapioneerofthefieldhasgivenusastrongpositionfromwhichtotakean

equalpartintheongoingconversation.Butthepowerandpopularityoftheideaof

“emotionalcommunities”has,itseemstome,influencedthetypeofsourcesthatwewantto

consider:morespecifically,ithascircumscribedthesortofemotionalworldsthatwewant

textstobeabletowitnessinordertobeconsidered“emotional”.Rosenwein’smodelisnot

essentiallytextual:thetextisawindowontotheobject(s)ofstudy,andthecharacteristicsof

thetext,likedistortedorcolouredglass,mayobscurethatobjectasmuchasrevealit.

Certainly,fromaclassicallyhistoricalpointofview,chroniclesarenotclearwindowsontothe

emotionallivesofthepeopleintheirpages.Evenifweweretolimitourstudytosingle-

authorchronicleswhichtellofrecenteventswewouldstillfinddifficultiesintheir

relationshiptohistoricalfact.Mostchroniclersarenotimmediatewitnessestotheemotions

ofthepeople(thecharacters)theydepict,nordomanyallowanunequivocalviewofthe

emotionalworldofthechronicler.How,then,doweapproachtherelationshipbetween

representationandfact?

Nor,ontheotherhand,canchroniclesbetreatedentirelyasfiction.Whenitcomesto

text-basedemotionsstudiesoftheperiod,wehavefocussedinlargepartonreligious

communitiesandtextsandonthatsortoftextwhichalreadybelongedbytraditionto

“literarystudies”.BurgerandCrockerhavenoticedthisproblemtoo,suggestingrecentlythat

ourfocusonaffectivepietyinscholarshiponmedievalemotions,“whileunderstandable…and

immenselyproductive…hastendedtonarrowwhatweexpectthefocusofmedievalstudies

ofaffectandemotiontobe.Asaresult,wehaveonlybeguntotaptherichofferingsof

medievalrepresentations”(12).Fewchroniclesovertlyparticipateintheconstructionof

affectivepiety,orothertypesofemotionalitythathavereceivedfocussedcriticalattention.

Moreover,theirprofessedstatusasdocumentingrealeventsmeansthattheyrarelyinvitethe

kindsofquestionsthathistoriansofemotionswouldaskofTroilusandCriseyde,orLeRoman


delaRose.Manyhavelittleovertartificeorauthorialintervention,andorganisetheirmaterial

hypotacticallyratherthancausally,whichlimitstheirappealasobjectsofstudyfortheirown

sake.Tooliteraryforsomeinquiries,notliteraryenoughforothers,toocloseto“reality”and

toofarfromit,chroniclesdonotseemabletoanswerthekindsofquestionthatwehavebeen

tryingtopose.

Approaching the texts

Ifthequestionswehavebeenaskingsofararenotwellsuitedtomedievalhistoriography,

whatexactlyamIaskingofmytexts?WhatideasaboutemotionamIseekinginthem,and

how?

AsIhavealreadyimplied,Icometothesetextsinitiallyfromtheperspectiveofa

literaryscholar.Idonotask,forexample,GeoffreyleBakertogivemea“true”accountofthe

feelingsofEdwardIIonthisorthatspecificoccasion.Iwantthetexttotellmeaboutthe

emotionalnormsoftheworldinwhichitwaswritten—notmerely“Englandintheearly

fourteenthcentury”,buttheworldasrefractedthroughindividualandculturalimagination.

Ingeneralterms,Iaminterestedintheroleofnarrativeandconventioninshapinghistorical

personsandeventsintosomethingcomprehensibleandmeaningful.Morespecifically,I

regardthetextbothaswitnesstoemotionalpractices,andasemotionalpracticeinitself.That

is,Iseeitasbothrevealingandparticipatinginemotionalnorms.

Therapidexpansionofthefieldofthehistoryofemotionshasgivenusaplethoraof

termsforstudyinghowemotionsworkwithinasociety:emotionalnorms,styles,scripts,

communities,regimes,andsoon.Manyofthesetermsoverlap,eitherintheirinitialdefinition

orinhowtheyhavebeenadoptedandadaptedsince.Forexample,WilliamReddy’s

“emotionalregimes”andBarbaraRosenwein’s“emotionalcommunities”haveenough

similarities—andeach,beingaveryflexibleconceptualtool,hasbeenusedinawideenough

varietyofways—thatcomparingorcontrastingthemtoeachotherisalmostaspopulara

sportasapplyingthem.Emphasisingtheirdifferencesusuallyleadsto—orrelieson—a

narrownessofdefinition:thecentrallyenforcedpoliticalstructureofthemodernnationstate

(“regimes”),againstintimatede-centralisedcross-sectionsofmedievaldailylife

(“communities”).Asbothhaveacknowledged,however,theessentialdifferenceintheobject

ofstudyisnotsogreat:“anythingthatlookslikeanemotionalcommunityinRosenwein’s


termsisprobablyalsoanemotionalregimeinReddy’s”,asBoddicepointsout(80).20Formy

purposes,however,bothtermsaresomewhatlimited:theydefinetheobject—thesocial

group—ratherthanopeninguptheemotionsandemotionalprocessesofthepeoplewithin

thatgroup.Myfocusisreversed.IfIhavea“community”,itisallthosewhoparticipatedinthe

transmissionandcreationofacertainkindofstorytellingoverseveralcenturies—fartoo

largeandnebuloustouseRosenwein’smethodsinanymeaningfulway.NordoIengage

deeplywithReddy’sapproach:his“regime”,howeverbroadlydefined,centresstillon

questionsofenforcementandconformation,whetherthemeansofenforcementbepolice

officersordisapprovingglances.Iaminterestednotinhowemotionsareimposedbutinhow

theyarelearnedanddevelopedandmadetowork;and,morefundamentallywhenitcomesto

method,Igivethetextitselfamorecentralroleasamediumofemotionalexperienceand

expressionthandoeseitherReddyorRosenwein.

Tothisend,Iemployaformofpracticetheorythatcentresonnarrativeculture:

examiningtheemotionalnormsandstyleoftexts(singlyandcollectively)asifthetextswere

themselvesemotionalactorsinhistory,aswellaswitnessestoemotionalacts.Thisreflectsa

growingtendencyinthefieldofemotionshistoryasawhole:thecollapseofthedistinction

betweenemotionalexperienceandexpression,betweentheinnateandthecultural.Monique

Scheer’sintroductionofemotionalpracticesintothefieldhasbeenparticularlyinfluentialin

combatingthesedualisms,butsheisnotalone.NoramIthefirsttoapplysimilarideasto

textualculture:NickyHallett,forexample,findsthatthetextualityofhernunsisitself

instrumentalinthedynamicconstructionofemotionalnorms.Scheerprovidesa“how”based

onpracticetheory;Hallettappliesthe“how”totextualpractices.SarahMcNamergoesfurther

byexplicitlydiscussingthemedievalEnglishtextasasiteforteachinganddebatinglived

emotionalpractices(“Feeling”andAffectiveMeditation).Ifindthat,unavoidably,allmytexts

participateinasimilarconversation.Explicitlyorimplicitly,willinglyorunwillingly,by

expressionoffeelingtheyparticipateindevelopingtheideaofwhatthatfeelingis,does,and

means.“Expression”,forthesepurposes,canincludenotonlywordsandemotional

behavioursbutactionsandstories,includingthoseabouttheemotionsofothers.Onavery

fundamentallevelemotionsarestories—oratleast,wesortandfilethemasstorieswithin

ourmemories,andretrievetheminthoseterms.Expression,therefore,doesmorethan

categoriseemotions:itshapesthem.

20ForRosenwein’sandReddy’sresponses,seeRosenwein’sreviewofNavigationofFeeling(2002),andtheseriesofinterviewsconductedandeditedbyJanPlamperinHistoryandTheory(2010).


Thereisanotherclusterofsemi-synonymoustheoreticaltermstodisentanglehere:

“emotionalnorms”,“emotionalstyles”,“emotionology”,and,toalesserextent,“emotion(al)

scripts”.Iwillcomebacktotheideaofscripts,butImustclarifyafewpointsaboutmyusage

oftheothers.PeterandCarolStearnsinitiallyused“emotionalstyles”asmoreorless

synonymouswiththeir“emotionalnorms”or“emotionology”.Iuseitlessbroadly,following

Scheer:patternsofemotionalbehavioursandpracticesthatareappropriatetogivensocial

contexts.Apersonwouldhavemanyemotionalstylesintheirrepertoireand,moreorless

consciously,choosetheappropriateoneforagivencontext(Scheer216–17,adapting

Gammerl).Thatis,Itakeemotionalnormstomeanthosewhichapplytosocietyasawhole,

andemotionalstylestomeansubsetswithinthat—notdifferentpeoplebutdifferent

behavioursbythesamepeopleindifferentsituations.

However,Iaimtotreatmytextsbothaswitnessesandasactors.Consequently,Iapply

“emotionalnorms”and“emotionalstyles”notonlytothepracticestheywitness,buttothe

worldofwrittennarrativeinwhichtheyparticipate.“Emotionalnorms”inthissensewould

encompassthestructuresandexpectationsgoverningemotioninmedievalnarrativeasa

whole,while“styles”allowsforvariationsuchasonemightseebetweendifferentgenres:

differentemotionsprioritised,differentemphases,differentformsofdescription.For

example,itremainsconsistentacrosslate-medievalnarrativeingeneralthatonlythose

peoplemostnobleinbirthandinsoulcanfeelthemosthighlyvalorisedemotions,butthe

waysinwhichemotionsareportrayedanddiscussedandthekindsofemotionsprioritisedin

thetextwilldifferaccordingtogenre—according,thatis,tothe“emotionalstyle”ofthe

narrative.

“Emotionalnorms”and“emotionalstyles”,therefore,areconceptualtoolsthatItake

upandadaptslightlyinordertodemonstrateacertaincontinuityinthewayswecanthink

aboutemotionalpracticesbetweennarrativeandlivedexperience.Mydefinitionof

“emotion(al)script”,however,hasverylittletodowithitsprevioususageinthefield.That

termhassofarbeenrelativelyundeveloped:apromisingcombinationofwords,butwithlittle

theoreticaltraction.Itsusualmeaning,sofarasIhavebeenabletotrace,seemstobeasubset

ofemotionalnormsoremotionalregimes:essentially,prescriptions.McNamerdefines

“emotionscripts”usingthatveryword:“thelooselyaffiliatedculturalprescriptsthataidin

establishingandmaintainingwhatculturalhistorianshavetermed‘emotionalregimes’or

‘emotionalcommunities’”(AffectiveMeditation12):thatis,aknowledgeoftheappropriate

emotionalbehaviourinanygivencontext,asgovernedorenforcedbywhateverbroader

socialnormsapply.


McNamergoesontodevelopamorerigorousconceptof“intimatescripts”,inwhich

thetextprovidesasetofinstructionsfortheperformanceandproductionoffeeling.Iusethe

term“script”differently,tomeanarepeatedandrecognisablesequenceofemotionsigns

withinanarrative:toexpress(orproduce)agivenemotion,apersondoesthis,thenthis,then

this.AsIexplaininmoredetailinmyopeningchapter,an“emotionevent”isanymomentin

thetextwhereemotionisinplay;an“emotionsign”(withinanemotionevent)isthemeans

bywhichtheauthordepictsthecharacter’semotion;andan“emotionscript”isanysequence

ofthesesignsthatisrepeatedoftenenough,indifferenttextsandcontexts,tobecome

recognisableandeventuallytakeonasetofculturalmeaningsofitsown.So,anemotionevent

mightbeanentireelaboratescenerichindescriptionofemotionalbehavioursandinternal

sensations;oritmaybeapoliticalactionsuchasadeclarationofwarconsideredintermsof

itseffectsontherelationshipsbetweentheparties;oritmaybeabriefnarratorialmentionof

somebody’sfeelings;oritmaybearemarkableabsenceofemotionwherewemightexpectit.

An“emotionsign”mightbeacharacter’sactions,gestures,andspeechacts,acommentfrom

thenarrator,orjuxtapositionwithsomesymbolicrepresentationofaparticularemotional

state.Anemotionscriptis—forexample—thesequenceperformedbyEdwardIIIandArthur

thatIdescribedatthebeginningofthisintroduction,whichisthescriptoffeudalangerthatI

analyseinSectionB.

IestablishalistofcommonsignsinChapter1,andeveninsucharelativelysimpleact

ofcollationitisimmediatelyclearthatcertainemotionsignstendtooccurinspecific

sequencesundersimilarcircumstances:thatis,onebeginsveryquicklytoseeestablished

emotionscripts.Thesethenbecomeobjectsofanalysisthemselves:wecanthinkintermsof

emotionscriptstorecognisepatternsofreferenceandmeaningacrosstextsandgenres.From

amethodologicalpointofviewthisisparticularlyappropriateformedievaltexts,duetoa

culturalhabitofthinkingintermsofpatterns,figures,andauctoritas.Weareaccustomed

alreadytoreadingreferentiallyforcertainaspectsofmedievalstory-telling:recognising

tropesandallusionsisanessentialpartofaccessingmeaninginatext.Therelationshipof

scriptandsignto“real”emotionalnormsisnotsomethingthatcanbeabsolutelydetermined;

butwhetheritbedescriptive,prescriptive,ordiscursive,itisarelationship—theydointeract.

Narratingemotionsintermsofpredictable,repetitivepatternsofbehaviourisinitselfa

powerfulemotionalpractice.

Initssimplestterms,thisisaconcordancetechnique:insteadofmatchingwords

acrossandbetweentexts,Iammatchingemotionscripts,andstudyingthestructuralpatterns

underlyingwhenandhowtheyareused.WhydoesWalterofGuisborough’sEdwardIcallhis


heir“youlow-bornsonofawhore”?WouldEdwardIII,asimaginedbyJeanleBeland

Froissart,reallyhaveexecutedtheburghersofCalaisifQueenPhilippahadnotintervened?

Andwhydothesecharactersfollow,pointforpoint,exactlythesameemotionscriptsas

certaincharactersinRaouldeCambrai,LesVoeuxduHéron,andthealliterativeMorteArthure,

evenwhenthecontextandmeaningoftheirbehaviourseemtobeentirelydifferent?Emotion

scripts,visibleandcolourfulandmemorable,arethebuildingblocksofstories;buttheyare

alsoasortofinfrastructure,anetworkbetweenthem.Foregroundingthesenarrativepatterns

suggestedthatthereareseveraldifferent“angers”imaginedinthesetexts,eachassociated

withdistinctscriptsandgovernedbydifferentsocialrelationshipsandsituations.FromhereI

begantodeciphertherelationshipsbetweenthem,andtodiscoverunexpectedinsightsinto

theculturalinstitutionswithwhichtheyinteract.

ThroughoutSectionA(Chapters1–3)Ilayoutthetoolsforthisapproachandbeginto

putitintopractice.Chapter2examinesoneofthetwomostcommontypesofangertobe

foundinthesetexts—shamedanger—withaparticularemphasisontheroleofprovocative

speechtostimulateshamedangerandprovideanemotional(andnarrative)drivetowardthe

restorationofhonour.Chapter3considerstherelationshipbetweengenreandemotional

style,comparingtheimageofthedeadlysinIra(andheradversaryPatientia)totheideaof

shamedangeralreadyestablished,andstudyinghowseveralchroniclersengagespecifictypes

ofangertoeffectgenreshiftswithintheirnarrative.

SectionB(Chapters4–6)focussesinmoredepthonthesinglemostcommontypeof

angerinlate-medievalchronicles:feudalanger.Afterdescribingandanalysingthetypical

scriptforadisplayoffeudalanger(Chapter4),Imoveontoconsideritssocialimplications,

focussingparticularlyontheepisodeoftheburghersofCalaisinJeanleBelandJean

Froissart’schronicles.Thefactthatthiskindofangerisconceivedastheoppositeoflove

(Chapter5)andthedynamicsofcounselandintercessionindramatisingthechoiceofa

proportionateresponse(Chapter6)havefar-reachingimplicationsforourunderstandingof

feudalrelationshipsandtheroleofemotioninmedievalsociety.However,themost

recognisableandself-justifyingscriptoffeudalangerisonlyavailabletomeninapositionof

socialpower,leavingchroniclers—andperhapstheirsubjects—withoutapositivemodelfor

angerinanyothersituation.InChapter7Iconsiderafewcaseswherewritersseemto

strugglewithfindinganappropriatescriptfortheircharacters’feelingsorbehaviour,and

discusswhattheseabsencesmightmeanforlivedandwrittenemotionalpractice.

InSectionCItakeastepbackfromangertoconsideritinabroadercontext.Emotion

scriptsandsignsofangerarestillforegrounded,butmyfocusinthissectionisonlanguage


andperceptionsofthebodyasitrelatestoemotion.Iattempttodevelopamodelforthelate-

medievalfeelingbodyanditsrelationshiptotheworldaroundit,ofthekindthatMcNamer

calledforin2007(“Feeling”).SectionCconsidershowfarwecanreconstruct,nottheprecise

relationshipofscripttoexperience,butofhowitfeelstofeelthatway:whatsortof

emotionologythesetextspresumemorebroadly,andhowtheindividualbodyinteractswith

thesocialone.Chapter8returnstomylistsofemotionalsignsinChapter1,toaskwhatwe

canunderstandfromthesedescriptionsofboilingblood,tremblinghearts,heatand

movementwithinthebody.Thelanguageusedofthemisessentiallyunifying:allpartsofthe

bodyseemtoworktogethernotonlytorevealandexperienceemotionbuttocreateit.This

unityextendstotheexteriorofthebody:toexpressionandtosocialbehaviour(Chapter9).

Facialexpressionsarehardlyeverused,andwheretheydotheyarealmostuniversally

negative,signallinganunnaturaldisjuncturebetweenthepersonalandsocial.Theclusterof

wordsaround“grief”and“dole”inallthreekeylanguagesillustratesthisfundamental

mergingofthephysicalbodywithasocialormetaphysicalone(Chapter10).Inthissense,the

non-physicalbodycanbeone’ssocialreputation,acommunityasawhole,oraninstitution

(suchasafamilyorstate)whichaparticularpersonrepresents.Deuil/grefisnotsorrow:itis

afierceemotionalandphysicalresponsetothewoundingofthebody,andremainsthesame

nomatterwhatkindof“body”isinquestion.Uponexamination,caseswhichdeviatefrom

theseemotionalnormsconfirmthesefindings:criticismofhistoricaleventsandcharacters,

especiallyofprinces,isoftencouchedintermsofemotionalpracticesthatcreatesome

disconnectbetweentheinteriorandexterior(Chapter11).

Emotionsarecomplex.Theydonotoccurinasingle,isolatedmomentinasingle,

isolatedmind:theyhaveasequenceandanarrativestructure,andthatnarrativeisshapedby

thepersonalandsocialbody,aswellasbypersonalandsocialmemory.Storiesstructureand

recordexperience;andchroniclescollectstories.Chroniclesarepopularliteratureinthelater

MiddleAges.Theyarealsoinstructionalliterature,curatingthepastintoexemplarsand

debating,implicitlyorexplicitly,theirrelationshipwiththepresentandfuture.Theyhave

thereforeapotentiallypowerfulroleinshapingthatmemory,inshapingwordsandstoriesof

emotion.Justhowandtowhatdegreetheydothatwill,perhaps,neverbeentirelyclear;butif

weconsidertextualityasaformofemotionalpractice,thedebateitselfcanberichand

productive.Ihavesaidalreadythatemotionalexpression,whichincludesstoriesaswellas

wordsandactions,notonlycategorisesemotionsbutshapesthem.Intheformofwritten

narrative,thisexperience-expressiongainstheweightofprecedentandauthority,anda

powerfulfootholdinculturalmemory.

Section A. Narrating angers: Identifying and characterising angers

Introduction Howdowerecogniseangerinatext?Dowerelyonmomentswhenthenarratorora

characterexplicitlyidentifiesanemotionas“anger”(oranyoneofaclusterofsimilarwords)?

Dowerelyonourownunderstandingofangerandtrustourselvestorecogniseangry

behaviourinmedievaltexts?Variousscholarshaveusedoneorbothoftheseapproaches.

Thereareobviousadvantagesanddisadvantagestoboth,andtoacertainextentthey

complementeachother.Whereno“anger”wordisgiven,wemightstillrecognisearaised

voiceandviolentactionasanger,especiallyifitcomesinresponsetosomethingthatwe

recognise,inturn,asprovocation.Ifnodescriptionofbehaviourorphysiologicalchangesis

given,orifitisambiguous,awordlikeindignatio,grucchande,orcoroucéemayhelpus;and

graduallyourabilitytorecognisemedievalangerwillimprove.Butneitherdescriptionnor

labelsareunambiguous,andtherearetimeswhenneitherispresent.Instead,thereaderis

expectedtobeabletocategoriseandinterpretthefeelingsinquestionbycontext,andby

referencetoasharedsystemofculturalreferences.Thisisnotsomysteriousasitsounds:we

understandnowadaysperfectlywellwhatismeantby“theireyesmetacrossacrowded

room”—orthecinematicequivalentwhenthepacesuddenlyslowsandtheworldseemsto

fallawayasthecameracutsbackandforthbetweenthetwofaces—withoutanyneedof

wordslikeloveandromance.Torecognisetheselessexplicitmomentsofemotionreliably,we

mustbuildareferencesystemtoaccesstheestablishednarrativetropesthattheauthors

employ.

Medievalculturehas,moreover,afondnessforsymbolismandconventionalfiguring

thatallowsconventionanddeliberateallusiontoplayafargreaterroleinmeaning-making.

RuthMorseopenshermonographonTruthandConventionintheMiddleAgeswiththis

sentence:“When…JohnCapgravewrotethatthecorpseofHenryI(whohaddiedin1135)

stankhorribly,heexpectedhisreaderstounderstandamoralcriticism”(1).Morseargues

thatwhetherhe“really”stankornotisirrelevant:thisanecdotereliesontheunderstanding

commontoreaderandwriterthatsanctifiedcorpsesinstoryarebeautifullypreservedand

oftensmelldelightful,andthatHenryImaythereforebeunderstoodtohavelivedavery

differentkindoflife.Similarly,aswewillseeinChapter3,fourteenth-centurychroniclesoften

figurethepeopleandeventstheynarrateintheshapeofestablishedtropes:EdwardIIasa


pininglover,orThomasofLancaster’scaptureasarepetitionofthemurderofThomas

BeckettandhisexecutionasChrist’spassion.Whatmightwefindifwelookedforsimilar

patternsinemotionalstylesandbehaviours?

Thatistheworkthatthissectiontriestodo:firstly,toestablishaseriesofsignsand

scriptstoidentifyinstancesofangerinmedievalnarrativeandanalysethemontheirown

termsratherthanthoseofourpreconceptions;andsecondly,toexplorehowwriters

deliberatelyactivatenarrativetropestoevaluatehistoricaleventsandfigures,sometimes

shiftingthegenreoftheirstoriestoprovidesubtlerframesofreference.Beforethat,however,

Imustlookinmoredetailattheworkthatotherscholarshavedoneonmedievalangerinthe

past,andhowtheirworkhashelpedtoshapemyown.

Anger’sPast,thoughnowovertwentyyearsold,isstillthemostrelevantand

thoughtfulstudyofmedievalanger(s).Inherintroduction,BarbaraRosenweinraisesthe

questionofidentificationanddefinitionquiteexplicitly:“wedon’tknowwhatangeris”(2).

Withinthatvolume,contributorsvaryastowhereandhowtheylocatepastanger,towhat

extenttheyconsiderit“good”or“bad”,andhowfartheyfeelthatwetodaycanrelatetothat

pastemotiononthegroundsofcommonhumanity.Themostfundamentaldivisionbetween

contributorswasonewhichwasalreadybecomingapointofcontentioninthehistoryof

emotionsasafield:whethertoconsiderangerasabasichumanpassionwhichmaybemore

orlesscontainedunderaveneerof“civilisation”,orasasocialconstructwhichcanbe

deliberatelydeployedthroughvariousdemonstrativeorperformative(orindeedliterary)

meanstoachieveaspecificend.Theterm“civilisation”hereisadeliberatereactionagainst

NorbertElias’TheCivilizingProcess(1939),and,toalesserextent,MarcBloch’sLaSociété

Féodale(1939–40).Inbothworksmedievalpeoplearecharacterisedasemotionally

immature,unabletocontrolorevenunderstandtheirownemotionsbecausetheyhavenot

yetundergonemodernity’scivilisingprocess.BothBlochandEliasseemedievalcultureas

markedbyviolentemotionalinstability.RosenweinchallengesEliasalmostimmediatelyin

herintroductoryessay,andStephenWhitesimilarlybeginshisessaybydissectingthis

reductionistapproachtomedievalemotionality(Anger’sPast2–3,127–30).

LesterLittleandPaulHyams21wouldperhapsagreewithElias:bothtreatangerasa

primitivehumanpassionwhichmustbecontainedorsublimatedbycivilisinginfluences.Both

focusoninstructionaltextsandimages,whichdepictIrainoppositiontosomemorevirtuous

quality.Littleexaminestheformalmonastictraditionofcursinginthelightoftheallegorical

21Little,“AngerinMonasticCurses”,9–35;Hyams,“WhatdidHenryIIIofEnglandthinkinbedandinFrenchaboutkingshipandanger?”,92–124.


figuresIraandPatientia,whichencouragedmonkstorepresstheirangeruntil(ideally)they

neverfeltitatall.Inamoresecularsetting,Hyamsdemonstrateshowthecourtlycultureof

HenryIII’stimeopposedIrainsteadtothefigureofDebonertétoexerciseamoresupple

controloveroutburstsofroyalanger.Inbothcases,thiscriticalapproachisinformedinlarge

partbythe“texts”inquestionandthecommunitiesthatcreatedthem.Little’smonks,for

example,livingastheydidinclosecommunitieswherepersonalitieswouldpresumablychafe

dayafterday,musthavehadgoodandfrequentreasontoremindthemselvesofPatientia’s

virtuesandtopaintIraasamindlesscreaturewhoseragewillultimatelyleadhertoself-

destruction.Theangerthattheypresent,therefore,isalreadycodedasnegativeandviolent,

somethingthatonemustlearntocontrol.Debonertéis(atleasttous)alessimmediately

comprehensiblefigure,andtounderstandherwemustthinkaboutwhatitmeanstoconsider

herastheoppositeofIra.Hyamslocateshermeaninginthevirtuesthatuniteacourtintoa

productiveandpositivesocialunit,includingcourtesy,generosity,andclemency.Healso

includesjusticeinherportfolio;andasjusticeisthemostlaudableaspectofroyalangerin

contemporarysources,theIra-who-is-not-Debonertéisconstructedasentirelynegative.

Visualartsandinstructionalliterature,bytheirnature,tendtoencouragea

simplificationoftheirintendedreaders’orviewers’understandingoftheiremotions,and

thereforeofmoderncriticalresponsetothatemotion.Narrativetexts,however,caninmany

casesencourageamoresubtleapproach.GerdAlthoff,StephenWhite,andRichardBarton,

examininghistoricalandromancenarratives,allconsiderangerasanuancedsocialtool,often

deployedtoaspecificpurpose,ratherthanbeingautomaticallynegativeintheeyesofthe

author.22Althoffdiscussesdemonstrativeangerasaformalisedtoolofthecrown(or,by

implication,ofanybodyelseinapositionofpower),tobewieldedstrategicallybyacanny

lordasoneofmanypossibletactics.Bartontakesthisargumentfurtherintoaperceptive

analysisofhowangercanfunctionasatoolforrepairingadysfunctionalfeudalrelationship,

whichisthestartingpointformydiscussionoffeudalangerinSectionB.

Ifthequestionof“primitivepassionversussocialconstruct”ismoreorlessexplicit

throughoutAnger’sPast,thereisanothermethodologicaldebaterunningthroughthevolume

whichisnotquitesoclosetothesurface:howdoweidentifyangerinoursources?Towhat

extentwecandecide,givenourculturaldistanceandbiases,whatanger“lookslike”ina

medievaltext?WendyDavies’Celticsaints(likeLittle’smonks)maycurse,andcurseoften—

22Althoff,“IraRegis:Prolegomenatoahistoryofroyalanger”,59–74;White,“ThePoliticsofAnger”,127–52;Barton,“‘Zealousanger’andtherenegotiationofaristocraticrelationshipsineleventh-andtwelfth-centuryFrance”,153–70.


anactionwhichwenowadaysassociatewithanger—buttheircursingisexplicitlyfreefrom

anger.Itmustbe:angryspeechcannotreachGod,andacursethatisnotheardbyGodcannot

achieveitspurpose.23Daviesherselfmakesthepointthat“weneedtobewaryofour

assumptionsandcarefulabouttheirapplication.Thereisnoneedtoassumethatbehaviour

whichisbothsurprisingandunpalatabletomoderntastes—thatofselfish,self-regarding,

demanding,willfulsaints…necessarilyarosefromanger”(195).Sofarasthisgoes,itistrue;

however,intheprocessDaviesrunstheriskoffollowingMarcBloch,anddismissingas

irrationalpointlesspassionanythingthatwesimplyfailtounderstand.

Hyamstreadsclosetoasimilar“commontohumanity”assumptionwhenhetackles

thisproblem.Evenashearguesontheonehandthatangercouldbeemployedasapolitical

tool,hedismissesthepossibilitythatiraregisiseither“genuineanger”orworthyofstudy:

Theexistenceofgenuineangeramongactualkings,tothepointwhereitissometimesscarcelycontrollable,seemstomeanecessarypreconditionforanywideacceptanceofformaliraregis,inmuchthewaythatforgedcoinswillnotpassunlesstheybearsomecloseresemblancetothegenuinecoinoftherealm...Adeptkingsvestedthemselvesinpoliticalangerasrequired,muchaspoliticianshavealwaysassumeddiplomaticillness,forpubliceffect.Thereaderiscompelledtoconsider,accept,orrejectanecdotespresentedbythesourcesontheunsatisfactorybasisoftheirlookandfeel.(102)

Theabilitytoevaluateanecdotesinasearchfor“genuineanger”tostudyrestshereonthe

assumptionthatthereader,beinghuman,knowshowangerlooksandfeelsregardlessof

temporalandculturaldistance,andcouldonthisbasisdistinguishbetweentrueandfeigned

angerifreliableinformationwereavailable.

Letusconsider,then,theconcordancemethodofidentifyinganger:selectingafewkey

wordsandkeepingtoinstancesinwhichtheauthorusesthose.24Althoughsimple,this

approachcanbeflexibleinitsapplication.RalucaRadulescu,forexample,usesittostudynot

asingleemotionbutthedamagingsocialeffectsofexcessiveemotioninMalory’sMorte

Darthurbyfocussingontheexpressionsouteofmesureandwithoutmesure(“Outeof

Mesure”).TheclearestexampleofthistechniqueinrelationtoangerisRonNewbold’spaper

onangerinGregoryofTours’LibriHistoriarum.Newbolduseskeywordstocollecta

“manageableandrepresentativebodyofdata”fromhissourcetext(23).Althoughhe

acknowledgesthatthismethodisofitsnature“notcomprehensive”(22),itdoesbringtolight

23“AngerandtheCelticsaint”,191–202.24FormyownconcordancelistofangerwordsinLatin,French,andEnglish,seeappendixA.


certainaspectsofGregory’sattitudetowardsanger,suchasafrequentcommixtureofanger

withshame,andGregory’stendencytoelideultiodei(“divinevengeance”)withiradei.AsI

havealreadysuggested,however,thismethodislimited.Itsmostobviousdrawbackisthat

angermayappearwithoutbeingtaggedasiraorfuror.Moreseriously,relyingonterminology

alonelimitsinterpretationandnuance.

Thisopensupthepossibilityofsearchingforsymbolsandcontextstoprovidesome

kindofidentifyingmethodthatcomeswithabuilt-inanalyticalstructure.Onepossible

methodisidentificationbycontrast.LesterLittle,PaulHyams,GerdAlthoff,andStephen

Whiteallidentifyintheirsourcesamodelofangerthatisdefinedandcharacterised,inpartor

whole,byitsopposite.LittleandHyams,asIhavementionedabove,findmorallessonsinIra’s

oppositiontoPatientia(inamonasticcontext)andtoDebonerté(inacourtlyone).Bothof

theseoppositionsemphasisedefeatingangerandrisingaboveitasaprimitivedestructive

force.ForAlthoff,angerispartofthe“symbolicrepertoireoftheking”,theinverseofroyal

favourorreward(74).Studyingroyaldiplomasandgrants,heidentifiesthethreatofroyal

wrathashavingamaterialweightcomparablewithfines.Thisequivalenceformsthebasisof

Althoff’scaseforangerasanuancedaspectofcommunicationanddiplomacy—perhapseven

acurrency,thoughhestopsshortofthatsuggestion.Whitetoofindsangertobeatoolfor

negotiatingsocialrelations.Workingwithchivalricratherthanpoliticalorovertly

historiographicaltexts,hesetsangerandsorrowuptogetherastheoppositeofjoy,withthe

shiftfromoneemotionalspheretotheothermediatedbythedecreaseorincreaseofpersonal

honour.

Differentasthesecasesare,allfourscholarsidentifyanexplicitsymbolicoppositeto

angeranduseittoanalyseadifferentkindofangeraspresentedwithinthesourcetexts.In

somecasesIwouldquibbleoverthenameordescriptionoftheoppositeidentified,butinall

casesthefocusonanoppositeopensuppromisingavenuesofanalysis.Theseoppositions

mustbeapproachedontheirownterms.Theyarenotallequal.Allegoricalpersonifications

mayfaceoffagainsteachother;legalpunishmentandrewardmaybespecified;the

oppositionmayberhetoricalormerelyimpliedwithinthetext.Ifwearecareful,however,we

canusethesebinariestoaccesscontext-sensitivemedievalsystemsandapproachestothe

emotioninquestion.IdentifyingfiguressuchasIreandDebonertéasoppositesimmediately

opensupaproductivelineofinquiryastothecontemporaryunderstandingofeach

abstraction.Moraloppositions,suchasthoseintheinstructionaltextsandimagesstudiedby

LittleandHyams,formpartoftheinterpretativetoolkitofmedievalculture.


Theseneednotalwaysbeexplicit,especiallywheretheallegoricalfiguresarewell

known.Achroniclermight,forexample,alludetothePatientia/Iraoppositionbydescribing

thebehaviourofoneofhischaractersas“patient”andhavingasecondcharacterattackor

abusethemrepeatedlyuntiltheaggressorisexhausted(seemydiscussionofIraandPatientia

inChapter3).SincethissecondcharacterwouldberecognisableasIratoanybodyfamiliar

withthetrope,thechroniclerwouldnotneedtouseadjectiveslikeiratusorfuriosusto

describethem—norwoulditbenecessarytoexplicitlycondemntheirbehaviour,since

placingthemwithinthattropewouldcarryitsownmoralcharge.Fortextualsources,

however,thissystemismorevaluableforinterpretationthanforidentification.Deliberate

symbolicoppositionsarefarmorecommonandobviousinvisualiconographythanin

narrativetexts.LikeWhiteandAlthoff’sanger/joyandanger/favourdyads,oppositesare

oftenimplicitinthetext,becomingclearonlylateronceonehasalreadybeguntoanalysea

particularpassageorstory.

Ihavefoundthatthesurest(andmostflexible)methodofidentifyingangerswithina

narrativetextistobuilduparepertoireoftheirusualmanifestations:howauthorsdescribe

angers,inwhatsituationstheyarise,andhowpeoplearesaidtobehavewhenangry.Aswe

willseewhenIbegintolistemotionsigns,manyoftheseareheavilycoded,especiallywhen

theyappearinaparticularsequence.Even(perhapsespecially)thosesignsofangerthat

appearmostnaturalanduniversalcannotbereadasuninflectedbyculturalmeaningand

authorialinterpretation.Newboldfallsintothistrapwhenhenotesthat“Gregoryoccasionally

relates,apartfromshoutingandabuse,suchmanifestationsofangerasgnashingteeth,

lashingoutwithfistsandfeet,hittingwithaweaponorobject...butnotautonomicnervous

systemresponsessuchasredface,glaringeyesandtremblinghands”(24).Newbold

attributesthisdiscrepancytothefactthat“[Gregory]wasnotpresent,”thoughhefeelsthat

“[m]entioningshoutingandabusewasentirelyplausibleevenifGregoryhadnocertainty

aboutthis”(24,bodyandfootnote11).Theseareindeedallangersignsthatdoappearin

medievaltexts,buttheselectionandarrangementofthemisgovernedbyarichandcomplex

languageofmeaning,notbythechronicler’spersonalinformationinthecase.

RuthMorseisnottheonlyhistorianwhohasrecognisedtheuseofconventional

representationinmedievalhistoriographytoprovideanimplicitvaluejudgementonthe

actionsandsequencesnarrated.Amedievalchroniclerdepicting(forexample)abaronangry

athissoncoulddrawonaknownrepertoireofdemonstrativeemotionalactionstosuggestan

interpretationoftheevent.Ifthechroniclercouldrelyonhisreadersrecognisingthese

actionsandtheirconnotations,itwouldnotbenecessarytonametheemotionexplicitlyevery


timeitoccurredinthetext.Inaddition,hecoulddeliberatelyemploythislanguageofactionto

characterisethehistoricalactorsinhisstory:amangiventorighteousanger,oramanwho

flaresuptoorashlyandviolentlywithnogoodreason.

StephenWhiteandRichardBartonbothrecognisetheinterpretativepossibilitiesin

theseconventions.Whitementionschroniclersusingadiscussionofangerandrecognisable

patternsofbehaviour“toevaluatethepersonwhodisplaysanger.Representinganother

person’sangerisneveraneutrallydescriptiveorpoliticallyneutralact”(150).BothWhite

andBartonnote,inaddition,thatifsuchalanguageexists,itisnotonlytheauthorswhohave

accesstoit,butthe“actors”themselves—thatis,thehistoricalpersonstheydepict.White

discussesanddistinguishesbetween“thedisplayofanger[and]itsrepresentation”,

consideringbothfiguresasparticipatinginadiscourseofhowangerisunderstood(137).

Bartongoesontowriteofangerasasetofsymbolsthatmaybeconsciouslyemployedto

signaltheneedtorestructureasocialrelationship.Webeginalreadytoseethatthereareat

leasttwolevelsofconsciousinterpretationorconstructionpresentinanygiven

historiographicaldepictionofroyalanger:thatofthehistorical“character”,andthatofthe

author.Anylordorking(suchasEdwardIandEdwardIII)whowassufficientlyhistorically

awaretotakeaninterestinhisownself-representationcouldtrytoshapehisownactions

accordingtothoseofanidealisedking.

OfallthecontributorstoAnger’sPast,GerdAlthoffcomestheclosesttowards

proposingsomesymboliclanguageofperformativeemotionalevents.Demonstrativesignals–

feastingwithfriendstoshowgoodwill,“cursingandthrowingfilth”toshowhostility–

become,hesuggests,acrucialpartofpublicinteraction.Signalssuchasfloodsoftearsand

violentragesarethus“mannerismsofmedievalcommunication”“whichmayappeartous

overemotionalized”(74).Asemotionsaretosomeextentdemonstrative,soisanger(andso

areotheremotions)associatedwithspecificeventsandactions.StephenWhitemakessimilar

observationsregardingpublicsignalsofemotionemployedtodeliberatepoliticaleffect(138).

Achronicler’suseofthesesignalstodescribethebehaviourofanactorintheirhistorycan

thusprovideamorenuancedandmoreflexiblesetofreferencesforstudythanareliance

solelyonkeytermssuchasiraandfuror.

InChapter1Iconstructareference“vocabulary”ofsignsforemotioneventsthat

containanger.Thesefallintofivecategories:internalsigns,affectandaction,speechand

voice,reactionstoanger,andsymbolsandanalogies.Manyofthesecombineintoemotion

scripts—clear,recognisablesequencesofsignsthatamounttoaperformanceofacertain

emotion.MyexamplesaredrawnfromarangeofnarrativetextsfromEnglandandFranceof


thetwelfthtofourteenthcenturies.Theseincludeverseandprose,allthreemajorlanguages

ofEngland,andhagiographicalandchivalrictalesinadditiontochronicles.Ithendescribethe

fivemainangertypesthatbecameapparentintheprocess.Icallthesefeudalanger,shamed

anger,battlefury,otheringanger,andholywrath.

Todemonstratehowthesedifferenttypesofangermayemploydifferentscripts,signs,

andculturalexpectations,IdevoteChapter2tothesecond-mostcommonofthese,shamed

anger.Thisisangerthatarisesinresponsetoaperceivedorthreatenedlossofhonour,and

consequentlyservesasamotivatortoeffectchange.Giventheimportanceofprovocative

speechintheemotionalscriptsforshamedanger,Ialsospendsometimeexaminingthe

distinctionbetweentwodeceptivelysimilarkindsofprovocativewords:appealstohonour

andjeeringtaunts.

InChapter3Iputthefindingsofthefirsttwochaptersintoeffectbyconsideringhow

emotionalstylesrelatetogenre.IcompareshamedangertoIra,thefigureofthedeadlysin,

anddemonstratehowthesetwodifferentideasofangereachcarrywiththemthecultural

associationsofacertaingenre(chivalricandhagiographic,respectively).Usingthemas

examplesIexaminehowtheauthorcanfollow(orsubvert)differentscriptsofanger(thatis,

differentcombinationsofsignsofanger)toshiftfromthenarrativestyleofonegenreto

another.Thisisusedtoframeaneventoracharacterintheexpectationsofagivengenre,

guidingthereader’sreceptionofthetext.

Chapter 1. Finding angers

Events, signs, and scripts of emotion

Emotion events

Fewchroniclesareovertlyemotionaltexts.Werarelyseesuchdetailedemotionalbehaviour

asinhero-centrednarrativessuchasChrétien’sromances:scenesrichinnarratorial

descriptionsofinnerturmoil,gesturalexpression,anddirectspeech.Emotionsinchronicles

areoftenpoliticalevents,ratherthananoccasionforrhetoricalexpansionandexploration.

Regardlessofthelevelofdetail,however,chroniclersdousethesamethreebasictypesof

whatmaybecallednarrativeexpressiontoconveycharacters’emotions:narratorial

statement,emotionalactionorgesture,andemotionalspeech.

WefindallthreeoftheseinasinglesentenceinthisemotioneventfromtheVita

EdwardiII:

Atthistheking,angeredbeyondmeasure[ultramodumcommotus]thathewasnotallowedtokeepevenonememberofhishouseholdathisownwish,butthat,asisprovidedinthecaseofanidiot,theorderingofhiswholehouseshoulddependuponthedecisionofanother,recalledPiersoutofhatredfortheearls[inodiocomitum],swearing,ashewaswont,onGod’ssoulthathewouldfreelyusehisownjudgement.(38–39)25

Thislevelofdetailistypicalofmostchroniclers:thechroniclernamestheemotion,mentions

anactof(usuallyindirect)speech,whichmayhaveformaleffect,andtellsuswhataction

resultsfromthisemotionevent.Here,thenarratortellsusthatthekingfeelsanger,Edward

takesimpulsiveactionasaresultofhisangerandhatred,andheexpresseshisfeelingsina

vehementspeechact.

Somechroniclerswillonoccasiongiveussomethingmoreexpansiveanddramatic.In

Froissart’saccountofthedeathofthesonoftheCountofFoix,forexample,heusesamore

detailedandembodiedformofeachofthesethreeexpressivetypestocreateasaffectiveand

25Rememberthatunderlinedcitationsfromprimarysourcescanbefoundintheoriginaltextandtranslationintheappendix,ofteninexpandedform.


powerfulasceneaspossible(SHF3–21).WearetoldnotonlythattheCountisangry

(“courrouciez”)atfindingthepurseofpoisonaroundhisson’sneck,butthathisbloodboiled

(“lesanclimua”).Ratherthanreceivinganindirectreportofspeech,weheartheCount’s

furiousreproachesandthreatsverbatim,andwewitnesshislapsefromtherefinedFrench

thatFroissarthadadmiredearliertohisnativeGascon.Wealsoseethepleasofhiscourtiers

inresponse.Weseehimrisefromthetable,drawhisknife,attempttothrowitathisson,

struggleagainstthefriendsrestraininghim,leapoverthetablewithhisknifeinhand,andso

on.Hisson’sfeelings,inaction,andspeechlessnesspresentapatheticcontrast:“Thechild,all

startledandconfused,madenosound,butwentcompletelywhitewithfearandquite

distraught,andhebegantotremblehard,becausehewassurethathewaslost”.Whilethe

Count’swordsandactionsdominatethescene,andhisbodymovessowildlythatitmustbe

restrained,thisisallwehearoftheson.Theboy’sspeechfailshim,heissurprisedanddoes

notknowhowtoreact,andhis“action”isrestrictedtotheinvoluntaryactionsofastationary

body:changingcolourandtrembling.

Whenlaterthecounthearsthathissonhasdiedinprison,hisreactionisbriefer.Even

so,ittooisconveyedthroughnarratorialstatement,emotionalspeech,andemotionalaction.

AtthattheCountofFoixbecamecourrouciez[angry?ordistressed?]beyondmeasure,andregretahissonvery/toodeeply.Andhesaid:“Ah,Gaston!whataterriblebusinessthisis.Alas,itwasanunhappydayforbothofusthateverwewentintoNavarretoseeyourmother.IshallneverknowanyperfecthappinessagainsuchasIhaveknownbefore.”Hesummonedhisbarberandhadhisheadcompletelyshaved,andhehumbledhimselfanddressedallinblack,anddidthesametoallofhishousehold.Andthechild’sbodywascarriedwithtearsandcriestotheFranciscansatOrthez,andburiedthere.(SHF3–21)

Weareinvitedtoknowhisfeelings,towitnesshisspeech,andtojudgehispenitenceandgrief

fromhisdeeds.Thistimehisactionsareritualisedandsociallyinclusive,creatingaspacefor

hishouseholdtomournwithhiminsteadofstrugglingagainstthemtothrowaknifeacross

thetablewheretheyhadbeendiningtogether.

Thesetwotypesofnarration—thereportintheVitaEdwardiIIandthedescriptionin

Froissart—correspondingeneraltermstothecategorieschronicleandhistoria,althoughat

thelevelofasinglesceneoreventratherthanoftheentiretext.Attimes,themostlavish

chroniclerwilluseaneventerserformforanemotionevent:anannalisticreportsuchas

“whenheheardthat,thekingwenttowar”.Goingtowarisanemotionsigninthiscontext,

albeitonenarratedfromamoreremovedperspectivethantheCountofFoix’sboilingblood,


orEdwardII’sangrywords.Inasocietywherethepoliticalstructurewasessentiallyasetof

interpersonalrelationships,manyotherpublicorpoliticalactionsarealsoemotionsigns:

holdingaloveday,dismissingaformerfavouritefromcourt,revellingallnighttothesoundof

musicandtrumpets,ormakingadonationtoareligiousinstitution.Fromaperspective

internaltothestory,theseactionsexpressandenacttheseemotionstothebroader

community,andoftenmakethemcommunal;fromanexternalperspective,theyserveasa

shorthandforthechroniclertoinformhisreaderswhathischaractersarefeeling:

love/reconciliation,anger/betrayal,joy/honour/merriment,piety/penitence.

Inmostcasestheseformsofemotionexpressionareinterchangeable.Ifalordsays“I

amfilledwithrage,”orglaresatasupplicant,thistellsusnomorethanifthenarratorwereto

statethat“hisheartwasstirredbyanger”.Nordoesittellusanyless:thatis,emotional

speechandemotionalactionhavethesametruthvalueasdirectauthorialstatement.

However,asthereareestablishedemotionalstylesformostsocialinteractionandemotion

events,aperson’sdeviationfromorobservanceofthesestylesandpracticescanbeusedto

provideamorefinelynuancedpictureoftheirfeelings:theirintensity,forexample,their

comminglingwithotherfeelings,orthenecessityofrestrainingthem.Gaveston’sreturnfrom

oneofhisexilesintheVitaEdwardiIIpromptscompetingemotionsinEdwardandhis

barons.Edward’semotionsaregivenfulltreatment,withallthreemethodsofnarrative

expression:thenarratorinformsusthatEdwardisveryhappy(“letus”,“gratanter”,“ualde

gauisus”);headdressesGavestonas“brother”andhasmanyconversationswithhim;andhe

goestomeethim,receiveshimhonourablyandkeepshimverycloseforsometime(14).The

warmthoftheking’sfeelingsisevidentinhiseagernesstooverleaptheexpectedboundsof

formalbehaviour:rushingforwardtomeetGavestonratherthanwaitingtobeapproached,

spendinganunusualamountoftimeinconversationwithhim,andsoon.Meanwhile,the

barons’emotionsatGaveston’sillegalreturnarenotnamed,buttheirnatureisconveyedby

theabsenceofexpectedspeechandaction:“notonedaredfurthertoraiseahandtoGaveston

ormakeacomplaintabouthisreturn”(14).

Themorefamiliarthewordsoractionsofanemotionevent,themorelikelyitisthat

thechroniclerwillnotbothertospecifyordescribetheemotionatall.Kissingthehandof

one’slord,orperformingaritualofpenitenceandsubmission(suchastheCountofFoix

dressinginblackandshavinghishead),requiresnointerpretativeglossfromtheauthor,

althoughhemaychoosetoelaborateinordertodwellontheemotionalmoment.Simpler

bodilygesturesmayhaveabroaderrangeofpossiblemeanings—ratherthanaone-for-one

equivalencewithasingleemotionorsituation—buttheyareusuallyunambiguousincontext.


Forexample,Burrowsuggeststhat“loweringtheheadisnotonlyasignofgrieforshame;it

canalso,byvirtueofcuttingoffeyecontact,signifyanger...Angryorscornfulfeelingsare

morecommonlyexpressed,however,bytheshakingofthehead”(42–43).Aloweredor

shakenhead,then,mightnotbeenoughtoallowamedievalreadertoputanametothe

emotiononitsown:context,andaforeknowledgeofthefeelingsavailableinresponsetothat

context,wouldnarrowthefield.Ifthesituationisoneinwhichangerislikelyorpossible,then

thedifferencebetweenabowedheadandashakenwilladdnuanceandabowedheadmay

suggest,forexample,thattheangerisblendedwithgrieforshame.Burrowcitesafew

instancesinwhichthemeaningofasignisnotclear,beingmisinterpretedevenbyother

characterswithinthetext;butforthemostpartthesemomentsareexceptional,usedfor

dramaticeffect,andareevenrarerintheworldofhistoriographythanthatofromance.

Authorialstatement,character’saction,character’sspeech:asageneralrule,anyone

ofthemmaystandinforeitherorbothoftheothertwo,andeachmaybetakenasareliable

guidetothecharacter’semotionalstate.Thepersonwhoissadspeakssadlyandactssadly.

Anangrygestureoranangryspeechisasunambiguousasanauthorialstatementofanger;in

fact,brieferaccountsoftensketchanemotioneventwithonlyoneortwo.Thenarratormay

tellusthatsomebodywasmovedtoragebyaninsult;orthat,uponreceivingthisnews,he

summonedhistroops;orthathemadeavowofvengeance.Whentheauthorofthe

Anonimallechroniclelooksforanimmediatecauseforthecivilwarof1321–22heusesonly

thefirsttype—narratorialstatement—writingthat“theking’sheartwasburstingwithdesire

forvengeance”againsthisopponents(102–03).Lancaster’spiousfearinthefaceofunjust

executionisshowntousinhiscatchingholdofhisconfessor’srobesinagestureof

supplication,pleading,“fairfader,abidewiþvstilþatybedede;formyflesshequakeþfor

dredeofdeþ”(Brut223);andsoon.Exceptinrarecasesofinsincerewordorbehaviour

(invariablyflaggedandfrettedoverbythenarrator),itisassumedthatweasreadersmay

relyonanyofthesesigns.Themoreofthesescenesweencountertheharderitistoescape

theideathatinfactfeeling,word,anddeedmaystandforeachotherbecausetheyare

interchangeable,andindivisible.Theangryword,thedrawnsword,thedeclarationofwaris

thefeeling.

Underlyingallofthisistheassumptionthatvoiceandactionare,underordinary

circumstances,contiguouswiththeemotionitself:wedoubtthesincerityoftheCountof

Foix’svocallamentandhisshornheadnomorethanwedoubtthenarrator’sstatementthat

hewas“courrouciéz”andregrettedhisson’sdeath.Whilethereareexceptionstheyare,asI

willshowinSectionC,exceptionsthatprovetherule.Actionandwordsstandequallyas


witnesstoone’sinternalstate:thereisrarelyanyideaofthepossibilityofadisjuncture

betweenoutwardperformanceandemotionaltruth.Whereadisjuncturedoesappear,it

seemsaberrantandunnatural.Iwillreturninlaterchapterstodiscusstheimplicationsofthis

elisioninmoredepth,consideringhowfaritmayrevealtheemotionalnormsoftheperiod.In

thischapter,however,Idiscussthesignsprimarilyasliterarydevices.Inanarrativecontext,

theyareinterchangeableandhavethesametruthvalueunlesstheauthorspecifiesotherwise.

Emotion signs

JohnBurrow,inhis2002monographonnon-verbalcommunicationinmedievalnarrative,

dividesemotionsignsintotwomaincategories:involuntaryphysiologicalsignsand

deliberategestures.HebasesthiscategorisationonAugustine’sdistinctionbetweennatural

andgivensigns,inwhichdeliberatesignssuchasnodsandhandgesturesarecharacterisedas

verbavisibilia,laidoutinapassagethat“wascommonlyreferredtobymedievalwriters”

(Burrow3;DeDoctrinaChristianaII5).Burrow’sfocusisoncommunication,notemotion,so

herestrictshisstudytothesedeliberategestures.Histwo-foldcriteriaforaphysicalsignto

qualifyarethatitmustbevoluntary(thatis,thecharactercouldhaveavoidedmakingit,

disqualifyingsignssuchasinvoluntaryblushesandevenweeping)andintendedas

communicative(2–4).Burrowarguesthatthecriterionofintentionalityisevenmore

applicablewhenstudyingtextsthanreal-lifesituations,as“[u]nlikerealpeople,personsin

textshavenoaccessibleinsides,norcantheyharbourintentionsbeyondwhattheirauthor

statesorimplies”(3).Thisargumentcutsbothways,however:theaccessibilityofa

character’sinternalstatereliesentirelyontheauthor’sintentions,onwhattheyintendto

communicatetothereaders.Moreover,classifyingsignsbyintentionalityinvolvesaculturally

subjectivejudgementonwhere“natural/genuine”endsand“voluntary”begins.

Burrowusesthisdistinctionprimarilytodelimitthescopeofhisstudy,soitwillnotdo

formeasanorganisingprinciple:Iamconsideringamuchbroaderarrayofemotionsigns.

ThepassagefromDeDoctrinamaywellbereferredtobymedievalwriters,butthis

fundamentalconceptualdivisionbetweenintentionalandunintentionalphysicalgestures

seemstometobeentirelyabsentfromthenarrativetextsthatIhaveread.Inthenovelsofthe

eighteenthcenturyandonward,thedistinctionbetweeninterioremotionandthatwhichmay

bedisplayedtosocietyisofcentralimportance;butinmedievalnarrative,asIhavesaid,the

involvementofthebodywithemotionandwiththecommunityisreadilyassumed.Since


“genuine”emotionmaybeconveyedthroughnarrationbynamingthecharacter’sobservable

actionsanditssocialeffects,intentionalityisnotagoverningprinciplehere.Ablushhasequal

communicativepower—bothtothereaderandtoothercharacterswithinthenarrative—

withaspokendeclarationofemotionoramovementofthebody.

Inthesetexts,thekeydifferenceisthesocialfunctionoftheemotionorthought

conveyed.Consequently,mymaindistinctionisbetweenthatwhichisfeltonlyinternally,and

thatwhichisexternalised(andwhichthereforeconveysanemotiontoothers,prompting

themtoshareorrejectit).Ihavedividedupmylistofsignsaccordingly:internalsignsare

knownonlytotheauthor,thecharacter,andthereader;theothersfunctionwithinthesocial

worlddepictedinthetext,withvaryingdegreesofritualandformality.Forexample,

tremblingandblushing,whichBurrowwouldcallinvoluntary,areinmyfiguringgrouped

withgestureandactionunder“behaviourandaffect”,astheyareallvisibletoother

characterspresent.Rushingbloodandpoundinghearts,ontheotherhand,areinternalsigns,

knownonlytothecharacter,theauthor,andthereader.

Basedonthisprinciple,therearefivemaindivisionswithinmylist.Thefirstthree

correspondapproximatelytothethreetypesofnarrativeexpressionofemotion:internal

signs,affectandaction,andspeechandvoice.Twomorecategoriesdeserveattention,

however:reactionstoanger,andsymbolsandanalogiesassociatedwithanger.Social

responsestoangerareofcrucialimportanceininterpretinganemotionevent,especially

wherepoliticsorhonourareatstake;andsymbolsandsignsmayalsobeemployedasan

interpretivegloss,althoughtheyarenotsocommoninchroniclesasinsomeadjacent

narrativessuchashagiographyorromance,orinvisualiconography.

Oneormoreoftheseemotionsignscanallowustoidentifyanemotioneventas

containinganger,andgiveusastartingpointforunderstandingit.Itis,however,notasimple

task:manyofthesignslistedbelowhavemultiplepossiblemeanings.Blushingmaysignala

varietyofdifferentemotionalresponses.Drawingaweaponmaydemonstratealossofself-

controlorhonourablestrength.Jeeringspeechandappealstohonourarealmostimpossibleto

distinguishfromeachotherwithoutthecontextofthesurroundingnarrative.Faintingusually

indicatesemotionalexcess,ofanykind.Alionasasymbolmayrepresentarangeofqualities

(fierce,proud,strong,royal,divine,vicious,bestial).Oneauthormaycodealord’sfeudal

angerpositively,whileanothermayconsideritashowoftyranny.Interpretingthesesigns

stilltakesagooddealofsubjectivity:thisfeelslikethat.Thisisnotadecodingring:itisasetof

references,ortherecognitionoftropesandprecedentsandexemplarstokeepinthebackof

one’smindforcomparisonwiththetextunderconsideration.Thepointoftheselistsistolet


uscultivateastartingpointforinterpretation,onethatwouldberecognisabletotheworldin

whichthetextwasconceived.Forthisreason,Ihaveincludedwiththisdissertationan

appendixcontainingexamplesofangereventsfromseveralofmytexts,includingthreethat

arenotchronicles,annotatedwithreferencestothislistofsigns.Theseexamples,orothers

verylikethem,wouldbethereferentsthatanymedievalpersonwouldbringtotheirown

reading:theyarewhattheauthorsexpectustorecognise,andthemeansbywhichtheywrite.

1. Internal signs

a) Authorialnamingofemotions(“shefeltangry”,“hewasindignant”)

b) Blood:moves,surges/swells,orheats

c) Heart:moves,surges/swells,orheats;isheavy;oritselffeelstheemotion(“his

heartwasangered”)

d) Afeelingofnearorcompletemadness(lossofsens)

Thesesignsarefeltonlybythecharacterexperiencinganger:thatis,theyarenot

communicatedtoanyothercharacterwithinthetext.Apartfrom1a,therefore,theyonly

appearintexts(orepisodes)thathavesomekindofinteriorperspective.Itisworthnoting

thatcharacterswilloftenarticulatetheirfeelingsaloud.So,forexample,inJordanFantosme’s

chronicle,KingHenry“wasbothsaddenedandangry[greins26…eirez]andhesworehis

oath…andhesaidtohisknights:‘Mylords,nowgiveheedtowhatIsay!Iwasneverso

grieved[adulez]inallmylife.IamsofilledwithragethatIamnearlycrazy’”(125–29).

Authorialstatementisimmediatelyfollowedbythecharacter’sownarticulationofthesame

feelings,butthatspeechacthasasocialandlegaleffectthattheauthor’swordsdonothave:it

functionsasaformaldeclarationofangerandinitiatingashifttowardwar.Ihaveclassed

thesemomentsasspeechacts,butthekindsofinternalsignstheyexpressarethesametypes

ofsignthataregivenbytheauthor.

2. Affect and action

a) Theface:

26greins:SeeDMF,AND,andMED.ThismaybecognatewitheitherLatin-derivedgrevusorNorse-derivedgreme,bothofwhichcouldhavegrein[s]asanacceptablevariantadjectiveinthisperiod,especiallyonceonefactorsinminimerrors.Inanycase,itisclearthattheclusterofmeaningsintersectherebetweentheRomanandGermanic,sothatthegref/anger/dolsensesmergewithoutanystabledistinctioninusage.


i) Distortionorgrimacing,includingbaringorgrindingtheteethoropening

themouth

ii) Changingcolour(towhiteorred)

iii) Glaring/flashingeyes

iv) Wildhair(especiallyinvisualmedia)

v) Tears

b) Sweating,trembling,swelling(theseareoftenconflatedorsemanticallyidentical)

c) Hastymovement:

i) Wildoruncontrolledmotion(invisualmedia,thisappearsasdistorted

attitudesofthelimbs)

ii) Leapingtoone’sfeet

iii) Rushingfromoneplacetoanotherwithoutstopping

iv) Throwingobjects(otherthanataperson)

d) Lossofsens:

i) Madness

ii) Fainting

e) Violenceagainstself:

i) Tearingatone’shairorface

ii) Rendingone’sclothes

iii) Suicideorotherself-harm

f) Violenceagainstothers(actualorthreatened):

i) Destructionofenemy’spossessionsorlands,especiallybyfire

ii) Displacementofaggressionontoanobject

iii) Throwingobjectsatsomebody

iv) Damagingtheirclothesorarmour(includingtheirhorse,ifinbattle)

v) Drawingorgrippingaweapon

vi) Strikingsomebody

vii) Killingorseriouslywoundingsomebody

viii) Capturingsomebody

g) Withdrawaloflove

i) Banishment

ii) War

iii) Legalproceedings,etc.


Thesebehaviouralsignsarethemostimmediateandvariedindicatorsofemotionin

narrative.Manyofthemarecommon(withsomenecessarytranslation)acrossbothtextual

andvisualmedia.Somearespecifictocertainsocialranksorfunctions—forexample,flashing

eyesareusuallyseeninakingoralordwhohasbeenaffrontedinthemidstofhiscourt.

Others,especiallyinvisualsources,haveastrongiconographicalassociationwiththeviceIra

andothernegativefigures,asIwilldiscussinChapter3.Intextualsourcestheassociationis

oftenstillpresentbutismorenegotiable:so,wildhairandtearingatone’sownfaceand

clotheswillsuggestemotionalexcess,orwarnofitspossibility,withoutnecessarily

condemningthecharacteraltogether.

Emotionalexcessorstrongagitationisastrikingcomponentofmanyofthese

behaviouralsigns,andtheemotioninquestionisnotalwaysanger.Thatsameactionof

tearingatone’shairandclothesisalsoassociatedwithgriefandwithpenitence—especiallyif

thehairorclothesorfacearealsomarkedwithdust,ash,ordirt—andsometimessimplywith

madness.Fearandillnessmayinducepalloraswellasangerandshame,thoughtheyareless

likelytocausethefacetoredden.Moreover,whileanexcessofemotionisusuallynegatively

coded,evensomeofthemostextremeofthesesignsmayoccurinaritualisedcontextwhere

theyarenotonlypermissiblebutsociallyvalued.IdiscussedtheCountofFoix’smourning

earlier:shavinghishead,choosingpoorerclothing,andhumblinghimself,arearguablymore

formalisedversionsoftearingathishairandclothesandharminghisbody.Cleansedoftheir

excessanddisorder,theseactionstakeonaconstructiveandmeaningfulroleinsocial

interaction.Contextisalwayscrucialforinterpretation.

Manyofthesesignsarecontiguouswiththeinteriorsignsalreadymentioned.Blood

maybesaidtostir,swell,ortremble—sotoomaytheheart,orthewholebody.Thewords

usedareoftenthesame,andtranslationusuallyintroducesadistinctionnotpresentinthe

originaltext.Forexample,amoderntranslatorwouldusuallyrenderfremirastremblewhen

itrelatestothewholebody,butmightuseshakeorweakenforlimbs,surgeorboilforblood,

andpoundorfalterfortheheart:thisvocabularyisdiscussedinChapter8.Colourchangesin

particularhardlyeverstandalone:theyarealmostinvariablyaccompaniedbyemotional

action(flushing)orprostrationandinaction(pallor),orbynarratorialstatementofinner

turmoil.WesawthepallorandrednessoftheCountofFoixandhisson,andthecontrast

betweentheturbulentactionofoneandtheagonisedstillnessanddoubtoftheother.Aside

fromcolour,however,facesarerarelymentionedassitesofemotionalexpression.An


occasionalexceptionistheeyes,whichoftenglareorburn,andcanactverypowerfullyon

otherpeople.27

Themannerofmovementisoftentelling.Angrypeoplemovehastilyormakesudden

uncontrolledorwildactions(Brut265,Anonimalle154).Theiractionsmaybecontrastedto

somebodywhoisverycalmandstill,forastrongernegativecoding,andthiscontrastmaybe

appliedtotheirvoicesaswell(loud,riotous,orwordlessvocalisations,versussilenceorquiet,

measuredspeech).Thislossofcontrolmaygofarenoughtobecalledmadness,whichis

almostinvariablynegative.Itmaybeasymptomorconsequenceofanykindofanger

(exceptingholywrath,whichisusuallysoidealisedastobeimmune),orofothersimilar

emotions,suchasgrief.Assuch,itisnotonespecificemotionbutastateofemotionalexcess.

Swooningistheclimaxofthislossofcontrol,beingacompletelossofsens;butdependingon

thesensibilityofthetextthismaybenegative(excess,associatedwithIra’sself-destructive

properties)orpositive(asignofthecharacter’ssuperlativenobleheart).Swooningisrarein

chroniclesbycomparisontoothernarrativegenres,exceptasaresultofphysicalsicknessor

injury:forexample,theinjuredAudleyswoonswithabloodlessface(GeoffreyleBaker132).

OneexceptionisEdwardIIinthesamechroniclewhen,in1326,heisforcedtoabdicatein

favourofhisson:atthatmomentleBakerisdrawingdeliberatelyontheemotional

conventionsofromanceandhagiography,asdiscussedinChapter3below.Inmanycases,a

madrageisonlyinvokedasapossibility:charactersmayconsciouslystruggletokeeptheir

self-control,ormaybeimploredtorestrainthemselvesandnotactwithrashviolence,

especiallyiftheyareinapositionofsocialpower.

Violenceisacategoryofbehaviourthatismorestronglyassociatedwithangersthan

withanyotherkindofemotion.Violenceagainstoneselfmaybeassociatedwithgrief,despair,

orsuicide—JenniferO’Reillyhastracedthecontinuitybetweenvisualrepresentationsof

anger,despair/wanhope,suicide,andJudas—butperhapsthemostpowerfularchetypeof

violenceistheimageofIrainthePsychomachiatradition.Thisisdiscussedinmoredetailin

Chapter3,butinshort:IraisdepictedasrepeatedlyattackingPatientia,whoserenelyignores

27Inromances,suchasthoseofChrétiendeTroyes,lovewillalsoproducerapidchangesofcolour.Thisisoneoftheveryfewemotionsignsthataretypicallyambiguoustoothercharacterswithinthetext:theywilloftensignaltoonlookersthattheknightorladyinquestionissufferingfromsomemysteriousstrongemotionorillnessbutnotexactlywhat,drawingthereader’sattentiontothedifficultyofinterpretingthefaceoraccessinginnerfeeling.Thisisworthnotingpreciselybecauseitissoverymuchatoddswiththedominantemotionalnormsofmedievalnarrative.Itis,however,consistentwiththecomparativeinvisibilityandambiguityofthefaceasasiteofemotionalexpression,whichIdiscussinChapter9.


theassaults,untilIrabeginstotearatherownfaceandhair.EventuallyIrakillsherselfwith

herownswordandfalls.Innarrative,thisextremeisrarelyreached,butself-harmcan

suggestalossofcontrolorasinfulexcessoffeelingwhichrisksimitatingIra.See,forexample,

EdwardI’sangerathissoninthechronicleofWalterofGuisborough(discussedinChapter

2):hetearshisownhairinanexcessofgriefandanger,thencollapsesinexhaustion(382–

83).

Violencetoothersmaybeasdangerousandexcessiveasself-inflictedviolence,butit

mayalsobelaudableandhonourable(forexample,onthebattlefield).Ihaveincludedhere

immediatephysicalharm,andgesturalthreatsofviolencesuchashandlingaweapon.Ihave

notincludedthreatsoffutureviolencehere(suchasdeclarationsofwar):Idiscussthoseas

speechactsinstead.

Throwingobjectsataperson(orattheirfeet,orattheground)hasbeenincludedhere

too,butithasseveraldifferentpossiblemeanings:oneisasimilarphysicalthreattoadrawn

sword(especiallyiftheobjectisaweapon),andanotherisaggressiondisplacedontothe

object(especiallyifthisisaccompaniedbykickingtheobjectorcursingit).Theremayalsobe

somespecificsymbolicsignificancetotheobjectinquestion(aring,aweapon)whichgives

theactionaspecificmeaning,suchastherenunciationofloyalty,orachallenge.InSirGawain

andtheGreenKnight,forexample,GawainflingsthegirdleatthefeetoftheGreenKnightand

cursesit.Gawainrejectswhattheobjectmeans,andshowsangertowarditandtheGreen

Knight,butisunwillingtoofferdirectviolencetotheGreenKnight(2374–78).Similarly,in

theFineshadechronicle,EdwardIthrowshisson’spetitiontothegroundandtramplesit:a

cleargestureofdenial,butalsoadisplacementofviolenceontothedocumentinsteadofhis

son(86rll.15–21).

Destroyinganenemy’spropertyisanactofwar,andismorecloselyalignedin

meaningwithaphysicalattackontheirpersonthanwithaggressiondisplacedontoanobject.

Thelandandpropertyandpeople,inthiscase,countasanextensionofthe“body”ofthelord,

andanattackonthemisanattackonthelord’sbody(forwhich,seeSectionC),whereas

aggressionagainstaspecificobjectisusuallyassociatedwithanattemptatself-control.

Accountsofdamageinflictedduringwartimeoftenincludementionoffireasaweaponof

destruction:thisisperfectlynaturalfromaliteralperspective,butithassymbolicweightas

well,duetotheassociationsoffireandheatwithangeritself.Despoliationduringwarisone

actofangerwhichcanbeglossedinmanydifferentways.Asitisverydestructiveandinflicts

miseryonmanypeopleitisoftenlamented,criedagainstasanactofwantoncrueltyand

violence,orofferedasevidenceofnoblepoweroutofcontrol.Inothercasesitmaybeviewed


moreorlessneutrally,asanexpectedfactofwarfare,orwithmoderateapprobation,asa

practicaltacticandameansofsupply.Inthesecases,itisoftenstressedthatthereweresome

excesseswhichtheattackersdidnotcommit.WhileJordanFantosmedisapprovesofthe

Scottishraidsingeneral,heemphasisesthatDavid,thebrotherofKingWilliamofScotland,is

agoodman,andthereforedidnotattackanychurchesormonasteries,norseekto“desplaire”

anynuns(1138).Therearealsonarrativesinwhichtheauthor(andpresumablythe

audience)shareswholeheartedlyinthesavagejoyofplunderingtheenemy.Aburnedvillage

isneverjustaburnedvillage:itisadeliberate,semi-formalactofanger.Thisangerisnot

directedprimarilyagainstthetownorvillageitself.Thepeoplebeingkilledandstarvedare

usuallynotevenconsideredunlesstheyhavetheeffronterytofightback,aswiththe

Flemings’maliciousring-barkingofthefruittreesoutsidethebesiegedtownofPrudhoe

(Fantosme1677–79).Therealtargetisthelordwhomitsymbolicallyrepresents,adeliberate

woundingofthelandthatheembodies.Froissartexplicitlyrejectsthisapproachinhis

accountofthesackofLimoges,whichheconsidersexcessivelycruel:“Idonotknowhow[the

English]couldnothavetakenpityonthosepoorpeoplewhowerenotimportantenoughto

havecommittedtreason,buttheypaidforitmoredearlythandidtheirgreatmasters”(SHF

1–666).

3. Speech and voice

a) Tone:

i) Loud,clear,“high/haut”(involume,notpitch),sometimesmakingthe

ground/roomshake

ii) Initialspeechlessness

b) Declaration:

i) Statementofanger:e.g.,“Iamangry”,and/ordescribinginternalsensations

ofanger

ii) Recitalofgrievances:“Thispersonhasharmedmeintheseways”

iii) Petitionforredressofgrievances

c) Threateningspeech:

i) Vowsofviolence/war:“Iwillaccomplishthesethingsagainstmyenemy”

ii) Maledictions:“Maybadthingshappentomyenemy”

d) Provocativespeech:

i) Appealsto/denialofhonour

ii) Jeersandtaunts(sometimesincludinglaughter)


e) Wordlessgroupspeech

i) Murmur:oftenquiet,spreadingangeranddissentthroughagroup

ii) Clamour:unruly,tumultuousnoisefromacrowd,oftenincludingjeers

Themannerortoneofspeechcanhaveemotionalandpoliticalsignificance:speaking

familiarly,orforalongtime,orwhileeatingtogether,isatokenandinvocationofloveand

friendship.A“clear”voiceisassociatedwithpronouncingordefendingatruth,andisusually

controlledratherthanclamorous.Itmayalso,however,beanangryvoice;andifsoitwill

probablyalsobedescribedas“high/haut”(thatis,loud),andpossiblyasshakingtheroomor

producingsomeotherpotenteffectonthesurroundingenvironmentorpeople.Thispowerful

toneofvoice,especiallyafteramomentofspeechlessness,isparticularlyassociatedwith

princelyanger.Theinitialsilencesuggestsastruggleforself-control;however,asitisoften

accompaniedbyaglareorsometerrifyinglookthateffectivelyproclaimsstrengthandanger

whilestrikingfearintoopponents,theapparentlossofself-commandcanbeaveryeffective

(narrativeand/orreal-life)toolforassertingpowerinthecontextofaverytheatrical

performanceofanger.

Suchaglareisoftenfollowedbyaformalstatementofanger—declaringoneselftobe

filledwithrageatanenemy(eitherinternal—atavassalorcomrade—orexternal,suchas

anotherprince),signallingaviolentruptureinthatrelationship.Thisassumesand

emphasisesacontiguitybetweeninteriorfeelingandexterior/socialaction.Itisoften

followedbyrecitalofgrievances—apublicdeclarationofallthereasonsonehasforanger

againsttheotherparty—andmayleadintothreateningspeech(whichanticipatesfuture

violence)or,ifthetargetispresent,intoimmediateviolence(battlerage).Take,forexample,

theEmperorofRome’sdeclarationofwaragainstArthurinthealliterativeMorte,which

includesseveraloftheseformalisedspeechactsbutusestheminanatypicalwayto

characterisetheEmperorandhiscourt.Earlier,wesawArthurandCamelotperforminganger

toperfection.Now“theemperouriruswasangeredathisherte…‘Myhertesothelyessette,

assenteȝifȝowlykes,/Tosekein-toSexone,withmysekyreknyghttez,/Tofyghtewithmy

foo-mene…’”(1957,1963–65).Wehaveanauthorialnamingofemotion,followedbythe

character’sformalstatementofangerandavowofwar—butfromthismomentonthevowis

subverted.Ratherthanplanningparticularmartialexploits,aswewouldexpectandasArthur

andhisknightsdidearlierunderthesamecircumstances(287–406),theemperorspeaks

insteadoftheriotandrevelhewillenjoyduringthecampaign.

Speechactswhichanticipate,plan,orinvokefutureviolenceoccuratapproximately

thispointinvariousemotionscriptsbut,forobviousreasons,canhaveverydifferent


narrativeeffectsandsocialcontext.Ihavedividedthembroadlyintotwocategories:promises

ofviolence,wherethespeakerpromisestoharmtheenemypersonally;andmaledictions,

wherethewrathofGodorsomesimilarcalamityisinvokedorhopedfor.Theprimary

differencehereisoneofsocialsituationandcapacity:awomanoralower-rankingmanis

morelikelytousemaledictions,beseechingdivineorsupernaturalinterventiontoaccomplish

theirrevenge,whileaknightorlordwillvowtoperformactsofvengeanceinhisownperson.

Theseactsaredifferentlycoded,andwilldifferintheirsubsequenteffectsandintheir

narrativehandling.Amanwhooughttobeabletotakeeffectiveactionhimselfbutwho

insteadhopespassivelyforfuturesatisfactionwillusuallybeportrayedasweakorassocially

dysfunctional:forexample,intheBrutchronicle,EdwardII’sreactiontothemurderofPiers

Gavestonistobecomeangryandtoprayforthedaywhenhemightbeavenged(207).

Ihaveavoidedtheword“cursing”,becauseofitsambiguity.Provocativespeech(“you

sonofawhore”)isnottobeconfusedwithmalediction(“mayGodstrikeyoudown”).Theaim

ofprovocativespeechissomeformofshamingordenigration,andassuch(especiallyifthisis

apublicscene)itmaybeadeliberateattempttoprovoketheotherpersontoangerand

action.Ifthisisthecase,whileitwilloftenprovokeanangryresponseinreturn,theanger

mayormaynotbedirectedatthespeaker—thisisdiscussedinChapter2.If,however,the

intentofthewordsismalicious(jeersandtaunts),thismayreflectbadlyonthespeaker:

thoughaheromayjeeratafallenenemy,jeeringismoretypicallyassociatedwiththeunruly

speechofthediscourteousorthelow.Laughterisrareandismoreusuallyderisivethan

joyful,soinmostcases,unlessthereissomeotherindication,itshouldbeassociatedwith

jeeringspeech(seeRobertofArtois’secretlaughter,VoeuxduHéron119).Itmayevenform

partofamartyr’storments,asinthecaseofThomasofLancasterintheBrut,bothatthe

momentofhiscaptureandonthepathtohisexecution(219–20,221–23;seediscussionof

theincreasinguseofmartyrdomtropesinthisepisodeinChapter3).Crowdsandanimalsin

particularareevenpronetowordlessvocalisations,suchasthehueandcrywhenDespenser

theYoungeriscaptured(Anonimalle130),thecitizensofCalaissignallingtotheirkingtheir

willingnesstocontinuetodefendtheircity(GB79–80),ortheaccusingdespairinthecryof

thefamiliarspiritscornedbytheLordofCorressewhenitappearsinthelikenessofasow

(SHF3–47).

4. Reactions to anger

a) Communalemotion/sympathy:otherssharetheanger

b) Commandofroom/fearinreaction:othersareintimidatedbytheanger


c) Counselscene:determinesthecorrectamountofanger

d) Pleaforclemencyorrestraint:askingthattheangerbereduced.

Thereactionsofothercharactersprovideanimportantglossonanyangerevent.Theymay

helptocharacterisethetypeofanger,andareoftenaguidetothereaderastoaproper

emotionalresponse.Alackofemotionalunitybetweentheangrycharacterandonlookers

usuallyindicatesasociallydysfunctionalanger;fearresponsesfromenemiesenhancethe

angrycharacter’sstatus;andacounselsceneorapleaforclemencymaybeemployedto

dramatisetheevaluationoftheappropriatedegreeofresponse.

5. Symbols and analogies associated with anger

a) Fireandheat

b) Thecolourred(includingvisibleblood)

c) Certainanimals

i) Lions

ii) Boars

iii) Wolves

iv) Leopards

v) Dogs

d) Demons,pagans,foreigners,peasants,etc.

Fire,heat,andthecolourred,arebynatureassociatedwithanger,astotheideasofviolence

andblood.ThisassociationisstrengthenedbyGalenichumoraltheoryaswellasby

iconographicaltraditions.TheviceIrausuallywieldsaredorflamingsword,andangry

peopleinartworkwilloftenhaveredskinorhair(thehairisoftenwildandflame-likein

appearancetoo).Inthecaseoflarge-scaleangerbetweenprincesornations,firegainsa

strongerassociationbyitsuseasaweaponofwar(see2.g.iabove).Itmayalsooccurasa

simplevisualsignintext,asforexampleinRoland:whenweseetheMuslimspreparingto

attack,theirarmour,reflectingthesun,shineslikefire(“reflambeit”,“flambïus”,laisses79–

80).Weseeasimilareffectlater:CharlemagneandtheFrencharmyareridinginanger

(“cevalchetparirur…dolenzecuroçus”)andtheir“hauberksandhelmetsshinelikefire”

(“osbercsehelmesigetentgrantflabur”,laisse137).

Foranimalsassymbolsthedirectreferentistheirqualitiesasdescribedinmedieval

bestiariesandheraldry.Manyareambiguous:lionscanbepositiveandregal,butalsoviolent

anddestructive,dependingoncontext.Boarssimilarlycanstandforpositiveandnegative

aspectsofwarlikestrength.ThedescriptionsofthehuntedboarinSirGawainandtheGreen


Knight,forexample,drawonthelanguageofbattlefury:bestialbutnoble(1460–67,1571–

80,etc.).Bycontrast,awolfishanger(suchasAndrewHarclay“ȝellingasawolfe”whenhe

capturesLancasterintheBrut,219)isnegativeinallsenses:raging,ravening,low,dirty.

Leopardsarerarer,butwheretheydoappeartheyaremoreoftenassociatedwithangerthan

not:whenRolandseestheSpanisharmyapproaching,hebecomesasfierceasalionor

leopard(Rolandlaisse88).Dogsaremorelikelytobehumble,dirty,orlow.Abestialangeris

oftenassociated,too,with“bestial”peopleorsupernaturalbeingssuchaspagansordemons:

“Youarealivingdevil.Deadlyragehastakenpossessionofyou”(Rolandlaisse58).

ThedescriptionofKingArthur’sangerinthealliterativeMortecombinesseveralof

thesetypesofsymbols:

Thekingblyschituponthemanwithhiswideeyes,That,veryfiercewithwrath,burnedlikehotcoals;Hechangedcolourastheking,withapitilessexpression,Lookedlikealion,andbitesathislip!(116–119)

Noteparticularlytheinsistenceonfireandredness.“Blyschit”heredoesnotmeanblushing

butglaring:thatis,Arthur“looksredly”atthemessengers,witheyesthatburnlikecoals.He

changescolour,presumablytored;andtocrowntheeffect,helookslikealion.

Emotion scripts, and types of anger

Oncewebegintoobservethesesignsweseethattheyoftenoccurinpatterns:so,asinthe

abovequotationfromtheMorteArthure,alordorking’sspeechlessness(3.a.ii)isoften

accompaniedbymanifestationsofheat(5.aor5.b)andaglare(2.a.iii)thatstrikesterrorinto

thetarget(s)ofhiswrath(4.b).IfArthurweretobeportrayedasaweakandwilfulkingwe

mightinsteadseewildmovement(2.c.ior2.c.iii),self-harmsuchashair-tearing(2.e),the

mentionofthecharacterraginglikeadevil(5.d),andtheindifferenceofthetarget(4.b

inverted).Thesedifferentpatternsofbehaviour(emotionscripts)wouldcarrydifferentmoral

charges,buttheyalsooccurinresponsetodifferentprovocationsandhavedifferentresultsin

thenarrative.Thestimulantandtheresolutionarejustasimportantaswhethertheauthor

approvesordisapproves:inotherwords,thebeginningandtheendareasimportantasthe

middle,whenitcomestoconceptualisingafeeling.Theyseem,therefore,tobeassociated

withdifferentkindsofanger.Igroupthesetypesofangeraccordingtocause(whatprovoked


theanger?),emotionscript(howdoesthisangermanifestorhowisitproduced?),andgoal

(whatisthedesiredresolutionofthisanger?).

Followingthisprinciple,Ifindfivemaintypesofangerinlate-medievalnarrativetexts.

Thefirsttwoarethemostcommon,andthemostcomplex.Theyareatthecentreof

narrativesandthedebatesimpliedbythenarrative—consequentlytheyaremorelikelytobe

mixedwithotheraffects,ortobethesubjectofdetailedmoralevaluationbytheauthororby

othercharacters.Theothertypesofangeraresimpler,and—especiallyinchronicles—usually

incidentaltothenarrative.

Feudalangeris,simply,angerataperceivedviolationofaformalbond,suchasthat

betweenlordandvassal,orbetweenalliedprinces.Itis,byitsnature,centredonthe

relationshipbetweentwoparties,thoughoneofthesepartiesmaybeagrouporanentire

nation.Theprototypicalexampleisthatofalordangryathisvassal’sdisobedience.Itis

essentiallyapublicemotion,conceptualisedintermsofsocialrelationships,anditsignals

(bothfromalegalandanarrativeperspective)theshiftinthatrelationshipfromlovetowar/

revenge,untilasuccessfulreconciliationcanbenegotiated.Scriptsandsignsoffeudalanger

willbediscussedinmoredetailinSectionB.

Shamedangerismorepersonal,althoughittoomayresultinaformaldeclarationof

hatredandwar.Itisaresponsetoaperceivedoractuallossofhonour.Fromanarrative

viewpointitisanongoingmotivatingfactorinawaythatfeudalangerisnot:adriveto

violenceandreparationsthatwillrestorelosthonour,ratherthanthepotentiallystatic

changeofrelationshipsignalledbythefirst.Wherefeudalangernegotiatesagiven

relationship,thisemotionmediates(andmotivates)personalworthwithinsociety.See

Chapters2and3fordiscussion.

Battlerage,asthenamesuggests,happensinsituationsofcombatorsimilar

confrontation,usuallyonthebattlefield.Itmaybegeneraloroccasional:thatis,a“furious”

warrioronthebattlefieldprovokedbynomorethanthefactofcombat,oranaggressiverage

promptedbyaspecifictrigger.Ifthelatter,thecatalystisusuallyawoundorataunt,or

seeingone’scomrade(s)slaughtered.Theheroorarmyrespondsby“ragingasalion”(or

somesimilarexpression)andexperiencingasuddenburstoffervour,courage,madness,or

strength,whichtemporarilyordecisivelyturnsthetideofthefight.

Otheringangerservestomarkthealterityandevilnessofthecharacterinquestion.

Suchcharactersbehavelikeviolentdemons,notinresponsetoaspecificprovocation,but

becauseitistheirnature.EnglishchroniclestellingofbattlesagainsttheScots,forexample,

oftendepicttheminimitationofIraandragingdemons,insteadofaschivalrousopponents


liketheFrench.InthesetextsScottishangerorviolentbehaviourisgivennoconnectionwith

anycause(e.g.,GB4,AP265).Similarly,GeoffreyleBaker’sQueenIsabellaisafuriousvirago

anda“truculentlioness”,incontrasttothepatientsufferingandnobleloveofherhusband

EdwardII(20,21,24,28).Anydisplayofangeronthepartofthesecharactersmarkstheir

alterityandevil.Otheringangerisusuallyindicatedbyimagerythatexplicitlyrecallsthe

visualtraditionsofIra,thedeadlysin,andwillusuallybeopposedtoeithercalmpatience(as

inthecaseofEdwardandIsabella)oranappropriatelymarkedrighteousanger(anoble

Christianarmyagainsttheirheathenorsubhumanopponents).

Holywrathistheoppositeofotheringanger.ItiswieldedbysaintsandbyGod—and

curiouslyenough,thoughitisoftenimagined,itrarelyappearsoutsideofhagiography.Its

existenceismostlytheoretical:inpractice,andeveninhagiography,mostnarrativeswilluse

insteadahyper-positiveversionofbattlefuryorfeudalanger(thatis,theangrycharacter

maybeprovokedbythetauntsofanevilcharacter,orwillspeakonGod’sbehalfasifhewere

anaggrievedlord).Bymyownrulesthisangerdoesnotstrictlybelongonthislist:thisisa

kindofangerwithnoregular,recognisablescripts,anangerthatdoesnotdifferinany

meaningfulwayfromotherangers,anangerthatalmostneverappears.Ihaveincludedit

becauseitispresentinitsabsence:authorsandcharactersbothwanttoimaginethatitexists,

eveniftheycangivenorealmodelforit.

Althoughtheyaredistinctintheiroriginsandclearlydelineatedinintent,twoormore

typesofangermaybepresentinasingleemotionevent.Speechesinvolvingthepossibilityof

dishonourareoftenuseddeliberatelytoprovokeangertoaspecificend,andaleadermaydo

justthisbeforebattletoencouragehismenintoabattlerage.TheSaracens’abuseoftheir

“falseidols”inLaChansondeRolandcharacterisesthemasragingdevils,butthemannerin

whichtheyexpresstheirangerincludeselementsoffeudalangerandthebetrayalofa

relationship(thegodhavingwithheldtheprotectiontheymightreasonablyexpectfortheir

service).Hagiographictalesmaydepictasaint’swrathonGod’sbehalfinawaythatmirrorsa

vassal’sindignationataslighttohislord—perhapsamorerelatableangerthanthesomewhat

impersonalpureangerofrighteousness—andsoon.

Oncewebegintorecognisethesetypesofangerinthetextswemayfindthem

instructiveastohowangerswereunderstoodtofunctioninasocialcontext:theangerthata

lordofromanceorchroniclemightdisplayinresponsetoanimpertinentdemandfrom

anotherlordorrulerisusuallydepictedasfeudalanger.Thatis,itisshapedinexactlythe

samewayasthelord’sangeragainstanimpertinentsubject,ratherthanasshamedanger.

Thissuggeststhathisimmediatepublicresponseismoreconcernedwithsignallingthe


immediateshiftinrelationshipwiththeotherman,thanwithresentmentataslighttohis

honour.Similarly,inSectionBwewillseeEdwardIIIasserthisownrighttoCalaisandFrance

byrespondingtotheburghersofCalaisasiftheywerehisownrebellioussubjects,usingthe

practiceoffeudalangertoturnhisclaimintopracticalfact.Wheresocialstructureisso

fundamentallybuiltaroundpersonalrelationships,thechoiceofemotionalexpressionmust

haveaclear,immediatesocialeffect:assertingtherighttofeelinaparticularwaywouldbea

veryrealstatementofsocial,legal,andpoliticalpower.

Feudalangerisnotpurelyexternalisedandsocial,butratherreliesforitseffecton

collapsinganydistinctionbetweenalord’sprivateemotionsandhispublicpoliticalactions.In

manycases,bothfeudalandshamedangerarepresentinagivenemotionevent;andthey

seemtobeconsideredasdistinctasare,forexample,angerandsorrow,joyandreverence,or

anyotheremotionscommonlyfoundgroupedtogether.Wherethecoreoffeudalangeristhe

perceptionofeitherpartythatthetermsofafeudalrelationshiphavebeenviolated,thecore

ofshamedangeristheprotagonist’ssensethattheshamingwordsarepotentiallytrueand

thathishonourisdiminished.Theoppositeoffeudalangerisloveandtheoppositeofshamed

angerishonour,butinbothcases,theprovocationofangerprovidesadrivetoworktoward

itsoppositestate.

IwilldiscussbattlerageandotheringangeralittleinChapters2and3,respectively,

comparingthemtocertainmanifestationsofshamedanger.Wewillseetherethat,although

battlerageandshamedangerareoftenprovokedbyaverysimilaremotionscript,their

resolutionisverydifferent.Theybelongtothesamenarrativeandemotionalstyle,andtheir

closerelationshipallowsauthorstoexploretheboundariesofshameandhonourandthe

contextsofpermissibleviolence.Otheringanger,however,isstylisticallyincompatiblewith

shamedanger.Theybelongtodifferentstories;andchroniclersmayusethemquite

deliberatelytoeffectashiftingenrewithintheirnarrative.

ItshouldbenotedherethatthefigureofIraisoftenglimpsed,butisnotatypeof

anger.Sheistheideaofangernotasemotionbutassin:consequently,sheisinvoked(bysign,

notbyname)whenauthorsfeelthatoneoftheircharactersisexcessiveintheirangerand

begintodepictthatangerinsignsthatrecalltheusualrepresentationsofthedeadlysin.Signs

ofIraaremostlikelytoappearinotheringanger,buttheyarenotexclusivetoit.

Chapter 2. Shamed anger

Provocative speech and the pursuit of honour

Aknightstandsupinthemidstofafeast.Inaloudvoice,hecallshiskingthemostcowardly

manwhoeverlived,toocraventofightforhisinheritanceanddoomedtodiewithoutit.Stung

byshame,thekingfliesintoarageandvowsretribution—butnotagainsttheknightwhohas

insultedhim.Instead,hevowstoattackanothermanwhoholdshislandsfromhim,andto

regainhishonour.Inthiscase,thecharactersareRobertofArtoisandEdwardIIIintheverse

chronicleLesVoeuxduHéron(80–118);butaverysimilarsceneoccurssurprisinglyoftenin

medievalnarrative,andthedisruptivewordsofthefirstspeakerarehardlyeverrepresented

astransgressive.

Thecharactersinquestionareusuallyfriends:closeallies,verylikelyfamily.Afather

mightevencallhisownheir“yousonofawhore”,likeEdwardIinthechronicleofWalterof

Guisborough,sharpeningtheapparentincongruityofhiswords(382).Yetthesewords,

thoughtheymayseemviolentorexcessiveatfirstglance,donotrupturethatrelationship.

Theydonotevenseemtogiveoffence;andthoughthesecondcharacterbecomesangry,they

speaknotawordofreproachtotheiraccuser.

Thischallengeisoneoftwocommonkindsofprovocativespeechact:specifically,the

appealtohonour.Thoughtheinsultsusedareoftenindistinguishablefromthoseusedin

hostilejeers,provocativespeechisnothostileinthecontextofthisscript.Theappealto

honourhasaconventionalisedfunction:anattempttocreateshamedangerinthetarget,

provokingthemfrominertiatohonour-seekingaction.Theprimarycharacteristicsofshamed

angerarethatitoriginatesinathreatenedoractualdiminutionofaperson’shonour,andthat

itleadstosustainedactioninanattempttoregainthathonour.

Thisscriptiseasilyrecognisedinanarrative:thefiercewordsspokenbyafriend,the

resultingangerdirectedelsewhere,anditsroleinmotivatingthenarrativethatfollows.Ithas

atwin,however:anotheremotionalscriptwhichfollowsaverysimilarpattern,butwhichis

initiatedbyjeeringspeechinstead.Bothscriptsraisethepossibilityofdishonourandset

angerinmotiontoresolveit.Thoughtherearedifferencesintheintentandtheoutcome,the

antagonist’swordsandtheprotagonist’ssignsofangermirroreachothercloselyenoughthat

eachscriptalwaysinvokesthepossibilityofbecomingitstwin—arichambiguityforan

authortoexplore.Thekeydifferencebetweenjeeringspeechandtheappealtohonourisnot

thespecificwordsemployed,butthespeaker’sintent—whichmay,onoccasion,be

misunderstood.Thedifferenceinoutcomecentresonwhethertheprotagonistturnshis


aggressiononthespeaker(usuallybattlefury)oranotherparty(usuallyshamedanger)—or

whether,perhaps,hefailstorespondwithanyangeratall.

Thescriptwhichisinitiatedbyanappealtohonour(theA-script)makesapowerful

framingdevicefornarrativedepictionsofshamedanger,especiallywheretheplotisbased

aroundaquesttoregainhonourorachievevengeance.TheB-script,ontheotherhand,

suggestsdishonourbutputsthatsuggestioninthemouthofanenemy:theprotagonistdenies

itimmediatelybuttheauthormaykeepitinplaybyothermeans.Eitherscriptwillinvokethe

possibilityofdishonour,teasingitsreadersintojudgingthecharactersinthoseterms.This

chapterexaminestherelationshipbetweenthispairofemotionalscriptsandtheconceptof

shamedanger,exploringthenatureandeffectofprovocativespeech.

ThischapterisalsoadirectdemonstrationofthemethodologythatIlaidoutinthe

previouschapter:itisanexampleofhow,inagiventext,onemightusethesignsandtypesof

angerthatIdescribedasastartingpointforamoresensitive,comparativetextualanalysis.

Becauseofthis,Ispendmoretimeinthischapterthaninlateronesdescribing(andinone

caseanalysing)non-chronicletexts,toestablishthecontinuityinauthors’useofthese

emotionalscriptsacrossgenres.Inatleastoneinstance,wefindchroniclersand

contemporaryauthorsofnon-historiographicalnarrativesusingthesamescriptstounpack

andexaminethesameculturalissues.Itisprobablynotpossibletosayexactlytowhatdegree

thesescriptsreflectrealemotionalpractice;butitdoesseemclearthattherewassubstantial

overlap,andthatchroniclers,likeotherauthors,couldengagethattoreflectonorchallenge

eventsintheworldaroundthem.

The A-script: appeal to honour

Whenanappealtohonourprovokesshamedanger,theprotagonist’sangerisnotdirectedat

theantagonist.Theantagoniststatesthecauseoftheprotagonist’sperceiveddishonour,beit

personorsituation,andrecommendsorimpliesthebestcourseofactiontoamendthe

situation.Theprotagonist’sangerisdirectedatthiscause.

TheA-scriptinvolvesthreekeystages:challenge,recognition,solution.Thechallenge

istheinitialprovocativespeech:anappealtohonour,inwhichtheantagonisttellsthe

protagonistthatheisdishonoured.Intherecognitionstage,theprotagonistacknowledges

dishonourandexhibitssignsofshamedanger.Thesemaybeinternalorexternalsigns,ora

vocalstatementofanger:theyfunctiononlytosignalthefactofhisangertothereaderandto


thepeoplepresent.Thesolutionisthedeclarationofacourseofactiontoremedyhisshame.

Thisisusuallyavowofviolenceagainstthepersonorcausethattheantagonistspecified.If

theantagonistsuggestedacourseofaction(“youmustfightbackagainsthimoryouare

dishonoured!”),thisvowwilltakeupthesuggestionandturnitintoamorespecificplan(“I

willrallymymenandattackhiminthisplacewithinthismanydays”).Thespecificemotional

signsusedcanvary,especiallyinthesecondstage—hastymovement,aflushedface,boiling

blood,arecitalofgrievances,andsoon—buttheshapeandcharacterofthescriptremains

thesame.

ShamedangerdrivestheplotofRaouldeCambraiuntilthedeathofthetitlecharacter.

Theinitialsceneofshamedangeriscrucialtothenarrative,andisconsequentlygivenfull

treatment(laisses32–33).Itisbothdetailedandarchetypal.Theissueatstakeisthetitleto

certainlands:Raoulhasarighttothem,buttheyweregiftedelsewherebyKingLouis.Raoul’s

uncleGuerrirequeststheybereturnedtoRaoul—thisrequestisdenied.Guerriangrily

declareshisoppositiontothejudgement(“cechalengje!”,v.479)andgoestofindRaoul.Now

comesourmomentofprovocation:Guerrirushesangrily(“parmaltalant”,v.481)intothe

roomwhereRaoulissittingpeacefullyplayingatchess.AllGuerri’sactionsareroughand

hasty.SeizingRaoulbythearm(tearinghismantleintheprocess),heinsultshim(“fila

putain”,“malvaislechieres”),demandingtoknowwhyheiscalmlyplayingherewhenhehas

nolands(vv.486–89).

Thesewords—theiraccusation,theirexplanation,andtheirimplicitrecommendation

ofaparticularemotionalscript—immediatelyspurRaoulontoasimilarlyviolentstate.

Leapingtohisfeet,hespeakssoloudlythattheroomshakesandeverybodyinthehallhears

him(vv.490–93).Guerrisaysthatthekingmustholdhimindishonourtodosuchathing—

“bientetientahoni”(v.495).Raoul’sbloodboils,hesummonshismenabouthim,andthey

allstorminangrilytoseeLouis.Raouladdressesthekingwith“grandmaltalant”and

demandstherestorationofhislands,invokinghisservicetothekingandhisrightto

equivalentreturn(vv.502–10).

Whenthekingrefuses,Guerriinterjects,labellingRaoul“malvaisetrecreant”and

swearingthatifRaouldoesnotfightforhislandsthenGuerriandhismenwillneverhelphim

again(vv.514–521).ThoughwehavenoreasonbythisstagetothinkthatRaoulwouldback

downfromsuchachallenge,Guerri’sinterpositionsealsthedeal.Moreover,wherebeforehe

onlyprescribedanemotionalstyle,nowheprescribesthecourseofaction.Raoulhasno

choicebuttoissuehisownvowtoupholdhisclaimwithwaragainsthisrival,sinceitwould

betohis“honte”toallowanothermantoholdhislandsagainsthim(vv.524–533).


Thenarratordriveshomethefutureeffectsofthisvow:

ThisisthespeechthatRaoulwastostandbysounshakeablythatmanybaronslaterdiedbloodydeaths.(vv.522–23)

Thisisatypicaltreatmentofthe“appealtohonour”versionofthescriptforshamedanger.

Guerriplaystheantagonist,Raoultheprotagonist,andthecauseofshameisLouisgiving

Raoul’slandstoanotherman.SinceLouisrefusestoact,thesolutionbecomestodisplace

angerfromtheking’sactionsontoRaoul’srival,anddeclarewaronhim.Raoul’sangeris

neverdirectedatGuerri,however.Whenascenefollowsorimpliesthistripartitescript,and

particularlyifitrequirestheprotagonisttofightforhishonourinthefuture,theangerin

questionisshamedanger—and,despitetheirviolentwords,theantagonist’sintentionsare

almostcertainlyfriendly.

Acrucialfactorofasceneofshamedangeristhattheactioncannotpossiblyendwith

theprovocativewordsandtheprotagonist’sinitialsurgeofshame.Theemotionofthisscene

gesturesforwardtofutureaction:inanarrativecontext,thatisitscentralpurpose.Shamed

angerisprimarilyseennotinasinglemomentbutintheactionsundertakeninorderto

overcomethatshame.

The B-script: jeering speech

Notallverbalabuse,however,issobenign.Theappealtohonourisonlyoneoftwokindsof

provocativespeech.Jeeringspeechcanlookverysimilar:thesameinsults,thesame

terminology,evenasimilarinitialresponsefromtheprotagonist.Theemotionalscriptwhich

itinitiatesfollowsthesameformat,butithasseveralcrucialdifferences.

Thecrucialdifferencebetweenjeeringspeechandanappealtohonourisnotthe

choiceofwordsbuttheintentofthespeaker.UnliketheantagonistoftheA-script,thejeering

antagonistwantstheprotagonistdishonoured.Heorshewillthereforebetheprotagonist’s

enemy,andwillusuallyberepresentedasevilordishonourablebythenarrative.The

protagonist’sanger,insteadofbeingusedtoattainsomefuturegoal,isdirectedatthe

antagonist.Thatis,theantagonistisidentifiedwiththecauseofdishonour,ratherthan

servingtopointitout;andratherthanacknowledgingshameandusingittoredressthe

matter,theprotagonistrejectsshamebydefeatingtheantagonist(ortriesto).Consequently,

theprotagonist’sangerisusuallyresolvedinthecourseofthescene,ratherthangesturing


forwardtofutureaction.Theangeritprovokesisusuallybattlefury:directaggressiveaction,

immediatelyreassertinghonourandstrength.

Itisrareforjeeringspeechtobemetwithshamedanger.Shamedangerrequiresthe

protagonisttoacknowledgesometruthintheaccusationsofdishonour.Anenemywhojeers

islikelytobestruckdownveryquickly,especiallyinachivalricnarrative,robbinghiswords

oftruthandhisopinionsofmeaning.Thisiscolouredbythegeneraltendencyinmedieval

narrative(notonlyasregardsthisemotionalscript)forjeeringwordstobeassociatedwith

vice,rudeness,andlowsocialstatus:thatis,withtheoppositeofeverythingimpliedbythe

word“courtesy”.Instancesofjeeringgroupspeecharealsocommon—particularlyamocking

crowdorpagans/devilstormentingasaint—whichstrengthensthisassociation.(Seethe

discussionoftheBrutchronicleinChapter3.)Consequently,jeeringspeechisoftenusedto

markaspeakerasdishonourableorsinful,lackinginwhatevervirtuesareprizedbythegenre

inquestion.ThinkofSirKayintheArthurianromancetradition:hisjeersmarkhimasless

thanidealincourtesy,andsetusupforhisfailuresinotheraspectsofknighthood,suchas

singlecombat.Inthecontextofthisemotionalscript,therefore,aherowhodefeatsajeering

enemyhasdemonstratedhissuperioritytwiceover.TheB-scriptreads:challenge(jeering

speech),offence(angersigns),solution(violence)—recognisablysimilartotheA-script,but

withcrucialdifferencesintimingandintent.

SeveralchroniclesattestthatPiersGavestonusedinsultingnicknamesforvarious

nobleswhen,afterreturningfromexile,hefeltsecureinhispositioninEdwardII’saffections.

ThechronicleroftheVitaEdwardiIImentionsthis,andanalyseshowthisexacerbated

barons’hatredofhim,dismissingtheideathatitwasdueonlytohismonopolyoftheking’s

favour.“Ithappensinalmostallnoblehousestodaythatsomeoneofthelord’shousehold

enjoysaprerogativeofaffection,”thechroniclersays,beforespeakingofhisarroganceand

insultingbehaviour:“IthereforebelieveandfirmlymaintainthatifPiershadbehaved

discreetlyandhumblytowardsthegreatmenofthelandfromthebeginning,noneofthem

wouldeverhaveopposedhim”(26–29).ThechronicleroftheBrutpresentsthesame

conclusiondifferently,lessanalyticalbutmoredramatic:Gaveston’sdownfallisexplainedby

presentingitintheformoftheB-scriptforprovocativespeech.

…[W]hen[Gaveston]wascomenaȝeynintoþislande,hedespisedeþegrettestlordesofþislande,andcalledeSirRobertClareErlofGloucestre,‘Horessone,’andþeErlofLyncoln,SirHenryþeLacy,‘Brostebely,’andSirGuyofWarryk,‘blankehoundeofArderne.’AndalsohecalledeþenobleErlandgentil,ThomasofLancastre,‘Cherl,’andmenyothereshamesandscornhamsaide,&bymenyoþere


gretelordesofEngeland,wherforeþaiweretowardeshimfulangriandsoreannoiede.

[TheEarlofLincolndies,andchargeshisson-in-lawandheir,Lancaster,tomaintainhisquarrelagainstGaveston.]

…Andsohitwasordeynede,þrouȝhelpeofþeErleofLancastrandofþeErlofWarrwyk,þatþeforsaidePierswasbiheuededeatGauersichebisidesWarwik…(206–07)

WehaveherethesamethreestagesasintheA-script—thechallenge,afuriousemotional

response,andresolution—buttheantagonisthereisthetargetofanger,andsuffersthewrath

oftheprotagonist(s)directly.Theignobleenemyisputdown,andorderis—temporarily—

restored.Notealsothattheprotagonisthasbecomeapluralentity:agroupofinsultedpeople

ratherthanasinglehero.Thisdoesnotalterthescript,andthesamemayhappenwiththeA-

script:thelargecastofcharactersinchroniclesoftenleadstogroupsofcharactersperforming

emotionscriptsinthisway,especiallywhen,ashere,eventsaretemporallycompressed.The

sequenceofsignsremainsthesame,andfromanarrativepointofviewthiscountsasone

“scene”.Thatis,theangryresponseofthebaronsandtheirdecisiveactionagainstGaveston

followsimmediatelyonfromhisinsults,eventhough,logically,werealisethattheseevents

takeplaceoveraperiodofweeksormonths.Consequently,weseenopersonalandembodied

emotionsigns,likeRaoul’shastymovementsandflushedface:thenarrativevoiceretainsa

certaindistance.

Thebarons’emotionalreactiontoprovocativespeechneverthelessfollowsthefamiliar

B-script.Thereader’sexperienceofit—andthereactionsofGloucesterandtheothersto

Gaveston’sinsults—wouldhavebeeninfluencedbythemoreaffect-richaccountsofthat

emotionscriptnarratedinchansonsdegeste(and,aswewillsee,insomechronicles).

Considerlaisses93–95ofLeChansondeRoland.Eachlaissetellsofanencounterbetweenone

oftheFrenchheroesandaMuslimnobleman–Roland,Oliver,andTurpin,againstAelroth,

Falsaron,andCorsablix.Eachfollowsexactlythesamesequence:theMusliminsultsFrance,

theFrenchmanbecomesfuriousandslayshisopponent,thenthevictorrebukesthedead

bodyandcheersonhiscompanions.

ThenephewofMarsilie—Aelrothbyname—ridesfirstinadvanceofthearmy.AndasherideshesaysevilwordsofourFrenchmen:“YefelonFrench[FelunsFranceis],to-dayyoushalljoustwithus.Theonewhoshouldhaveprotectedyouhasbetrayedyouandthekingwasmadtoleaveyoubehindinthepasses.To-daysweetFrancewillloseherreputation[perdratFrancedulcesunlos]andCharlemainewilllosetherightarmfromhisbody.”WhenRolandheardthis,God!


howangryhewas[sigrantdoelenout]!Hespurshishorseandputsittothegallopandstrikesattheheathentotheutmostofhisforce.Hebreakshisshieldandtearsopenhishauberk,hecutsopenhisbreastandbreaksallhisbonesandcleaveshimtothechine.Hemakesanexitforthesoulwithhislance.Hehasdrivenitindeeplyandmadetheheathen’sbodytotterandthelengthofhishafthehashurledhimdeadfromhishorse.Hehasbrokenhisneckintwohalves;buthecannotrefrainfromspeakingtohim:“Begone,sonofaslave[Ultre,culvert]!Charlesisbynomeansmad,nordidheevertoleratetreason.Heactedlikeabravemanwhenheleftusatthepasses.SweetFrancewillnotloseherreputationto-day.Strike,Frenchmen,thefirstblowisours!Therightisonoursideandthesefelonsareinthewrong.”(Laisse93)28

Eachofthethreelaissesrepeatsthissequence:thechallenge(aninsulttoCharlemagneanda

triumphantpredictionthathisknightswillbedefeated),thefuryoftheFrenchknight

(narrativestatementofanger,hastymovementtowardtheenemy,offeringhimviolenceto

clothesandtobody),andthesolution(defeatinghim).Inallthreecases,thisisfollowedand

emphasisedbyhavingtheFrenchknightreturnprovocativespeechtotheirenemy.Note

againthedifferencesfromtheA-script:theirsolutionisnotavowoffutureviolence,but

immediateviolentactiondirectedagainsttheantagonist.Inlightofthis,theangersignsthat

precedeitarenotarecognitionofdishonour,butadenialofit.Althoughtheyshowtracesof

shamedanger—thesamesignsaswesawwithRaoul—theFrenchknightsdonotadmitthe

shamesomuchasimmediatelydisproveit.Toemphasisethis,theyreturnsimilarjeering

wordstothecorpse—whoisunabletorefutethem.Inthiscontext,theinitialprovocative

speeches(andthefinalreplies)mustbereadasjeers,notasappealstohonour.

Thisscriptoftenappearsonthebattlefieldorinanothersituationwherethetwo

partiesarealreadypoisedforviolence.Thisfacilitatestheshifttoactionintheformofmurder

orcombat.Asimplifiedversionofthisscriptisoftenusedtodramatiseaccountsofbattles.

Twoopposingknightsmeetinginbattle,inalmostanynarrativegenre,mightexchangetaunts

28Althoughthisandthefollowingtwolaissesdescribewhatareostensiblythreeseparateincidents,theycountasasingleexample.Atriplerepetitionoflaissessimilairesischaracteristicofthispoet’sdramaticandaesthetictechnique—mostfamously,themomentinwhichRolandblowshishornisrepeatedinthreeconsecutivestanzas,onlyslightlyrephrased.Inthiscase,the“rephrasing”includeschangingthenamesofthecharacters,butthereisverylittledifferenceotherwisebetweenthelaisses.Thisisnot,therefore,threeseparateexamplesoftheemotionalscriptunderdiscussion,butthreedifferentwaysinwhichthepoetmighthavesaidthesamething:ineffect,threesynonymousscenes.Laisse94maybefoundintheappendix.


beforeblows,orwemightseesomethinglikeEdwardI’sswiftandthoroughresponsewhen

theScotsofBerwickspeakmockinglyofhim:“WhenKyngEdwardherdþisscorn,anone

þrouȝhismightynessehepassedeouereþediches,andassailedeþetoun,&cometoþeȝates,

andgeteandconqueredþetoune,and,þrouȝhisgraciouspower,quelledeXXVMl&vijCof

Scottes”(Brut189).Theresultisbattlefurybeingusedtodenythepossibilityofthe

dishonourthathasbeensuggested.29

Thekeydifferencebetweenjeeringspeechandappealstohonourisintent,andoften

thedifferenceisclearfromcontext.Content(thatis,thechoiceofwords)isnotalwaysaclear

indicator,thoughonthisoccasionittooisobviouslyhostile.Still,thereareenoughsimilarities

betweenthismockeryandthewordsofGuerritoRaoultodeserveacloserexamination.

Jeeringandappealstohonouralikeareoftendescribedasbeingspokeninloudtones,

accompaniedbyothersignsofangersuchasviolentbodylanguage.Bothtaketheformof

insults,oftentargettingthehonouroftheprotagonistorthesocialgroupthattheyrepresent.

Bothresultinaflushoffierceanger.Thedifferenceisthatthefriendlyantagonistspeaksup

becausetheyholdtheprotagonist’shonourdear.Relative,friend,dependant,ally,sometimes

evenanenemywhoisworthyofrespect:whoevertheantagonistis,theiropinionmusthold

weightforthereaderandfortheprotagonist.Thetrueenemywantstowound,nottomend.

Thisiswhereadifferencemayariseinthecontentofthespeech:thefriendly

antagonistrebukestheprotagonistforaparticularfailureandrecommendsorimpliesa

futuresolution,whilethehostileonedelightsinhonour’sloss.Theprotagonist’sresponse

takesthisintoaccount:theywillacknowledgethatthereistruthorthepossibilityoftruthin

thewordsofafriendlyantagonist,andwillsetouttofixit.Inthecaseofahostileantagonist,

theprotagonist(orthenarrator)willdenythewords’truth,implicitlyorexplicitly,and

usuallydisprovethembydirectandeffectiveassaultontheantagonist.Inotherwords,the

responseoftheprotagonistplaysamajorroleincharacterisingprovocativespeech—andthat

issomethingthatacannyauthorcanexploit.

29Speechactsthatprovokeasurgeofbattlefuryonthefieldarenotlimitedtojeeringinsultsfromtheenemyforces.Aleadermightspurhisfellowsontorenewedvalour(orfury)bysayinghowtheywillallbeshamediftheylose,orbytellingthemthattheyareboundtowintheyhaveGod,right,orstrengthontheirside(e.g.,GM244–47).Classedtogether,theseformadistinctivelittlenarrativetropeintheirownrightwhichcouldbetheobjectoffurtherstudy.


Engaging ambiguity: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Whydothesetwodifferentformsofprovocativespeechlooksosimilar—inthemselves,and

intheangerstheycreate?Istheangerthatrespondstojeersalsoshamedanger,andifnot,

whyshouldtheauthorenlistthepossibilityofshame?

Astheterminologyofthischaptersuggests—“protagonist”,“antagonist”,“plot”—

shamedangerisoftenassociatedwithnarrativesthatareessentially“literary”innature.That

is,shamedangerismoreeffectiveintextswhoseauthorhasbeenrelativelyactiveinshaping

eventsintoacohesivestory,andinwhichtheactionconcentratesonthedeedsandfeelingsof

asmallnumberofpeople.Clearlythisemotionalscriptwasnotconfinedtothepage;butasI

amaccessingitviatexts,IwanttoseetheworkthatthisJanus-likeemotionalscriptcanbe

madetodointhehandsofamasteroffiction.Wecanthenconsideritintermsofthecultural

workitdoesintheplaceandtimeofitswriting,inconjunctionwithcontemporary

historiographicaltexts.

WhenheridesintothecourtofCamelotonChristmasday,theGreenKnightsuggests

“aChristmasgame”(283).Hewillgivethemagnificentaxehecarriestotheknightwillingto

strikehimablowwithit—andtoreceivehisreturnblowintwelvemonths’time.Whenthe

strangenessofthetermsleavestheassemblednoblesofCamelotspeechless,helooksaround

thetableandlaughs.

“What?IsthisArthur’shouse”quoththehorsemanthen,“Thatalltherenownrunsthroughrealmssomany?Whereisnowyourvaingloryandyourvictories,Yourferocityandyourgrimnessandyourgreatwords?NowistherevelandrenownoftheRoundTableOverthrownbyonewordofonewarrior’sspeech,Forallditherfordreadwithoutdeedshown!”(309–15)

Whichkindofprovocativespeechisthis?DoestheGreenKnight’sspeechfitthehostilescript,

orthefriendlyone?Both,ofcourse:evenatthisearlystage,thepoethasestablishedthat

everythinginthispoemispoisedbetweentwoopposingpossibilities.Mostnotablysofar,the

descriptionoftheGreenKnightmovessmoothlybetweenwildandcourtly,friendlyandfierce.

Helaughsashespeaks,whichseemslikejeering;buthistoneatfirstwascourteous.The

exchangeofblowshesuggestsmaybeagameorafighttothedeath,andthisisambiguous

notonlytothereadersbuttothecharacterswithinthestory.Thesilenceofthecourt,

whetheritbebornfrom“doute”or“cortaysye”(246–47),isinitssimplesttermsalso

uncertaintyastohowtointerpretthisinvader/guest.Contextis,therefore,deliberately


unhelpful;andthatbeingthecase,itwouldbeunwisetorelyoncontentandsaythatthe

GreenKnight’swordssimply“feel”rude.

LesVoeuxduHéronwaswrittenexplicitlyforandaboutthecourtofEdwardIII.Sir

GawainandtheGreenKnightmayormaynothavehadadirectlinkwiththecourt,butitis

embeddedinthesameculturalcontext.LikeVoeux,SGGKraisesquestionsaboutthe

motivationbehindthespeaker’swords—andlikethatchronicle,itusesthisscripttoexamine

(andpossiblytocriticise)theresponseofkingandcourt.Aftertheprovocativespeechwe

expecttheimmediateemotionalresponse:aflushofanger,directedagainsttheantagonistor

againstathirdparty.Arthurmakeshischoice:hedecidestointerpretthespeechashostile,

andherespondsimmediatelywiththenextfewsignsintheB-script.Hechangescolour

rapidly;issaidtobecome“wroth”;advancesonGreenKnight(316–22);callshiswords“nys”

(foolish)anddeniesthatanyofhismenarescared(323–25);anddemandstheaxehimself,

declaringthat“Ishallbestowtheboonthatthouhastbegged”(327).ThefactthattheGreen

Knightexplicitlyinvitedanaxeblowdoesnotdisqualifythisasa“violentaction”,especially

givenitsplaceinthissequenceofsigns:comparetheverydifferentwaythatGawainpicksup

andhandlestheaxelaterinthescene.JustlikeRolandandhiscompanions,Arthurresponds

totheGreenKnightwithafierceangerthatimmediatelyturnsintoabattlefury,directedat

thespeaker—includinghastymovementtowardhimandhandlingaweapon.Thatishow

Arthurinterpretsthescene:jeeringwords,followedbytheswiftretributionthatwill

immediatelydisprovethem.IftheGreenKnightisreallyanenemy—thatis,ifArthursucceeds

indefeatinghim—then,bythelogicofthescriptthatArthurisfollowing,theintruderwas

wrongandCamelotwasnevershamed.

ButinthemomentbeforeArthurstrikes,Gawainintercedes,withgentlyelaborate

courtesy.Gawain’stonebreakstheexpectedsequenceofeventsandjoltsusoutofthescript.

Hedoesnotsubstituteitwiththeotherscript—thisisnotacaseofonecharacterplayingout

eachofthealternateresponses—butresetsthescenetothemomentaftertheGreenKnight’s

provocativewords,asiftoallowthechoicetobemadeagain.AndwhereArthurhascastthe

GreenKnightintheroleofenemy,Gawainreturnshimtohispreviousambiguousstatusby

assumingtheopposite.Byaddressinghimrespectfully,GawaintreatstheGreenKnightnotas

amaliciousslandererbutasanhonorableopponent—someonewhoseopinionmayhave

weight.

Provocativespeech,behaviouralresponse,thensolution.Afriendlyantagonistwould

haverecommendedasolutionwhich,atthispoint,theprotagonistwouldacceptandvowto

pursue.Ahostileantagonistwouldbeattackedinhisownperson.Onescenariowould


providemotivationforthefutureplot,theotherwouldberesolvedinthecourseofthisscene.

DidtheGreenKnightofferspecificcriticismandrecommendasolution?Isthechallengehe

posesresolvedwithinthisscene,ordoesitcontinuetodrivetheremainderoftheplot?Once

again,theansweris“both”.Theobviouscriticismisspokeninajeeringtoneandtargetsthe

cowardiceofCamelot,andtheimpliedsolutioninvolvesattackinghim.Arthurresponds

initiallywithbattlefury,andheandGawainandallofCamelotexpectthatthedecapitating

blowwillnotonlyproveCamelot’scouragebutdefeatthechallengeratonce.LikeRoland’s

opponents,theGreenKnightshouldbesilencedbytheendoftheconfrontation,leaving

Camelot’svoicetriumphant.

Buthepicksuphishead.Heturnsittowardthedais,andhespeaks.Heretainshis

wordsandhisabilitytochallengeCamelot,andthethreatheposesbysodoingisnotclosed

withthisscene.Andaswecontinuereading,werealisethathechallengedCamelottoprove

morequalitiesthansimplephysicalcourage.TheGreenKnightinsultedCamelotnotonlyfor

failingtorespondimmediatelytohissuggestion,butbyimplyingthattheirreputationfor

courtesyandfaithisunfounded;andGawain’staskthroughouttherestofthepoemisto

provehimwrong,notonlybyfacingthefinalaxeblowbutbyfaithfullykeepinghis

appointmentandbyhiscomportmentinBertilak’scastle.

TheprovokingwordsoftheGreenKnightdoprovidemotivationforthewholepoem—

butnotdirectly,notinaflushofbattlerageorshamedangersustainedasadrivetoward

honour.Thatisofferedasapossibility,andrejected.Thequalitiesthatarebeingtestedare

notexactlythosethatwereimpugnedintheovertlymockingspeech(“What,isthisArthur’s

house?”),andGawaindoesnot,perhaps,realisethisuntilthefinalrevelationattheGreen

Chapel.Camelotasawholeneverrealisesit.Gawainreturnsultimatelytoastateofshamed

angertargettedathimself,attheverymomentwhenwewouldexpecthisquesttobe

completeandhishonourrestored.Sinceitcannotberesolved,theshamedangersubsides

intoshame,whichheexpectstobepermanent.Camelot,ontheotherhand,considersthe

questoftheirchampiontobesuccessfullyaccomplished,andthehonouroftheircommunity

toberestored.Forthem,shamedangerhasbeensuccessful.

Wehaveatleasttwodifferentinterpretationswithinthetextoftheresultsofthequest

andofthequalitiestested.Thepoetsetsupthesetensions,andinvitesthereadertoconsider

theirownresponse,byplayingoffthesetwoemotionalscriptsagainsteachotherinthescene

oftheGreenKnight’sinitialchallenge.LikePearl,Patience,andPurity,whichliebesideSGGK

intheonlymanuscriptwitnesstoallfourpoems,thisworkinvitesminutereflection.Howis

honourtobedefined?Howcanoneappropriatelyandeffectivelyrespondwhenhonouris


challenged?Doesitevendeserveitsstatusasthehighestcourtlyideal?Alltheseissuesare

gentlylaidopenforinspectioninthefirstconfrontation,andtheirpiecesareneverentirely

reassembled.Thepoetdoesnotcondemnthegloriouscourt—Camelotisallowedtocelebrate

itsvictory—buthedoesofferitamirror.

Sincedishonourisanever-presentpossibility,andshamedangeristhedrivetomove

awayfromit,wecannaturallyexpectafierceresponsetoanyspeechwhichsuggestsit.Tothe

characterswithinthetext,thefactthatArthurrespondstotheGreenKnightbyengagingthe

scriptforshamedangerprovesthatherecognisesthepossibilityofdishonourandis

immediatelypreparedtorefuteit.Inmanycases,asintheexamplefromRoland,thisis

unambiguous:thenarratorseemstoagree(andexpecttheaudiencetoagree)thatthe

antagonistiswrongandtheprotagonisthasprovedhishonour.Inthiscase,Arthurleapsto

theimmediatesolution—andthenheisstopped,andwearestopped,andinvitedtothink.

IfthiswereanexampleoftheclassicB-script,theGreenKnight’sjeeringwordswould

beunjustifiedandwouldreflectbadlyonhim,markinghimasadiscourteousoaf.Butifheis

justified—isArthurthentheoaf?Whichofthemistrulyhonourable,andhowcanheproveit?

Whyhavethemlookthesameinthiscase?Tosetupthepossibilityofdishonourandthento

refuteit—whichleavesthepossibility(fortheauthor)oftreatingitmoreambiguously,of

engagingthewaythatthesescriptsworkandthewaythereaderfeelsaboutthemintothe

tellingofastory.Thestatusofprovocativespeechholdsallthesequestionsinprecarious

balance.Insomecasesitmaynotberesolvedinthecourseofthetext,butpresentafinal

demandingquestion.

Engaging ambiguity: Les Voeux du Héron

Protagonist,antagonist,andplot.Thesetermsareclearenoughinthecontextofafictional

work:theGawain-poetcanshapehismaterialhoweverhelikes.Inhistoricalwriting,they

becomemorecomplex:charactersandeventsare,toacertainextent,pre-determined;butat

thesametime,thoserealhistoricalpeopleparticipateinaworldwhosedominantemotional

stylesarepartlyshapedbythesenarrativetexts,includinghistoricalwriting.Ihavenotyet

askedhowcloselythisscriptmightreflectrealhistoricalpractice.AnyofthethreeKing

Edwardshasadiscursiverelationshipwithhisnarrativerepresentations,asRaoulsand

RolandsandGawainscanneverhave.


LesVoeuxduHéronisaversechronicle,possiblysatirical,writtenaround1346and

depictingtheoutbreakoftheHundredYearsWar.Itis,initsentirety,asceneofshamed

anger.ThischroniclergivesusEdwardIIIas“protagonist”,withhislordsfollowinghis

emotionallead,andRobertofArtois(anexilefromtheLowCountries)as“antagonist”.The

causeisEdwardIII’sfailuretoinheritthecrownofFrance.RobertofArtois,havingcaughta

heron,presentsittothemerrilyfeastingcourtandchallengesthemtovowonit.Standinglike

theGreenKnightinthegloriousfeastingcourt,hespeaksloudly,callingeverybodymiserable

failures(66–67):

“IbelieveIhavecaughtthemostcowardlybirdOfallbirds,havenodoubtofthat,...Andsinceitiscowardly,itismyintentionTogivetheherontothemostcowardlyoneWholivesorhaseverlived:thatisEdwardLouis,DisinheritedofthenoblelandofFrance,Ofwhichhewasrightfulheir;buthisheartfailedhim,Andbecauseofhiscowardicehewilldiewithoutit;Soheshouldvowontheheronandtellwhathethinks.”(74–86)

ThischroniclefollowstheA-scriptofshamedangertoperfection.Withoutawordofrebuketo

themaninsultinghiminfrontofhiscourt,EdwardIIIrespondswithbodilyangeragainstthe

KingofFrance,thenvowswartoclaimhisinheritance.

Whenthekingheardthat,hisfacereddened.Hisheartpounded[fremis]withangerandresentment[d’ireetdemautalent],Andhesaid,“Since‘coward’isthrownuptome,Ishoulddefendmyself,soIwillspeakmymind;AndifIlivelongenoughIwillseemyvowrealized,OrIwilldietryingtoaccomplishit.”(87–92)

Hegoesontospecifyplansforplaceandtime.Norishealoneinhisresponse:thelordsand

knightsinhiscourtrespondwithidenticalshamedanger,eachinhisturnstanding,sharing

hisanger,andutteringasimilarvow.Thoughthechronicleendsafterthevowsarespoken

ratherthangoingontotelloftheiraccomplishment,mostofthevowsdopredictoralludeto

eventsinthefewyearsbetweenthemomentthatthepoemrecountsandthedateofits

composition.Inotherwords,thepoemturnstheopeningoftheHundredYearsWarintoa

sceneofshamedanger,castingthewaritselfasthe“solution”whichmustbepursuedto

reaffirmEdward’s/England’shonour.


Thereisastrongfocusonthespokenwordasthepoemmovesbetweenthespeech

actsofthelordsandladiespresentatthebanquet.Theseincluderecitalsofgrievances,

appealstohonour,andformalvowsofanger,besidesRobertofArtois’initialprovocation.

WalterManny’sspeech,forexample,isatypicalvowofwar:theparticularaccomplishment

hepromisesistodestroyacertaincityheldbyGodemarsduFay,burningitandslaughtering

itsinhabitants,andabandoningitwithnowoundtohimselforhistroops(232–51).Allof

thesespeechactsare“playedstraight”whenitcomestotheirfunctionasemotionalsigns:

theyfollowtheprototypicalformatandthereisnohintofanydiscrepancybetweenwhatis

saidandwhatisfelt.Thereisoneexception:RobertofArtoishimself.

DirectlyafterEdwardIIIvowswar—beforeanyofhisotherlordsmaketheirown

vowsinresponse—thenarrativereturnstoRobertofArtois.Hemakesaspeechofhisown,a

recitalofgrievancesandavowofwaragainsttheKingofFrance,likethatofeveryotherlord,

butitisnotspokenaloud(119–45).Thisisasubversionofthemoretypicalvowingspeeches

oftheothernobles:thoughithasasimilarformatandstructureitisremarkableinthistext

forbeinginternal,andforthefactthatheintendstobringaboutrevengenotbydirectmartial

actionhimselfbutbyspurringothersontodoitforhim.

Thecontiguitybetweenfeelingandspeechassumedoftheothercharactersis

emphasisedshortlyafterwardwhentheEarlofSalisburystateshisanger:“hismouthspoke

thethoughtinhisheart”(190).AlthoughRobert’sprovocativespeechfunctionsinthetextas

anappealtohonour—thatis,itinitiatesthenarrativeconsequencesandtheemotionalscript

ofthatappeal—Robert’spremeditationandhispleasureinthescenegivehiswords

overtonesofjeeringaswell.Hisinsultsseemtobemotivatednotpurelybyconcernforhis

hearers’honour,butbyadelightinofferingthemharm.Thekingandnobles,however,hear

onlyanappealtohonour,drivingthemforwardtonobleaction.

The“plot”thatthisangerinitiatesisexternaltothechronicleitself:apoliticaland

militarysituationwhichisstillongoingatthetimeofitscomposition,andinwhichmostofits

intendedaudiencewouldhavebeenactivelyinvolved.Thepoemrecruitsthemomentofits

ownrecitalorreadingintothestory,reshapingthatmomentaccordingtothisnarrativeof

honourandshame—althoughpossiblyinironicterms.Thisengagementwiththeimagined

futureofthepoemisheightenedbythedetailsofthefirstyearsofthewarthatwereforetold

inthevows.Forthosemembersofitsearlyaudiencewhohearditunironically,LesVoeuxdu

Héronwouldpotentiallyactasastimulant,provokingthemtosharetheshamedangerofthe

kingandcourtandthereforetoplaytheirpartasactorsintheimaginedfuture“chapters”of

thestory.


Failures of shamed anger

OntheeveoftheBattleofBannockburn,accordingtotheVitaEdwardiII,Edwardshamesthe

youngEarlofGloucester.Gloucesteradvisedrestingthetiredtroopsforthedayandattacking

onthenextmorning,but“thekingscornedtheearl’sadvice,andgrewveryheatedwithhim

[excanduit],charginghimwithtreacheryanddeceit”(90).Theearl’sfuriousdesiretoprove

himself“neitheratraitornoraliar”leadshimtofightrashly,rushingforwardaheadofthe

others,andresultsinhisdeath(93).

Theconfrontationisabriefscene,toldintwosentences.Thechroniclertakesmuch

longeroverthebattleanditsresults;andthoughGloucester’sdeathandthecircumstances

surroundingitarethechieffocusoftheaccount,thechroniclerdoesabandonhisusual

detachedstyletogiveusdramaticdialogueandpersonalinteraction.Likemostemotion

eventsinlengthychronicles,thisbriefexchangeassumesthatreaderscanrecognisethe

emotionalscriptandfillinthedetailsofmotivation,relationship,andbehaviourfor

themselves.Beingfamiliarwiththisscriptofshamedanger,fromnarrativeexamplesorfrom

livedemotionalpracticeorboth,readerswouldunderstandwhyahot-headedyoungmanin

Gloucester’ssituationmustreactashedoes.

MaryFlannerypointsouthowdeeplybythisperiodideasofshamehadbecome

entwinedwiththeidealsofchivalry.Dishonourisnegative,naturally,buttheMiddleEnglish

wordshameismoreambiguous:“aswellasdescribingdishonoritself,itcanrefereithertothe

emotionresultingfromanawarenessofdishonorordisgrace,ortotheanticipationof

dishonor,thepotentialfordisgracetobeexperienced”(“ConceptofShame”166).Thistension

betweenpresent/realisedandfuture/potentialdishonourisevidentintheexamplesof

shamedangerthatwehavebeenstudying.Thefeelingitself,andthescriptssurroundingit,

areneitherentirelypositivenornegative,buthelptonegotiatethattensionandresolve

possibilitiesintoactionandsocialtruth.Inthesetexts,therefore,asinthosethatFlannery

studies,“theabilitytofeelshameisnotanegativething,butispositive,generative,

productive,andcrucialtodefiningone’ssocialstatusoridentity”(167).Gloucesteriscapable

offeelingshamedanger,andfeelingitincludesengagingintheappropriatebehaviours:

strivingtowinbackhishonour.Inotherwords,hisabilitytofeelcorrectlymarkshimasa

manofhonour,onewhoseemotionalpracticesareshapedbythechivalricethosofshameand

honour.Fightingwellinthebattlewouldnotdirectlydisprovethechargesagainsthim—he

wasnotaccusedofcowardice—butitwouldprovehimthekindofmanincapableofbeinga

traitorandaliar.Evenifhehasprovedhimselfwellinthepast,honourisaspirational,not


absolute:itmustbeconstantlyprovenandreproven,asitmustforanyofthecharactersinthe

examplessofar.

Ashamingchallengeisaveryrealthreat:itcannotbesimplybrushedasideonthe

groundsthatacharacterhasachievedhonourbefore.Consequently,absenceofangerin

responsetoprovocativespeechcanbeanimportantnegativecommentonacharacter.The

chronicleofWalterofGuisboroughincludesaconfrontationbetweenEdwardIandhisheir,

shortlybeforetheoldking’sdeath.Theprincehasaskedhisfathertograntcertainlandsand

titlestoPiersGaveston.Thekingrespondswithfury:

“Youill-bornsonofawhore,doyouwanttogiveawaylandsnow,youwhoneverwonany?AstheLordlives,ifitwerenotforfearofbreakinguptherealmyoushouldneverenjoyyourinheritance.”Andseizinghisownhairinbothhandshetoreoutasmuchashecould,andfinally,exhausted,threwhimout.(382–83)

ThisincidenthasoftenbeencitedasevidenceofEdwardI’sirascibleandviolenttemper—not

leastbecauseitisalmostinvariablymistranslatedtosaythatthekingtoreouthisson’shair

insteadofhisown.30Readingitinthelightofpreviousexamples,however,wecanrecognise

EdwardI’swordsasshamingspeech:GuerrisaysalmostexactlythesamethingtoRaoul,and

RobertofArtois’wordstoEdwardIIIdifferonlyastothecircumstances.Thekingis

attemptingtoprovokeinhissonanangersimilarineffecttothatofRaoulandEdwardIII:to

makehimcognisantoftheshamefulstatethathehassettledinto,andtodrivehimontomore

honourablebehaviour.WhetherornotEdwardI“really”spokeinthiswayisbesidethepoint:

WalterofGuisboroughandhisreaderswouldbesoaccustomedtonarrativeincidentsof

shamedangerthatthisspeechwouldcreatetheexpectationofanimmediateangryresponse.

Theprince,however,iscompletelyinert:hisfather’shair-tearingandfinalexhaustionare

tokensbothofexcessiveangerandofdespairinggriefatthisfailureinhisheir.31

30TheLatin(“apprehensiscapillisvtraquemanudilacerauiteosinquantumpotuit”)omitsapersonalpronoun,asisusualforreferringtoone’sownbodyparts.“Apprehensiscapillis”—grasping/havinggrasped[the]hair—shouldthereforebereadasreflexive.SeeKilpatrick,“EdwardI’sTemper”,forfurtherdetailsandadiscussionofthemodernreceptionofthisanecdote.Itisattestedintwochronicles:theotheristheFineshadechronicle,whichmaybefoundintheappendix,andwhichhassufferedasimilarerrorofinterpretationbasedonasinglepronoun:whetherEdwardItramplesthepetitionunderfoot,orhisson.

31Similarly,PatriciaDeMarcohasshownhowtheSiegeofJerusalemwarnsChristianstobevigilantinmaintainingtheirangeragainstJews,inresponsetothesufferingofChrist.Thisisbattlerage,notshamedanger,butitdoesofferanotherinstanceofalackofangerbeingrepresentedasaweakness.


RaouldeCambraitoofailsaparentalappealtohishonour,buthisfailureisthedirect

oppositetothatofEdwardofCaernarvon:toomuchanger,ratherthantoolittle.Ratherthan

promisingtoamendhisbehaviour,heturnshiswrathonhismother,asifsheweretheenemy

(laisse94).WhenshehearsaboutBernier,Aliceisveryangryandshoutsatthetopofher

voice(“ahautevois”,v.912).Raoulisbesidehimself(“lesensquidachangier”,v.922)and

swearsthathewillnotsettle:heinsultsher,sayingthatonlyacowardlynoblemanseeks

advicefromawoman,andthatsheshouldbelyingaroundgettingfatandeatinganddrinking

inherchamber,whichisallthatsheisgoodfor.Sheweeps(“sipristalarmoier”,v.932)and

remindshimoftheservicesshehasdonehim,thencurseshimwithdeathinbattleifhe

shouldpersist.Withatroubledheart(“otmoltlecuermari”,v.960),shethengoestochurch

andprostratesherselfbeforethecrosstotrytotakethecurseback.

Bythisstageinthepoem,werecognisethatRaoul’sangerisbecomingimmoderate.

ThoughhisresponsetoGuerri’sappealtohonouratthebeginningofthepoemwasnormative

andvalorised,thenarratorandcharactersaroundhimhavebecomelessimpressedbythe

excessesofhisfuryasthestoryprogresses.DirectlyafterhisscenewithAlice,Raoulridesinto

hisrivals’territoryandordershismennotonlytoattackOrigny(atownwhichhaddefied

himearlier)buttosackanddefilethechurch,topitchhistentinthere,andtorapethenuns.

Withreluctance,theybegintoobey,butatthesoundofthechurchbellscannotbring

themselvestoproceed,andsotheymakecampinthefieldoutside.WhenRaoularriveshe

rebukeshismenfornotputtinghistentjustwhereheorderedit,andthelanguageheusesis

exactlythelanguagethathasbeenestablishedinthispoemasprovocativespeech:“fila

putain”(vv.1087and1094),“felgloutonsouduiant”(v.1087),and“moltestesorecuvertet

malpensant”(v.1088)(“Yousonsofwhores,youtreacherous,low-bornvillains!Howbase

andwrong-headedyoucanbe”,laisses61–62).Evenifthecontextoftheirreverenceandhis

soldiers’responseswerenotadequatecomment,thenarratormakesitclearthatheisacting:

“beyondmeasure”(v.1093).Guerrihimself,whoearliergoadedhimontoanger,nowechoes

thatsentiment—“youaredesmesurez”—andadds,inanominousechoofAlice’scurse,“IfGod

takesagainstyou,youwon’tlastlong”(vv.1098,1100).TheexchangewithAliceisaclear

pointofnoreturn.NotonlyhasRaoulcommittedhimselftovengeancebeyondtherestraints

ofcounselandreason,buthehasreceivedacursethatwill,likemostcursesandvows,guide

thenarrativeuntilitisaccomplished.Raoulhasherebecomethecauseofhisowndishonour,

butratherthandeterminingtodefeatthatcause,heturnshisangerunjustlyonhisantagonist.

InasenseAlice’scurseisafeminineversionofthevowoffutureactionthatclosestheclassic


A-script:unabletoenactrevengeherself,sheinvokesitagainstherson,thecauseofhisown

dishonour.

Notextexistsinavacuum.LesVoeuxduHéronwaswritteninacourtlycontext,where

itstoodafairchanceofbeingreadorheardbyitsintendedaudience—includingthose

potentialpatronsfeaturedinthepoemitself.Atthisstage,wemustconsiderthepossibility

thatthetextitselfmayfunctionasshamingspeechwithinitsownsocialsphere.Thereare

othertextsthatalsoseemtoattempttotaketheroleofshamingspeechontothemselves,even

iftheymaynothavedirectaccesstotheirtarget.

TheAnonimallechroniclecontinuallyandexplicitlyshamesEdwardII,describingmost

ofhisactionswithvariantson“tohisgreatdeshonurandtothedeshonuroftherealm”.Itwas,

however,writteninYork,afterhisdeath.Ifitdoesattempttostimulatehonourableactionina

royal(orlordly)readeritcanonlybeindirectly:presentingitsreaderswithanimageagainst

whichtojudgeEdwardIII,andanemotionalstandardtowhichtheymightholdhim(and

themselves).TheAnnalesPaulini,writtenatWinchesterorStPaul’sduringEdwardII’sreign,

ismorecircumspectinitscriticism.Ratherthanshaminghimwiththeauthorialvoice,it

placesshamingstatementsinthemouthsofmanycharacters.Themostviciousoftheseare

attributedtocharacterssuchasRobertBruce,whosewordsareframedasthevitriolofa

discourteousenemy:

Thistyrant,amongstthemanyblasphemieswhichhevomitedforthinhisabuseofthekingofEngland,claimedtofearthebonesofthedeadking[EdwardI]morethanhefearedtheonewholived;andthatitwouldhavebeenagreatermilitaryglorytowinhalfafootoflandfromtheKingEdwardwhowasgonethantowinakingdomfromhimwhowasleft.(265)

Thisphrasingallowstheauthorthesafetyofacertaindistance,butherepeatsBruce’swords

allthesame.Moreover,thechronicler’scriticismsthroughoutaresuspiciouslysimilarin

intent(ifnotsovitriolicintheirexpression),focussingonacontrastbetweentheoldkingand

thenew,andafailureofthegloryoftheoldorder.HelabelsBruce’swordsasjeers,butinthe

contextofthechronicle,theymaypossiblyhaveadeeperpurpose.DianaGreenwayhas

arguedthattherewasadistincttraditionofhistoricalwritingatStPaul’swithasemi-official

advicefunction,favouringtheproductionofmanuscriptswithafocusonpoliticalevents,

government,andinternationalrelations.Ifthischroniclewasintendedaspartofsucha

traditionitmayhavehadthepossibilityof“speaking”directlytotheking:thatis,totakeon

theroleofprovocativeantagonist.Inthiscontext,speecheslikethoseofRobertBrucemaybe

readasanattempttopromptEdwardIIspecificallytoangeragainsttheScots,andgenerally


toamoreappropriateemotionalstyle.Whateverthespecificintentsofthischronicler,we

mustnotignorethepossibilityofauthorsdeliberatelyengagingtheambiguityofprovocative

speechtocriticiseordeconstructhistoricalfiguresorevents.

IsuggestedearlierthattheaudienceorreaderofLesVoeuxduHéronwhodoesnot

recognisethetext’sironicorsubversiveelementsmighttakepartinthetext’s“plot”bybeing

motivatedtoavengekingandcountry’sshameagainstFrance.Thereis,however,some

evidencetosuggestthatthepoemmightundercutitsownapparentvalorisationofthevows

ofalmosteveryparticipant.32Identifyingironyacrossasignificantculturegapisalwaysa

riskybusiness,butifthistextdoesmockEdwardIIIandhiscourt(evenifinundertones)then

itmayhaveanevenmorepowerfuleffect:thesingerorbookbecomesRobertofArtois,

deliberatelyincitingshamedangerintheaudience.Thiswouldbeallthemoreeffectiveina

textlikelytobereadaloudorperformedtoagroupaudience.Ifso,thispotentiallysubversive

textmightbereadasanattempttounitekingandcourt,goadingthemontounifiedand

honourableaction.

InSirGawainandtheGreenKnightandLesVoeuxduHéronweseetwocourts

respondingtoprovocationfromapersonwithahiddenagenda.Bothkingsrespondhastily:

andalthougheachchoosesadifferentscript,bothgivetheimpressionthattheyseelessthan

theaudienceofthespeaker’smeaningandmotivation.Thiseffectiscomparativelysubtlein

SGGK,impliedbythemysterybuiltupinthedescriptionoftheGreenKnight,therefusalofthe

narrativevoicetocharacterisehimasavillain/monster,andthetraceofimmaturityinArthur

andhiscourt.InVoeux,ontheotherhand,weareexplicitlyprivytohiddenknowledgeinthe

formofRobert’sinternalmonologue.Inbothcases,too,thecourtisamagnificentplace,all

spectacleandcourtlinessandcelebratedvalour.Greatfuturedeedsarepromised,andthereis

elegantdeferraltotheladiespresent,whoareinvokedtosetthetoneandtoconfirmthe

quest-vowsofthemen.Theexcessivevalourofthekingandcourt’sinitialresponseto

provocationisperhapsundercut,perhapsevenmocked;butthatimageofthegloriouscourt

remainsintactandaspirational.Withinthatsetting,bothauthorsusethisemotionscriptto

study(andinvoke?)thebehavioursthatcreateandresultfromthehonourcultureas

epitomisedbythatfeastingcourt—andtohighlightthespeedwithwhichthesequick

responsescanlaunchlong-lastingquests,actions,andviolence.

Wecanalreadybegintoseeherehowachroniclermayuseemotionalscriptsasan

evaluativetool,linkingtheeventsorfiguresintheirstoryintothisorthattraditionofanger

32Theeditorsdiscusseachofthevowsfromthispointofviewintheintroductiontothetext(11–14).


andpromptingtheiraudience’sengagement,andtheirreflection.Giventhat(forexample)

SGGKandVoeuxareforaverysimilaraudience,andemploysuchsimilartechniques,itwould

befoolishtoexpectthattheaudienceinquestionwasnotcapableofreadingbelowthe

surfacelevelandrecognisingironyorcriticisminthecaseofVoeux,whenatextlikeSGGK

invitessuchdeepreflectionandanalysis.Thereismoreworktobedonehere,especiallyin

linkingemotionalitywithmedievaltextuality,andwithreadingpractices.Thesetextsmight

bespokenorimaginedasspoken,catchingatthefierceimmediateemotionalresponsesof

excitementandpride,buttheycouldalsocanbecontemplatedasaphysicalobject,inviting

intimateandmeasuredresponses.Suchastudywouldbeparticularlyrichwithtextsthatwe

canprovetohavebeenreadinseveraldifferentways—insolo(silent?)reading,aloudin

smallgroups,inperformanceforalargeraudience,andsoon—crossingtheboundaries

betweensocialandinterior,andbetweenprivatereflectionandembodiedemotion.

Shamedanger,then,functionswithinthetexttosetupaparadigmofshameversus

honourwhichthecharactermustnegotiate.However,shame/honourisnotthedominant

paradigmineverytext,orevenforeverystoryoranecdotewithinagiventext.Thatisa

questionofgenre:itdependsonthestyleofnarrativeintowhichthetextisshaped.Ihave

alreadysuggestedthatchroniclers’choicebetweenfeudalandshamedangerislooselylinked

togenre,becausethesetwotypesofangerinvitedifferentapproaches,bothfromauthorsand

fromreaders.Butthereareotheremotionalstyleswithfarmoredramaticdifferences,which

givemuchmoreweighttothatquestionofmoralevaluation.Insomestoriesangerfiguresasa

lossofself-controlwithnopositivefiguringatall,andinthesecasesthekeydistinctionisnot

shame/honouroranger/love,butcalmness/wodeness:PatientiaandIra.

Chapter 3. Honour or sin?

The emotional style of genre

Ira

ThefigureofIraisdefinedbyavastandinfluentialhistoryoftheiconographyofvicesand

virtues,andofthesevendeadlysins.Bythelatemedievalperiod,sheembodiestherich

culturaldiscoursearoundangerasasin.Herprimarycharacteristicshavetheiroriginsina

traditioninitiatedanddominatedbyapoembytheearly-fifth-centurypoetPrudentius.The

Psychomachia,whichdepictssevenVirtuesbattlinganddefeatingtheirassociatedVices,was

copiedinhighnumbersthroughouttheMiddleAges,andusuallyillustrated.Thepoemitself

waspopular:theideawasmoreso,andthecharacterisationsoftheVicesandVirtues—as

wellastheideaofopposingallegoricalfigureslockedinbattle—becamedeeplyembeddedin

medievalculture.

InthePsychomachia’sconflictbetweenIraandPatientia,adestructivewildIraflings

weaponafterweaponatanunresponsivePatience,andeventually,inherfury,fallsonher

ownspearanddestroysherself.ThevisualsignsassociatedwiththisIraareessentiallythe

negativeextremeofallthoseinthe“affectandactions”listofsignsgiveninChapter1:wild

distortionoffeatureandbody,agrimacingexpressionwithwideeyesandasnarlingopen

mouth(oftenwithanextendedtongue),hairstandingonend,flailinglimbs,tornhairand

clothing;andthen,hastyuncontrolledmovement,violencetoherselfandothers,bloodyor

flamingweapons,andanassociationwiththecolourred.Patientia,meanwhile,istheopposite

ofthese:tall,serene,slender,immovable,withpaleelegantfeaturesthatexpressnothingat

all,foldedhandsandneathair.

Noneofthesequalitiesexistsinavoid.PatientiaandIraaredefinedbycomparison

witheachother,butalsoinreferencetoacomplexiconographictradition.Settingasidefora

momentthecharacteristicsthatparticularlyidentifyIra—self-harm/suicide,associations

withthecolourred,theexcessofviolence—manyofherothercharacteristicsarenotunique

toher,butaremoreakintospeciesmarkers.Thecontrastbetweenchaosandstillness,

betweenchaoticallyflailinglimbsandaslenderuprightfigure,betweenemotionaldistorted

featuresandfacialimpassivity,isakeyindicatorofevilversusgoodinmedievalvisualculture


moregenerally.LesterLittleandJenniferO’ReillyhavebothfoundsimilaritiesbetweenIra

andothervices,demons,andtormentorsofChristorothermartyrs,andbetweenPatientia’s

elegantimpassivityandangels,Christ,andsaints.DebraHassiggoesfurther,establishinga

visualcontinuitybetweenrepresentationofJews,evil,themonstrousorsubhuman,theracial

other,socialorculturaloutcasts,thethingsthatinhabitthemarginsofthemaporof

humanity,andthedemonic.Thelistofsignssheidentifies—“ill-proportionedbodies,

contortedpostures,anduglyfacialfeatureswhichmightincludebulgingorcrossedeyes;

large,pointy,orbulbousnoses;mouthswithfleshylips;pointyormissingteeth;grotesque

expressions;ruddyordarkskin;andfacialblemishes”—ismatchedalmostoneforonewith

thelistsofsignsbywhichLittleandO’ReillyidentifyIra(29).ThisisnottosaythatIraisjust

anotherdemon.Foronething,demonsandtorturersinparticularareoftenexplicitlysaidto

beangryintheirfrustrationatthestrengthorimpassivityofgood,sothatangeritself

becomesacharacteristicofrepresentationsofevil.However,Iraisinextricablylinkedwith

whatHassigcallsa“generalvisualcodeexpressiveofsin,evil,barbarity,andsubhumanity”in

medievalrepresentation(25).Shamedangerandfeudalangermayhavepositiveaspects:Ira

isunambiguouslyevil.

Formypurposes,theexistenceofthistraditionisanimportantpointofreference—but

IwillnottreatIrainanygreatdepth.Thisispartlybecausesheis,bydefinition,anextreme,

andthereforecomparativelysimpleandunsubtle.Shegivesverylittleroomforanalysis,and

chroniclersseemtohavefoundhersimilarlyunproductive.Irararelyappearsin

historiography,andwhenshedoesitisnotinpropriapersona,butinpotentia.Hercrimson

shadowloomswheneverangerisinquestion,asapossibilityofmaddenedexcess:ofthe

consequenceswhenanger,whateveritscause,goestoofar.Chroniclersinvokethe

PsychomachiatraditionbydescribingIratebehaviour,or,byextension,itsopposite.Ifone

characterragesatanotherwhostandsstillandpatient,oracharactergoesredandthreatens

violenceandharmsthemselves,IraandPatientiaarethemostimmediatereferent.

Iraisnotatypeofangerinthesetexts,liketheothertypesthatIhavelisted.Sheisthe

deadlysin:anangertakentoviciousexcess,whateveritsinitialcause.Otheringanger,for

example,isusuallydrawninimitationofIra,preciselytocreatethatsenseofalteritythat

Hassigdescribes,butIratebehaviourandimageryarenotlimitedtootheringanger.Thestrict

doctrinalpositionmaybethatangerisalwaysnegative,butalmostallchroniclersallowthat

therearesomesituationsinwhichangerisjustifiedorcanactasapositivesocialforce.Any

typeofanger,however,canbeindulgedtoexcess.Irainvokesthedeadlysin,withallits


fascinatingviolenceandallitsculturalhistory;andassuchsheis,inthesetexts,simplythe

pointofnoreturnforanytypeofangeratall.

Writing a martyr: Thomas of Lancaster in the Brut

BothIraandshamedangeraredefinedinlargepartbytheiropposites,Patientiaandhonour:

theyexistasonehalfofapair.Whileeachcouldbeviewedasthenegativehalfofabinary,

theirrelationshiptotheseoppositesdiffers.Iraisalwaysnegative.Ifachroniclerevenhintsat

theIra/Patientiaopposition—byprovidingaPatientia-likefigureasacounterpoint,for

example—thenangeristobeshunned.Bycontrast,wehaveseenthatshamedangerhas

positiveuses:theabilitytofeelitisanimportantqualityofthenobleorheroicsoul,anditisa

productivespurtothepursuitofhonour.ShamedangerandIraalsodifferintheir

relationshiptoplot.Iwroteearlierthatshamedangerdemandsastory:itimpliespastinertia

oraffront,andfutureaction.Thatstory,moreover,isaverypersonalone,dependingonthe

assumptionthatanindividualcharactercanchangeandgrow.ButIradoesnotrequirea

narrative,andcanerasepersonalityaltogether.Inmanycases,thecharacterinquestionwill

bedescribedasbeingangrybynatureratherthaninresponsetoanyparticularevent:

GeoffreyleBaker’sQueenIsabella,aswewillsee,isawrathfulragingviragoforwhomthesin

ofiraisthegroundstateofbeing.Similarly,intheBrut,RogerMortimer“asaDeuelforwraþ,

bolnedeforwraþþathehadetowardtheKyngesmen”:thoughareasonforangerhadbeen

mentionedearlier,hisangerherehasbecomeacontinuousstateofbeing,andthechronicler

makesitsdemonicaspectsexplicit(268–69).ThisistheragingVice,withallitsconnectionsto

demons“andothermonstrousraces”(asHassigexpressesitinhertitle).WhereIraappears

shedeniesallpossibilityofnegotiationordebate.

Thesetwosystems,IraversusPatientiaandshamedangerversushonour,are

incompatiblewitheachother:itisalmostimpossibletohavebothcompetingmodelsofaction

andrestraintactiveatthesamemomentinanarrativetext.WhereanIra/Patientiamodelhas

beenactivatedinastory,notfighting—notrespondingtoinjury—isavirtue.Ifshamedanger

isinplay,thelackofanangerresponseisaweaknessor,worse,evidenceofanignoblesoul.If

wearetounderstandourtextwemustrecognisewhichmodelisactiveinthenarrative.The

incompatibilityofthesemodelsmakesthemusefulforexaminingtherelationshipofgenreto

emotionalstyle.


Theterm“emotionalstyle”isusuallyappliedtosocialgroupsorsituationsinthereal

world,butthesameprincipleholdstrueofgenres.Everygenreisdefined,atleastinpart,by

itscharacteristicemotionalstyle.Looselyspeaking,astorybelongstoagivengenreifenough

ofitstraits—plotevents,subjectmatter,charactertype,themes,moraltone—are

recognisablyclosetothemeanforthatgenre.Emotionalstylebelongsinthislistoftraits:

thinkofthedifferencebetweentheemotionalityofatypicalthrillermovieandthatofa

romanticcomedy.Inthecontextofgenre,emotionalstylewouldencompassthepatternof

emotionalbehaviourthatweexpecttoseeonthepartofthecharacters—whichemotional

reactionswesee,whichonesarevalorisedandinwhichcircumstances,thedegreetowhich

theyareindulged—aswellastheanticipatedreactionsofthereader.Shamedangerismost

characteristicofachivalricnarrative:asceneofshamedangerwillinvoketheemotionalstyle

ofthatgenre,andengagethereader’sotherexperiencesofthatgenreasaframeofreference.

Ontheotherhand,achroniclermayincludeaconfrontationbetweenfigureslikeIraand

Patientiatoshiftthestorytowardamoremoralisingtone,orevenallthewaytothe

emotionalstyleofhagiography.

Whenitcomestochronicles,shiftistherightword:mostchroniclestellmanystories,

oneaftertheother,collectedfrommanydifferentsources.Thisisparticularlyobviousinthe

earliersectionsofuniversalchronicles—chronicleswhichseektotellthewholehistoryofthe

world—whichmayincludelegends,hagiography,genealogiesandsoon.Eveninthemore

continuousnarrativesoflateryearschroniclerswillchangegenresfreelyaccordingtohow

theywanttoshapeagivenepisodeorcharacter;andemotionalstyleisapowerfultoolforthe

chroniclertoeffectthatshift.

ThekeymomentintheBrutwhereweshiftintoamartyrnarrativeistheconfrontation

betweenThomas,EarlofLancasterandSirRogerClifford(217).Thisistheendofthedoomed

rebellionof1321–22.TheremainingbaronshaveflednorthtotheEarlofLancasterat

Pontefract.ItwasgenerallyfeltthatLancasterwasfartoopowerfulforthekingtomove

againsthim;andsotheoutcomeofthewarwasaprofoundshockformany,includingtheBrut

chronicler.InBrie’sEETSeditiontheeventsofthefirsttwelveyearsofEdwardII’sreigntake

uponlypages207–12,havingmostlytodowiththebattlesagainsttheScots;theriseofthe

Despensersandthebeginningsofthecivilwararegivenmoreattentionfrom212–15,asa

sortofprologueorcontext;andthen,asLancasterisbroughttothefore,thechroniclermoves

intoadetailed,passionate,andcarefullycraftedstory.

HavingassembledatPontefract,Lancasterandthosewithhimare“wonderwroþ”at

thenewsthattheMortimershavesurrenderedandareimprisonedintheTowerofLondon


(215).Theyassembletheirpowerandmovetobattle.Thiswrathispositivefeudalanger,

directedupwardattheirlordforhisbetrayalofthefeudalbond.Lancasterfunctionsasagood

leaderhere,sharinghisangerwithhisfollowersandmovingthemasonebodyintodecisive

action.OneandahalfpagesaredevotedtothebattleofBurton-on-Trentanditsresults—

includingthedesertionofRobertHolland,whomLancaster“hadebrouȝtvpofnouȝt,and

hadenorisshede…inhisbotelerie”(216).Now,Lancastertakescounselwithhisremaining

baronsatPontefract.AllthebaronsagreethattheyshouldretreatnorthtoDunstanburgh,but

Lancasterobjects:“ifwegonetowardþenorth,menwilseynþatwegontowardþeScottes;

andsoweshulbeholdetraitoures”.Atthisdramaticpoint,Cliffordwaxeswrothand

threatenshimwithdrawnsword;Lancaster,“soreadrade”,concedes(217).Thecompanywill

retreatnorth,onlytobeinterceptedanddefeatedatBoroughbridgebySirAndrewHarclay.

Untilthispointthechroniclerhasnotovertlytakensides,beyondtheoccasional

disapprovalofdamagedonebyonesideortheother.Now,however,heisimplicitlyrefuting

theroyalnarrativeoftherebellion.Inthatstory,Lancasteristheprimemoverofthe

treacherousrebellionandintendstosethimselfonthethronewiththehelpoftheScots,in

exchangeforrecognisingRobertBruceasKingofScotland.IntheBrutversion,Lancasterhad

littletodowiththeearlystagesofthewar,movingagainstEdwardIIonlywhencalledonby

theotherbarons.Thechroniclerprovidesvariousfoilsintheformof“real”traitors(Holland

andHarclay,besidestheever-viciousScots)tosetincontrasttothesaintlyLancaster.

Moreover,theroyalversionofeventsclaimsthatLancasterflednorthwiththeremaining

baronstoshelterwithhisprospectiveallies—hencethepoliticalsignificanceofpausingonhis

debatewithClifford,anddramatisingitwithdirectspeechandgesture.

Butthechroniclerdoesmorewiththisscenethansimplystatehisopinionof

Lancaster’sguilt.Heusesittobegintheshiftintoamartyrtale.Inthischronicler’saccountof

earlieryearsLancaster’soppositiontoEdwardIIwaspoliticalintone.Whilehewasalways

virtuous,hisvirtuesweremorefeudalandchivalric—forexample,hisconsenttothe

executionofPiersGavestoncomesinrecognitionoftheharmthatGavestonisdoingtothe

realm,andinobediencetodeathbedpromisestohisfather-in-law,theEarlofLincoln,andhis

brotherandformerking,EdwardI(206–07).Piety,yes,butapietyboundupinsocialtiesand

mutualrespect,andnarratedinapoliticalcontextratherthanareligiousone.Thesame

prioritiesareevidentintheaccountofthebaronialresistancein1318–21,againstthe

Despensers,inthefrequentinsistencethattheyabuseanddisinheritlandholdersweakerthan

themselves.Butoncethemartyrnarrativeisactivetheseareneithertheprimarymotivators

forLancaster’sactions,northereasonsofferedforadmirationandsympathy.Inthe


confrontationwithClifford,Lancasteroutrightrejectstheexpectedshame/honourstructure.

Hefailstorespondtochallengewithshamedanger:infact,heisexplicitlysaidtobeafraid.

Thisisastartlingmoment—isheadishonourablecoward?Butno:itsignalsthebeginningof

Lancasterthepacifist—LancasterasPatientia—andtheveryfactthatitrecallsandsubvertsa

sceneoftypicalsceneofshamedangerisanexplicitsigntotheaudienceofthemomentof

genreshift.Clifford’shastymovement,thedrawnsword,therisinginwrath,thethreatof

physicalviolence:hetakesonshadesofIrahere,andweseehermoreclearlyinother

charactersinthepagesthatfollow.

Fromthispointuntilhisexecution(223),Lancasterbecomesmoreandmoreexplicitly

asaint.Hepreferstalkoverfighting,makespropheciesaboutthefatesofothers,praysaloud,

andisrepeatedlycomparedtoChristandtoThomasBecket.HealsoendurestheIratefuryof

histormentors,aswewouldexpectofPatientiaandofChristoranyothermartyr.Chief

amongthemisSirAndrewHarclay,establishedasafalsetraitorbythenarrativevoiceandby

Lancaster’sdireprophecy(218–19).Thankstothechronicler’sknowledgethatHarclaywas

withintheyeartobeexecutedforcolludingwiththeScotshimself,hecanserveasLancaster’s

mainfoil—therealtraitortotherealm,andtheinstigatorofindignities.HetauntsLancaster

beforetheBattleofBoroughbridgeandcaptureshimafterit,“ȝellyngeasawolfe”,settinghis

“vileinsribaudes”onhimandtearinghim(Becket-like)outofhissanctuaryinthechurch“as

tirauntȝandWoodeturmentures”(219–20).

OverthenextfewpagesLancasterissurroundedbytheseloudvoices,violent

movements,andjeers,turninghispassagetoexecutionintoarecognisableviadolorosa.From

“thegodeErl”(217)hebecomes“þenobleErl”and“gentil”(219).Uponhearingthesentence

ofdeath,heevokesthespiritofChrist’s“whyhaveyouforsakenme”,cryingout“Allas,Seint

Thomas,fairefader!Allas!shalybededeþus?grauntmenow,blissefulGod,ansuere!”(222).

Heisdressedinragsanddraggedtohisdoombymoreevilforeigners(Gascons,thistime),

andjeeredandassaultedbythecrowd.(ThisbeingMarchinYorkshire,theirchosenweapon

issnowballs.)Asheisledtotheblock,hemovespatientlyaccordingtohiscaptors’will.He

achievesan“intothyhandsIcommendmyspirit”moment,resigninghimselfandthelandto

theKingofHeaven,“forþeerþelyKynghaþvsforsak”.Inafinalindignity,“aRibaudeþatmen

calledeHugonofMoston”mockshimandrefusestolethimfaceeasttodie,turninghimnorth

instead“towardþeScottes,þinfouledethtovnderfonge[undergo]”.Heanswersobediently

“wiþamildevoice”anddies,tobelamentedbythechronicler(223).

Abriefinterludefollows:EdwardIIsuffersadefeatagainsttheScotsandSirAndrew

Harclay,recentlyelevatedtotheearldomofCarlisleforhispartinthedefeatoftherebellious


lords,ishimselfexecutedforcolludingwiththeScots(226–28).Lancaster’sprophecyis

fulfilled,andwithithisholystatus.Thefollowingthreepagescontainstoriesofthemiracles

doneinhisname,whichistheusualconclusiontothetaleofasaint’slife,whilethechronicler

referstohimrepeatedlyas“þeholyman,”“SeyntThomas,”and“þatholymartr”(228–30).

Inthiscontextordinarychivalricindicatorsofvirtueandhonourbecomeirrelevantor

negative,infavourofthevices-and-virtuestakeonemotion.Toreadthetextcorrectlyonehas

tobeabletorecognisetheshiftfromonekindofstorytoanother:thisistheshiftofemotional

style.ShamedangerandIrabelongtoverydifferentkindsofstories,sodifferentthatthey

cannotco-exist.Butanauthorcaneffectsubtlershiftswiththeirchoiceofemotionalstyle.

Shamedangerandfeudalangercaneachexistquitecomfortablyinthesamechronicle,or

evenwithinthesamescene.Thoughtheydonotcontradicteachother,theydostillinvokea

differentpatternofresponses.Theauthormayusethistoevaluateorimplicitlydiscussthe

characterinquestion,butalsotoshiftthoseexpectationsbywhichthereaderconsidersother

behaviours,ortochangethefocusofthestoryasawhole.Invokingfeudalangerdirects

attentiontooneparticularrelationship,whilealsoinvitingthereadertoconsiderhow

effectivelytheimmediatesocialgroup(usuallythelord’smaisnée)functionsasaunified

politicalwhole.

Debating styles: Anonimalle and Geoffrey le Baker

ThisisthekindofangerthattheAnonimallechroniclerwouldliketoseeinhiskings.Iwill

discussfeudalangerinmoredetailinthenextsection:fornowitisenoughtoknowthatakey

momentinanyaccountofalord’sfeudalangeristheresponseofhisfollowers,whenthey

(should)allrallywithhimandfeelashedoes.TheAnonimallechroniclerisnotfondof

EdwardII,andhismaincriticismisEdwardII’slackofemotionalengagementwithhisbarons.

Consequently,thischroniclersetsupscenarioswherewewouldexpectthekingtorespond

withfeudalanger;heemphasisesEdwardII’slackofconnectionwithhismen;andhewrites

ofhissecretinnerangerinstead.GeoffreyleBaker,however,takestheothersideofthe

argument.Forhim,EdwardIIisahero,andheadroitlyengagestheemotionalstylesof

hagiographyandromancetorecastactionsandeventswhichareevidenceoffailureandvice

totheBrutandAnonimallechroniclers.


FortheAnonimallechronicler,asformost,thecharacterofPiersGavestonrepresents

thecontroversyofEdwardII’sreignasawhole.HisaccountofGaveston’sdeathistypicalof

hisattitudetotheking:

…wherehewasjudgedbythepeersoftheland.AndthenfromtherehewastakentoastreamwhichiscalledGaversicheandtherehewasbeheaded…WhenthekingheardandunderstoodhowsirPiersGavestonhadbeenputtodeathbythelordsofthecountryhewasgreatlyangeredandannoyed[durementcorouceeetirre]andhesecretlycontemplatedinhisheartallthetimehowtorevengehimself[pensaprivementtouzjoursensonquoerdeseivenger]whenheshouldseetheopportunityonthosewhohadassentedtohisdeath.(86)

AswewillseeinChapter4,expressionslike“whenheheardthenewshewasgreatlyannoyed

(andtookaggressiveaction)”areastandardshorthandinhistoriographicalnarrativefora

performanceoffeudalanger.Itmayreadtousasalaughablyinadequateresponsetothe

murderofthemanthatthechroniclerhastoldusEdwardlovesmostinalltheworld;but

feudalangerisalmostalwayssynonymouswithapublicdeclarationofwarorpunishment.In

itsculturalcontext,thislinedoesnotmean“thekingwasirritated”,but“thiscausedaserious

formalbreachbetweentheparties”.Chivalricandhistoriographicalnarrativeplacegreat

emphasisonemotionalleadership,ontheemotionalunitybetweenkingandbaronsandland.

Invokingfeudalangeratthispointpositionsusfirmlyintheworldoffeudalrelations,inthe

genredominatedbythosesocialtiesandemotionalvalues.Edward’sanger,whichshouldbe

usedtounitehimwithhismenagainstacommonenemy,drivesthemapartinstead.Instead

oftakingonthepublicroleofemotionalleadershipheremainsprivé(alwaysanegativeword

forthischronicler):closedupwithinhisheart,plottingvengeanceagainsthisownpeople.

GeoffreyleBaker,recountingthesameevent,drawsinsteadonanemotionalitymore

commontotheromanceandsimilargenres,withtheirhigherratioofinternalisedand

individualisedfeelings.InsteadofwritingEdwardIIinastorythatwouldcasthimasthe

leaderofacommunity,andseehimfailtomeasureuptoaproperheroicstandard,Geoffreyle

Bakerletshimbegintolooksomethinglikeatragicheroofromance.

…on19June[Warwick]hadPiersbeheadedbeforetheireyesataplacecalledGaversike.ThekingcommittedhisbodytohonourableburialinthechurchoftheDominicanfriarsatLangley.…Inthisyearthekinghadsuchjoyinhisbabysonandinhisqueen,whomheloveddeeplyandcherishedtenderly[nimiumdilexitettenerrimeconfovit],that,toavoidcausingheranyuneasiness


[molestie],heconcealedthedistress[moleste]whichhefeltatPiers’death.Buthisforesighthaditslimitations,forhedidnotknowwheretofindaloyalfriend[fidei]withwhomhemightsharehissecretplansortowhomhemightentrusthislifewhenitwasindanger.ForthedeathofPiershadopenlyorsecretlystoppedmanynoblesfrombeinghisfriends.Alsowhilethekinghimselfneglectedwarfareandspenthistimeonamusementswhichweresometimesrealbutsometimesapretence,andwhilethenoblesoftherealmwerebusywithseizingthemomenttoputPierstodeath,RobertBrucecapturedalmostallthecastlesandfortsofScotland,andremovedorkilledthecustodiansassignedtothembythekingandhisfather.

(GeoffreyleBakertrans.Preest,5–6)

AtthemomentofGaveston’sdeath,Geoffreyavoidsanymentionoftheking’spersonal

emotions.Weseenothingbutanappropriateandpiouspublicceremonialresponse.Itisonly

intheaftermaththatweseepersonalgrieffromEdward.Inthisway,thenarrativeemphasis

isdeflectedfromthecommunalfunctionoftheking’semotionstoamoreindividuallevel.

GeoffreyacknowledgestheprivacyofEdward’semotions,butrepresentsthisasresponsible

leadershipinthemoreintimatesocialcontextofhisimmediatefamily:Edwarddoesnotwish

tocauseanyharmtohiswifeandhisnewbornheir.Heacknowledgessomeresponsibilityon

Edward’spartfortheScottishinvasion;butthisisattributedprimarilytotheriftbetweenthe

kingandhisbarons,aninternaldivisionwhichbringsaboutadirectassaultfromwithouton

the“body”ofthenation.

BoththeAnonimallechroniclerandGeoffreyleBakerportrayEdwardascutofffrom

theemotionalcommunityofhisbaronageinonewayoranother,buttheydifferonwhereto

placethefault.IntheAnonimallechronicle“thepeersoftheland”areunitedandpasslegal

judgementonGavestontogether:itisEdwardwhochoosestowithdrawfromthiscommon

accordandplotfuturedivision.ForGeoffreyleBaker,thebaronsareatfault,bothinthe

murderofGaveston(whichresultsnotfromjudicialconsensusbutfromWarwick’shostility

andPembroke’sbrokenoath)andintheirbickeringandtreacherythatleavestheirking

unabletotrustanybody,exposingtherealmtoattackfromtheScots.

WithGaveston’smurder,thekinghasbeenwrongedascomprehensivelyaspossible

bythemenwithwhomheoughttoshareapowerfulbondoflove.Aswewillseeinthenext

section,feudalloveistheoppositeoffeudalanger,andfeudalangerappearswhenthatlove

bondisviolated.Now,ifever,amedievalreaderwouldsurelyanticipateaneruptionofanger

fromtheking:atiradeaboutthewrongsdonetohimandtrustbetrayed,adecisivestatement

cuttinghimselfofffromthebaronsinquestionanddeclaringhisanger,whilethebaronswho


remainfaithfulunitebehindhiminsharedoutrage.Thehistoricalfactthatthisdidnothappen

is,innarrativeterms,awkward:theexpectationoffirmactionhangsoverthismomentasa

patternagainstwhichtoevaluateEdward’sbehaviour.TheAnonimallechronicle

acknowledgesitdirectlyandflatlystatesthatEdwardfailedtoperformasheought:insteadof

apublicsceneofthiskindheremainshiddenandturnsinward,nurturingasocially

dysfunctionalangerinhishearttowardsthepeoplewithwhomheoughttobeunited.

GeoffreyleBaker,bycontrast,carefullyomitsmentionofanyprivateemotionatthemoment

ofGaveston’sdeath,showingusinsteadanappropriateandpiouspublicceremonialresponse.

ItisonlyintheaftermaththatheattributespersonalgrieftoEdward,andhisinsistenceon

keepinghisemotionshiddenisforthesakeofIsabellaandthefutureEdwardIII.Ratherthan

showingusafailedpublicfigureGeoffreyshiftstheemotionalsettingtothedomesticsphere,

withonemansuppressinghisprivategriefforabelovedcompanioninordertoprovide

effectiveemotionalleadershiptohishousehold.

Ifthiswereall,however,itwouldnotbeenoughtoexonerateEdwardII,inGeoffrey’s

account.Sofarhisgenreplayamountsonlytoalittleshiftingofthefocusfromtheking’s

publicimagetohisdomesticlife,ahintthatifhecannotprovideemotionalleadershipforthe

realmhecanatleastdoitwithinhisimmediatefamily.ButGeoffreygoesfurther:thisispart

ofalargerpatternofreframingEdwardII’semotionalityintoadifferentkindofstory.Hislove

forhiswife,andthetreacherythatsurroundshim:thesearethenotesonwhichGeoffrey

playstochangethegenreEdwardinhabitsaltogether,fromthechivalricstyleofchronicle

(whichhedoesnotsuit)toablendoftragicromanceandhagiography.Thesamethemes

resurfacewithgreaterdetailandgreaterpathosfortheepisodeofEdward’sdepositionand

death.Here,hebecomesapatientmartyr:heis,infact,afigureofChristandofPatientia,as

LancasterisintheBrut.Thisneatlybrushesasideanyquestionoffailureinwarorinangerby

idealisingquietsuffering,andcastinghisenemiesasdemonictormentors—or,indeed,asIra.

InrapidsuccessionEdwardiscomparedtoJesusfacingCaiaphasandthewickedpriests,the

“goodshepherd”ofJohn10:11(26),“thepoorcrucifiedone”,“amonk-likerecluse”,anda

“servantofGod”(27),constructinganexplicitparallelbetweenhissufferingandChrist’s

Passion.ButthePatientChristisnottheking’sonlyemotionalmodelhere.Withinmoments,

andwithnoapparentchangeintone,wereadthis:

ThisservantofGod,evenwhenhehadsunktothedepths,complainedofnomisfortuneexceptthathiswife,whomhewasnotablenottolove,didnotwanttoseehim,althoughhehadlivedawidowerfromherembracesformorethananyear,andthatshedid


notallowtheirson,thenewking,oranyoftheirchildrentogivehimthecomfortoftheirpresence.

CountlesswerethesongsoflovewhichthissecondOrpheussangwithpleadingvoice,butinvain.Imaginehowoftenheweptandcomplainedthatsuchanoblewomanandonesobeautifulwithallthegiftsofnaturecouldhavedrunkthebitterbrewofbetrayal.Sometimeshedidnotkeepsilenceandsworetohishearersthatsincehehadfirstseenhisqueenhehadneverbeenabletoloveanotherwoman.ThisloveshownbythedespondentEdwardandhispatience[paciencia]inadversityawokesuchpityintheearlhisguardianandinboththeirhouseholdsthattheydidnotomittosendmessagesofthedespairingloveofthenoblelordforhiswifetoaheartthatwasharderthananadamantineanvil.(27–28)

Suddenly,EdwardIIisalsoasecondOrpheus,apleadingLancelotoutsidethewindowofa

cold-heartedGuenevere.Andinthatsortofstory,withallitsknightsandkingswandering

aboutintheforestforyears,leavingcareofcourtandpoliticstowivesorstewardsortosome

vaguearrangementthattheaudienceneverhearsofatall,theconcernsoftheAnonimalle

chronicleraresomuchpettyirrelevance.Thegrand,indulgentwoeofthepiningsolovoice

sweepsthemallaway.ThisisthemasculinityofSirOrfeoorYvain,notoftheAnonimalleor

evenofthealliterativeMorteArthure.Andlestwefeelanynaggingpricklesofsocial

conscience,themartyrnarrativeisalwayskeptinsight.

Anynarrativeoffersemotionalcontextswithinwhichtheiraudiencecanunderstand

theactionsofthecharacters—feelingdifferentthings,orrespondingtothosefeelingsin

differentways—andthisisacontextspecificallyformedbythegenerictraditionsonwhich

theydraw.Thisiswhatmakesanending,oraparticularplottwist,satisfyingordissatisfying:

itsinterplaywiththeaudience’spre-existingexpectationsaboutthepathsthatitmightfollow.

IfEdwardcannotbeconvincinglywrittenasperformingtheemotionalityofawarleader,he

maybedressedinthefamiliarrobesofthelovesickknightinstead—andIsabella,

correspondingly,maybeassignedtheroleoftheheartlessbeloved.Sheisan“enragedvirago

[iratavirago]”(20);Jezebel(21);“thatangrywoman”and“virago”(24);“theironlady[ferrea

virago]”and“thatfiercelioness[truculentaleona]”,with“aheartthatwasharderthanan

adamantineanvil”(28).33EdwardandIsabellafiguretheloverandthepitilessbeloved;butat

thesametime,theyareversionsofPatientiaandIra.Theabjectpatienceofthemartyrandthe

abjectdespairoftheloverarenotatoddswitheachotherhere:oneisaresponsetothepublic

33PagenumbersaretoDavidPreest’stranslation.ThecorrespondingpagesinE.M.Thompson’sRollsSerieseditionare20,21,24,29.


betrayalandtheothertothepersonal.Bothworktogethertomovethereaderstothepity

thatismodelledforthembyhisguards.Inthis,atleast,EdwardIIsucceedsinforgingthe

appropriateemotionalconnectionwithhisaudience,internaland(potentially)externaltothe

text.Andhehasonefinaltriumphinthisregard:inthemomentofhismurder,

Hisloudcrieswereheardbymeninsideandoutsidethecastle,whoknewwellenoughthatsomeonewassufferingaviolentdeath.ManypeopleinBerkeleyandsomeinthecastle,astheythemselvesasserted,wereawokenbyhisdyingshoutsandtookcompassiononthesufferer,makingprayersfortheholysoulofoneemigratingfromthisworld.(32)

EdwardII,inGeoffreyleBaker’sreading,doesnotsharehisangerwithhisbaronsasalordor

kingshouldinothergenres,butdespitetheemotionalisolationimposedonhimbythe

betrayalofthosearoundhim,hemanagestosharemorepiousemotionswiththosesubjects

whostillfeelaproperlovefortheirlord.Heevenmanagestosharethosefeelingswiththe

readersofthechronicle.GeoffreyleBaker’sstorytellingisdetailedandvivid,andtheaddition

oftheromanceelementsaddstotheeffect,whileaccountingforotherelementsofEdwardII’s

characterthatwouldnotfitsowellintoamartyrnarrative.Theresultisseductiveindeed.

GeoffreyleBaker,althoughheismagnifyingEdwardIIinsteadofaccusinghim,doesnotdeny

thattheemotionaldividecritiquedbyotherchroniclersexists:instead,hesubsumesitintoa

virtuebyshiftingthegenreexpectationsofhisnarrative.

Readingorhearingdifferentkindsofstorieshasapowerfuleffectonshapinghowwe

experienceourownemotionsandhowweunderstandtherangeofpossibleoutcomesfor

them,aswellasthemoralchargeswecouldplaceonanyofthoseoutcomes.Genreis,in

essence,arecognisedsetofcontexts—emotionalcontextamongthem—aroundwhichwe

expecttoshapeagivenstory.Andthisisnotconfinedtowordsonapage:GeoffreyleBaker

andtheauthorsoftheAnonimalleandBrutchroniclesarerealpeople,arguingbymeansof

narrativeaboutemotionalstylesembeddedinliterarytraditionandinlivedexperience.

EvaluatingtheemotionsofpeoplelikeLancasterandEdwardII,retellingthem,reshapingand

rehearsingthem—infact,“practising”them—chroniclersalsoprescribeandreinforcethe

sameemotionscriptsthemselves,andrecordthemwithalltheweightofculturalauthority.

Nowonderif,bythetimeEdwardIIIconfrontedtheburghersofCalais,hewouldhavehad

veryspecificideasabouttheemotionscriptsavailabletohiminthatsituation,andhowtouse

themtoemulateandbecometheidealmonarch.

Section B. Feudal anger: Anger and love on the public stage

Introduction OutsidethetownofCalais,EdwardIIIisencampedinregalstate.Thesiegehasgoneonfor

almostayear.KingPhilipofFrancehascomeandgonewithouteffect,andthestarvingtown

hastriedtonegotiatesurrender.Atfirst,KingEdwardinsistedthatCalaisshouldsurrender

unconditionallyandtaketheconsequences.Nowhehastakencounselandtemperedhis

initialwrath—orrather,hehasnarroweditsfocus.ThepeopleofCalaismaygofree,savefor

sixofitsmostprominentcitizens,whomustsufferhisrevengeontheirownpersonsonbehalf

oftheentiretown.Theyarebroughtbeforehim.Heglares,speechlesswithrage,asallthe

greatlordsandknightsattendantbeghimtohavepity.Buthewillnotbemoved:

Everylord,knight,andwarriorwhowasthereweptforpityandcouldnotspeak:andindeeditwasnowonderbecauseitwasagreatpitytoseegoodmeninsuchdanger.

Thekinglookedontheburghersveryangrily,forhisheartatthatmomentwassohardenedandsoinflamedthathecouldnotreplythroughhisanger.Andwhenhespoke,heorderedthattheirheadsbecutoffatonce.Allthelordsandknights,weeping,earnestlybeggedhimtohavemercy,butherefusedtolisten.

[WalterMannyaskshimto“reininhisheart”andshowmercysothatpeoplewillnotthinkheiscruel.Thekingrefusesandsendsfortheexecutioner.]

“ThepeopleofCalaishavecausedthedeathsofsomanyofmypeoplethatitisrightthattheyshoulddie.”

AtthatthenoblequeenofEnglandhumbledherselfgreatly,pregnantasshewas,andweepingsotenderlyinpitythatnobodycouldremainunmoved.Shethrewherselftoherkneesbeforethekingherlordandsaid:“Ah,mynoblelord!SinceIcrossedtheseaingreatperil,asyouknow,Ihaveaskedfornothing.ButnowIprayandimploreyouwithclaspedhands,fortheloveofOurLady’ssonandbyyourloveforme,havemercyonthesesixburghers.”

Thekingfellsilentforamomentandhelookedonthegoodladyhiswife,whowasheavilypregnantandwepttenderlyonherknees.Hisheartbegantosoftenalittle,forhedidnotwishtoanger/distress[courroucier]herinhercurrentstate.


Hesaid:“Ah,lady,Iwishverymuchthatyouwereanywhereelse.YoupraytomesothatIcannothelpbutheedyou.ThoughIdoitagainstmywill,Iwillgivethemtoyou.Takethemanddowiththemasyouplease.”

Froissart’sChroniques,BookI(SHF1–312).

Atthepleafromhiswifethekingreluctantlyshiftshismood:hegrantsmercy,andgivesthe

burghersoverintothequeen’scare.

SoJeanFroissarttellsthestoryoftheburghersofCalais,perhapsthebest-known

episodeoffeudalangerfromthefourteenthcentury.Thissceneemploystheclassicemotional

scriptoffeudalangerinallitsgrandeur,andwithalltheimpliedperilofexcessiveroyal

vengeance.Itispresentedtousashistoricalfact;buttheartistryofthestorytellingandthe

degreeofcreativeinterventionraisequestionsabouttherelationshipbetweenfictionalityand

representation.InpreviouschaptersIhaveconsideredemotionscriptsprimarilyasnarrative

devices,askinghowchroniclesengagewiththeiraudience’spre-existingimaginative

structuresgoverninganger.Asfeudalangeristhemostprominentformofangerinmedieval

historiography,thequestionofhowrealemotionalstylesinteractwiththoseonthepageis

morecomplexandmoreimportant.InthissectionIcontinuetothinkintermsofnarrative,

butIwillalsobegintoconsiderhowchroniclesandtheiremotionscriptsmightreflectand

affectlivedemotionalnorms.

Theaffectiveaspectsofstoriessuchasthesearenotmerelycolourfultrappingsto

engagetheaudience’sinterest:theyarecentraltothechronicle’snarrativeandtoitsmeaning.

Whenwearediscussingasocietywhosepoliticsarepersonalandwhoseemotionsare

sociallycreated,thereisaveryrealsenseinwhichtheemotionsarethestory.Feelingis

deeplyembeddedinthelegalities,thearticulation,andtheconceptualisationofsocial

structure.Thisisnotsimplyatheoreticalassociationbetweenideas.Whenachroniclersays

“angerarosebetweenthesetwolords”,thisisnotametaphorforthelegalshiftfrompeaceto

war,butadirectstatementofthatchange.Moreover,whenbaronsweeporrageorrejoice

withtheirlordtheyarenotsimplymimickinghisemotionbutfeelingitwithhim,unitedas

onebody.Aprincewhocannotsecurethisemotionalunitywithhisfollowersisnogood

leader.Initssimplestterms,feudalangeristheemotiononefeelswhentheotherparty

violatesthetermsofafeudalrelationship;but,giventheextenttowhichemotionsand

legalitiesareintertwinedinsuchasystem,thereachoffeudalangerisbroad.

TheCalaisepisodeinthewritingofJeanleBelandFroissartengagesconsciouslywith

bothitsliteraryrootsandthepoliticalandculturallandscapeofitstime.Assuch,itisa

particularlyfertileepisodeforstudyingtheconceptualstructuresbehindsuchemotion


events.Theubiquityofthisemotionscriptprovidesastableinterpretativethread,connecting

thisscenetobroadersocialinstitutionsandtheircorrespondingemotionalpractices:feudal

love,emotionalcontagion,theexerciseofjusticeandmercy,andtheroleofcounselin

representingandtemperingdisplaysoflordlyanger.

ItshouldbenotedearlythatmostoftheexamplesthatIconsiderinthenextfour

chaptersconcernaverysmallsubsetofsociety:menwhoareeitherlordlyorroyal.

Furthermore,inalmostanygivenscenariotheangrypersonis,outofthosepresent,theone

occupyingthepositionofhighestsocialprivilege.Thesimplestreasonforthisfocusisthatthe

samebiasispresentinthesourcematerial.Furtherreasonswillemergeoverthecourseof

thischapter,butbroadlyspeaking,theyhavetodowiththetendencyofthenarrativeworldof

anymedievalchronicle—andthereforeitsnormativeemotionalscripts—tobeshapedaround

theexperiencesofpowerfulmen.Feudalangerisimaginedfirstandforemostasitwouldbe

practisedbyanabsoluteprince.Itmaybefeltbyotherpeople,includingbyvassalsagainst

theirlord;however,becausethemostcommonscriptoffeudalangerimpliesthelord’sright

toenactjusticeagainstenemiesandtraitors,itcannotalwaysbeeasilymappedontopeoplein

lesserpositionsofpower,orpeoplewhodonotfitthemouldofanideallordinallrespects.

TowardstheendofthesectionIwillconsidersomeofthewaysinwhichchroniclersmaydeal

withthisproblem:vilifyingthosewhofeelnon-conformingfeudalanger,erasingthem,

proclaimingtheirexceptionality,ortryingtocreateaplaceforthemwithintheparadigmthat

Ihavedescribed.

Chapter 4. The script

Identifying feudal anger

Feudalangerisconceptualisedinthecontextofafeudalrelationship,arisinginresponsetoa

perceivedviolationoftherulesgoverningthesocialbondbetweentwoparties.Itisthemost

commonformofangerinmedievalhistoriography,chansonsdegeste,andotherpoliticalor

heroicnarratives,beingalmostsynonymouswiththeoutbreakofwarordomesticconflict,

andwiththebehaviourthatcharacteriseswarwhileitlasts.Actionssuchasfightingand

burningcropsarecalledanger,nottheresultsofanger(hencetheirinclusioninmylistsof

angersignsinChapter1).34Warisnotcalled“astateofconflictbetweentwonations”,but

“angerbetweentwolords”.Angeris,inotherwords,bothanevent—thefamiliarmomentof

theprincestartingfromhisseatinragetodeclarewaronanenemy,ortodeliverjustice

againstanerringvassal—andacontinuousstate,lastinguntilsuchtimeastherelationshipis

mended,andoftenmarkedinthemeantimebyotheractsofanger.

The nature of feudal anger

Feudalangermayberecognisedbyfourmaincharacteristics.Firstly,thereisapre-existing

relationshipbetweentheparties,onewhichdefinesforthemcertainmodesofconductand

obligationtowardseachother.Secondly,theheartofthedisputeisthatoneofthem(orboth)

feelsthattheotherhastransgressedtheserules.Thirdly,thereissomesortofpublic

displaytoinitiatethesplit.35Finally,thepartiescontinueinastateofangeruntiltheissue

isresolved—unless,assometimeshappens(anddoubtlessmoreofteninreallifethanin

narrative),theoutburstofangeritselfleadsimmediatelytonegotiationandresolution.

Mostoftheworkthathasbeendonesofaronexamplesofthistypeofangerhasbeen

underthenameof“royalanger”.Themosthelpfulforthispurposeareaclusterof

34StephenWhitealsomakesapointofthiselisionbetweenactsofwarandangerinmedievalnarrative(“PoliticsofAnger”137–39).

35Thechroniclermightnotnarratesuchadisplayindetail,butasthisisessentiallyapublicemotionitmustbeatleastunderstoodtohavehappened.Inshortform,itisusuallysomethinglike“whenthenewswasbroughttohimthekinggrewveryangry,”followedbyangeractslikemilitaryactionorpunishment.


complementaryarticlesinAnger’sPast.36However,whileiraregiswasheavilytheorisedand

discussedduringtheMiddleAges,thereisnoevidenceinthesetextsthatitwasconsidereda

discreteemotioninitself.Feudalangerwas,itseems:althoughithasnospecificname,itis

distinctandconsistentinitscause,inthephysiologicalandbehaviouralchangesinwhichit

manifests,initsexpectedprogression,itsresults,anditssocialimplications.Thereis

neverthelessasubstantialoverlapwiththeideaofroyalanger:whilefeudalangerisnot

exclusivetoprinces,itisexemplifiedbythem.Becausethiskindofangerissodeeply

embeddedinsocialrelationsandfeudalbonds,therelativesocialstatusofthepartiesis

crucialtothepracticeandexperienceofanger.Forexample,asRichardBartonnotes,ina

conflictbetweenlordandvassalthelord’sangeroftenseemsbyitsveryexistencetojustify

retribution:becausetheperformanceoffeudalangerissocloselyassociatedwithauthority,

“personswhoresistedsuchauthoritywouldcometobeseenasinful,asdeservingrecipients

ofzealousrage”(“ZealousAnger”159).Bysuchmeans,thelord(orchronicler)mightredefine

thelord’sbehaviourfromangertojustice.Consequently,angerdirectedupwardsfroma

vassaltoalordappearsonlyrarely,andisusuallyhandledwithgreatcarewhenitdoes(see

Chapter7).

Whenstudyingasocietywhichhabituallythoughtinallegoriesandbinaries,oneofthe

mostrevealingwaystodefineaconceptistofindwhatthesourcematerialconsiderstobeits

opposite.Wehaveseenthathonouristheoppositeofshamedanger,andthatIraisalways

imaginedincontrasttoPatientia.Severalpeoplehaveidentifiedanoppositetotheroyal

angertheydiscuss:GerdAlthoff(studyingavarietyofhistoriographicalanddiplomatictexts)

andPaulHyams(studyingthefiguresoncepaintedonthewallofHenryIII’sbedchamber)

eachofferadifferentopposite.ThemuralbeforewhichHenryIIIspenthisnightsdepictedIra

crushedbeneaththefeetofacrownedDebonereté:acomplexvirtuewhichHyams

characterises(broadly)astheking’sgoodwillandclemencytowardshisfriends,inthe

contextofcreatingandmaintainingaunifiedcourtlycommunity.Althoff,ratherthandrawing

atermfromhissources,considerstheoverallsenseofthemandsuggeststheword“favour”.

ToAlthoff,favourexistsatoneendofacontinuumwhoseotherendisanger:onevassalhas

morefavourwithhislordthananotherandeachtriestoworkhiswayclosertothepositive

endofthecontinuum.“Royalangerthusappearsaspartof[aking’s]‘rulershippractice,’that

36ThosebyStephenWhite,GerdAlthoff,RichardBarton,andPaulHyams.MorerecentstudiesincludeOrning’sexaminationofroyalangerinthepoliticalcultureofmedievalNorway,andGiven-Wilson’sexaminationoftherelationshipbetweenRichardIIandRichardFitzAlanwithaneyetotheacceptablelimitsofroyalangerinthelateMiddleAges.


is,aspartofapersonallygroundedsystemofrulershipbasedonarangeofunwrittenlaws”

(59).Inthiscase,however,usingamoderntermobscuresanimportantemotionaltruth.

Favourisararewordinmedievalsourcesofthiskind.Inmostcasestheoppositeofthiskind

ofangerisnotcalledfavourbutlove:repeatedly,passionately,carefullyexpressed.Itappears

intheaddressingoflettersandeffusivepublicembracesandprofessions—evenwherethat

relationshipwasratherprecarious,asifthepracticeofthislovewouldkeepitsoppositeat

bay.37Itshouldalsobenotedthat,whileinpracticeAlthoff’smodelofacontinuummightwell

havebeentrue,inwrittensourcesloveandangerarenotconceptualisedasexistingonaline,

orinshadesofgrey:theyarebinaryopposites.Wheretheyappeareachisabsolute,even

superlative.

Feudalangeris,then,theoppositeofthelovethatmeansamity,peace,social

interdependence,andthekeepingoftroth.Hyams’sdeboneretéisoneaspectofthislove,with

itsemphasisonthestrengthofthefellowshipbetweenthekingandhiscourt.Favourmaybe

technicallycorrectsofarasitgoes,butitislimited,bothbecauseitisrestrictedtodescribing

onetypeofrelationshipfromonedirection(lordtovassal),andbecauseitdeniesthatthe

performativeorpublicaspectsofsucharelationship(suchasreceivingalord’sgiftsorbeing

formallywelcomed)maythemselvesbeconsideredemotionalacts,equaltoadisplayof

anger.

Byitsnature,therefore,feudalangerexistsaspartofanongoingsocialnegotiation.

Unlikeotherformsofanger,itisrarelyifeverdescribedbymedievalauthorsininternal

psychologicalterms.Thisangerisnotaprivatephenomenonatall:itishighlyperformative,

anditsprimaryexistenceisinitspublicexpression,whichsignals—orinitiates—thechange

intherelationshipnotonlybetweentheindividualsinvolvedbutanylandsandpeoplesthey

represent.Suchangerneednotsignalacompleterupture:rather,asBartonremarks,it

“serve[s]asawarningsign…announcingtoallthatthecurrentsituation[is]unacceptableand

thatsocialrelationships[will]havetoberestructured”(154).Angerthusbecomeseithera

stimulustomendtherelationship,orapublicenactmentofthatrupture.Thepartiesinvolved

37“Everymedievalistisfamiliarwithdescriptionsofhowhonorably(honorifice)ormagnificently(magnifice)peoplewerereceivedbytheking,howwonderfullytheywerehandledandentertained,andhowtheywereloadeddownwithgiftsandfinallysenthomewithallpossiblehonor”(Althoff60).True;butthatislargesse.Largessecanbeasignoffavour,butitisnotsynonymouswithfavourorlove:itmayevenbeathreat.Aswewillseesoon,EdwardIIIis(likeKingArthurinmanytexts)capableofusinglargesse,justasmuchasanger,asastatementofpower.


aretheninacontinuousstateof“anger”untilthepoliticalstateisresolved.38Similarly,a

vassalmaybesaidtoexistinhislord’slove—acontinuousstate—andmaybewelcomedon

reunionwithlove—aperformativeevent,whichbothdemonstratesandenforcesthatstate.

Weneednotimaginethat,duringHundredYearsWar,EdwardIIIandPhilipVIwenttobed

everynightgnashingtheirteethandflushingredwithrage,buttherelationshipbetweenthe

twomen—andconsequentlybetweentheirtwocountries,andbetweentheirvassals39—is

neverthelessdefinedcontinuouslybyiraratherthanamorforsolongasthewarbetween

themlasts.Theperformanceoffeudalanger,therefore,bothdramatisesandeffectsasocial

fact,ashiftintheemotionallandscapeofthecommunity.

The scene of feudal anger

Thereisoneparticularscene—familiarinitsrepetition—thatusuallyaccompanies

demonstrationsofroyalangerinchronicle,chansondegeste,andromance.Thereisagood

dealofvariationinthedetailofhowsuchascenemayplayout,butthereisundermostof

themaconsistentpattern,anemotionscriptwhichgivesanalmostritualisticstructuretothe

event.Givenfeudalangerisinitsessenceapublicemotion,itsperformativeaspectsare

conceptuallycentraltoit.

Firstcomesthelord’sexpressionofangerattheruptureoftherelationship.Itis

crucialinthesescenesthatitbeanexpression,apubliccommunication,notsimplyan

internalsensation(thoughhemaydescribeitinembodiedterms).Theexpressionmaybein

gestureandaction,ratherthanverbal:inmanycasestheprotagonistissaidtobetooangryto

speak,andsimplyglares,ormorevividlydartsfirefromhiseyes,makingeverybodycower.

Hethenmakesarecitalofgrievances,declaringthegroundsofhisangerbydetailingjust

38Althoffpresupposesacontinuousstate,bysettingup“anger”inoppositionto“favour”—theangerasatangiblepunishment/stateofaffairs.Hefocusesonthatcontinuoussituation;Barton,bycontrast,focusesonthemomentoftheeruptionofangerandnegotiationsitleadsto,whetherthesesucceed(leadingtoaconclusionoftheepisode)orfail.Botharetrue:themomentofruptureand(ifnotimmediatelyresolved)thestateofangerwhichfollowsareessentiallythesamething.Onesignalsandenactstheother.

39Inbroadandgeneraltermsandaccordingtotheusualmodel,thatis.Therecanbeindividualexceptions—andFroissartchangesthewholewarintoalarge-scalechivalriccontest,whichallowsformorecomplexityintermsoftheindividualrelationships.


howhehasbeenwronged—thatis,howtheotherpartyhas,inhisview,violatedthetermsof

theirrelationship.Nextcomesadeclarationofconflict:anacknowledgementand

proclamationthatthepartieshaveshiftedtoastateofwar,ratherthanlove.Thefinalpartof

thespeechannouncesaction:helaysouthisspecificplansforwar,orpassesjudgementon

wrongdoers.Inmanytextsthistakestheformofavow,legitimatingtheangerfurtherby

appealeithertoGodortohonour.Thelord’spublicemotionisthensharedbyhisfollowers-

theyall“feel”thesamething,theyechohiswordsandactions,andareallrousedtothesame

fervour.Ifthechroniclerisfeelingexpansive,theymayalsomakesimilardeclarationsof

angerandvowsoftheirown.Thesevowscanbelongandelaborate,andvowingpoemsarea

minorgenrestructuredentirelyaroundthesespeechacts.WehavealreadyseenLesVoeuxdu

Héron;LesVoeuxduPaonisaratherlesssarcasticexample.

Oneofthemostdetailedexamplesappearsinlaisses13–14ofJordanFantosme’sverse

chronicleofthecivilwarbetweenHenryIIandhissons,fortheverygoodreasonthat

Fantosme,writingwithinHenryII’scourt,isworkinghardtoturncontemporaryeventsintoa

chansondegesteandhiskingintoitshero.ThesceneintheEnglishcourtdepictingthe

momentofrupturebetweentheOldKingandtheYoung—andthereforetheoutbreakof

war—iscrucialinsettingupthisdynamicforthewholeofthechronicle.

[Laisse13]

[v.125]WhenHenry,hisfather,heardthis,hewasbothsaddenedandangry[greins…eirez],andhesworehisoath—alasthathissoneverthoughtofdoingsuchathing—andhesaidtohisknights:“Mylords,nowgiveheedtowhatIsay!Iwasneversogrieved[adulez]inallmylife.IamsofilledwithragethatIamnearlycrazy[elcorsmetientlarage,apoimesuidesvez].[130]ThebaronsofBrittanyhaveopposedme;theyhavejoinedforceswiththosewhosehatredofmeismortal,withKingLouisofFranceandwithmyeldestson,whoarestrippingmeofmyrightfulpossessions.Hewantstotakeawaymylands,myfiefs,andmyinheritance.Iamnotsoovercomewithagenorsoburdenedwithyears,asiswellknownofmanypeople,thatIshouldlosemyrealm.

“KeepgoodwatchthisnightintheclearmoonlightandseethatnoFlemingsormenofthisregionconcealthemselvesinambush.ThebaronsofBrittany,[140]rightuptoFinistère,arefeudallysubjecttome;butRalphdeFougèresisinrevoltagainstmeandEarlHughofChesterisinleaguewithhiminthis.FornoamountofpurerefinedgoldshallIfailtolookthemout,ifIcancomeonthemintheirfastnesses.Andsinceourenemiesaresococksureofthemselves,itisagoodpolicytopressinonthemwithgreathostilities.Asiege-


engineisabetterweaponagainstfoesinthefullflushofinsolencethanahalf-heartedattackwhentheyarenotsofullofvalour.”

Hisbaronsreply:“Youarefullofmartialfervour[buntez].[150]Luckhasturnedagainstyourenemies.Thelandisyours,defenditwell!Yoursonisinthewrongtomakewaronyou.”

[Laisse14]

Seenowtheknightscomingdownfromthecastle,suddenlyandswiftlyseizingarms,puttingonhauberksandcoatsofmail,lacingontheirnewhelmets,andtakingtheirVianeseshieldsbythearm-straps.ThenyoucouldhaveheardKingHenrytheEldercallingonGod:“Itwilldothesetraitorsnogoodtohavemetmeinthestubble-fields!”Theknightsintheirbattle-arrayhavecomeforthfromthetown:[160]somesixtythousandofthemandmorethansixtycompanies,andnotoneofthembutthinkshimselftheequalofaWelshking.

(vv.125–61)

ThestimulusforthisoutburstisHenry’sdiscoverythathehasbeenbetrayedbyhiseldest

son:theYoungKinghasalliedhimselfwithFranceagainsthisfather.Theauthorinformsusof

hisfeelings(125)andhehimselfmakesastatementofangerandgrief(128–129):thisis

followedbyarecitalofgrievances(130–134)andadeclarationofconflict(135–36).He

thenannouncesaction(137–148),whichhereincludesnamingthoselesserbaronsin

particulartowhomhisangerextends(someofwhomoughttobefeudallysubjecttohim,and

whohavethereforealsowrongedhiminthis—“suntenmespoestez”,140).Hisfeelingsare

thensharedbyhisfollowers,whofeelasimilaranger,whichmakesthemactasoneand

becomegreaterthantheywerebefore(149–161).

Thesamepatternisfollowed(althoughinlessdetail)intwoscenesattheFrenchcourt

(laisses3–4and40–44).Inthefirstcase,aformalstatementofangerbytheKingofFrance

(onbehalfofYoungHenry)isfollowedbysimilarformalstatementsfromhisbarons,each

takinghisownlesservowsaboutwhatheplanstodoandwhomheplanstodefeatinthe

comingwar.Inthesecond,CountPhilip’sspeechcoversthethreat,theoathofviolence,and

theactualmilitaryplanning,rousingthesameemotionalresponseandagreementfromhis

followers.Significantly,however,thereisnorecitalofgrievancesineitherscene.Whilethe

Frencharepresentedasaworthyandnobleopponent,andthereforetheirleadersmaybe

permittedtoemployidealisedscriptsoflordlyemotionality,oursympathymustremainwith

HenryII.Heisintheright,sohisopponentsmustnotbeallowedtoarticulateanywrongs.


Variations on the script

Thispatterndoesnotbelongonlytoonetext,oronegenre,oronecentury.Ifwemove

forwardintotheliteratureofEdwardIII’sreignwecanrecognisethesamesequenceinthe

alliterativeMorteArthure,thetextwhichRichardBarberconsiders“theclosestliterary

representationofEdward[III]’simageofArthur”(160).ThesceneofArthur’sconfrontation

withtheRomanmessengersisevenmoreextendedanddetailedthanJordanFantosme’s

depictionofHenryII’sanger.This“scene”intheMorteArthureextendsoverseveraldays.

FirstcomestheRomanmessengers’challengeandArthur’sfuriousresponse,inwhichhe

“declares”hisangerbyhisfuriousspeechlessness,andwitheyesthatseemtowoundhis

enemies(137).Secondly,afteradisplayofArthur’smenacinglargesseintheformofgrand

hospitality,wehaveacounselscene.HereArthurtellshisknightsexactlywhytheRoman

emperor’srequestwrongshim(265–287);hedeclareshisintenttofightandhisspecificplans

forwar;thenhereceivesindividualvowsfromeachofhisfollowersandthanksthemfortheir

unity(345–398).Thirdly,therecomesanotherscenewiththemessengers,inwhichArthur

repeatsingreaterdetailthematterofhisvowandhisintentionsforwar(415–485).

Aswerecognisethepatternunderlyingthesesceneswecanbegintoseehowthe

angerattheircentreworkswithinthesocialworldofthetext.InJordanFantosme’schronicle,

Louis’powerfulemotionalreactionforwhichhelistsnocauseatall(“Apoidedueln’esrage”,

v.34)mayreadstrangelytomoderneyes,butwhenplacedalongsidetheangerofHenryIIit

driveshomethefactthattheangerofeachkingisnotaprivatething:itisinsteadashared

recognitionandenactmentofalegalevent.Itputsintoeffectthechangeintherelationship

betweenLouisandHenryII(toenmity),betweenLouisandYoungHenry(toalliance),

betweenHenryIIandhisopponents(enmityagain),andbetweeneachkingandtheknights

andbaronswhosweartheirliteralfellowfeelingforhim.ThisfirstsectionofJordan

Fantosme’schronicle,devotedtotheoutbreakofthewar,isalmostlegalisticintone,asthe

authorestablishesthegroundsandstrengthofvariouslandclaims,relationships,andfeudal

obligations.Themostdecisivefactorininitiatingwarorinfindingsettlementisinvariablythe

angerorloveofkings.OneofLouis’baronssuggeststhathemightchoosetoreturn

NormandytoHenryII“seirevusassuage”(v.53).Anotherdeclaresthathisownbodyisfilled

withrage,thatheisLouis’man“parfeieparhumage”,andthathewilloffersomanymenand

fightforsomanydays—threestatementsplacedsimplysidebyside,asiftheconnectionof

anger-against/love-for/action-withwasobviouswithoutanyhypotacticconnection(vv.45–

50).Theveryfirstlaisseofthepoemdeclaresthattheauthorwilltellthestoryofhowthe


“amur[e]druerie”betweentheOldKingandtheYoungturnedto“mortel...envie”asthe

foundationofthis“guerresenzamur”(vv.10,13,20).Whenwefinallymeetthefourthking—

WilliamofScotland—hedeclaresthatifHenryIIwillnotgivehimNorthumberlandhewillno

longerowehim“nefeinedruerie”—andthisstatementofhisfeelingsforHenryisunderstood

byallaroundhimasaformal(thoughconditional)declarationofwar(299).Emotional

languageisusedsoconsistentlytodeclarelegaleventsthatthereisnoquestionofitbeing

simplyametaphororaeuphemism:thereisadirectequationbetweenpubliclegalfactand

theemotionalcontentofarelationship.

Thisformulamayberecognisedinminiatureinmomentssuchasthisone,inthe

MiddleEnglishBrut:

WhenþistydyngwascomentoKyngEdward[I],þatWilliamWalishadeordeynedesocheastrongepower,andþatalScotlandtohimwasentendant[heededhim],andredytoquelleEnglisshemen&destroyehislande,hewassoreannoied,andsentanonebyhislettresto[variousofhiscaptains]þatþaishuldetakepower,andwende[go]intoNorthumberlond,&soforþintoScotland,fortokepethecontres.(193)

Thisisacommonchronicle-styleshorthandforalong,elaboratesceneofthetypegivenby

JordanFantosme.Themessageisreceived,theking’sangerisaroused,andheresponds

accordinglyinconcertwithhismen.Butrecognisingthesceneinvokedbythesefewwords

givesagooddealmoremeaningandpoliticalpowertothenotethatEdwardIwas“sore

annoied”.Itisnotjustadecorativehumantouch,oranirrelevantmomentinthemidstofa

reportoftheprogressofhostilities.Itistheturningpointofevents:thestartofwar.William

Wallacehasgonetoofar,andnowtheHammeroftheScotswillfallonhim.

Thescriptoffeudalangerissoubiquitousandfamiliarthatitisrarelygivenfull

treatment.Itonlyappearsinmoredevelopedformwhenthereissomeneedtoworkthrough

itsdetailsandconsideritsdiscourse.EvenJordanFantosme’schronicle,withitsinsistenceon

stickingtotheletterofthescript,andthealliterativeMorteArthure,lingeringwithsuch

lengthydelightontheimageofKingArthurattheheightofhisregalpower,areintheirown

waydeviations(evenwhiletheystandasexemplarsofthescriptforothertexts),precisely

becauseveryfewauthorsgointothislevelofdetail.Todosoisinitselfavariation,almosta

protestation:inFantosme’scase,presumably,againstcompetinginterpretationsofthecivil

waranditsplayers(lessflatteringtoHenryII);andinthecaseoftheMorteagainstthe

inevitabledownfallofArthurandtheidealisedemotionalunityatCamelot.


Froissarttoo,thoughhecanbevolublewhenhechooses,oftenusesanabbreviated

versionofthesamescene.Here,forexample,wehaveitbrokenintotwoduetotheabsenceat

firstoftheoffendingparty(orhisrepresentative).

WhennewsreachedthePrinceofWalesthatLimogeshadgoneovertotheFrenchandthattheBishopoftheplace,whowasthegodfatherofoneofhischildrenandinwhomhehadalwaysplacedthegreatesttrust,hadbeenconcernedinallthenegotiationsandhadbeenapartytothesurrender,hewasfuriouslyangry…Hesworeonthesoulofhisfather—anoathwhichheneverbroke—thathewouldattendtonootherbusinessuntilhehadwonthecitybackandhadmadethetraitorspaydearlyfortheirdisloyalty.…WhentheyfirstbrokeintothetownacontingentoftheEnglishmadefortheBishop’spalace.Hewasdiscoveredandseized,andbroughtwithoutceremonybeforethePrince,wholookedathimverygrimly.Thekindestwordhecouldfindtosaywasthat,byGodandStGeorge,hewouldhavehisheadcutoff.Thenhehadhimremovedfromhispresence.(SHF1–663,1–666)

Asithappens,theBishopdoesnotlosehishead,becausethePopeasksforhisfreedom.Itis

notnecessarythatheactuallybeexecuted:liketheburghersofCalais,itisnecessarythathe

facetheangerhehasincurred,thattheconfrontationtakeplace.Thatangerisitselfa

punishment,amovementawayfromloveandgrace.

The Calais episode

Scenessuchasthisareabbreviatedoradaptedversionsoftheclassicsceneoffeudalanger

thatIhavedescribed:theyrelyonasharedculturalunderstandingofhowsuchanemotion

eventproceeds,butareflexibleintheirapplicationofit.ButforthefinaleoftheCalais

sequenceFroissartneitherabridgesnoralters:heemploysthefull-scaleritual,completewith

dialogueanddramaticaction,andemphasisesitsperformativeaspectswithafewtouchesof

vividscene-painting.Thesceneisagrandspectacle,publicandglorious,andthecentral

emotionsarefiguredinthebodiesofEdwardIIIandPhilippa.Thekinggrindshisteeth,glares

withflashingeyes,issooverwhelmedwithemotionthathecannotspeak(althoughhissilence

isinitselfaforcefulcommunicativeact);whileshe,noble,hyper-feminised,andabject,


“weepingtenderlyonherknees”,embodiestheforgivingtendernessnotonlyofthemonarchy

itselfbutoftheheavenlyqueen.

UnliketheconfrontationinthealliterativeMorte,thissequenceinFroissartistrulyone

singlescene,unifiedintimeandplace.Allofitselementsarepresentandconventionally

ordered,eventhoughmostofthemhave,infact,alreadybeenestablishedwithinthe

narrative—forexample,EdwardhasseveraltimesstatedhisgrievancesagainstCalais.This

doesnot,however,diminishthescene’seffect:rather,itenablesthescenetofunction

simultaneouslyastherewardingculminationofanextendedepisodeofsteadilyincreasing

affectiveforce,andasaself-containedvariantonanemotionalsequencethateveryreaderor

audiencememberwouldhaverehearsed,inpersonorimagination,manytimesbefore.

Thesceneisset,initsgloryandvalour,anditspublicnature.“Thekingwasatthat

momentinhischamberwithalargecompanyofearls,barons,andknights…Hewentoutinto

thesquareinfrontofhislodgings,andallthelordsandagreatmanyotherpeoplefollowed

himtoseethepeopleofCalaisandwhatwouldhappentothem”.Froissartliststhemain

witnessesinalltheirglory,includingthequeen,“whowasheavilypregnant”(SHF1–312).

TheburghersarepresentedtoEdwardand,likeArthur,ratherthanstatinghisangerhe

enactsitwithaspeechlessglare,thepowerofwhichisfeltbyallaroundhim.Becausehe

expresseshimselfwithoutspeechhemakesnorecitalofgrievances.Foreverymemberofhis

audience,however,thisboxhasalreadybeenticked:fortheburghers,inJeandeVienne’s

conversationwithMannyandhisrecitaloftheking’swordsbacktothetownsfolk;for

Edward’scourt,whenMannypleadedforCalaisonJeandeVienne’sbehalf;andforthe

readers,onalltheseoccasions.Evenso,topreservethepattern,Froissartintervenesatthis

pointwiththenarrator’svoiceandinformsusofthereasonsfortheking’sanger:the“grans

dommages”whichtheyhaddonetohim.Thethirdstage—thatis,thestatementthatthe

relationshipisnowcharacterisedbyanger(ontheonehand)andfearfulpleading(onthe

other)—issplitlikewisebetweenroyalactionandnarrativeinterpretation:Froissarttellsus

thatnobodyofworthcouldavoidweepingwiththeburghers,whileEdwardregardsthem

angrilyandreiterateswiththatgazethathisheartistooangryforspeech.Hethenmoveson

tothenextstage:decisiveaction,withanorderthattheirheadsbestruckoff.Theresponse

fromthosearoundhimiswholeheartedlyemotional:notwithapprobationofhisactionsthis

time,butanacceptablevariantwhichallowsforthesegueintoanintercessoryplea.Queen

Philippa’spetition,withallitsassociatedritualoffeminineintercession,triggerstheshifttoa

differentemotionalregister,outofthesceneofanger,allowingthekingtomovebeyondrage

intomercy.


However,thefamousconfrontationwiththeburghersisnottheonlysceneinthe

CalaissequenceforwhichFroissartemploysthisnarrativepattern.Theotherfallsearlier,and

issonearlyfreeofaffectthatithardlyseems,atfirstglance,tocountatall.ItisEdwardIII’s

replytoPhilip,whentheFrenchkinghasrequestedthatEdwardabandonhisunapproachable

positionoutsideCalaisinordertomeettheFrencharmyincombat.

ThekingofEngland,hearingthesewords,tookcounselandthenrespondedwiththesewords:Iunderstandwellthatyouaskthisofmeonbehalfofmyadversary,whoholdsmyinheritancewrongfully[atort],asitseemstome.TellhimfrommethatIamherebyright[endroit]andhavebeenherealmostayear.Heknewthisquitewell,andcouldhavecomeheresoonerifhehadwishedit.ButhehasletmestaysolongthatIhaveincurredgreatexpense,andIbelievethatIshallverysoonbethelordofCalais.Iamnotmindedtodoanythingforhisconvenience.Tellhimthatifhispeoplecannotpass,theymustseekoutanotherapproach.”ThemessengersoftheFrenchkingsawwellthattherewouldbenootherreply.(SHF1–309)

Heretheclassicpatternisadaptedtothetimeandcircumstance.Edwardopenswiththe

secondstage—therecitalofhisgrievances—andaddsimmediatelyapre-emptivedenialof

Philip’sownrighttoclaimagrievanceinthesamematter:heisherebyrightandPhilipmight,

moreover,havechosentotakehimonatanytimebeforethis,whenEdward’sinvestmentwas

lessandhistacticaladvantagepresumablylesssecure.Thereisahint—butnomorethana

hint—ofstagethree(declarationofconflict)inhisstatementthatheisdeterminednotto

obligePhilip.Thatis,itestablishesthattherelationshipisnotcurrentlyoneofamity,butdoes

notmakethatstatementinemotiveterms.Heconcludeswithavow,thatis,withstagefour.

Notablebytheirabsencearestagesoneandfive—thatis,aninitialexpressionofanger,

andtheemotionalreactionofthosearoundhim,especiallyhisfollowers.Thesetwostages

usuallydomostoftheworkofestablishinganeventasanemotionalone,withstagethree

(hereminimisedbycourtesy)buttressingthecentreofthearc.Froissartadaptsthe

recognisableconfrontationstructureandalmostentirelycleansesitofemotion,oratleastof

passionateemotion.Edward’semotionalunitywithhisfollowersisestablishedbymentionof

thecounselthatprecedeshisreply,andtheeffectivenessofcommunicationbythereactions

oftheFrenchmessengerswhenheisdone,butitisnotnecessaryforhimtostageacomplete

emotionaldisplayinordertoachievethis.ItisnotthatFroissartdisapprovesofroyalemotion

inthesamewaythat,forexample,theAnonimallechroniclerdoes.Rather,hisidealkingisone

whocanwieldemotionasatoolappropriatetothemoment,employingtherecognisable

shapeofascenesuchasthisasaneffectivecommunicativetoolwithorwithouttheaffect


loadingofthescenewiththeburghers.WhetherweconsidertheartistrytobelongtoEdward

ortoFroissart,the“grey-scale”effectofthissceneforeshadowsandheightenstheeffectofthe

full-colour,highlyrhetoricalperformanceofthefinalsceneintheCalaisepisode.

FroissartperformsasimilarsleightofhandattheoutbreakoftheHundredYearsWar

itself,usingthisscripttoinsistontheabsenceofanger,atleastinthesenseofapassionate

negativeemotionalresponse.ForFroissarttheoriginofthewarisentirelychivalric:intalking

toPhilip’smessengersEdwardfindsthathehasnochoicebuttopubliclydeclarethis

relationship’sfailure;Philipsmiles,andspeaksamiablytoeverybody,andeverybodyisvery

pleased.Aswiththetypicalscript,wegothroughthechecklistofmonarch’sbodily

expressions,monarch’svoice,crowd’sresponse,butitisallpositive,angerreplacedwitha

comradelyimpulsetogallantry.Froissartavoidslayingblameorraisingthepossibilityof

criticism,makingthisonemajoroutbreakofwarmoreadmirablethanaffecting(GCF5–22

and5–23).Itisworthnoting,too,thisconfrontation-by-proxydoesnotexistinJeanleBel’s

account:Edwardsimplydecidestopresshisclaim,inconsultationwithhisbarons,andgoes

aboutseekingalliesbeforecommittinghimself.Othersmalleraltercations,suchasthat

betweenthePrinceandtheBishop,retaintheirangrycontent.

Clichédnarrativetropesareclichédforareason.Theclassicsceneoffeudalangerhas

avastbodyofliterary(and,doubtless,real-life)antecedents,butitisnolessvividforthat.In

fact,fullappreciationofitsemotionaleffectdependsontheaudience’sfamiliaritywiththat

culturalscript,withoutwhichtherapidshiftsfromonestagetothenextwouldbelostasthey

areonmostmodernreaders.Theuniversalityofthescenemakesitrecognisable,powerful,

andrealistic(oratleastverisimilar),butalsohighlymalleableinthehandsofaskilledauthor.

Chapter 5. Anger’s opposite

Love and its betrayals

Feudalangerarises,Ihaveclaimed,inresponsetotheviolationofasocialbond.Butwhatis

thenatureofthatbond,andwhatkindsofpersonalrelationshipsaremostlikelytogenerate

anger?ForHenryII,inJordanFantosme’schronicle,itisthemostpowerfulandpersonalbond

inafeudalsystem:thatbetweenaparentandchildwhoarealsolordandvassal.Inthecaseof

ArthurinthealliterativeMorte,itseemsmuchmoredistant:twoindependentrulers,noteven

neighbours,whohaveapparentlyhadverylittletodowitheachotherpersonallyuntilthis

point.Howisit,then,thatthesescenesreadsoveryalike?Or,toputitanotherway,howare

feudalloveandangerfelt,thatthesetwoscenesshouldfollowalmostexactlythesame

emotionalscript?

Defining feudal love

Toconsiderthis,wefirstneedtolayawidervarietyofexamplesonthetable.RichardBarton

openshischapterinAnger’sPastwithahistoricalexampleofadisputeinnorthwestFrance,

1120,whichreadsveryliketheliteraryexamplesunderconsiderationhere.Inthecharter

recordingtheincidentthelord,Juhel,writesthatoneofhismenrefusedhisrequestto

contributelandtoanewpriory.Atthispoint,“havingbecomegreatlyangeredwithhim,Isaid

hewasmyserf(colibertus)andIwasabletosellhimorburnhisland,orgiveittowhomeverI

mightwantasbefitthelandofmyserf;andrisingagainsthim,Iwouldhavelaidviolenthands

onhimhadnotClementia,mywife...andmanyotherhonestmenforcefullyusheredmeinto

theinnerchamber”.40Asitturnsout,GuarinusProbuswasnot,technically,Juhel’sserf:Juhel’s

fatherhadenfranchisedhimwithoutJuhel’sconsent,butasJuhelhadbeenofageatthetime

hefeltthisenfranchisementwasinvalid.Bartonlocatesthecoreoftheconflictinthistension

overthenatureoftherelationship,arguingthatthematterofthepriorylandservedonlyas

anoccasionforbothpartiestobringitintothelightandrenegotiatethetermsofthat

relationship(154).Bartonalsocitesotherincidentswithasimilarpattern,fromcharters,

40CartulaireManceaudeMarmoutier,ed.ErnestLaurain(Laval:Goupil,1945),2:15–17;citedinBarton153.


chronicles,andothersourcesthatrovebackandforthacrossthatmurkyconceptualborder

betweencharterrecordsandliteraryinterpretation.Someofhisexamplesinvolveafamilial

relationship—WilliamofMalmesbury’saccountofthedisputebetweenCountFulkofAnjou

andhissonisone.Others,suchasthatofJuhelandGuarinusProbus,donot.Nevertheless,in

allcasesthedisputearisesoutofadesire(usuallymutual)tore-negotiatethetermsofthe

relationship.Thenatureoftherelationshipremainsmoreimportantthantheactualpointof

contention,andinthemomentofresolution,thefocusisnotonwhowonorthenatureofthe

prize,butonthereaffirmationofthatbond:

[Fulk],whoseoldanimositystillthrobbed,roseup,andkickingGeoffreyashelay,repeatedthreeorfourtimes“Youareconquered,conqueredatlast.”Hisspiritsurvivedbeingconquered,andindeedwassodistinguished,thatheresponded“Byyoualonefather,becauseyouaremyfather,amIconquered;byallothersIamunconquered.”Withhisswollensoulmollified[tumentisanimusemollitus]bythisspeech,Fulkcomfortedtheshameofhischildwithpaternalcompassionandrestoredhimtohisprincipality.41

ToBarton,angerisproductive:itisatoolforrenegotiatingafeudalrelationship,themeansby

whichcharacters(historicalorliterary)movethroughconflictoranunsatisfactory

relationshiptoanewaffirmationofthatbond.

Iagree,sofarasthisgoes;butitisalsotruethat,forthistobeeffective,thestateof

angermustbeconceptualisedastheoppositeofthatbond,notmerelyatoolforits

negotiation.ConsiderthefamousepisodebetweenUtherandGorloiswrittenbyWilliamof

Malmesbury’scontemporary,GeoffreyofMonmouth(184–85).Uther,desiringGorlois’wife

Igerna,lavishespointedattentiononher.WhenGorloisnotices,he“angrilystorm[s]outof

courtwithoutpermission[confestimiratus…recessit].Noonecouldcallhimback,sincehe

fearedtolosethethinghevaluedaboveallelse”:probablynothiswife,asamodernromantic

readingwouldassume,buthishonour.AngryatUther’stransgression,Gorloistransgresses

therulesoftheirrelationshipinresponsebyleavingwithoutpermission.Utherreturnslike

foremotionallike,“angrilycommand[ing]himtoreturntocourt,intendingtopunishhimfor

theslighthehadinflicted”:thatis,hemeanstomendtherelationshipbyputtingGorlois

firmlybackintohisplace.“WhenGorloisrefused,Utherwasenragedandsworetoravagehis

provinceifhedidnotcomplyimmediately”—soWrighttranslatesit,butMichaelFaletra’s

“unlessthedukegavehimimmediatesatisfaction”isclosertotheLatin:“nisiad

41WilliamofMalmesbury,DeGestisRegumAnglorum,LibriQuinque,ed.WilliamStubbs,RollsSeries90(London1889),2:292.CitedandtranslatedbyBarton(164).


satisfactionemfestinasset”,Geoffreywrites,hisfocusstillfirmlyonmakingtheappropriate

movestorestoresomekindofequilibriumbetweenthetwomen(GeoffreyofMonmouth

trans.Faletra158).“Manentepredictairaintereos”—literally,“withtheaforesaidanger

remainingbetweenthem,”withthesameemotionalandpoliticalstatecontinuingtogovern

theirrelationship—thekingsetsaboutravagingGorlois’landsaspromised.Gorloisdaresnot

facehim:hefortifieshisstrongholds,seekshelpfromIreland,belatedlythinksofhiswife,

putsherinTintagelandgoeshimselftoDimilioc.WhenUtherhearsofthis,hedoesnotrush

toTintagel:rather,hegoestobesiegeDimilioc.“Afteralongweekhadpassed,herecalledhis

passionforIgernaandsummonedUlfinofRidcaradoc”,andthetaleofIgerna’sseductionand

Arthur’sconceptionresumes(GeoffreyofMonmouthtrans.Wright184–85).Todayweare

accustomedtoreadthisasastoryofromanceorrape,focussingontheheterosexual

relationship(andthechildwhoresults).ButIgernaisofminimalimportanceinGeoffrey’s

account,evenasanobjectoftransaction.Utherevenmanagestoforgetherentirelyforsome

time:allhisfocus,untilhearrivesatTintagel,isonthefeudalbondwithGorlois.

ButsurelytheburghersofCalaisarenottobereadasEdwardIII’svassals?Andthere

areverysimilarexamplesthroughoutFroissart.IhavealreadymentionedtheBlackPrince’s

angeragainsttheBishopofLimoges:consideralsohisbehaviourtowardtheCardinalof

PérigordaftertheBattleofPoitiers.Beforethebattle,thecardinalhadledattemptsat

mediationbetweentheFrenchandtheEnglish,butwhenmediationfailedhehadallowed

someofhisownmentofightagainsttheEnglish.Withthebattledone,theBlackPrincesends

theCardinalthebodyofhisslaughterednephewonashield.Lestwethinkthiswasmotivated

bysomeimproperemotionalresponse,Froissartarbitratesbetweeneventandinterpretation

andprovidesuswiththepropermeaning:

Nowsomewouldsaythathehadactedinmockery,butIwilltellyouwhatmovedhimtodothis.HehadalreadylearntthatsomeoftheCardinal’speoplehadstayedonthebattlefieldtofightontheotherside,whichwasquiteimproperaccordingtoalltherulesofwar.ThosewhobelongtotheChurchandattemptingoodfaithtomediatebetweentwosidesshouldnottakeuparmsinfavourofeither,forobviousreasons.ItwasbecausethesehaddonesothatthePrincewasindignantwiththeCardinalandsenthimhisnephew’sbody,asjustrelated(SHF1–386).

TheprinceuseshisangertomakepublicdisplayofthewrongsthattheBishophascommitted

againstthe“rulesofwar”andhisownrolewithinitasmediatorbetweenthetwosides.Itis

theserulesthatdefinetheirrelationshipandhadpreviouslyboundthem“ingoodfaith”.In

thesameway,theBlackPrince’sangeragainstthebishopofLimogescentresnotonthe


Bishop’sactionsbutonthefactthattheybetraythefamilialbondtheyoughttohave.What

remainsconsistentbetweentheseanecdotesisthatthesourceoftheangerispersonal.Thisis

notjust“youshouldnothavebehavedinthisway”but“youshouldnothavebehavedinthis

waytowardsme”.

Ihavementionedalreadythat“angerarose”(andvariants)isthemostcommon

phrasingfortheoutbreakofwar.StephenWhitehasnoticedthistoo,andthefactthatits

resolutioniscalledareturntolove(“PoliticsofAnger”144).Wesee,forexample,EdwardII

andtheEarlofLancastertemporarilyreconcilewithpublickissesandembraces(GB10)—not

simplyahypocriticalperformanceofalovetheydonotfeel,butadeclarationtothe

communityandeachotherthattheirmutualangerhasnowbeenassuaged,andlovehas

resumed.Loveistheidealamitythatoughttoexistbetweenthepartiesaccordingtotheir

bond.

TheKingLeiroftheBruttraditionfailstounderstandthisofhisdaughters,inan

episodewhichhighlightsthetransactionalnatureoftherelationship,butwhichalso

exemplifiesinCordeilethebehaviourpropertothis“love”evenwhereFortunefails(Brut17–

20).CordeilesaysthatshelovesLeir“asmicheasmeoweþtolouemyfader;andfortobring

ȝowmoreincerteynehowlouegoþ,Ishalȝoutelle,for-as-micheasȝebeneworþe,asmuche

shalȝebenelouede”(17).Inanger,hedivideshisworth(hislands)betweenRiganand

GonorilleandgivesnothingtoCordeile(17).Onceheisreducedtopoverty,Leircomesto

recognisethetruthofCordeile’swords,andherownrealworth:“whenywasryche,allemen

mehonouredeandworsshepede;andnoweuerymanhathofmescorneanddespite!…[and

soIletCordeile]gonfromeasaþingþatysettelitelprisof”(19).Hegoesinsecretandin

ragstoCordeile(nowqueenofFrance),whohearshisstoryandgiveshimmoney—sothathe

cangoawayagainandbathe,andfithimselfwiththerightwardrobeandretinuetovisithis

daughterasaking.Thenheisreceivedwith“michelhonour”,hisdaughterandson-in-lawre-

conquerhislandinhisname,andCordeileinheritsafterhim.

Cordeileisapowerfulfigurefordefiningthenatureoffeudallove—rememberthatin

thatstorytoothedaughtersarenotonlydaughtersbutvassals,rebelliousorfaithful.This

episodeisrelativelyshort,butithasastrongfoundationalroleinthechronicleasawhole

(andtothenation,asLeirisoneoftheseriesofearlykingsforwhomkeyplacesarenamed).

KennethTillerexaminesitfromthispointofview,arguingthatit“addressesfundamental

questionsofsuccessionandtherelationshipofsuccessfulinterpretationtoleadership”—and,


consequently,totheroleofhistoricalwritingitself(157).42The“love”inthisstoryis

constructedinparallelwiththosebetweenEdwardIIIandtheburghersofCalais,orArthur

andtheRomanmessengers,butitishyperbolic,asbefitsafable.Itisalessoninfeudallove

anditsfailures;andittellsusagooddealabouthowtheserelationshipsareconceptualised

andhowdeeplypersonalwarandangercouldbe.

Feudal love as a negotiating tool

DidtheBlackPrincelovetheBishopofLimogesortheCardinalofPérigordbeforeeach

momentofanger?Wemightbelievethattherewasatleastsomeformalisedlovebetween

UtherandGorlois,butsurelyKingArthurdidnotlovetheEmperorofRome?Toanswerthis

wemustreviseourdefinitionof“love”aswehavealreadydonewithitsopposite,fromour

internalised,heart-and-minddefinitiontosomethinggroundedprimarilyinpublic,social

networks.Whileitisinacertainsenseaformalbond,thisneednotmeanthatitisimpersonal,

insincere,orsuperficial.Rather,itmeansthatalltheseloves—lordandvassal,fatherand

child,Godandhumanity—aremodelledtothesameconceptualshape.Otherlessuneven

relationships,suchasthosebetweenArthurandtheEmperor,ortheBlackPrinceandthe

CardinalofPérigord,seemtobecapableofemulatingthispowerfullyresonant

characterisation,especiallywhenunderstress.Inotherwords,theselovesareallthesame

“shape,”thoughtheymayvaryintheirstrength.Theangerthatheraldstheirviolation,

therefore,isalsoconsistent.Acrosstheentireliterarycorpusmorenarrativespacewillbe

giventothemoreemotionallypowerfulexamplesofthemodel—especiallythoseinvolving

family—notbecausetheyareexceptionalbutbecausetheyarerepresentative,modellingan

emotionalstyleandprovidingcatharsisinthemostpowerfulpossibletermsforany

equivalentbetrayalintheaudience’sownlives.

What,then,isthenatureofEdwardIII’srelationshipwithCalais?Thefirststatement

wehaveonthesubjectisfromEdwardIIIhimself,intheretorttoPhilipthatwehavealready

42TillerisexaminingLaȝamon’sBrut,nottheMiddleEnglishproseBrutthatIamdiscussinghere(alatefourteenth-centurytranslationofoneoftheAnglo-Normanredactions).SomeofhiscommentsarespecifictoLaȝamon’sversion,bycomparisontoGeoffreyofMonmouth’sandWace’stexts,buthisgeneralobservationsaboutthefunctionoftheLeirstoryinthebroadernarrativeholdtrueacrossalloftheseversions.


examined(SHF1–309).Hejustifieshisactionsonthegroundsthata)Calais(orpossibly

France)ispartofhisheritagebyrightandthatPhilipiskeepingitfromhim“atort”;b)aform

ofsquatter’srights,insofarashehasbeencampedinfrontofCalais“presd’unan”andPhilip

hasnotyettriedtodislodgehim;andc)thelevelofhisinvestment,thathehas“despendu

grossementdumien”.Allofthesetogetherseemtoadduptoasortofclaim;andcuriously,of

thethree,thefirstone(whichmightappeartohavethemostweightintermsoflegitimation)

receivestheleastnarrativeemphasis.Itisnevermentionedagain.Froissartdoesmention

Edward’sgenealogicalclaimtoFrancelessthanseveralotherchroniclers(especiallythe

Englishones)buthereitseemslessacaseoftactfullyavoidingthatissueforhisFrench-

alignedreaders,andmorethatitsimply,genuinely,doesnotmatter.ForFroissart—andfor

Edwardhere—inheritanceisnotthebasisofhisclaimtoCalais.Outofthethreereasonsthat

Edwardlistshere,theonethatisrepeatedmostoftenbythenarratorandcharactersishis

investment:eitherintimeandresources,ashere,orinthelivesofhismenatmomentsof

heightenedrhetoricandfeeling.

Thispassage,however,comesinthecontextofanexchangewithPhilip,whichis

shapedasanotherangerevent,albeitoneofloweraffect.Intoneandstructure,therefore,it

hasmoretodowiththerelationshipbetweenthetwokingsthanbetweenEdwardandCalais.

ThequestionofwhetherornotEdwardcanstandinalordlyrelationshiptoCalaisdoesnot

ariseinanymeaningfulsenseinthisscene.Itisaclearpointofcontention,however,inthe

veryfirstexchangebetweenJeandeVienne(representingthecity)andWalterManny(on

behalfoftheking).“Dearsirs,”saysJeandeVienne,“youareverynobleknightsand

accomplishedatarms.AndyouknowthattheKingofFrancehassentushereand

commandedustoholdthiscityandthiscastle,suchthatthereshouldbenodishonour

[blasme]tousandnoharm[dommage]tohisinterests:wehavedoneourbest”(SHF1–311).

HisfirstconcernistoestablishthatCalaishasdonerightbyherlordandking—andbydoing

so,toassertthattheystandinrelationtoPhilip,nottoEdward.HadMannyacceptedthis

openingstatementCalaiswouldhavebeenacceptedasPhilip’speople,actingrightbytheir

lordandnotpersonallyanswerable,certainlynotguiltyofthekindofpersonalwrongtoward

Edwardthatmightjustlyincurfeudalanger.

But,asStephenWhitepointsout,onecharacteristicoffeudalanger—whenperformed

byalord—isitsabilitytocontrolthediscourseof“justice”,toprovebyitsveryexistencethat

awronghasoccurred.WalterMannyimmediatelyrejectsthegroundsofferedbyJeande

Vienne,denyingCalais’righttonegotiateonequalterms.TheymustcometoEdwardas

petitionersonly,hesays,makingnorequestsortermsbutthrowingthemselvesonhis


mercy—becausejustastheoppositeofangerislove,oncejusticeisinvokeditscounterpartis

mercy.WhetherornotEdward’slegalclaimtoCalaishasanygrounds,hehasthepowerto

insistonconductingthisbusinessasalordpunishinganerringdependant;andbyaccepting

thisdiscourse,Calaismakesitinevitablethateventswillplayoutinthoseterms.Manny,for

EdwardIII,speaksofCalais’scitizensasofrebels:“thepeopleofCalaishavedonetohimsuch

contrairesandcosthimsoinmoneyandinlives”thathemustnaturallyrespondwiththefull

forceofhisanger(SHF1–311).Edward’sangerisnotonlyajustificationforhisbehaviour:it

isalegalandpersonalreasonforshiftingCalaisfromapotentialnegotiatortoaproventraitor

whoseonlyhopeisforamercifullord.Theserelationshipsareaboutmorethanlegalities.

Mutualacknowledgementisapowerfulforce:ifbothpartiesbehaveasifEdwardhastheright

ofalord,thensohedoes.

Itwascommonpracticeforacitytobedeniedanymercyinsurrenderifithadheldout

againstaggressors.Thecuriousthingaboutthisepisodeisthatnobodyissocrassastoinvoke

thattradition—atleastinthoseterms.FromJeandeVienne’scarefulemphasisonCalais’duty

toPhilip,toEdwardIII’sbetrayedanger,thenarratorandallthecharactersareanxiousto

figuretheepisodeintermsofafeudalrelationship,towhichthenegotiationsofloveand

angermayapply.Thereisnoenmitybetweenthepartieshere,nosenseofrealalterity,with

itsconsequentdehumanisationandthedelightinpracticalbrutalityandriches.Theyare,

instead,erringfriends.Everybodyinthisglossychivalricworldis“oursortofpeople”:a

convenientfictionwhichoriginatesinthewordsofJeanleBel,Froissart’ssourceforthese

earlyyears,butwhichissustainedandstrengthenedthroughoutFroissart’soriginalwork.In

onesense,thefeudalbonds(whichwould,underusualcircumstances,definearelatively

smallcommunity)haveheretobeextendedacrosscontinentsandevensocialstratadueto

themassivescaleofthewar.IntheCalaisepisodeweseearelationshipwhichcouldhave

beendefinedbytherulesofhonourandwarrefiguredassomethingcloser,morepersonal,

allowingtheauthor(thechroniclers,and/orEdwardIIIhimself)tousethatemotionalscript

whichisbothmorepowerfulandmorepersuasive.Ifthekingcandirectfeudalangertoward

Calais,thatangerjustifieshisactions,reinforcinghisclaimsandlegitimisinghisrevenge,

whilealsoallowingforthepossibilityofmercywithoutweakness.

Thislegitimatingfunctionwouldbeenoughonitsowntojustifythisfiguringforthe

episode.However,itisnotanisolatedimpulseinJeanleBel’swork,andstilllessin

Froissart’s.Readinthecontextofbothchroniclesasawhole,theuseofaglorifiedversionof

thescriptoffeudalangerseemsmorelikeawholesaleattempttocontrolandcontainthe

chaoticbrutalityofwarbyshapingitintosomethingwhich,ifitisnotquiteagame,mayat


leastbegovernedbycivilisedandamiablerelationships;inwhichviolenceiscontainedby

rulesandultimatelyservesthepurposeofresolutionandareturntolove.

Chapter 6. A proportionate response

Counsel, intercession, and emotional leadership

Tomostchroniclers,angerisnotnecessarilyasin,solongasitisproportionatetothecause.

AsRalucaRadulescuhasdemonstratedwithreferencetotheworkofThomasMalory,alack

of“mesure”inanyemotionalresponseattractsmorecriticismandconcernthanthetypeof

emotionitself(“Outofmesure”).WehavealreadyseenhowRaouldeCambrai’sangerwas

consideredlaudablebyhiscompanions,untilitbecameexcessive.Thereisnostable

consensus,however,onwhatcountsas“excessive”.Eachangereventmustbejudgedon

internalclues.Anauthormayinterpretforusexplicitly,withadirectnarratorialstatement,

butjustasoften,thereaderislefttoobserveotheremotionsignsanddrawtheirown

conclusions.Inparticular,theansweringemotionsofothercharactersplayacrucialrolein

determiningaproportionateemotionalresponse.

Emotional leadership

Outofthefivestagesoftheemotionscriptoffeudalanger,thelastoneisthemostimportant

forinterpretingthescene.Friendsandenemieswillallrespondtothefeudalangerofa

powerfulleader.Ideally,enemieswillbemovedtofear,andfollowerstothesameangeras

theirlord.Thisresponseguidesthereader’sownreaction,demonstratingtothemwhethera

giveninstanceoffeudalangershouldbereadassociallyfunctionalordysfunctional.

Iusetheterm“sociallyfunctional”because,inmostcases,“right”and“wrong,”with

theirimplicationsofaresolvablemoralisticdiscourse,areoflittleuseinevaluatingfeudal

anger.Thekeyquestionisnotwhetherthisinstanceofangerwouldcountasasinbythelogic

ofanyparticularmedievaltheologian(say,AquinasorCassian),buthowitworksonand

withinthenetworkofexistingsocialrelationshipsthatmakeupthecommunitywithinthe

story.Emotionalcontagion—thatis,sharingone’semotionswithone’sfollowers,orinspiring

fearfulrespectinone’senemies—isacrucialskillinamedievalleader.

WehavealreadyseenHenryII’sfollowerssharinghisfeelingsandechoinghisvows,

andthewaythisservestounitethemintoasinglemilitaryandemotionalbodyagainstthe


enemy.Thereisamorecompactexamplenotlongbeforethisscene,whentheFrenchare

frightenedatthenewsthatoneoftheirnumberhasbeencaptured:although“theheartofthe

boldesttremblesandmissesabeat”,“hewhoeverleadsthemallstrengthenstheirresolution:

hisheartisfullofangerandhisbloodboilswithrage”(Fantosmelaisse22).Scenesofaheroic

leaderinspiringbattlefuryinhismenarefamiliar:forexample,“seeingtheirkingfightingso

valiantly,theBritonstookheart[audatiamcapessunt]andalltogetherassaultedtheRomans,

closingranksastheyadvanced”(GeoffreyofMonmouthtrans.Wright247).Imentioned

severaloftheseexamplesinChapter2,wherewesawalord’scourtoraknight’sfriendsshare

inhisshamedanger.Angersarenottheonlycommunicableclusterofemotions,asIwill

discussinmoredetailinSectionC,butwhenitcomestonarrativedepictionsoffeudalanger,

contagionoritsabsenceplaysavitalroleindiscussingthedynamicsofsocialpower.

Froissart’sEdwardIII,naturally,caninspirebattlefury(SHF1–274andelsewhere),

buthealsoappearsasthecentreofthevigorous,valorouscourt:“theKingwasenjoyingthis

gaietyandhisknightswerecheerfulatseeinghimsocheerful”(“moultliet…leveoientsy

joieus”,SHF1–324).Evenindeathhehasthepowertocentrecommunalemotiononhisroyal

body:

TherewasgreatsorrowinEngland…ThecorpseofKingEdwardwascarriedinagrandprocession,withweepingandtears,followedbyhischildren,thenoblesandprelatesofEngland,allthroughthecityofLondon,withitsfaceuncovered,toWestminsterwherehewasentombedwithLadyPhilippahiswife.(SHF1A–778)

Similarly,theever-superlativeCharlemagnecausesahundredthousandFrenchmentoshare

hisviolentdemonstrationsofgriefathisnephew’sdeath(Rolandlaisse207).Theseare

sociallyfunctionalemotions,whatevertheemotionsharedmaybe.Strikingfearintothe

heartsoftheappropriatepeople—asArthurdoesinthealliterativeMorte,andasEdwardIII

doeswhenfacedwiththeburghersofCalais—maybeconsideredasthesamequality,the

sameabilitytoleadtheheartsofone’speople.

Dysfunctionalanger—infact,dysfunctionalemotioningeneral—isusuallymarkedby

thefollowers’inabilitytosharefullyintheleader’semotions,orbytheleadermakingno

attempttoconnectwiththematall.InChapter3wesawtwochroniclersdealingwithEdward

II’sfailuresofemotionalleadership,usuallyclassinghisfeelingsasisolatedorinappropriate.

RaouldeCambrai,asImentionedinChapter2,providesaclassicexampleoffailurebyexcess.

Whenthetitlecharacterbeginshisanger-fuelledwaragainsthisenemies,hismenfully

supporthim,feelinghisragewithhim(laisses32–35).Eventuallyhisrageprogressesbeyond

theboundsoftheacceptable,untilbythetimeheattacksOrignyhismenobeyonlybecause


theydarenotdisobeyhim(laisses60–68).ThisrecallsthewarningofSirWalterManny,when

headvisesEdwardIIInottopursuefullvengeanceagainstCalais.Mannythreatenstheking

notsomuchwithreprisalsfromhisenemiesaswithasimilarlossofemotionalunitywithhis

men:“Ifyoushouldchoosetosendustoholdoneofyourfortressesweshouldgolesswillingly

ifyouputthesepeopletodeathasyousay,becausethesamemaybedonetousinasimilar

case”(SHF1–311,emphasismine).ReprisalsagainstEdward’smenwouldbeareal

possibility,buttoManny(andpresumablyEdward)therealharmwouldbenotthepotential

lossesbutthenewunwillingnessoftheEnglishtoenterwholeheartedlyintotheirking’s

cause.

SirWalterManny’sthreatiseffectivepreciselybecausethefigureofEdwardIIIat

Calaisissuchamodelofemotionalleadership:hecancommandtheemotionalresponseofhis

followers,ofhisenemies,andevenofhisreaders.Wefirstseehim,intheCalaissequence,

constructingamarvellousencampmentaroundCalais,completewithmarketandcomfortable

lodgingsforhisarmythroughwinter(SHF1–288).Whentheburghersareledtohimitisa

magnificentandpublicscene:theimpressionisofrichnessandpower.Edwardissurrounded

byvaliantnobility,whofollowhisemotionallead:a“grantcompaigniedecontes,debaronset

dechevaliers”(SHF1–312).EverybodyonthescenefeelsnottheemotionthatEdward

does—theanger—buttheemotionthathemeanstoinspireinthem,apitysostrongthatthey

weep.Heisthecentreandtheoriginofamagnificentunity,inwhichthereaderisinvitedto

takepart.Severaltimesthroughoutthesequence,andmostnotablyintheclimacticscene,we

hearsomethingalongthelinesof“therewasnonoblepersontherewhocouldrefrainfrom

weeping”.Thisidealisedcommunalemotionalityistheresultandevidenceoftheirnobility—

and,moreover,thereaderisencouragedtoshareinit,tobeapartofthataudience.Affect

reachesbeyondthepagewhenthechroniclerrepeatedlyturnsfromthesemomentstosay

that“therecouldnotbeaheartintheworldsohardthatitwouldnothavewepttoseethat

sight”.Whetherweconsiderthisasaninstructionalguidetonobleemotionalityoracheap

ploytointensifythereader’semotionalresponse,itseffectmustbetoallowthereaderto

imagine,astheyreadorhearthistale,thattheyarethemselvesapartofthesceneandcanfeel

withallthosenoblelordsandladies—thatthepowerofEdwardIII’semotionalleadership,for

thismoment,extendstothemtoo.


Counsel: determining the proportionate response

Manny’swordsinvokethepossibilityoffailure:foramomenttheghostofroyalexcessand

abusedpowerisraised,andlaidopentodiscussionbyreadersandcharacters.“Reininyour

heart,sir,”Mannysaystohim:“Youareknownforsovereigngentilesseandnoblesse:donot

nowdoanythingthatwillmarit,ortoassociateyournamewithvillainy”(SHF1–312).

EdwardIIIismobilisinginhisaudiencethedesiredemotionalresponse,certainly;butitisa

perilouslinetotread,raisingthestakesinvolvedandemphasisingthepotentialforcruelty.

Hisfollowersdonotsharehisangeragainsttheburghers,butareweeping,beggingtheking

tochangehismind.Thisvariantonthescriptinitiatesthepublicdisplayofcounselor

intercessiontocurbthewrathofaking.Itstraddlesthelinebetweenthepositivefeudalanger

ofHenryIIandthetyrannousexcessesofRaouldeCambrai,andiseffectivepreciselybecause

theoutcomeisnotpre-ordained.

Thisuncertaintyisharnessedbyacounselscene,inwhichtheproportionateresponse

maybeexplicitlydiscussedanddecided.“Proportionate”isthekeywordhere:inmostcases,

theangerisnottobesoothedawayaltogether.Feudalangerisanimportanttoolforalate-

medievalruler,butitisalsoimportanttoallowone’sangertobetemperedbywisecounsel.

Thecounselscenenames—and,ifsuccessful,contains—thespectreofuncontrolledand

excessivewrath,andthediscordbetweenlordandfollowersthatwouldresult.Itinvokesand

dramatisesthepossibilityofexcess,withoutallowingittobecomedisruptive.Thisisnota

failureofthebaronstofollowthelord’semotionallead,butratheranexampleofthemall

workingtogethertoachieveemotionalunity.

Mediationisnotalwayssuccessful.RaouldeCambraiexploresaworldinwhichthat

discordhasbeenunleashedandragesuncontrollablyfromcharactertocharacter,pageto

page.Despitedozensofscenesofcounselandattemptedmediation,inwhichonecharacteror

anothershowsatleastagrudgingwillingnesstocompromise,thewar-tornsocietycannot

pullitselfbackfromviolence.Bartonfindsthatthemostremarkableaspectofthetextis“not

theprevalenceofangerandviolence,whichwerealwaysassociatedwithdisputes,butrather

theconstantfailureofattemptsatmediationandcompromise…Thattheseattempts

continuallyfailistherealtragedyofthestory”(168andfootnote).Tragic,yes,butthesheer

numberofcounselsceneshasanotherfunction:notonlydotheyoffer(andcontinuallydeny)

thepossibilityofreconciliation,buttheyservetoarticulateanddiscussthefactofexcessive

anger,andtheroleofcounselinmanagingit.Eveninthiswar-tornsociety,atnopointdothe

mediatingpartiessuggestthattheknightsorlordsinquestionoughtnotbeangryatall.“Lord


Raoul,”hisknightstellhim,atoneofthereconciliationattempts,“[Bernier]hasgoodcausefor

grievance:hehasservedyouwithhissteelbladeandyouhaverewardedhimterribly…May

Godourjudgeconfoundwhoeverblameshimforwantingrevenge”(laisse85).Thereisno

sensethatanger,orevenviolenceandwar,areintrinsicallynegative.Instead,thefocusison

negotiatingtheexactlevelofatonementorreparationthatisduetoassuagethatanger.That

is,theangeris(oroughttobe)quantified,negotiatedwithone’speers,andbroughtbackinto

thecontrolofthecommunity.

Attimesthesenegotiationscanbecomeopenlytransactional,calculatingtheworthof

emotionagainstcommodity,ritual,andgift.Inthescenequotedabove,Raouloffers

compensationbymeansofpreciselyquantifiedhumiliation:“FromOrignyasfarasthetown

ofNesle—fourteenleagues,itisrightthatIshouldspellitout—eachoneof100knightsshall

carryhissaddle,andIwillcarryyoursonmyhead.IshallbeleadingBaucent,myCastilian

charger,andIshallnotmeetsomuchasaman-at-armsoryounggirlwithouttellingthem,

‘ThisisBernier’ssaddle!’”(vv.1593–1599).Theinsistenceonevaluatingpersonalemotional

tiesinfinelycalculatedmaterialtermsrecallstheepisodeofCordeileandLeirintheBrut

tradition,althoughthereisnomisinterpretationhereoftheintent.EverybodyhailsRaoul’s

offerashandsomeandappropriate,andtherethemattermightend;but,likeLeir,Bernier

deniestheequivalencebetweenemotionandmoney.Hewillnotallowanykindofpricetobe

putonhiswildanger,not“allthegoldinAquilance”(v.1606).Hisrefusaltomaketerms

leaveshimstillatoddswithRaoulandangersGuerriandthearmy;andsothefeudspiralson

outward.

Thecounselsceneinchansondegesteandchronicleisanexternalisedformofself-

moderation,groundedwithintheimmediatecommunity.Inanothersense,fromanarrative

pointofview,itisalsoaperfectliterarysetpiece:itservestodisplaytheauthor’srhetorical

skills,andprovidesanopportunityforeveryimportantcharactertospeaktheirpiece.Ifany

ofthesecharactersarestillalivethiscanalsobeamomentforflattery(orsatire).Butitisalso

agoodsetsceneforexploringandconfirmingtherelationshipbetweenkingandcounsellors:

itoffersachancefortheauthortoforeground,discuss,andmoraliseupontheroleand

dangersoffeudalangeranditsdestructivepotential.StephenWhiteobservesthatthese

“conventionalizedarguments”are“acommonmotifinhistories,biographies,charters,and

chansonsdegeste”,usedtodramatisethesociallygeneratedchangefromanger(149).While

thisistruesofarasitgoes,itassumesthattheangeritselfisanegativething,atemporary

aberrationtobesoothedawaybythecommunity.Inmostcases,asIhavesaid,theangeris

notremovedsomuchasmoderatedanddirected:counselprovidesnotachangeawayfrom


thatemotionitselfbutfromitsharmfulpotential,towardsasociallyusefulandunifyingforce.

Anger,war,andviolencebecomedysfunctionalonlywhenthesecommunalnegotiationsfail

tocontainthepassionsofindividuals.

Inmostscenesofthetype,thecounsellors’aimistoadjustthelord’saffectfurther

awayfromanger(oratleastfromexcessiveanger),inthedirectionofcompromiseand

forgiveness.Butoccasionallyitisnecessarytodotheopposite:tostimulateaslothful,stupid,

orunknowinglordontoangeragainstthosewhodeserveit(sometimesbyusingprovocative

speechtopromptshamedanger).Earlierinthestory,inRaoul’syouth,hismotheranduncle

mustadvisehimtoincreasehisangerinresponsetopeopleencroachingonhisrights.Thisis

excusable:Raoulisyoung,andhelearnssoonenough(toowell!)nottotoleratesuchslights.

TheAnonimallechroniclerisnotsoforgivingwhenitcomestoEdwardII.In1318,herelates,

amannamedJohnPoydrascametoOxfordandclaimedtobetherealheirtoEngland’s

throne,callingEdwardIIanimpostor.

Hewastoldtoceasetalkofthiskindwhichtouchedsuchgreatmattersandherepliedthathewouldnotdoso…BecauseofthishewastakentoNorthamptontotheking’sparliamentandtherehewasexaminedabouthisclaim,andbeforeeveryonehemaintainedhiscontentionineverythinghesaidandstatedopenlyandconfidentlythatheoughttobekingbyrightandreason.ThosewhoweresaidtobehisfatherandmotheratExeterweresummonedtothekingatthesaidparliament...Andforfearofdeath,theydidnotdaretosayotherwisethanthathewastheirsonbegottenbetweenthem.Thekingdidnotwishtohavehimputtodeathbutorderedthathebegivenaclub,inEnglisha“bauble”,andthathegoaroundasafool,butcertainlordswhoweretheredidnotwishtoacceptthisbutwantedhimtobeputtodeath,withtheresultthathewasdrawnandhanged...concerningwhichtherewasmuchtalkonewayoranother.(94–95)

Theking’samusementcontrastswiththeconcernexpressedbyeveryothervoice—including

thatofthechronicler.Theonlyothercharacterwhoseemsnottorealisethegravityofthe

situationisJohnPoydrashimself,thefoolandimpostorwhothreatenstochangeidentities

withtheking.Thelordsareobligedtooverruletheirkingandenforceroyaljustice

themselves:theyrecogniseinfringementontheking’srights,theviolationofthatrelationship,

whenthekinghimselfwillnot.EdwardII,inthistext,feelsinappropriateangerat

inappropriatetimes,andcannotbemovedtoproperlordlyangerevenwhenheought.


Intercession: Justice and mercy

Apublicdisplayofcounsel,then,dramatisesandexternalisestheadjustmentofthelord’s

emotionalresponsetothecorrectpointbetweentwoopposingoptions.ButPhilippaatCalais

doesnotcounsel:shepleads.Intercessionissubtlydifferent.Anintercessorneednotbea

trustedadvisor,asacounselloris.Theintercessorpleads,ratherthanadvising:theyasknot

moderationbutmercy.Mercy,asIsuggestedearlier,istheoppositeofjustice,whichisnot

quitesynonymouswithanger.Atthispoint,justiceisthecorrectamountofangerthathas

alreadybeenagreed:mercypermitsthatangertobereducedwithoutweakness.Theperson

makingtherequestpositionsthemselvesasweak.Theymaybeasubject,ortheymaybean

enemy,orapowerfulfriend.Themorepowerfulthesupplicant,themoreeffectiveistheir

self-abasement.Aqueenisthemosteffectivesupplicant.Shecombinesthisdramatic

humblingwithatraditionalintercessoryroleandthepermissiontoembodythegentler

qualitiesofleadership.So,earlyinthereignofEdwardIII,wehaveanincidentwhenthe

ladies’stagingcollapsesatajoust,throwingQueenPhilippaandtheking’ssisterEleanor“and

othergreatladiesoftheland”totheground,causingseveralinjuries.

Thissuddenaccidentwasduetothefaultofthecarpenters.Thekingofhisfreewillandgraciousmercy[desafranchevolenteetgraciousegrace]andthroughtheprayersoftheladythequeenpardonedthefault,andhadpeaceandloveproclaimedeverywhere,andthatnooneshouldbeinanywayscaredorafraid.Andthekingorderedthequeen...tomountherpalfreyquicklyandtorideupanddownthelineswithagoodcountenancetoreassurethepeople[ovebelesemblaunt,aconforterlepoeple].Thestagingwhichfellsosuddenlywasrepairedatnightandwasmadestrongenoughsothatthenextdaythegamewascontinuedinanoblemanner.(Anonimalle146–47)

Carefultodrawacontrastbetweentheyoungparagonofkinglyvirtueandhischaoticfather,

theauthordoesnotsaythatEdwardIIIgrowsangryatthecarpenters.Even“justice”isonly

impliedbyitshastilyinvokedcounterpart,mercy,andbythechronicler’sassignmentofthe

faulttothecarpenters.Theemphasisisinsteadontheking’svirtueinallowinghisimplied

wrathtobetemperedinto“graciousegrace”byhisqueen—andonhissubsequentcareforthe

emotionsofthecommunity,banishingfearandproclaiming“peespartut,etamour”,and

continuingthegames“noblement”.

GeoffreyleBaker,however,doesnotshyawayfromnamingemotions,asthe

Anonimallechroniclerdoes.Speakingofthesameincident,hephrasestheameliorationofthe

king’sreactionalittledifferently:“Thepiousqueendidnotallowthecarpenterstobe


punished,butbyherprayersandgenuflexionssorecalledthekingandhisfriendsfromtheir

angerthatbythisactofmercyshecausedeveryonetoloveher,astheythoughtabouther

goodness”(43).ItistoPhilipparatherthanEdwardthatthechroniclerattributesthequality

ofmercy,anditisshewhoisthefocusofthepeople’slove—butthisisnottoEdward’s

detriment.Itisproofofhisqueen’spiety,whichisnotacontrastbutacomplementtohis

kingship.

Therehasbeensomecriticalfocusonthequeenasformalintercessor,singularand

severedfromotherwisemasculinepowerstructures.43Ourconcentrationonthegendered

aspectsofintercessionhasobscuredthefactthat,upuntilthemomentofintervention,the

queenoftenfiguressimplyinthenon-genderedroleofacounsellor.Juhel’swifeandRaoul’s

motherbothparticipateexactlyasthemendoincounsellingtheirlordtorespondwith

appropriatelevelsofanger.Evenanintercessoryroleisnotnecessarilygenderedbynature.

Anybodymayabjectthemselvestopleadformercy,justasallthecourtierstearfullyplead

withEdwardIIIfortheburghers,andFulkgrovelsbeforehisfather’skicks.Itistruethata

queen(and,byanalogy,thewifeormotherofamaninapositionofsocialpower)is

symbolicallyclosertoherkingthananycounsellor,morefundamentallyapartofhisroyal

bodyandroyalfunction,externalisedintoadramatisationofroyaljusticeandmercy.Shecan

invokethisifnecessary;butinpractice,upuntilthemomentofstagingthedramatic,hyper-

feminisedsceneofpleading,thereisasignificantoverlapinformandfunctionwiththeroleof

thecounsellor.

Theintercessoryqueen(orwife,sister,ormother)comesintoherown,however,

whenthetimeforreasonableadjudicationhaspassed:whenallagreethatthecorrect

measureofresponsewouldbetopunishthecarpenters,toexecutetheburghers,andtheonly

wayoutisforgiveness.Atthispointshemaypleadinamannerthatdeliberatelyinvokesher

gender,withitsassociationsofweakness,humility,andcompassionreminiscentofStMary,to

addaffect.Philippa’sbrushwithdanger,inthecaseofthecollapsedstaging,couldonlymake

thisweaknessmorepotent.CompareFroissart’stextofPhilippa’sintercessionwiththatofhis

source,JeanleBel:

43SeeparticularlythehighlyrehearsedintercessionofAnnewithRichardIIonbehalfofLondon,discussedbyPaulStrohminHochon’sArrow(1992).ThisisfollowedbyLoisHuneycuttin1995(“IntercessionandtheHigh-MedievalQueen:TheEstherTopos”);HelenMaurerin2003(MargaretofAnjou:QueenshipandPowerinLateMedievalEngland,esp.concludingremarkspp.208–11);J.L.Laynesmithin2004(TheLastMedievalQueens:EnglishQueenship1445–1503);and,morerecently,LisaBenzStJohnin2012(ThreeMedievalQueens:QueenshipandtheCrowninFourteenth-CenturyEngland,esp.pp.34–63).


Butthekingfrownedandreplied:“Acceptit,SirWalter:Ihavemadeupmymind.Callfortheexecutioner.ThepeopleofCalaishavecostmethelivesofsomanyofmymenthatthesemen,too,mustdie.”

[AtthatthenobleQueenofEngland,weepingbitterly,fellonherkneesbeforeherhusbandandsaid:]“Ah,myworthylord!SinceIcrossedthesea–ingreatperil,asyouknow–I’veaskedfornothing.ButnowIbegandimploreyouwithclaspedhands,fortheloveofOurLady’sson,havemercyonthem.”

Theworthykingfellsilentforamoment;helookedattheQueenonherkneesbeforehim,weepingbittertears,andhisheartbegantosoftenalittleandhesaid:

“Lady,Iwishyouwereanywherebuthere!YourentreatiesaresoheartfeltthatIdaren’trefuseyou!Thoughitpainsmetosayit,takethem:Igivethesementoyou.”

(JeanleBeltrans.Bryant,203)

Thereisafootnoteonthebracketedsentence,translatedverbatimbyNigelBryantfromhis

sourcetext(ViardandDéprez’s1905editionfortheSociétédel’HistoiredeFrance):“Thereis

clearlyanaccidentalomissioninthesurvivingMSofLeBel;allversionsofFroissartcontain

phrasestothiseffect”.ButFroissartaddsmorethanonlythatphrase:

Butthekinggroundhisteethandreplied:“Acceptit,SirWalter:Ihavemadeupmymind.”Andhesentfortheexecutioner,andsaid,“ThepeopleofCalaishavecostmethelivesofsomanyofmypeoplethatthesemen,too,mustdie.”

AtthatthenoblequeenofEnglandhumbledherselfgreatly,pregnantasshewas,andweepingsotenderlyinpitythatnobodycouldremainunmoved.Shethrewherselftoherkneesbeforethekingherlordandsaid:“Ah,myworthylord!SinceIcrossedthesea–ingreatperil,asyouknow–I’veaskedfornothingnorbeggedanygift.ButnowIprayandimploreyouhumbly,inpropergifttothesonofSaintMaryandinloveofme,havemercyonthesesixburghers.”

Thekingfellsilentforamoment;helookedonthegoodladyhiswife,whowasheavilypregnantandwepttenderlyonherknees.Hisheartbegantosoftenalittle,forhedidnotwishtodistressherinhercurrentstate.

Hesaid:“Ah,lady,Iwishyouwereanywhereelse!YourentreatiesaresoheartfeltthatIdaren’trefuseyou.Thoughitpainsmetosayit,takethem:Igivethesementoyou.Dowiththemasyouplease.”


(Mytranslation,adaptedtomatchBryant’swherethetextsarethesameandboldedwheretheydiffer.)

IntheCalaisepisode,FroissartaddsthedetailofPhilippa’spregnancy—itisnotpresentin

JeanleBel’sversion.Givenhernextchildwasbornninemonthslatershecertainlywasnot

heavilypregnantatthetime,butthatextrafemininity,vulnerability,andMarianassociation

addsthefinishingtouchtothepowerofthescene.Shereinforcesthatassociationbyframing

theburghersspecificallyasthedonwhichshehasneveryetaskedofherhusband,andwhich

maybenowmadetoMaryandtoherhusband’sloveforher.Sheiswife,supplicant,and

mother,andadevoteeofthesaintwhoepitomisesatleasttwoofthosethree.

GeoffreyleBakersubvertsthisqueenlyroleinhisaccountofthearrestofRoger

Mortimerin1330.AsEdwardIIIandhisfriendsburstintotheroomindisguiseandcapture

Mortimer,QueenIsabellacriesoutinFrench,“Bealfitz,bealfitz,eiezpitiedegentilMortimer”

(GeoffreyleBaker46;41inPreest’stranslation).Buthersondoesnotreply,andMortimeris

executed.Whyshouldthisappealfail?BecausethisisthewomanwhomGeoffreyleBakerhas

repeatedlydescribedasaragingvirago,asubversiveJezebelwithnojustificationforher

crimes.ThisisasubversionoftheintercessoryscriptthatPhilippawillembodysowell.

ComparehisaccountofthemomentofcaptureandthepleawiththatoftheBrut,which

providestheclosestanaloguetothisscene(andis,mostlikely,GeoffreyleBaker’smain

source):44

ThotokeþaiþeMortymer,asheArmedehimateþetouresdore,Whenheherdeþenoiseofhamfordrede[ThentheycapturedMortimer,ashearmedhimselfatthedoorofthetowerinfear,havingheardthenoiseofthem].AndWhenQueneIsabellsawþatþeMortymerwastaken,shemademichesorweinhert,andþisewordsvntohamsaide[andsaidthesewordsuntothem]:“Now,fairesires,yȝowprayeþatȝedonenonharmevntohisbody;aworþiknyȝt,ourwelbilouedefrendeandourderecosyn.”(Brut271)

ThentheyfoundthequeenmotherapparentlypreparedforbedandsleepandtheearlofMarch,themantheywanted.Theyseizedhimandtookhimawayintothehall,withthequeencryingaloud,“Dearboy,dearboy,havepityongentleMortimer.”Forshesuspectedthathersonwasthere,evenifshecouldnotseehim.(GeoffreyleBakertrans.Preest41)

44SeeRichardBarber’sintroductiontoPreest’stranslation(xix).


GeoffreyleBaker,inshort,laysontheimplicationsofsexualmisconductasheavilyashecan

(whichhehassuggestedbefore,includingbeforethedeathofEdwardII:20andelsewhere).

Mortimermovesfromthetowerdoortothebedchamber,andthequeenispresentand

dressedforbed,insteadofinsomeotherroomorlocation.IntheBrut,EdwardIIIisnot

amongthosepresent,andsheonlyaskshiscaptorstoconveyhimsafely.GeoffreyleBaker

seemstoaddtheyoungkingfordramaticeffect.Thedramaisheightenedbyhershiftinto

French(whichPreest’stranslationdoesnotpreserve):araremomentofdirectspeechgiven

evenmoreimpactbythatchange.Fortwentypages,inPreest’stranslation—halfthechronicle

sofar—Isabellahasbeenintheascendant,plottingherrevengethenexultingtyrannously

overherenemieswithMortimeratherside.Inthismomentofdownfall,sheattemptsthe

intercessorypleathatlookssoinappropriatetoherpride.Buthersondoesnotevenreply.

Itisonlyveryshortlyafterward,onceGeoffreyleBakerhastoldofMortimer’s

degradingexecutionandexplainedwhyitwasjust,thatweseeourfirstimageofEdwardIII

andPhilippaastruekingandqueen—atthetournamentwhenthestagecollapses.Pages41

and43,inPreest’stranslation—46and48intheRollsSeriesedition—abeautifulpieceof

meaning-makingbyjuxtaposition.GeoffreyleBaker’sIsabellahasbetrayedherstatusas

woman,wife,andqueen,andherpleahasnoeffect.Philippa’splea,whenshemovesfrom

gender-neutralcounsellortoqueenlysupplicant,isfeminineintheextreme.Thismoment

introducestheneworder,forGeoffreyleBaker:aperfectroyalcouplewhocanturndisaster

intoglorybytheperformanceoftheproperroles.Anybodymayplead,certainly,butittakesa

woman—betteryet,aqueenandamother—toinvokethespecificfigureofthequeenly

intercessorandthefullemotionalimpactthatencompasses.Itisthepowerofthispleathat

allowstheturnfromjusticetomercy.

Purecounselhasitslimits.Itisfocusedondeterminingtheappropriatelevelof

responseandallowingfornecessaryperformanceofanger—whichmay,nevertheless,not

resultinpunishment.Sometimesthe“appropriate”levelofangerwouldinvolveacourseof

actionsoextremethatitwouldbebetterallaroundtofindsomewayofavoidingit.Petition

maygofurtherthancounsel,inthisway.Onlymercymaysupersedejustice,justastheQueen

ofHeavenandmotherofChristpleadwithGodforeventheworstofsinners.45Strohm

reachesthesameconclusionregardingPhilippa’sinterventionpermitting“adifferently

groundedappeal,invokingadifferentsortofauthority,”althoughforhimthatotherauthority

45The“NativityofOurLady”and“AssumptionofOurLady”inJacobusdeVoragine’sLegendaAureaincludeseveralstoriesofsinners,especiallythieves,rescuedbyMaryfromdivineorearthlyjudgementfornoreasonotherthanthattheyprayedtoherforprotection.


is“herdutifulself-marginalization”—thefactthatsheappealsfromapositionoutsidethe

masculinepowerstructure(Hochon’sArrow101).Eitherway,theinterventionallowsashift

inthetermsofdiscourse,achangetoadifferentsortofreasoning.

TherearetwocounselscenesintheCalaissequence:thedénouementisthesecond,

butthefirstisManny’sadvicetoEdward(aftermeetingwithJeandeVienne)thathenot

punishtheentiretown.Thisearliersceneispurecounsel,determiningthecorrectlevelof

angerresponse,andresultinginthekingagreeingtopunishthesixburghersintokenofthe

wholecity.Inthelaterscenethatlevelofangerisalreadydetermined:theyareguilty,andthe

angermaynotbepersuadedornegotiatedawaywithoutweakeningtheking.Thismore

famoussceneisinsteadprimarilyanemotionalintervention.ThelordspleadwithEdward,

weeping,insteadofadvisinghimtowisdom.EvenManny’sspeechinthisscene,althoughit

echoeshisearlierspeech,urgesnotpolicyorrestraintbut“pitié”,acknowledgingtheshifttoa

differentemotionalregister.Buttheseinthemselvesareinsufficienttoeffectanemotional

change:ittakesthequeen’sactionandpleas,andtheking’slongmomentofsilenceinwhich

thespectacleofher(pregnant,intears,onherknees)isfixedinoureye,tobringaboutthat

change.

Chapter 7. Uneasy angers

The limits of exemplarity

FormostofthissectionIhaveconcentratedontheangeroflordsandkingsagainsttheir

equals,orpeopleloweronthesocialscale.Thesimplereasonforthisisthattheideaoffeudal

angeris,thoughnotexclusivetolords,shapedaroundsocialpower,especiallyasperformed

inthatonemostcharacteristicscript.Theideaofpioussufferingisexemplifiedbythe

martyrdomofChrist(andreinforcedbyimitativeepisodesinthelivesofsaints),totheextent

thatchroniclersmayreshapetheexperiencesofcontemporaryfigurestofitthepattern(as

wesawwithThomasofLancasterandEdwardIIinChapter3).Similarly,theideaoffeudal

angerisimaginativelybasedaroundacertainkindofperson,andacertainprocessionof

events.Butarelationshipinvolvesmorethanoneparty,andaviolationofthatrelationship

presumablyinvolvesanemotionalresponsefromboth.Whathappens,then,whenchroniclers

areobligedtoconsiderfeudalangerinsomebodywhodoesnotfitthescript:avassal,ora

woman,orsomebodywhodoesnotbelongtothenobilityatall?

Rebellious anger and its absences

TheBookofVicesandVirtues(afourteenth-centuryEnglishtranslationofLorensd’Orléans’

confessionalmanual,SommeleRoi)dividesangerintofourbranches:angerorwaragainst

oneself(“forwhanwraþþeisfulinaman,heturmenteþhissouleandhisbody”),againstGod

(when“forsumworldelyloosorharm...hegruccheþaȝensGodandhishalewen[saints]”),

againstinferiors(whenheis“[so]wodþathesmytandbeteþhiswif,hischildren,his

seruauntes,andbrekeþpottes,coppes,anddisches”),andagainstequals(“þer-ofwexeþstrif,

andaftergretangreyboreinherte...andafteralþis,mortel,þatisdedly,werreamongalleþe

frendesonboþesydes”)(25–26).Byitsnaturethistextspeaksonlyofanger-as-sin,withno

interestinthecausesorcontextsofthesinfulfeeling.Itisinteresting,however,whencause

andoutcomeareremoved,thepowerdynamicsbecomethemostimportantclassifying

principle.Itsuggestsageneralsensethat,whateverthecauseofanger,thereisafundamental

differenceinthenatureofangerdependingonwhetheritisdirectedupwards(toGodor

superiors),downwards(todependants,orevenobjects),orbetweenequals.Thedifferent


behavioursobservedineachcaseimplydifferentscriptsofpossibleaction,andpresumably

differentmoralconstraints,dependingonthetarget.

ThecasethatfirstdrewmyattentiontothisproblemisthatofBernier,Raoulde

Cambrai’sfriendandliegeman.RaouldeCambraiis,asIhavementioned,anexceptionally

angrytext:charactersflareup,curseandrage,refusetoresolvetheirdifferences,andturn

grudgesintofeudsthatinvolveentirefamiliesandtheirfollowers.Perhapsthegreatestfeud

isthatbetweenRaoulandBernier,oncedearfriends.Theincreasingdivisionbetweenthemis

anindexofRaoul’sslidefromrighteousangerintoexcess.Consequently,inthiscase,thestory

oftheincreasingriftinthislord/vassalrelationshipisunusuallysympathetictowardthe

vassal,andgivesasgreatavoice,orgreater,tohisemotionastoRaoul’s.Butinorderto

maintaintheaudience’ssympathyandretainBernier’smoralcharacterasunimpeachably

noble,theauthormustdosomeverydelicatenarrativemanoeuvring.Despitetheubiquityof

angerinthistext,BernierseemsunabletofeeloutrightangeragainstRaoul,notevenwhen

RaoulforcesBerniertowagewaronhisbrothers,killsBernier’smother,andinsultshim—not

untilheisnolongerRaoul’sman.HeasksGuerriforadviceastowhattodo,hefaints,andhe

wailsforhismother,buthelplessnessandgriefdominatehisresponseuntilthemoment

whenRaoulstrikeshim,releasinghimfromtheirrelationship—andallowinghim,fromthat

momenton,toexperienceanger.

Seizingabigspearshaftthathuntsmenhadleftthere,[Raoul]angrilyraisedituphighandhityoungBernierasheapproached,fetchinghisheadsuchapowerfulcrackthathisdelicateerminewasshoweredwithblood.Seeingthis,Bernierwentoutofhismind[totalesenschangié]andgrappledfuriously[pargrantirour]withRaoul—nowhemighthaveallayedmuchofhisraginggrief[duel][i.e.,bykillingRaoul],[but]theotherknightscomerushingup,andseparatethembeforetheycandoeachotheranyharm.YoungBerniercallshissquire:‘Quick,myarmsandmydoublehauberk,mygoodswordandmybandedhelmet!I’llquitthiscourtwithoutanyfarewells!’(Laisse84)

Notethat,oncehisfirstviolentimpulseisthwarted,Bernier’ssecondresponseisthesameas

thatofGorloiswhenwrongedbyUther:heleavesthecourtwithoutpermissionandwithout

takingleave.Lovebetweenthemisatanend.

Thisreluctancetoexpress(andtherebyfeel)angeragainstone’slordisborneoutby

thebehaviourofothercharactersinRaoul,aswellasthoseofLaChansondeRoland.When

LouisgivesRaoul’slandtoGiboin,RaoulandGuerribothturntheirangeronGiboinrather

thantheking,andGuerriisnotevensaidtofeelangerwhileintheking’spresence.Heleaves


thehallthengoesangrilytoRaoul;Raoul,lessrestrained,turnsangrilyawayfromtheking

andthenleavesthehall,butstillneverdirectlyexpressesangertotheking(laisses32–35).

AlthoughtheauthorattributestheblamefirmlytoKingLouis,theinjuredpartyandhismen

turntheirangeronamanofapproximatelyequalrank(andlater,onthelordsofthe

Vermandois).Similarly,althoughtheauthorofLaChansondeRoland(andCharlemagne

himself!)attributestoCharlemagnetheresponsibilityforthechoiceofGanelonasmessenger

totheSaracens,andofRolandasrear-guard,GanelonandRolandturntheirangeroneach

other.Thismaybeprescriptive—anidealknightwouldnotfeelangeragainsthislordeven

underthosecircumstances,andBernierisanidealknight,thereforehedoesnotfeelanger

untilRaoulisnolongerhislord—oritmayproceedmorefundamentallyfromasensethat

thisangerisonlysomethingthatcanbefeltwhenthatbondisdamaged,andthatthereforeall

ofBernier’sfeelingsbeforethatmomentwerenotanger,butsomethingelse.

Thisauthorialsympathywiththelower-rankingpartyisrare,however.Partofthis

differenceinrepresentation(andperhapsonexperience)mustbeduetothefactthatmost

chroniclesandchansonsdegestecentretheirnarrativeonthemostsociallyelevatedfigurein

anygivensequence.Theemotionsoflesserfolk,wheretheycomeintoconflict,aretherefore

lessinteresting,andwhentheydoappeartheyarelikelytobecondemned,unlessin

exceptionalcircumstances.Onesuchcircumstanceisemotionalestrangementbetweenthe

lordandhisfollowers,asdiscussedearlier—inwhichcase,aswesaw,anauthormaytellthe

taleinsuchawayastolayblameoneitherside.

Berniermustnotdisplay,orevenfeel,openangeragainsthisliegelordifheistoretain

hismoralstatuswithinthetextasnobleandvirtuous(oratleastmorevirtuousthanRaoul).

Thereis,afterall,afineandsometimesnon-existentlinebetweenangeragainstone’slord

andrebelliousness,thethreatofthefinalsinofDante’sninthcircle.Itisverycommonfor

chroniclersdepictingbottom-upragetodenyitalllegitimacy,orevenanysemblancetonoble

emotions:sinfulanimalfury,ratherthanthemoralandemotionalcomplexityofalordly

anger.PaulFreedmansummarisesthetwo-dimensionaldepictionsofpeasantangerinthe

thirteenthtoearlysixteenthcenturiesthus:“peasantangerwasludicrouswithrespectto

individuals,anditwascapableofinstigatingterrifyingmassviolence…theirangercouldonly

exceptionallyberepresentedasdignified,notonlybecausethatwouldbemoresocially

subversive…butbecauseangerwasanessentiallynobleprerogative”(171).Forthese

purposesmostpeopleinsocietycouldbeclassedas“peasants”formostwriters,almostasfar

upasbarons.Theangerofbarons,representativesofcities,andothercitizensnotdismissed


asrabble,wasmorelikelytobehumanbutrebellious,andisbetterdocumentedbystudiesof

complaintliteratureandthelegalsystemthanofanger.46

Froissart’sdepictionoftheJacquerieisastarkcontrasttohisnarrationofwars

amongstthechivalricclasses:itismobviolence,withnoemotionevennamed(SHF1–413).

Moredisturbingly,itisdeeplyunnatural:ratherthanbeingpresentedasapetitionarycause,

orevenasunjustifiedangerarisinginresponsetothewars,itresemblesapervertedsceneof

feudalanger.Froissartemphasisestheirlackofaleader—thereisnocentralfiguretounite

theemotionsandinitiatethescript—andtheymillaround,withoutthestructureofthescenes

wehaveseen,andwithonlysomeindirectspeechreportedwhichdoesnotquitemanageto

bearecitalofgrievances:“TheysaidthatallthenoblesoftherealmofFrance,theknightsand

thesquires,wereputtingtherealmtoshame,andthatitwouldbeagooddeedtodestroy

themall”.Thereisagroupspeechactinwhichtheyallagreethatthegentryshouldbe

destroyed.Thisisneitheraformalstatementofanger,normuchofabattleplan,butithasthe

effectthatavowofwarusuallywouldhaveatthispointinthescript,initiatingthegathering

ofthe“army”andthedepartureforwar:“Theygatheredtogetherandsetoff,withoutany

morecounselandarmedonlywithcudgelsandknives”.Comparethistothegloriousarrayof

HenryII’sknightsastheygallopofftowar,pennantsfluttering.Asforemotionalunity,they

havenoleadertoshapeit:certainly,theyallseemtoagreetodoviolence,butnoemotionis

namedatall.Theymerelycommitatrocities,withoutfeelingorreason,“likemaddogs”;and

theallusionstothecarefullycontrolledstructureofthescriptoffeudalangermakestheir

behaviourseemevenmorehorrifyingandchaotic.Thisistheimpliedthreatbehindupward-

directedfeudalanger:rebellionwritlarge,andadissolutionnotonlyofsocialorderbutof

meaningandhumanity.Werarelyseeitonthisscaleinchronicles,butthepossibilityis

alwaysthere,andthatisreasonenoughforupward-directedangertobealmostinvariably

condemned.

Ontheoccasionswhentheauthordoeswanttosituateafollower’sangerwithinthe

contextoffeudalanger—thatis,asresultingfromatransgressionoftheirrelationshipand

thereforeatleastpartlyjustified—carefulstepsmustbetaken(suchasBernier’sremarkable

lackofanger)toavoidlettingitslipintosininstead.TheAnonimallechronicle—socriticalof

EdwardII’sfailuresofemotionalleadership—includesaseriesofconfrontationscenesthat

explicitlydonotconformtothetypicalmodel,butseemtoholditimplicitinthebackground

asanillustrationofhowfaraffairshavedeviatedfromthenormalornatural.Thisframework

46SeeparticularlyWendyScase,W.MarkOrmrod,andseveralpapersinFeud,Violence,andPractice(ed.TutenandBillado).


allowsthechroniclertojustifytheactionsofbaronsandpeopleagainstEdwardII—actions

whichoftenfitpatternsofanger,ortakeontheroleofangrylordwithinthesescenarios—but

theauthorisascarefulasthatofRaouldeCambraitoavoidnamingtheiremotionasanger.

FirstwehavetheOrdinancesof1311,aseriesofregulationsimposedonEdwardIIby

thebaronageinanattempttoexertsomekindofcontroloverhimandlimithispowerand—

accordingtothischronicler—hisarbitraryandchangeablebehaviour(Anonimalle82–85).

Herethepetitionformatprovidesapatternforprotest:carefullynotphrasedasanger,butthe

mirrorimageoftheclassicsceneoftheangryking.Froissart’savoidanceofemotionwordsin

theJacqueriedehumanisesthemob,denyingthemaccesstotheemotionsthathequitefreely

discussesandvalorisesinhisothercharacters,buttheAnonimallechroniclerhasadifferent

attitudetoemotion.Henevernamesanemotionunlesscondemningthecharacter(s)whofeel

it,sotheavoidanceofemotionwordsinthiscaserepresentsthebaronsasreasonedand

united,incontrasttothepassionateandchangeableking.Emotionalunitydoesfollowthe

negotiation,butitisunitybehind(andoathsswornto)theOrdinances,nottheking(84–85).

Thisformofregularityemphasisesthelegalityoftheproceedings;butitisalsoasignofthe

unnaturalstateofaffairs.WhenPiersGavestonisexiled,theOrdinancestaketheking’splace

theretoo:Gaveston’sactionsareagrievanceagainsttheOrdinances,notagainsttheking,and

heispunishedintheirname.Theconclusionofthisepisodeisthat,whiletheOrdinancesare

fullyjustified,theyarethemselvesasignthattheworldhasgonetopsy-turvy,assubsequent

eventsprove.

Forwardtenyearsandafewpages,andthelordscomearmedtoparliamentin1321.

Thisis,weareassured,not“endespitduroi”,butagainsthisnewfavourites,theDespensers:

thisisdiscordbetweenpeers,notrebellionagainsttheking(Anonimalle100–01).

NeverthelessEdwardIIassaultsLeeds,andoppresseshispeople,andLancasterattempts

mediation(102–03).Hewritestotheking“amiablement”onbehalfofthepeople,andhe

speakstothekingwithlove.Evenontheeveoftherebellion,rebelliousangeriscarefully

writtenout—butthejustifications,the“recitalsofgrievances”,areleftin.

Fiveyearslatertheinversionofthescriptiscomplete:EdwardIIisdeposed.Where

thetypicalscriptoffeudalangercentresonthevoiceoftheking,herethevoiceofthepeople

dominates(Anonimalle132–33).Thepeoplecryouttheirprotestsandagreetotheactof

deposition,andweevenhaveaformalrecitalofgrievanceswhentheArchbishopof

Canterburyreadsoutseveralarticlesagainsttheking.Action,andtheseveranceofthebond,

islegitimatedthroughthespokenemotionsofthepeopleinsteadoftheking—althoughstill


wehavenoactualstatementofanger,asthatistooheavilyassociatedinthistextwith

irrationalityanddisorder.

FroissartdoesnotdenythepeopleofCalaistheiremotionality,ashedoeswiththe

“jacques”:onthecontrary,hehandlestheproblembypermittingCalaisasanentityafull

rangeofaristocraticemotion.Calaisisnotconsidereddysfunctionalorsubhumanforits

earlierangeratPhilip,whenhemakesnorealattempttobreakthesiege:Philiphasfailedhis

sideoftherelationshipbydecliningtoprotectCalais(SHF1–307).Froissartdoesnot

dismantletheemotionalnormsoffeudalismgoverningtheexperienceandexpressionof

nobleemotion,buthecanbeflexibleaboutwhomheallowstofeelthem.

Feminine angers

Settingasidequestionsofrank,thereisstillonehalfofthepopulationverypoorlysuitedto

embodyingthatintimidating,idealisedArthurianfigure.Iffeudalangerinvassalsand

peasantsisrare,thatofwomenisevenrarer—andlesslikelytobeportrayedaspositive.Itis,

infact,verydifficulttodiscuss:therearetoofewinstancestoformanykindofrepresentative

sample,andgeneralisingwouldbeunhelpfulinanycase,astheyareallexceptionalby

definition.

WesawalreadyCordeileandhersistersactingeffectivelyasbaronsintheBrut’sstory

ofKingLeir.Inthatstorytheyfitintothefeudalstructureprecisely:thoughRiganand

Gonorillearemarriedandaretheoreticallysubordinatetotheirhusbands,theyeachtakewith

themhalfthekingdom,andtheyaretheantagonists,sotheyeasilyassumetherolesof

rebelliousvassalsinthenarrative.Similarly,Cordeile’shusband,thoughtheKingofFrance,

haslittletodowithherrelationshipwithherfather-lordasidefromprovidingherwiththe

strengthtoreclaimhiskingdom:sheisthepartywhohasthevassal/allyrelationshipwith

Leir,notherhusband.Noneofthethreewomen,however,issaidtoexperienceangeratany

point:thenarratorsaysthatGonorilleandRigan“werredeuponhim”(18),butthefeelingswe

seethemandtheirhusbandexperienceare“scorneanddespite”(18and19),incontrastto

the“michelhonour”(20)withwhichCordeiletreatsLeirandthe(feudalandfilial)loveby

whichsheisdefined.Noangerappears,notevenwhenCordeileattacksanddefeatsher

sisters—notuntil,afterthedeathofherfatherandhusband,thesonsofRiganandGonorille

riseagainstherintheirturn,becausethey“toherehadeenuy”forholdingthelandsthat


shouldhavepassedtothem(20).Evenhere,wherethewomenfunctionasvassalsandlead

rebellionsandwars,theangerislefttothemen.

ThemotherofRaouldeCambraidoesfeelanger,andanangerwhichisimplicitly

approvedbytheauthor.SheisangryonbehalfofherunderagesonbecauseKingLouishas

deniedRaoulhisrights:theangerofawomanandofavassal,therefore,thoughonbehalfofa

man.Sheisawomanofno“cuerfrarin”(“inferior/frailheart”,laisses5and7),whohasbeen

rulingherson’slandsinhisnameuntilheshouldcomeofage,andwhoseindignationatLouis’

betrayalisechoedinevenstrongertermsbyherbrotherGuerri(alsoanobleandworthy

vassal,aswearerepeatedlyassured).Althoughsheispermittedtofeelanger,andtoexpress

ittoGuerriand(later)toherson,hergenderpresentspracticaldifficultiesforherwhenit

comestoactingonit,andthereforeherbehaviourandthemannerofexpressionofheranger

cannotmatchanyclassicpatternoffeudalanger.Shecanonlythreatentoburnherselfto

deathratherthanallowLouistohandherson’slandsovertoGiboin—especiallysincethe

planinvolvesmarryingherofftoGiboinaswell—andprotestthatacurshouldnotbe

introducedintothebedofathoroughbredhound(laisse15).Herangerisnotcriticised,but

sheisunabletoeitherclaimherson’slandinherownrightorraiseanarmytoenforcehis

claimsuntilheshouldcomeofage.Shemayrouseherfollowerstoshareheremotions,butas

wehavealreadyseen,wordsandemotionalcontagionareheronlyweapons.WhenRaoul

angersher,shecannottakephysicalactionagainsthim,asanyofthemalecharactersmight

havedone:shecanonlycursehimandlayhispunishmentinGod’shands(laisse54).

ThefigureofIsabella,queenofEdwardIIandresponsibleinlargepartforhis

deposition,isawomanwhomighteasilybepresentedaseitherrebelliousorbetrayed.

Chroniclersrespondtoherinvariousways,butinallcasesheremotionalityisacounterpart

totheirdepictionofherhusband’s.WhereEdwardiscriticised,sheisamodelofPatientia;

whereEdwardissanctifiedsheisaraging,furiousharpy.WehavealreadyseenGeoffreyle

Baker’siron-heartedJezebel,standingoppositethepatientmartyredking.TheAnonimalle,by

contrast,hasIsabellaasthesufferingvictimandEdwardastheculprit.TheBrut,moreeven-

handed,shiftsitsrhetoricfrommildsympathyforIsabella(duringthelateryearsofEdward

II’sreign,1318–26)toincreasingcondemnation(whenIsabellaandMortimerareascendant,

1327–30).Inthataccount,neitherEdwardnorhiswifearefullyblamed:thechronicler’s

vitriolissavedfortheDespensersandAndrewHarclayin1321,andforRogerMortimerafter

1326.Isabelladoesbecome“wroþ”againstEdmundEarlofKent(EdwardII’sbrother),but

onlyafterMortimer’s“hertganbolne”forwrathandhegoestohertorepresentKent’s


apparentbetrayal(265).47ForthemostpartitisMortimer,notIsabella,whoischaracterised

astheviciousragingother:“soreannoiede,andangryasþeDeuelaȝeyneshamþatwerofþe

KyngusConseil,[sayingthat]hewoldeonhambeneavengede,how-se-euerhetokeon”(268).

Isabellahasakindofnegativeemotionality:acounterparttoherhusbandinGeoffrey

leBakerandtheAnonimalle,andintheBrut,afigurelesstobeblamedorpraisedthanthe

menaroundherbecauseherfeelingsarelessexplicit.Innoneofthesecasesisshepermitted

tofeelfeudalanger,thoughwemightconsidertherelationshiptobebetrayed:innocasedoes

thechroniclerbothconsiderEdward’sbetrayaloftheirbondandallowhertofeelangerover

it.Ifsheisangry,itisaberrantandwithoutreason;ifsheisbetrayed,sheiseithersaintly

Patientia,oremotionallyinert.

TheBrut’sIsabellaislessvitriolicthanthatofGeoffreyleBaker,butsheisstillnotan

admirablewoman;andthoughheremotionalityisnotsoexplicitasitwastobecomeinhis

laterversion,sheisstillatroublingfigure,unnaturallytwistedoutofalignmentwithher

“proper”feudalrole.JuliaMarvin(studyingtheAnglo-Normanversion,whichisverysimilar

totheMiddleEnglishIhavediscussedhere)seesherasstillmoredangerous.Marvinpointsto

theadditionoftheAlbinalegendtoBruttextsinthefourteenthcentury,andsuggestsalink

betweenIsabella’s“reign”andthefear/condemnationoffemalerule.GeoffreyofMonmouth’s

BrutuslandedinAlbionanddefeatedthegiantsalreadylivingthere:theaddedAlbinalegend

tellsoftheoriginofthosegiantsandofthenameoftheland.Albinaandhersistersare

unnatural,murderous,incestuous,andmanyotherterrifyingadjectivesassociatedwith

femalepowerinthebedroomandthekingdom.But“byprovidinganenemytodefeat”—their

monstrousdescendants—“thesisters’evilredoundstotheeventualgoodofBrutandhis

people”(175).Similarly,thedownfallofEdwardIIandtheimageofapower-hungryIsabella

providetheperfectbackdropoftheriseofaperfectgallantyoungking:“Whethershewants

toornot,IsabelleushersinarightfulandsuccessfulkingandprovidesEdwardofWindsor

withtheoccasiontoprovehimselfasBrutdoes…[TheAlbinastory]offersacomforting

resolution,forevenunpunishedcrimesplaytheirpartintheplotofhistory”(175).

Thisisthefigurelurkinginpotentiabehindanydisplayoffemaleanger,especiallyif

sheaspirestopowerinherownname:araging,tyrannous,devouringinversionofany

47KentwasexecutedMarch1330forhispartinastrangelittleconspiracythatofseveralpowerfulandcannypeoplewhobelieved,orpretendedtobelieve,thatEdwardIIwasstillalive.ChronicleaccountstypicallyusethisincidentastheclimaxofMortimer/Isabella’styranny,thelaststrawthatpromptedtheyoungkingtoputdownMortimer,endthequeen’sregency,andtakeupactiverulehimself.


potentiallypositivefemalepowerwithinthenetworkoffeudalrelationships.Philippaabases

herselfbeautifullyanddutifullytoEdwardIII,tobegintearsforthelifeoftheburghersof

Calais;butevenhereweglimpseashadowofapossibilityofwhatmightbe.Edwardyieldsin

partbecausehedoesnotwanttodistressherinherpregnancy;andyetthewordusedis

courroucier.Certainlyitcanmeandistress,andinaliteralsenseitprobablydoes,here;but

thisisoneofveryfewoccasionsinFroissartorelsewherewhenitdoesnotmean,simplyand

explicitly,“toarouse/feelanger”.Evenifitliesbelowtheliteralmeaningofthetext,the

possibilityofstirringPhilippatothat—especiallypregnantandinherextremelyfeminine

state—israisedasanaberration,asawarningofthisscriptgoingverywrong.

The problem of scriptlessness

Forallthesepeopleandsituations,thereisnostandardexemplarfortheexpressionoffeudal

anger—stillless,onethatispresentedpositively.Women,vassals,commoners:chroniclers

(andothermedievalwriters)acknowledgethattheymayfeeltheviolationofafeudalbond

andbemovedtoangerbyit,buttheyareuneasyandinconsistentintheirnarrationofthat

anger.Sometimes,thecharactermaybeshownasfeelingshamedangerorgriefinstead;

sometimestheymayturntheirangeragainsttheirpeersinsteadoftheirlord;sometimesthe

chroniclermayavoidnarratinganyfeelingonthecharacter’spartatall,orturntheminto

Patientiabyprotestingtheirexceptionallackofanger;andsometimestheymaybecompletely

vilified,portrayedasrebelliousandbestial,withnostructureandordertotheirfeelingsatall.

Thereisnoscriptinthesetextsforfeudalangerotherthanthatwieldedbyalord:no

recognisablepatternsofbehaviour,nosequencesofemotionsigns,noknownstorythrough

whichonemightmovetoaresolution.“Royalanger”isthenamethatfeudalangerusually

goesby,becauseitismostvisibleandrecognisableinkingsorsovereignprinces.Whateffect

doesthathaveonitasanexemplar,asanemotionalpractice?Itisaspirational,certainly,part

ofanemotionalstyleheldupasanidealforallthoseof“noble”feeling—buttheemotional

practicethatthisscriptrepresentsisnotavailabletoeveryperson.Itissimultaneously

recommendedandforbidden,prescribedandproscribed;andithasnoconsistentalternative.

Towhatextentdothesetextsreflect(oraffect)livedemotionalpractices?Firstly,we

mayassumethis,withareasonabledegreeofcertainty:feudalangerandtheabilityto

practiseitaredeeplyembeddedinthenegotiationofpower.Thisappliestothecharactersin

thetexts,tothechroniclerswritingthem,and,presumably,totherealpeopleusingthese


scriptstoshapeandunderstandfeelingsintheirsocialworld.EdwardIIIatCalaisuses

largesseandfeudalangertogethertopositionhimselfpoliticallyandemotionallyrelativeto

hisownpeople,toCalais,andtoPhilip;butonamorefundamentallevel,heusesthemto

establishhisownrighttodeterminethediscourseanddefinethatrelationship.Wecansee

thisineffectinthestoryastoldbyJeanleBelandFroissart;wecansee,inthepopularityof

Froissart’sChroniquesandtheenthusiasmwithwhichhiswritingwasadoptedand

encouragedandcommissionedbygentryonbothsidesoftheChannel,howthesetexts

themselveshadasimilarpowertoaffectself-definitionandtheemotionalstylesvalorisedby

theirtargetaudienceduringthesecondhalfofthefourteenthcentury.Wecannotseeexactly

whatEdwardIIIdidatCalais,butwecanseewhathisexemplarsareandwhatthatstory

became,andbegintoformulatesomeideaofthediscursiveinteractionbetweentextand

practice.EdwardIIIandhiscourtwouldhavegrownupsurroundedbystoriespresenting

certainmodelsofemotionalbehaviour;EdwardIIIactivelypromotedandharnessedcertain

chivalricidealsinhiscourtandinwagingwar;EdwardIIIwashimselfabletoperform

valorisedemotionalscriptswellenoughtobecometheembodimentofArthurianperfectionin

contemporarynarratives,historiographicalandfictionalised.

Chroniclesofhistimereflect,teach,anddiscussthesescripts,andrecordthemfor

currentandlatergenerations.Theywitnessthekeyroleofemotionalityinnegotiating

relationshipsandlegalitiesinafeudalsociety;buttheydomorethanwitnessit.They

reinforcecertainemotionalstyles,practices,andscripts,andcriticiseoreraseothers.They

teachthem,andtheyusethemtoshapeeventsandpersonsinhistory,recentorancient.They

alsoengagethereader’semotionality:atCalais,thereaderisencouragedtobecomeapartof

theemotionalcommunityrespondingtothegloriousspectacle,toweepandtofearasthe

nobleswitnessingthescenedo,iftheyhaveanobleheartthemselves.Inotherwords,theyare

guidedinthedevelopmentoftheirownnobleheart.

Itisentirelypossiblethat,giventhesocialemphasisonemotionalunity(ofwhich,

moreinthenextsection),idealreadersoughtbydefaulttobeparticipatingintextual

emotions,ratherthanobserving.Evenifthisisonlypartlyoroccasionallytrue,thetextitself

becomesameanstorehearseemotionscriptsandstylesforthereader.Thenatureofcomplex

emotionscripts,suchasthescriptof(lordly)feudalanger,allowsforasafedegreeof

variabilitywithinthefamiliar.Thereader’semotionalresponsetosuchascenewouldalready

berehearsed,almostritualised,guidingthemtoacathartic,controlled,satisfyingconclusion

toacompleteemotionaljourney.ForEdwardIII,thisparticularemotionscriptcouldalsobe


applieddirectlywithinhisownlife—usedtoshapeandevaluateandmoderatehisown

feelings—butnotsoforeveryreader.

Toacertainextentwecanwitnessthisinthetextsaswell.Wecanseethatthelackofa

standardisedscriptfornon-lordlyfeudalangerisself-perpetuating,thatchroniclersbecome

uncomfortableorconfusedwhenitcomestounderstandingorrepresentingtheseangers.

Wouldthissamediscomfortandconfusionbepresentforindividuals,intheirownemotional

experiences?

Chronicles,ofcourse,arenottheonlymeansbywhichpeoplemightlearnmodelsof

feeling.Equallyobviously,theireffectwouldbemoreweightyforthosesocialgroupsmore

directlyandstronglyinfluencedbythisparticularclassoftextuality.However,chroniclesby

theirnaturedrawonthetraditionsofseveraldifferentgenres:theyrepresentandcontain

tracesofafarbroadernarrativetradition,whichdoesincludeoraltransmissionandwhich

doestravelacrosssocialboundaries,thoughitdoesnotignorethemaltogether.Asweknow

today,representationmatters—thoughourmediaismoreuniversallyaccessibleand

(intermittently)morediverse.Weknow,too,thepowerofnegativestereotypesontheanger

ofcertainsocialgroups.Awomanwhoisregularlydismissedashystericalorbitchy,ora

youngBlackmaninAmericawhoisoftentreatedasviolentandpotentiallycriminal,will

almostinevitablyinternalisethoseideasintotheirownexperiencesofanger.Inthemedieval

context,theabsenceofauthoritativemodelsforsociallyfunctionalfeudalangers—for

productivewaystoexperienceandengagethatangertomendarelationship—musthavehad

apowerfuleffect.

Section C: Writing the feeling body

Introduction GalenichumoraltheoryisnotthegoverningmodelofemotionalproductioninmedievalEngland.Whatisthedominantmodel?That’sagoodquestion,oneinurgentneedofanswering.(SarahMcNamer,“Feeling”245)

OverthelastfewchaptersIhavebeensomewhatflexibleinmyuseoftheoreticaltermssuch

as‘emotionalstyle’and‘emotionalpractices’,adaptingthemasnecessarywhileIexploredmy

material.Iwantnowtotightenmytheoreticalframeworkandexamineafewdetailsof

MoniqueScheer’ssuggestionsfortheapplicationofpracticetheorytothehistoricalstudyof

emotions.Theendofthepreviouschapterwasspeculative,askingquestionsaboutwhether

wecandeducelivedemotionalpracticesfromhistoriographicaltexts,andaboutthepossible

roleoftextualityinconstructing,teaching,anddelimitingthosepractices.Scheer’smodel

providesamorerigorousstructureforthinkingaboutexactlywhat“emotionalpractices”can

mean,andhowtheyfunctionrelativetolearnedculture,thephysicalbody,andtheconscious

self.InthisfinalsectionIwillframemyworkmoreexplicitlyintermsofemotionalpractices,

tryingtoanswerMcNamer’squestionbyextendingourunderstandingofthemedievalfeeling

body.

ScheerdefinesemotionasakindofpracticewithreferencetoBourdieu’ssociological

modelofpracticetheory:assomethingthatislearned,onconsciousandsubconsciouslevels.

Thislearninghappensnotonlyinthemind,butinabodywhichincludestheneuroplasticand

physicalmind:

Practicetheoryis…interestedinimplicitknowledge,inthelargelyunconscioussenseofwhatcorrectbehaviorinagivensituationwouldbe,inthe“feelforthegame.”Thus,practicesareskillfulbehaviors,dependent(asthetermsuggests)onpracticeuntiltheybecomeautomatic.(202)

Emotionalpractices,then,couldbe—inthefirstinstance—behavioursthatonedoesinorder

tohaveormodifyemotions.Scheer,however,movesbeyondthisinitialdefinitiontograpple

with“‘doingemotions’inaperformativesense,whichwouldimplicatethinkingofemotions

themselvesasakindofpractice”(194).Insteadofhavingemotions—beingassailedbythem,

orfeelingthemriseupfromsomeunknownplacewithin—onewouldtrythem,shapethem,

makethem,dothem.


Todo,andtomake:faire.Wewillsee,inthissection,EdwardIII“fairebonnechiere”in

hiscourt,andHughDespensertheelder“ma[k]emichesorwe”,andIwillreturnagaintothe

factthattheidiomoffeelingisfarlesspassiveinthefourteenthcenturythanitisinmodern

English.Here,too,“feeling”issomethingthatonedoes,notsomethingthathappenstoone.

ThismakesthelanguageofemotionalpracticeswellsuitedtostudyingtheMiddleAges—

althoughitmay,perhaps,leadtotheriskofacircularargument.LetmeemphasisewhatI

hopewillbeprovedinthefirsttwochaptersofthissection:thisactive,constructiveapproach

toemotionisnotsomethingthatIfindonlybecauseIamusingpracticetheory.Theideaof

“makingfeeling”throughone’sactions—withactive,embodiedverbs—isinfactembeddedin

thelanguageandthediscoursearoundemotioninthesetexts.48

Thatraisesthequestionofthebodyasphysicalobject.InScheer’smodel,“practices

areexecutedbyaknowingbody”:thebody“storesinformationfrompastexperiencesin

habituatedprocessesandcontributesthisknowledgetohumanactivityandconsciousness”

(199,201).Sheemphasisestheroleofthebody,includingtheadaptablebrain,inunconscious

categorisationandbehaviour:inshort,inlearninganddoingculturalpracticesofemotion.

Thisprovidesausefultoolsetforthinkingabouttheinternalisationofemotionalpracticesin

relationtothesociallysituatedbody—atoolsetwhichis,again,particularlyappropriateto

thesetexts,sincetheyaresofocussedonthesocialaspectsoffeeling-making.

Scheerproposesfourtypesofemotionalpractices(orfourtypesofworkthat

emotionalpracticescando):mobilising,naming,communicating,andregulating.Practices

whichmobiliseemotionsinclude“habits,rituals,andeverydaypastimesthataidusin

achievingacertainemotionalstate”:anythingwedotoproduceacertainfeelingorto

moderateoralteranexistingone,fromhuggingafriendforcomforttotheelaborate

sequencesofbehavioursthatmakeupcourtshippracticesacrossdifferentcultures(209).

Namingemotions“ispartandparcelofexperiencingthem...expressionorganizesthe

experience”(212).SheincludesWilliamReddy’smodelofemotivesasonekindofnaming

practice,butalsoallowsformorediversityofformthanReddydoes:feelingsnamednotonly

inspeechbutinwritingandthoughts,andwithdifferentmeaningsandeffectsdependingon

context(212–13).49Emotionalpracticesthatincludecommunicatingaremostobviously

sociallylearned,involvingbothasetof“clear,sociallyagreed-uponsigns”andthequestionof

48CorinneSaundersalsoarguesfortheinextricabilityofmind,feeling,andbodyinthisperiod,anddiscusseshowthisintersectswithreadingpractices(“AffectiveReading”,29andelsewhere).

49ScheerrefersspecificallytoReddy’sformulationofemotivesin“SentimentalismanditsErasure”.SeealsohisNavigationofFeeling.


success:hasthemessagebeenreceivedasintended(214)?Inthiscontext,thequestionof

sincerityisalsohighlyculturallydetermined.Theparametersthatstructurewhetherand

whenconventionalisedordeliberatelyexpressedemotionsareconsideredtobe“real”arenot

universal,andtheseparameterscanbeanobjectofhistoricalinquiryinthemselves(214–15).

Regulatoryemotionalpracticesinvolvetheinteractionofsocietalandgroupexpectationswith

thedevelopmentoftheindividual’semotionalrepertoire,andinclude,forScheer,mostofthe

workalreadydoneonemotionology,emotionalnorms,andemotionalregimesasregards

regulationandconstraint.Sheproposesthatpracticetheorycantakethisfurtherbybreaking

downanyassumptionthatthefeelingsbeingregulatedandconstrainedaresomethingthat

wouldotherwisehavebeen“hard-wired”:rather,thegroupinfluencehelpstoshapeand

createthosefeelingsandthebody’scapacityforfeelingthem(216).

Scheer’smodel,however,isnotexplicitlytextual.Whensheofferssuggestionsabout

methodologyforhistoricalemotionsresearchingeneral,therolesheassignstotextual

sourcesisprimarilythatofhistoricalwitness,notparticipant.Secondarily,shesuggestsa

rathervagueregulatoryrole,withtextsas“providersoftemplatesoflanguageandgestureas

wellasmediatorsofsocialnorms”(218).Ihavealreadygonesofarmyselfinprevious

sections,butIthinkitispossibletogofartherandconsiderthepossibleroleofmedieval

literatureinnaming,communicating,andmobilisingemotionalpractices.

SarahMcNamerhasalreadybeguntobridgethisgap,thoughnotbythenameof

practicetheory.Shesuggested,in“Feeling”,thatliterarytextsshouldbeconsideredasdoing

morethan“absorb[ing]andreplicat[ing]theoriesordiscoursesofemotion”,possiblyevenas

being“aprimarysiteormechanismforthemakingofemotion”(245).Sheputsherown

suggestionintoeffectinAffectiveMeditationandtheInventionofMedievalCompassion,

publishedtwoyearsbeforeScheer’sarticleonemotionalpractices.Theprimarygoalof

McNamer’smonographistoargueforthisparticularkindofcompassionas“historically

contingent,ideologicallycharged,andperformativelyconstituted”(3),butshealso

foregroundstheroleofthetextinshapingandnourishingit,andinhelpingreaders

(especiallywomen)torehearsethisaffect,thisbodilyresponse:inScheer’sterms,to

incorporateitintotheirhabitus.

McNamer’stextsarewellsuitedtosuchaproject.Theyforegroundembodiedemotion,

andattempttoshapeaone-on-onerelationshipwiththereaderwhichincludesofferingdirect

instructionsastofeelingandemotionalbehaviour,inahighlyregulatedandinstitutionalised

context.Chroniclesarerarelysointimateorsoexplicit,noristhecontextinwhichtheyare

readsoeasilydefined.Nevertheless,theycanbothvaloriseandprovideinstructioninspecific


emotionalpractices.Moreover,McNamer’sworkprovestheexistenceinthisperiodofa

readingculturethatdemandsthatworkofmeditativeengagementandemotionallearning.

FionaSomersetconfirmsthiswhenshetoosuggestsapracticeofconsciousemotional

learningfromtexts,withreferencetofifteenth-centuryLollardwriting(FeelingLikeSaints).In

thatlight,mysuggestionattheendofthepreviouschapterofacultureofemotionalcontagion

betweenwrittencharactersandreadersappearsplausible.

Thissection,therefore,hastwoaims:forthemostpart,Iwilltreatmytextsprimarily

aswitnessestoandregulatoryparticipantsinemotionalpractices,describinganddiscussing

thoseideasofthefeelingbodythattheypresupposeandhelptoconstruct.Fromtimetotime,

however,IwillpausetoconsiderthepossibilitiesofthetextsasparticipatinginScheer’s

otherthreetypesofemotionalpractices—naming,mobilising,andcommunicating—thatis,as

emotionalobjectsandasemotionalactorsthemselves.

TheorderinwhichScheerlistsherfourtypesofemotionalpracticefitsher

explanatorystructure.Thereisastoryhere:apersonactstoproduceanemotion

(mobilising),identifiesandtypifiestheemotiontheyarefeeling(naming),andseeksto

conveyittoothers(communicating),atwhichpointitmaybejudgedandmodifiedbyothers

(regulation).Thestoryiscyclical,sinceregulationconstantlyworksonmobilisation.Mostof

themobilisingpracticesshelists(courtship,confession,andsoon)areheavilyscriptedby

andembeddedinsocialinteraction;andtherearesimilaroverlapsandinteractiveeffects

betweenanytwoofherfourtypes.Formydiscussion,anotherorderingworksbetter.There

arefourchaptersinthissection:inthefirsttwoIwillfocusonnamingandcommunicating—

thatis,thelanguagearoundidentifyingandexperiencingemotionwithinthebodyandhow

thefeelingbodyinteractswiththosearoundit—beforemovingontomobilisingand

regulatorypractices.

Chapters8and9examinethelanguageusedtodescribetheroleoftheheartand

internalsensations,andmoveoutwardfromtheretovariouspartsofthesociallyengaged

feelingbody:throughactionandspeech,togazeandcountenance.Thelogicbehindthis

orderingisnotdictatedbytheanachronisticideaofemotionassomethingthatbeginswithin

andmovesoutward(exmotio),butbydegreesofsocialengagementandsocialmonitoring.As

wewillsee,gazeandcountenanceareinthesetextsmoreself-consciouslyembeddedinsocial

emotionthanarespeechandgesture:theyshowfeelinginmovementbetweenpersons,

whereactionandspeechmayinvolveeitherindividualorcollectivefeeling.Consequently,

emotionalpracticessurroundinggazeandcountenancearemoreconsciouslymonitoredby

theindividualandbysociety:accomplishmentswhichcanbeacquired(atleast,bythosewho


have“noble”feeling),torehearseandproducetheidealemotionaleffectsinoneselfand

others.

Afterexaminingallpartsofthefeelingbody,IturninChapter10toexaminethe

semanticrangeofthewordsdoleandgrevaunceasacasestudyfortheelisionbetweenthe

physicalandthesocialbody:doleisfeltasaresponsetobothemotionalandphysicalharm,

andcanbefeltbyanindividual,acommunity,oranindividualrepresentingacommunity.I

concludeinChapter11byconsideringcaseswhereachroniclerisobligedtotakeforhis

subjectakingwhoseemotionalpracticesappeartobedysfunctional:howauthorsmayhandle

adysfunctionalorrejectedfeelingbody,whomustneverthelessembodyhispeople.I

concludewithsomesuggestionsaboutemotionalityandhistoriographyintheMiddleAges,

and,morebroadly,abouthowwemightthinkabouttherolestory-tellingasemotional

practiceinstudyingthehistoryofemotions.

Chapter 8. The act of feeling

Boiling blood and heavy hearts

Ibeginmyexplorationoftheconceptofthefeelingbodybylookingatdescriptionsofinternal

sensationsofemotion.AlthoughIbeginwithinternalorgansandblood,itsoonbecomesclear

thatthereisnomeaningfuldistinctionbetween(say)apoundingheartandanimpassioned

gesture.Theentirebodyisinvolvedintheactof(creating)feeling—action,speech,and

internalsensation—andthesamelanguageofstirringandmovementandchangesin

temperatureisusedforallofthebody,internalandexternal.Althoughanauthormayexpress

emotionwithreferencetoanyofseveralpartsthereisnodifferenceintheirfunctioninthe

generationoffeeling:thefeelingbodyisanintegratedandporousemotionalunit.

Performative“signs”ofemotionhaveequalvaluewiththeinvisibleandinteriorones:why?

Theword“sign”wasappropriateinChapter1,whenIwasconsideringhowamodern

readermight“diagnose”emotionsinagiventext.Now,however,myaimistoconsiderthe

conceptuallogicthatunderliesthewritingofthesetexts.Gestureandsensationmustnowbe

readnotaspassivelyrevealinganemotion(tothereaderortothewitnesseswithinthetext)

butasactivelyparticipatinginitsconstruction.

WebegininthesameplacethatmylistsofsignsdidinChapter1:insidethebody,with

heartsandblood.Theheartisthebodypartmostcommonlynamedinassociationwith

emotionofallkinds.Itfrequentlyappearsasthesiteofpassion,orissaidtofeelthatpassion

itself:so,Beaumonthasangerinhisheart(Voeux303),EdwardII’sheartispious(GB26),and

Isabella“ma[kes]michesorweinhert”(Brut271).PhilipVIhas“grantangoisseaucuer”(SHF

1–280).EdwardIIIhas“finamour”fortheCountessofSalisburyinhisheart—and,aftershe

rebukeshim,hetakescaretoshuthisfeelingsup“fermement...oucuer”(SHF1–157and1–

159).Therearealsoseveralcommonplacesaboutaheart’sroleinfeelingidealisedemotions.

Aheartshouldbesoft/tenderenoughtobepenetratedbygentleemotionssuchaspityand

love:Froissart/leBelsaysthatnoheartcouldbeso“dur”astonotfeelpityforthepeopleof

Calais,andEdwardfinallysoftens(“amolia”)hisheart(SHF1–312);meanwhile,Geoffreyle

Baker’sIsabellawillnothearherhusband’sloveanddespairbecauseherheartisharderthan

anadamantineanvil(28).Theheartmayalsobetheseatofcourageorofheroicgrandeur:

RobertofArtoistellsthecompanythatEdwardIIIisbehavinginacowardlywaybecausehis


hearthasfailedhim(Voeux84),andtheauthoroftheVitaEdwardiIIwarnshisreadersthata

fearfulheartisineffectiveinaction(213).

Atfirstglance,therefore,onemightbetemptedtoidentifytheheartastheseator

originofpassionandassociatedpersonalqualities;butitisasoftennamedinconnectionwith

decisionandrationalchoiceaswithpassion.Thereisnomodernoppositionherebetweenthe

thinkingbrainandfeelingheart:theheartisoftenhardlytobedistinguishedfromthewill.

TheauthoroftheAnonimallechroniclecomplainsfrequentlyofEdwardII’schangesofheart,

bywhichhemeanshisunsteadywillandhistendencyto—aswewouldputit—changehis

mind.Theverythirdsentenceofthechronicleaccuseshimofbeing“sochaungeabledecorage

etdequoer,thatwhathegrantedonedayforthecommonprofitofthelandhewouldwantto

retractonanother”(80–81).50Elsewhere,Edward“pensa…enquoer”andhisheart

determinesonvengeance,whileJohnofPowderhamactsontheideasthat“ledeablelimisten

quoer”(Anonimalle86,102,94).TheRomanemperor,being“angerdeathisherte”,gathers

hislordsandtellsthemthathis“hertesothelyessette”onwar(Morte1957,1963).Inone

chronicle,Salisburyspeakswithhismouththe“pensement”ofhisheart(Voeux190);in

another,hisCountessproteststhatthe“pensee”ofadulteryneverenteredherheart,and

praysthatitnevershall(SHF1–158).EdwardII’sheartisfinallypersuadedtoagreetohis

deposition:thefactthatheweepsashedoessosuggestsstronglythathisconsentisnot

wholehearted,inthemodernsense,butonlyaconcessionofthewill(GB26).Manyofthese

thoughtsanddecisionsmaybeemotionalinwholeorpart,butthenarrativeemphasisineach

caseisontheheartastheagentofconsiderationandchoice,notonapassionateimpulse.

Arthurdoesraisethequestionofwhetherthoughtsbornintheheartmaybetooimpetuous

andunconsidered:

“SirCadour,”quodthekynge,“thyconcelleesnoble;Botthouarteameruailousmanewiththimerywordez!Fforthowcounteznocaas,necastesnoforthire,Bothurlesfurtheapponeheuede,asthihertethynkes...”(259–62).

Thisdistinction,however,isnotsocommonasthesimpleconflationelsewhereofheartand

thought;and,unlessoneassumesthatEdwardII’sficklenessofwillintheAnonimallestems

50ChildsandTaylortranslate“chaungeabledecorageetdequoer”as“fickleinpurposeandfeelings”.Sincethechroniclerdoesnotelsewheremakemuchdistinctionbetween“quoer”and“corage”,anddoeshaveatendencytopairsimilarwordstogetherforrhetoricalintensity,thisrenderingprobablyoverstatesthedistinction;but“purposeandfeelings”togethercomesclose,Ithink,tothisconceptualisationoftheheart.


fromthefactthatheisthinkingwithhisheart,Icanfindnodirectanalogueinanyofthe

actualchronicles.Intheordinaryusageofthechroniclersthereisnomeaningfuldistinction

drawnbetweentheabstractmindandtheembodiedheart—or,indeed,betweenfeelingand

thewill.

Butjusthowembodiedisthisheart?Occasionallywearegivenasenseoftheheartasa

specificphysicalorgan,whenitrespondstoemotionwithmovement—usuallytremblingor

swelling—orwithheat.EdwardIII’sheart“estfremis”(Voeux88),andArthurtellsusthathis

“hertetrembled”attheinsolenceoftheRomanmessengers(Morte270);whileRoger

Mortimer’sheart“bolned”withwrath(Brut265),andheartsintheAnonimallechronicle

frequentlyswell(e.g.,102,126).Aflutteringorthuddingheartsoundsfamiliarenoughtoa

modernaudiencetoassumethatwemayunderstandthephysicalsensationimpliedbythese

descriptions:theheartbeatsfaster,harder,drawsattentiontoitself.NorrisJ.Lacytranslates

“fremis”citedaboveinVoeuxduHéronas“poundedwithangerandresentment”.Eventhe

mentionofaheartswellingwithemotionmayseemtosomemodernreaderstostraddlethe

linebetweenliteralandmetaphorical:termslike“afull/overflowing/achingheart”arestill

familiarenoughtodaythatwecanassociateaphysicalachewiththissortofexpression.

However,themedievalhabitsofsymbolismandsynecdochecomplicateanyattemptto

determinethedegreetowhichtheheartisconsideredliterallyasthebodilyorganinany

givencase.Itiscapableoffunctioningsimultaneouslyasthesourceoftheflutteringsensation

inone’schestandasthesymbolofthewholebody,feeling,orsoul.Itssymbolicfunctionsare

literalisedonthedeathofRaouldeCambrai,thatsuperlativewarriorofpowerful,noble,but

erringpassions:whenhisheartisremovedfromhisbody,itisfoundtobelargerthanthatof

anoxattheplough(vv.3065–68).

Eveninthemomentswhenitseemstoreadmostasaliteralphysicalorgan,weshould

becautiousofreadingthis“heart”inpreciselyanatomicalterms.Theactionsofbeatingand

pounding—orrather,theverbsusuallytranslatedassuchinmodernreadings—arealsoused

todescribetheactionsofthebloodandtherestofthebodyinfeelingemotion.Fremircannot

alwaysmeanbeat,tremblencannotalwaysmeanpound:bothverbsarealsoappliedtoblood.

Bolnenismoreslipperyyet:itisnotalwayspossibletotellthedifferencebetweenmotionand

changesoftemperature.Theverbisusuallyonethat,initsliteralsense,indicatesmovement:

mouvoirinFrench,estuareinLatin,bolneninEnglish,andsoon.InthecaseoftheLatinand

theEnglish,theprimarymeaningistodescribetheswellingorsurgingofliquid,asofwaves:

theassociationsofheataresecondary,throughtheimageofaboilingpot.Giventhatmany

strongpassionsareassociatedwithheat,“boil”isoftenareasonabletranslation—butnot


always.Aswehavealreadybeguntosee,movementordisturbanceisalsodeeplyembedded

inthebodilyexperienceofstrongpassions;andthen,notallemotionsthatmaybedescribed

intermsofmovementofthebloodareonesassociatedwithheat.ThebloodoftheCountof

Foix“limua”inanger;buthissontremblesandis“sancmuéeteffraié”:thatis,hisblood

moveswithfear,afeelingusuallyassociatedmorewithcoldthanheat(SHF3–21).Whilethe

fatherflushesinanger,thesonturnswhite.Then,too,theheart(andthewholeperson)may

“bolnen”,inwhichcase“swell”or“bulge”seemsamorenaturaltranslationthan“boil”.Thatit

issometimesimaginedwithasenseofinflationratherthanseethingisshownbymoments

thatexpressthesameconceptindifferentwords:forexample,the“grossure”ofEdwardII’s

heart“surmonta”inanemotionalmoment(Anonimalle102).

Thelanguageofinternalemotionalsensationisdominatedbytheideaofinnerparts

seething,moving,swelling,andchangingtemperature—andthedifferencebetweentheexact

sensationsdescribedseemsasfluidandporousasthedistinctionbetweentheparts

themselves.Noristhislanguageconfinedtotheinteriorofthebody.Theheartisinmany

casesinterchangeablewiththewholebodyortheself,andthesamephrasingcanbeapplied

toboth:so,GeoffreyleBakersaysthatenvyisbanishedfromEdwardIII’sheart,andtwo

sentenceslater,thatJeanIIhimselfis“[c]onsumedwithwrath,whichisthebastardoffspring

ofenvy”(98).RogerMortimercan“bolne[n]forwraþ”,andthesameexpressionisappliedto

hisheart(Brut268,265).ThesightofthepeopleofCalaisbytheendofthesiegeissopitiful

thatthereisnotaheartintheworldso“dur”thatitwouldnotpitythem(sowearetold

twice);buttheheartofEdwardIIIisso“dur”thathecannotspeakforanger(SHF1–312).

Peoplemayheatup,aswellasheartsandblood—therampagingScotsburn(GB4),Isabella

blazesupinanger(GB16).Somaytheytremble—PhilipVI“quitefremissoitwithangerand

rage”andthefrightenedsonoftheCountofFoix“begantotremblerhard”(SHF1–280and3–

21).ThechronicleroftheVitaEdwardiIIspeaksofcourtierswhoareinflamedbymaliceand

swollenupwithrancor(“rixaexcand[ere]”and“forterancoretumesc[ere]”,98–99),and

PhilipVIis“inflatus”byangerandpride(GB51).Sometimespeoplearesimplymoved:

Isabellais“nonamoremotasetfurorecommota”(GB28).51Eventhefeelingitselfmaybesaid

tochangeitstemperatureortostir:theangeroftheBlackPrincegrowshotagainsttherebels

51“Notmovedbylovebutcommotato/withfury.”Thisslightwordplaydrawsattentiontothefactthat,thoughcommovereistechnicallysimplyaverbofmotionandagitation,itisusedalmostexclusivelyforanger—justasnowadays,ifoneis“aroused”inEnglish,or“eccitato”inItalian,thepassioninquestionisassumedtobesexualunlessotherwisespecified.Preestelidestheverbsandrenderstheline“notstirredtolove…buttoanger”.


ofAquitaine(“incanduitiraprincipis”,GB110),andthebarons’hatredofGaveston

“incanduit”(GB11).

Thefeelingbodyinthesetexts,then,isnotmadeupofdiscreteparts,withseparate

functions.Emotiondoesnotoriginateinonepartofthebodythenmoveoutwardtoothers,

norisoneparticularaspectofthebodyormindtaskedwithcontainingunrulypassionsor

combattingthemwithreason.Thisistrueevenofthewomb.Thefeelingbodyisnot

gendered,asfemalebodiesappeartoorarelyinthesetextstohaveanydistinctivelanguageof

emotionassociatedwiththeirbodies.Thebodyismalebydefault,genderedonlyifitdeviates

fromthatnorm.NoristhereanyevidencehereofGalenichumoraltheory:itsassociationsof

particularemotionsorheavenlybodieswithspecificorgansorhumoursseemtohavevery

littlerelevancetotheperceptualexperienceofemotionwithinone’sownbodyaswitnessed

inthesetexts.

Inpractice,emotionsdonotseemtobeexperiencedasisolatedinspecificpartsofthe

body,orevenasaffectingthemindifferentways.Thebodyactsasawholetogenerate

emotion.Eachofitspartsmovessimultaneouslyinthesameway,whetherthatmotionbe

trembling,swelling,orchangingtemperature.Aheartmayseemtotrembleorheat,butso

mayabody.Cheeksmayredden(heat)orpale(cool)justasthebodymay.Eventhepounding

ofanagitatedheartsoundsliketrembling.Noristhisconflationofpassionandbody

restrictedtothehistoriography.BoththeDMFandANDattestthatpassionatepeoplemay

buillirandevenfrire—bothintheirpersonsorintheirblood—andtheMiddleEnglishboillen

hasthesameusage.TheMEDlistsmanyinstancesoftremblingheartsunderverbssuchas

quakenandtremblen;andpantenmaymeanrapidorlabouredbreath,butmayalsobeusedto

describetheactionofanagitatedheart.TheANDlistsforfremirmeaningssuchastrembling,

convulsing,thebeatingofaheart,theboilingofblood—andthesurgeofthesea.52AndMiddle

Englishheartsmayquappen(“struggleorwriggleindeathagony;ofsomeone’svitalforce:

sufferconvulsionoragitation”),averbwhichmayalsobeappliedtothetossingofwaves.The

bodygeneratesfeelingasonecohesiveunit,performingthesamefluidactioninallofitsparts.

Despitetheanalogyofliquid,thismodelhaslittleincommonwiththemodelwhich

Rosenweinnamed“hydraulic”.Thehydraulicmodelisessentiallypassive,imaginingemotion

assomethinghappeningtothesubject—risingupfrombeloworwithin.Thesubjectcanonly

contain,express,ormodifythatemotion:theyhavenothingtodowithitsactualproduction.

52TheDMFisterserwithitsdefinitions—only“S’agiterd’unmovement…trembler,frémir”foranobject,or“Sefremir.Trembler,s’agiter”foraperson—butitsexamplesincludemanyquakinghearts,andonewind-tossedocean.


Thefeelingbodyinfourteenth-centuryhistoriographyisanythingbutpassiveinthe

productionofemotion.Itdoesnotrespondtoemotion:itgeneratesitbythoseveryinternal

movementswhichweseedescribed.Almostalltheverbsofemotionareactiveunlessbeing

usedasatransitiveverb:onecanwrathenintransitively(becomeangry)oronecanwrathen

somebodyelse(makethemangry)—bycontrastwithmodernEnglishidiom,inwhichwe

typicallyuseanadjectivewitharelativelypassiveconstruction(tobemadeangry/toget

angry,ortoangersomebodyelse).Wenolongerhaveverbswhichcanbeusedofthesubject

tosignalanactiveshifttothatemotion:linguisticallyspeaking,wecannolongerdomanyof

ourownemotions.

Thesepatternsinthedescriptionsofinternalfeelinggiveusastrongfoundationfor

understandingthenamingpracticessurroundingthefeelingbody:thatis,howsensationsand

emotionsarecategorised,typified,andunderstood.Wecanseetheactivelanguageusedto

describe(andexperience?)emotionalproduction,andwecanseecertainkindsofinternal

sensationbeinggroupedtogetherconceptuallyregardlessofwhatbodyparttheyare

affecting.Moreover,wecanbegintoseehowdeeplythevocabularyofliquidmovementis

embeddedintheexperienceoffeeling.Boundariesareporoushere:betweenthevarious

partsofthebody,betweenthebodyandtheoutsideworld,andevenbetweenliteral

significationofthevariouswords.Aswewillsee,too,thesamevocabularymaybeusednot

onlyofanindividualbodybutofthemovementoffeelingbetweendifferentindividualsand

throughanentirecommunity.

Thefactthatthisisnotrestrictedtooneortwowords,oreventoasinglelanguage,

suggestsafundamentalandwidespreadperceptionofhowemotionandsensationactwithin

thebody.Giventhepoweroflanguageinorganisingandenactingexperienceonbotha

personalandsociallevel,thisismorethanameremetaphor,orafewhalf-forgotten

etymologicalassociations.“Puttinganameonourfeelingsispartandparcelofexperiencing

them:expressionorganizestheexperience”(Scheer212),andifso,thesetextsarenotonly

witnessestonamingpractices,butparticipants:teachingthelanguageandorganisationof

emotion,modellingtheexperience,andofferingpatternsforreinterpretationafterthefactof

one’sownexperiencesoffeelingandforthefeelingsofothers.


Behaviour and speech, feeling actions

What,then,oftheroleofcommunication?Therearetwoparticularaspectsofthefeelingbody

whicharemoredirectlyobservablebyothers,orwhichinteractwithotherpeople:behaviour,

andspeech.Thesedonotpresupposeanaudience—peopleoftenpracticeemotional

behaviourorspeechwhenunobserved—buttheydomaketheinternalemotionalstatevisible

toothers,andcaninvolvesocialengagementinthemobilisationofemotion.Beingmore

directlymonitoredbysocietythaninternalsensation,theyaremoreconsciouslyacquired

emotionalskills.These,however,areclearly“skills”inScheer’ssense:acquiredand

internalisedwellbelowthelevelofawarenesssoasnottooccupytheworkingmemory,tothe

extentthattheyareexercisedunconsciouslyandconsiderednormal,likeknowingwhento

offerahandshake,or,onamorefundamentallevel,howtoorganisethemusclestokeep

oneselfstandinguprightwithoutconsciouseffort.Withinthesetexts,emotionalbehaviour

andspeecharestillconsidered“natural”proofsoffeeling,ratherthancultivated“skills”which

oneconsciouslyputsintoeffect.

AsIarguedinChapter1,theinternalsensationsofemotionarenomorevalidas

indicatorsof“real”emotionsthancommunicativeactionorspeech,atleastwhenitcomesto

thenarrationofemotioneventsinthesetexts.Ifweconsiderthisintermsofpracticetheory,

itisasimplemattertosaythatthetextitselfasemotionalpracticeseesnodifferencebetween

thesevariousmanifestations:thatis,theauthor,inconstructingtheemotionevent,considers

allthreetobeequallyvalidwaystocreatetheemotionwithinthetextandengagethereader

initscreation.

Certainlyaffectandbehaviourareinunitywithinternalfeelinginthesetexts,

functioningaspartofthesameaction:allaregeneratedbythesameimpulse,andallactto

generatethefeelinginthesubjectandinobservers.Rushingforwardtoembraceafriend;

takingheartinbattleorfleeinginpanickedconfusion;self-abasementbydressinghumbly,or

bybeggingonone’sknees;gesturesofthiskindfunctiononthesamelevelasinternal

sensationintermsofnarrativecommunicationofemotionalstate.Theyrelyonthis

conformityofmeaningfortheirsocialeffectwithinthetextandfortheirnarrativeeffect

outsideofit;buttheyalsohaveanadditionalfunction,whichisstirringemotioninonlookers

withinthetext.

Thisconformityoffeelingwithphysicalmovementofthebodyisreflectedinthe

ubiquityoffeeling-action,orfeelingasaction.BythisImeanexpressionslike“making

dole/merry”,“lamenting”,“celebrating”,inwhichtheverborverbalphraseforegroundsthe


feelingratherthanthepreciseactioninvolvedinexpressingit.Thesearebyfarthemost

commontypeofemotionalactionthatcanbeimaginedinrelationtothebody(asopposedto

politicalorlarge-scaleactionslikeholdingalovedayorstartingawar).So,forexample,Hugh

DespensertheElder“mademichesorwe”whenbanishedfromEngland(Brut214);EdwardII

“remuasasegeetalaaLoundresmultdolent”(Anonimalle98);Guenevere“incarelenges”at

Arthur’sdeparture(Morte696).Peopleareoftenabashed(“esbahir”/“abasshen”),which

blendsembarrassment,shame,distress,andvisiblynotknowingwhattodoandhowto

behaveinagivensocialsituation(e.g.,SHF3–21,SHF1–159,Anonimalle128,Brut216).

Whenweseetermslike“dolente”or“lamenting”itisalmostimpossibletoknowhow

preciselythisisimaginedtorelatetothebody—whetherasemotionalaction,verbalised

lament,orgrieffeltinternally.Isabella,forexample,“dolet”withanger,withtears,andwith

words,blendingfeelingandbodyandvoiceinthatoneverb(GB17).Thisveryconfusion(or

flexibility)showstheextentoftheconceptualelisionbetweeninwardfeeling,outward

behaviour,andsocialfeeling.Suchunifiedfeeling-actionsallhavesocialmeaning.Manyof

themengagedirectlywithotherpeople,orevenhavearitualisedsignificance.Feeling-actions

thereforeactualisetheemotioninthesocialworld,generatingemotionalresponseinothers

andinthesubject,whilesimultaneouslypositioningthatemotionalresponserelativeto

culturallyestablishednormsforfeelingandbehaving.Byusingthesegesturesandactions

theythereforehelptocreateandcategorisetheemotion:theytakeonsomethingoftheforce

ofemotives,declaringandaffirmingthatIamangry,orthatwearegrievingtogether.

Thereisawidevarietyofspeechactswhichfunctionasemotionalexpressionbeyond

simplestatementsofjoy,woe,oranger,from“praising”or“givingthanks”tothetumultuous

roarofanarmyinbattle.Wordlessspeech—orspeechofwhichthewordsarenotreported,

whichcomestothesamething—functionsinthesamewayasfeelingaction,andtheborders

betweenthemarefluid.Wordlessspeechmaybeusedtoindicatedegreeandgeneralkindof

passion,butsometimescanactinemotivemode,especiallythemoreformalisedorritualised

utterances.Eventheinabilitytospeakissometimesusedtoshowanexcessofemotion,

sometimesaccompaniedbythegrindingofteeth,orthebitingofalip(SHF1–312,Morte119

and270).Froissartprovidesaninterestingvariantonthislossofcontrolofspeechwhenthe

agitatedCountofFoixslipsintoGasconinsteadofhisusual“good”French(SHF3–21).

Emotionalgroupspeechreliesonacharacterisationofthegroupasabody,andis

usuallyformlessandwordless(shouts,cries,roars),oftenrepresentingthegroupas

somewhatanimalisticanduncontrolled.Itmayalsoappearintheformofmurmursor

rumours(whichsomechroniclersmayusetovoicetheirownveiledcriticisms,asdothe


authorsoftheAnnalesPauliniandtheAnonimalle).Thelanguagewithwhichthegenerationof

groupspeechisdescribedoftendrawsonthesamevocabularyofmovementanddisturbance

asthelanguageofsensationwithinthebody.Consequently,thatgroupmaybecharacterised

negativelyorpositivelybymeansofthatfeeling,dependingonwhetheritisconsideredasa

virtuousfeelingornot.Thecontrastbetweenrowdy,chaoticnoiseandsilent,calm,pious

disciplinebeforeandduringabattleisoftenemployedbychroniclerstoforeshadowwhich

armyislikelytowin,andwhy(e.g.,thebattleofCrécy:GB72,andSHF1–277to1–280).

Attheotherendofthescalefromthechaoticandformlessarethosespeechactswith

formalorofficialeffect,suchasvows(Voeuxthroughout,Brut215),recitalsofgrievances(as

theCountofFoixagainsthisson,SHF3–21,orthetownofBristolin1316,VEII126),cursing

(HughDespensertheElder,Brut214),andpublicproclamations(EdwardIIangrilybanishing

hiswifeandson,Brut233,orproceedingagainsttheclergy,VEII71).Praiseorthanksgiving

toGodcanbeindividualorcollectivespeechacts.EdwardII’sinsistenceoncallingGaveston

hisbrother,oronotherpeople’scallinghimtheEarlofCornwall,andEdwardIIIcallingthe

FrenchkinghiscousinuntilRobertofArtoisstirswarbetweenthem,probablyfallintothis

categoryaswell(VEII15and9,Voeux12–13).Allofthesespeechactshaveafunctionof

enactinganemotionasapublicandpersonalfact,engagingthecommunityatlargeina

formaltop-downactoffeeling.Butthemostdirectlyanalogoustoemotivesarethemoments

wheresomebodysimplystandsforthandstateshisorherfeeling—asforexample,theking

standingforthinthecourtandproclaiminghisfeudalanger.Thesearenamingpractices,

similartobutbroaderthanemotives:aspartofapublicperformanceaccordingtoaritualised

codeoffeeling,theyeffectemotionnotonlyinthespeakerbutinthecommunity.

ImentionedearlierthatHughDespensertheElder“mademichesorwe”when

banishedfromEngland.Hereishowhe“makes”it:

AndSirHugheþefaderwenttoDouer,andmademichesorwe,andfelleadounbytheseebank,&clippedacroswiþhisArmes,andsorewepyng,saide:‘now,fareweleEngeland!&godeEngeland,toGodeyþebitak!’andþriescussedeþegrounde,andwendeneuerhauecomenaȝein,andWepyngfulsore,cursedeþetymeþateuerhebigateSirHughhissone,andsaide‘forhimhehadelosteEngeland’;andinpresenceofhamþatwerehimaboute,heȝafhimhiscurse,andwentouertheseetohislandes.(Brut214)

Thisisasingleemotionevent.Itcontainsdirectandindirectemotionalspeech(notethe

curses),feeling-action(makingsorrow),andspecifiedemotionalaction(weeping,kissingthe

ground,fallingdownandembracingtheground).Thereareritualisedelementsof


supplicationandself-abasementinDespenser’sapostrophetoEngland,asifheweretaking

unwillingleaveofabelovedlord.Heweepssorelyduringboththespeechactofsorrowand

thatofanger;andthesecondcurse,beingspecificallyuttered“inpresence”ofhisfollowers,

hassomethingmoreoftheairofaformalisedrejectionthanthefirst.Althoughfallingtothe

ground,embracingitwithoutstretchedarms,andkissingitthreetimesarehighlyritualised

actionswhichmayseemveryself-consciouslyperformed,thereisnorealdistinctiontobe

madeherebetweenthe“genuine”andtheperformative:nosensethatfeelingprecedesaction

orspeechandmustbemediatedthroughthem.Thisisfeeling-makingunitedwithspeechand

action:wearetoldthathe“madesorrow”,andthentheexactmovementsandwordswith

whichhemadeit.Despenserisanactivesubjectinemotioncreationandparticipation:itis

notmerelysomethingthathappenstohim.Nordoesthisfeelingbegininsideandmove

outward:internalandexternalhappenatthesametime.Internalmovementofthebody

workstogetherwithitsactionsandspeechtofeel,generate,andcategoriseemotion—aswell

asgivingititssocialeffect.

Vocalexpressionandfeelingactionbothexistonarangefromformlesstohighly

structured.Allofthesehavethecapacitytoorganiseandenactemotionalexperienceonboth

apersonalandsociallevel.Fromanarrativepointofview,theyidentifyandcharacterisethe

emotionandatthesametimeengagedirectlywiththereaders,potentiallyenlistingthemina

formofaffectivereading.Towhatextentcanwecomparethemtoemotives?

Reddy’semotivesareprimarilyverbal:whetherpronouncedaloudorarticulatedin

thoughtalone,theyrelyonthepoweroflanguagetonameathingandgiveitshape.Inthe

societiesofwhichhewritesitmaybetruethatspeechhasauniqueroleinidentifyingand

classifyingemotionalexperience,butinthesemedievaltextsthatroleissharedequallywith

action.Itispossibletoarguethatemotionscriptscould,insomecases,besufficiently

structuredandrecognisedtocountasemotives.Certainkindsofactioncarrysufficient

symbolicweighttohaveanequalpowertolanguageinthisregard:anembodiedorgestural

expressionofemotionneednot,inthatcase,beconsideredtobepre-verbal,butasadifferent

kindofarticulation.Speechandactionmightequallyworktoachieveboththepersonaland

socialeffectsoffeeling.However,Reddy’stermisverywelldefinedanditsboundariesare

clearlydelineated.Itisculturallycontingent,yes,butitworkstodescribeaspecific

phenomenonthatexistswithinthekindsofworldthatheobserves.Theterm“naming

practices”ismoreappropriatehere,becauseitencouragesexplorationintherelevantcultural

context.Inthiscontext,wefindthatemotivesmighthavesocialaswellaspersonaleffect(that


is,theycanbebothcommunicativeandnamingpractices)—butwealsofindthatwemust

reconsidertheword“communicate”.

Inthesetexts,communicationalmostinvariablyinvolvescontagion.Expressingfeeling

createsfeeling:notonlyinoneself,butinothers.Scheer’sdescriptionofcommunicativesocial

practicesdoesnotincludeemotionalcontagion.Shefocussesonthesuccessorfailureof

transmittingthe“message”:onthe“sociallyagreed-uponsigns”forgivingthatmessage,and

theculturalstructuresthatdictatewhatcountsas“success”andunderwhatcircumstances

questionsofsincerityarevaluedorariseatall.ForScheer,emotionalcontagionisclassed

undermobilisingemotions:thatis,anykindofsympatheticorantipatheticemotional

responseinthe“recipient”ofthemessageisconsideredastheirownpractice.Themedieval

feelingbody,however,iscapableofdirectlymobilisingemotioninitselfandinothers,rather

thansimplyinspiringotherstodotheirownmobilisation.Wewillseemoreexamplesofthis

inthefollowingchapter,wheregazeandcountenancedirectlyaffectandeffectthefeelingsof

others.Itmustbeflaggedhere,however,becausechroniclesconsistentlyspeakof

communicationintheseterms.Emotionalcommunicationdoesmorethanshowsomebodya

feeling:ittransmitsitandcreatesacorrespondingfeelinginthem,whetheritbethesame

emotion(feudalangerpassedonfromthelordtohisfollowers)oranantagonisticone(rage

inonepersoncreatingfearinanother).

Emotives,Scheersuggests,areonlyonekindofnamingpractice.Ifweconsidernaming

practicesmorebroadlywemightalsoconsiderthe“naming”ofthephysicalsensationsor

socialstructuresassociatedwithemotions,oreventhegrammaticalconstructionsthatshape

theirrelationshiptothesubject.Thesemustalsobeculturallyacquiredcategories:emotional

practices,inshort.“Myheartswells”doesthesamekindofworkas“Ifeelangry”.Wemay

positthattermslike“Imakedole”,orevenentireemotionscripts(oncetheyarestandardised

andlearnedaspartofone’scultural“vocabulary”)wouldhaveasimilarfunction—not

identicaltoemotives,beingmorediscursiveandlessessentialised,butstillcapableof

organisingandshapingemotionalexperience.53

Third-personnamingactsarenotemotives,buttheyarealsonamingpractices:“his

heartswells”and“shefeelsangry”haveacommunicativeandinstructiverolewhenitcomes

tolearninghowtofeel.McNamer’stextsinstruct:theyemploysecond-personinjunctions,

53StephanieTrigghasmadeasimilarargumentforcertainproverbialanalogiesandexpressionsaboutemotion:that,althoughtheproverbialexpression“doesnotfunctionlikean‘emotive’inanydirectsense,itsimilarlydrawsattentiontotheactiveroleoflanguageinshapingboththefeeling,andtherepresentationofthefeeling”(“Weepinglikeabeatenchild”,31–32).


tellingthereaderexactlywhatandhowtofeel,tobridgethegapbetweenself-analysisand

detachedobservation.Chroniclesdemonstrateandtypify,usuallyinthethirdperson,but

oftenwithinstructionimpliedbymodellingandpraisingthereactionstherightemotional

responsewithinthetext.“Everynoblepersonwhowasthereleapedtohisfeetandsworean

oath”—or,“surelytherecouldbeheartsohardthatitwouldnothavepitiedher”—these,I

suggest,haveaneducationalforcenotonlythroughdemonstrationbutalsothrough

emotionalcontagion,namingandcommunicatingemotionalpracticesinthesamemoment.

“Ifnamingemotionsmakesthemavailabletoexperience,thenchartingchangesin

namingmeanswritingahistoryoffeelinginthefullestsense”(Scheer214).Thisappliesmost

obviouslytothewordsbywhichwelabelemotions—inChapter10,forexample,Iwillshow

thatdol/grefismorecloselyassociatedwithangerthanourmodern“grief”.Butthereisalso

realhistoricalvaluein,forexample,lookingmorecloselyatthelanguageusedtodescribethe

sensationsofemotionwithinthephysicalbody,oratthelogicbehindfeudallovebeingnamed

astheoppositetofeudalanger.Iwouldgofurtherandsuggestthatstudiesofnaming

practicesintheMiddleAgesshouldalsoconsidertropesandinheritedstructuressuchas

emotionscripts,whichcarryname-likemeaningforcategorisingandrecordingemotion.

Moreover,themedievalidealisationofemotionalcontagionmeansthatnamingand

communicatingpracticesaremorecloselyalignedthanwemightnowadaysexpect.

Chapter 9. The complete body

Feeling socially

InthepreviouschapterIlaidthefoundationsfortheconceptofthelate-medievalfeeling

body,comprisedofbothinternalandexternalmotionworkingtogetherto“do”thefeelingin

thesameway,fromhearttospeechacts.Thefeelingbody,however,doesnotfunction

independentlyofitssocialcontext.Ifnamingandcommunicativepracticesareveryclosely

aligned,sotooaretheactsoffeelingandrevealing.Thischapterwillconsidertwoelements

thataremoreconsciouslycommunicativeandsocialinthesetexts:thegaze,andthe

countenance.Speechandfeelingactiondonotdependonwitnesses:theyappear

performativeandtheymayhavesocialeffect,buttheycanalsooperateonthesubjectalone

withouttheparticipationofothers.Gazeandcountenance,bycontrast,areinherentlysocial

intheirpractice.Theydependonthepresenceandparticipationofothers:theyareinvokedin

thenarrativenottotelluswhatthesubjectisfeeling,buttoconsiderthewaysinwhich

feelingisconductedandcreatedbetweendifferentsocialsubjects.

Countenance and cheer

Isay“countenance”ratherthan“face”becausethefaceitselfisremarkablebyitsabsencein

chroniclesandothermedievalnarrative.Flushingandpallorarepartofthefeelingbody—

theyareoftenmentionedandbearadirectrelationshiptotheactoffeeling—butfacial

expressionsarealmostneverinvoked.Saveforchangesofcolourweseenothingthatmight

beclassedasanemotionalface:nobodygrimacesorfrowns;smilesandlaughsare

indistinguishableandalmostneveroccur;nobodylooksanotherpersoninthefacetoread

theirfeelings.ThereisonesmileinallofFroissart’sChroniques,andthepossibilityofonein

LesVoeuxduHéron(SHF2–297,Voeux360–66).Weglimpsesomethinglikeametaphorical

frowninHarcourt’sdesireto“place[re]faciemtiranniFrancorum”,translatedbyDavidPreest

as“totakethefrownofftheFrenchtyrant’sface”(GeoffreyleBaker69).TheMiddleEnglish

andAnglo-NormanDictionariessuggestthatthispaucityoffacialexpressionisnotuniqueto

chronicles.Concordancelistsforwordslike“louren”and“sousrire”arescanty.Thereislittle

movementseenintheface,nofocusonparticularmusclesandtheircommunicative


significance—certainlynosuchvolumestobereadinthefaceasonefindsinnineteenth-

centurynovels.Ontherareoccasionswherethefaceismentionedspecifically,itisusually

eitherasametonymforpersonorpresence(“beforetheking’sface”),orinsopurelyliterala

mannerthatithasnothingtodowithemotionandcommunication.Visageoccursonlythree

timesinFroissart’sChroniquesandreferspurelytothephysicalface,nottothefaceasan

expressivemedium.IntheBattleofSluys,forexample,theEnglisharmychangespositionto

avoidthesun’sglareontheir“visage”(SHF1–114).Moresymbolically,LancasterintheBrut

turns“hisvisagetowardþecrois”beforehisexecution—ameaningfulgestureoftheheadand

body,buthardlyanexpressiveface(219).

Thereisnostablepracticeoflocatingemotionsintheface,isolatedfromtherestofthe

body.Instead,thefacemergesintosocialengagementandself-representation.Intheplaceof

facialexpression—boththephysicalandlexicalplace—wefindthewordchiere,or

occasionallycontenanceorsemblaunt.Whiletheprimaryliteralmeaningofchiereis“face”,

andcontenanceandsemblauntareoftenusedtotranslateLatinvultusandfaciem,allthree

wordshaveabroadermeaningthantheanatomicalface,encompassingcomportment,dress,

andwhole-bodyemotionalexpression.Thiselisionofthefaceintosobroadaconcept

associatesitwithsocialaccomplishmentandself-representation,butsimultaneouslyrenders

thefaceitselfalmostinvisible.Chiereisapartofthefeelingbody,inthatitparticipatesinthe

constructionoffeelingandmaybetrustedbywitnessesandreaders.Itis,however,more

closelyalignedwiththeinterpersonalaspectsoffeelingthanwithinteriorbodilyexperience.

Chiereisonlyinvokedwhentheauthorisconsideringtheroleofconsciousself-

representationtoothers,andthereforeonlycomesintobeinginthecontextofsocial

interaction.Itaffectsandisaffectedbythefeelingbodiesaroundit;and,beingamore

consciouslyacquiredandexercisedskill,itisverycloselyalignedtoclassandsocial

accomplishment.

Froissartoffersthelargestsamplegroupfortherangeofmeaningsencompassedby

chiere.Froissartoftenuses“fairebonne/grantchiere”asafeelingaction:so,“leroyluifist

grantchiere”whenEnguerranddeCoucyreturnstoFrance.Onceagain,feelingisbehaviour;

butnowfaceanddemeanourarecomprehendedintheirrepresentation,ratherthanvoice

andaction,andthebehaviourisnecessarilyasocialone.Chierehasabroaderapplicationthan

feeling-action.Intheadjectivalphrase“debonne/lieechiere”itbecomesnotasingleactbuta

stateorcontinuousbehaviour,bywhichonemaybedescribedoridentified:anaspectof

characterorsocialaccomplishment,asmuchasofemotion.


AllofthesemeaningsareinplayintheepisodeofEdwardIII’slovefortheCountessof

Salisbury(SHF1–158).Stylistically,thisepisodeapproachesveryneartocourtlyromance;

anditisperhapsforthisreasonthatthewordchiereappearssooften,invokingthecourtly

perfectionsoftheidealisedbeloved.WhentheCountessofSalisburyseesEdwardIII“pensif”

insteadofgayshegoestohim“achiereliee”andencourageshimto“fairebonnechiereet

feste”.Herface,presumably,isassmilingandgraciousasshewouldhavehisbe,butthis

descriptionshouldconjuremoreintheimaginationthansmiles.She,“sorichlydressedand

adornedthateverybodymarvelledather”;she,whodrawseverybody’sadmiration(andthe

king’slove)withher“greatbeautyandnoblesse”asshemovesaboutthecastleperformingthe

dutyofhostessandnoblelady“assheknewverywellhowtodo”;sheembodiesinherform

thepatternofcourtlyperfection,inbehaviourandaspect.Hisroyalbody,bycontrast,ought

tofunctionastheemotionalcentreofthecommunity:butinhisindulgenceofthe

individualisedandhiddenemotionsofthelover,hehaswalledhimselfofffromhis

companions.Sheurgesthekingnottoput“agoodface”onitandfeignhappinessbuttomake

it,tounitehisroyalbodyandemotionswithhispeopleincelebration.

Therangeofmeaningofchierehereiscomplicatedbytheinsistentrepetitionof

“chieresires/dame”asaformofaddressbetweenthetwopotentiallovers.Thetwo

homonyms,distinctinetymology,neverthelessdrawalmostcloseenoughinmeaninginthis

episodetoconstitutewordplay.Thedegreetowhichkingandcountessoughttobechiereto

eachotherandtomakechierewitheachother,isthedelicatequestionathand.Theymust

negotiatebetweentheostensiblypublicchiereoflordandvassal,andthetransgressive

potentialofprivatefeeling.

Froissart’suseofchiereencompassesatantalisingarrayofconceptstodowithsocial

practices,almostexclusivelypositive.ThisismoreorlessconsistentacrossotherFrench

texts.TheEnglishchereisnotconfinedtopositiveaffects:so,intheBrut,EdwardIIspeaks

“wiþsimplechere,andsaide:‘allas,allas!’”,andGawain’s“cherechawngide”frombattlefury

totearsofmourning(Brut253,MorteArthure2964).Mannyngisaslikelytouseittospeakof

anegativeaffectasapositiveone:“aygladofchere”(2.7186),“faireinchere”(1.3974),

praying“withsoftwordesinsymplechere”(1.1366);but“sorychere”(1.7096),“fulle

mornandewashischere”(2.2297),“heuychere”(2.8223and2.8340).Contenanceineither

languagemayalsobepositiveornegative,and,thoughnotsobroadinitsapplication,it

coversasimilarsemanticrangetothe“demeanour/behaviour”meaningsofchiere.

WeseecheerandcountenanceinconstructioninBookIIIofFroissart,aconscious

“practising”ofanewemotionalstyle(SHF2–449).TheDuchessofHainaultistrainingupher


niece,IsabellaofBavaria,toFrenchcourtlystandards,hopingtomarryhertotheyoung

CharlesVI.Being“moultsaige”,theDuchesssetsuparegularcourseofinstructionin

“maniereet…contenance”andatthesametimereplacesher“abit”and“estat”,asIsabella’s

ownclothesandjewelsandhabilimentsaretoosimpleforFrenchtastes.Dressandmanners

continuetoworktogetherwhenIsabellaisbroughtbeforetheyoungking.Firstsheis“paree

etordonnee”asbefitsher,thensheisledbeforehimbythreeduchesses,andkneelsverylow

athisfeet.Heraisesherup,looksather,desiresher;anditisatoncecleartothewholecourt

thatthisyoungladywillbequeen.

Thisisthestoryofawomanlearningthebehaviouralandemotionalrepertoire

appropriateforanewenvironment:inotherwords,somebodyconsciouslyadaptingand

expandingtheiremotionalstyleaccordingtoinstructionfromexternalauthority.The

emphasisoftheDuchessandofthenarrativeisonthemodificationofheroutside

appearance:hercontenance,inthiscase,ismadeupofallthegracesofaperfectcourtlyself-

representation,frommannerstojewellery.Thisinstructionisnecessarydespitethefactthat

theyoungwomanisbynature“propreetpourveuedesensetdedottrine”,forthese“natural”

qualities,importantthoughtheybe,cannotbeenoughtodecisivelyattractthekinginthe

shorttimethattheywillhave,unlessshecanalsoproveherselfcapableofcorrectly

performingtheemotionalstyleofthecourt(SHF2–449).“Nature”isvaluedhereonlywhen

hastilyacquiredpracticerevealsitsperfection.

Althoughthisconceptionofcontenanceclearlyencompassesmorethanthephysical

face,itremainsexclusivelyvisual.Itconcernsonlythatwhichisperceivedbythegazeof

onlookers:Isabella’svoiceisnotrequired.WearetoldattheoutsetthatIsabellaknowsno

French,andtheabilitytocommunicatewithherprospectivehusbandisconsideredbythe

Duchessasofminorimportance.Thevoice,socentraltoHenryHiggins’Pygmalionproject,is

explicitlyexcludedfromtheGalateaoftheDuchessofHainault.Fromthemomentwhenthe

kingtakesIsabellabythehandandraisesherup,theking’sreactiontoherappearanceisthe

focusofattentionfromboththenarratorandtheonlookers:heregardsherclosely;withthat

lookpleasureandloveenterhisheart,becauseheseesthatsheisyoungandbeautiful,andhe

hasagreatdesireto“veoiretdel’avoir”.Theonlookersknowhowtoreadtheintensityofhis

gaze,andcorrectlydeducethatsincethekingcannotaverthiseyesthisladyistobetheir

queen.

UnliketheCountessofSalisbury,thatwhichiswrittenonIsabella’sbodyisthesocial

workofanotherwoman,thoughshemaylearntoownitherselfintime.Inbothcases,

however,awoman’schierehasaneffectbeyondherownbody,reachingouttoalterorcreate


feelinginothers.TheDuchess’sprogramissuccessful:shehasassumedcorrectlythatthe

kingwillfallinlovewiththegirlwhocanpresentthepropercourtlycontenance,indressand

manner.Asthenarrativefocushasbeenontheconstructionofthiswhole,wemustassume

thatitisthisfinalresultthatcaptivatestheking’sgaze.Helooksuponthewholebodyand

behaviour,notnecessarilyupontheface.Thereisnomentionofwhatwewouldcalltheface,

eitherforitsbeautyorforitsexpressivepotential.ForIsabella,theperformanceofthecorrect

emotionalstylemustbeexactlythat:aconsciousandself-consciousactofwhattoothershas

beenassimilatedintotheirownfeelingbody.

ThisisoneofthefewmomentsinthewholeoftheChroniques(orindeedofany

chronicle)inwhichwearemadeawareofatensionbetweenexternalperformanceandwhat

mustbefeltorthoughtwithin.Itisnotexplicitlyacknowledgedbythenarrative,butis

broughttoourattentionbythereactionofthecourt.Tothem,theperfectexteriorcontenance

thatIsabellapresentsisproofofaunityofinternalandbehaviouralqualitiesasaccomplished

asthoseoftheCountessofSalisbury.Significantly,itisjustatthismoment—afterIsabella’s

introductiontotheking—thatweglimpsethepossibilityofanexpressive,mobileface.The

king’sattentionsbeingnotedbythecourt,allthelordsandladiesbegintotalkamongst

themselves—amongstwhomtheyoungladystandsperfectlysilent“etnemouvoitoeuilne

bouche”,becauseshestillknowsnoFrench.Whiletheotherlordsandladiesareanimated,

Isabelladoesnotmoveafeatureofherface.Althoughasreadersweknowthatthissilence

andimmobilityarebornofIsabella’signoranceofthelanguage—thatis,fromafailureof

socialengagement—theyarereadbythecourtasfurthersignsofherbeautyandperfection,

ofacontenanceaccomplishedbeyondtheusualdegree.Thissilent,statelygirl,inertinthe

midstofalaughingcourtandherownfinery,issimultaneouslyapictureoflonelinessandof

socialsuccess—dependingontheperspective.CharlesVI,seeingonlythesecondimage,

decidesatoncethathewantsnootherforawife,andhurriesthemarriageforward.The

possibilityofadifferencebetweeninternalandexternalremainsasinvisibletothecourtiers

asitusuallyistothereadersinthesenarratives.

Thismightseemjustthemomentfortheauthortointervene,totelluswhatIsabella

doesfeel,since—foronce—herownsocialbehaviourisinadequatetothetask.ButFroissartis

asconspicuouslysilentonIsabella’sfeelingsasshecouldbeherself.Thereisnomentionof

herfeelingsatallthroughoutthisscene—infact,thefirstwehearofthemiswhenwearetold

thatthenewlywedspasstheirweddingnighttogetheringreatdelight(“deduit”),“asyoucan

wellimagine”(SHF2–454).Fromamodernperspectivewemightverywellnotimaginethat:

wewouldseenoguaranteethatIsabellawouldenjoythatfirstnightatall.Presumably,since


theyareperformingtheactsof“delight”itfollowsthattheirfeelingsareinaccordwithit:

theyliterallymakelove.Butwearelefttosupposeit:duringthecourtsceneIsabellaremains

(e)motionless.Shecannotproduceherownfeelings.Shehasbeenwipedblank:speechless,

motionless,incapableofnamingormobilisingherfeelings,withanauthorwhorefusesto

interpretforher.Evenhere,wherewearemadesensibleofthetensionsbetweeninterior

feelingandperformance,itisnotpossibleforFroissarttospeakofthemasdistinctfromeach

other.Buthisverysilence,thefocusonherimmobileface,invitesustotrytoreadthatface.

The invisible face

What,then,istheplaceofthefaceitselfinexpressivechiere?Itseemstobeentirelynegative.

Thatis,itonlyappearstoemphasiseafailureofcommunication,oroffunctionalsocial

engagement.TheclusterofreferencestothefacesofGavestonandEdwardII(discussedin

moredetailinthefinalchapter)occuratthemomentwhenEdwardII’srefusaltoengagewith

hisbaronsinfavourofGavestonisatitsmostcrucialandsociallydisruptive.Isabella’s

potentiallymobilefaceisinvokedhereonlytobedenied—since,onthesurface,herchiereis

perfect—buttheglimpseofitthatwehave,byitsveryrarity,servestohighlighttheunusual

tensioninanimperfectlyunifiedfeelingbody.Thisisnomerecoincidence:thesamepattern

isevidentasearlyastheromancesofChrétiendeTroyes.Emotionalfacesappearveryrarely

inthosetexts,andthenonlyinmomentsinwhichsomebodyishidingorfakingemotion.

Theirappearancesignalssomeunusualdiscrepancybetweenthevisibleandinvisiblepartsof

thefeelingbody,andalwaysrequiresanactofinterpretationonthepartofonlookerswithin

thetext.

TheideaoffacialexpressionasdistortionisarecurringoneintheMiddleAges.

Althoughthereisarelativeabundanceofexpressivefacesinvisualartstheyare

overwhelminglynegativelycoded.Theytendtobefoundonlyonvicesanddevils,on

passionatecharacterswhosewildmovementsandflyinghairenhancetheimpressionof

disturbanceandcontortion.Considerthewildlydistortedgrinsandgrimacesofdevils,wild

men,fools,monkeys,thetormentorsofsaints,andother“monsters”suchasracialothers.54

Ira,aswesawinChapter3,isusuallydepictedwithatwisted,leeringmouth,areddenedface,

54SeeDebraHassig.LesterLittleandJenniferO’Reilly,asImentionedearlier,detailthecharacteristicsofIraandassociatedfiguresinthevisualtradition.


burningeyes,wildortornhair,distortedfeatures,abulbousnose.Thedifferencebetween

serene,elegantvirtueandcontortedpassionateviceinvisualcultureismarkedenoughthat

WillibaldSauerländer,inhisintroductiontotheNewYorkMetropolitanMuseumofArt’s

volumeonmedievalsculpturesoftheface,feltjustifiedinsayingthattheMiddleAges

despisedandevenfearedpassionaltogether:

Thepassionatephysiognomywasregardedsimplyassinful...[AccordingtoAlcuin],“Thefaceshouldbeorderly,thelipsshouldnotbedistorted,noimmeasuredopeningshouldextendthemouth,norshouldtheeyebrowsberaisedorcastdown.”...Ironically,itwasthisveryabsenceofanysystemofphysiognomy,andaconcomitantfearofthepassions,thatgaveriseintheMiddleAgestotheveritableexplosionofdistortedandinflamedheads,faces,andmasksasappearsinnootherperiodofWesternart.(4)

Emotionshowninthefaceis,inmedievalvisualculture,adeviationfromtheideal.Instances

ofsmilingorpositiveemotionsareveryrare,andratherdifficulttointerpret.Anger,despair,

envy,sorrow,lust,hatred,allcometolooklikeadistortionofthisplacidideal.Moreover,

particularlyinvisualculturewhereasingleimagemustrepresenttheentirebeinginone

instant,theemotionshownonthefaceisnotapassingthing,butareflectionoftheinner

being.Ontheonehandthereisidealisation,serenity,alackofindividuation–ontheother,

disfigurement,disturbance.Inartandnarrative,theimmobile,invisiblefaceisnormative:

emotioninthefaceisoverwhelminglynegativelycoded.

Translatedintonarrativeculture,thistendencytakestheformofanalmostcomplete

invisibilityoftheface.Whenfacesarementioned(asdistinctfromchiere),itisusuallyonlyto

mentiontheirbeauty,withoutanyparticularindividualityormobility.Ifafaceisactually

describeditisusuallygrotesque:thegiantofStMichael’sMountinthealliterativeMorte,

Yvain’smonstrouscowherd,theGreenKnight,theimagesoutsidethegardenintheRomande

laRose.Thesefacesarenon-normative:bizarrespectacles,likegargoylesandgreenmen.

Thereisnonormativefacetobeseen;orrather,thenormativefaceissobyitsinvisibility.The

immediatenegationofthepossibilityofIsabella’sexpressivefaceemphasisesitsrarity:we

onlyseeitwhenitisnotexpressive,andthatistakenbyonlookersasideal.

Theexpressiveface,inthemodernsensehasnopartinthefeelingbodyofthesetexts.

Hereisnoraisedeyebrow,noquirkatthecornerofthemouth,noscowl,nosmirkthat

smoothsoutintowide-eyedinnocence:nofacethatisexpressiveinitsownmovements,

distinctfromcontenanceandchiere.Chierehassocialandfeelingforce.Itisasuccessful

conduitbetweentheinternalmovementsofthefeelingbodyandthemovementsofsociety:it


enablesthemtomakethefeelingtogether,whetherinunity(sharedjoy,forexample)orin

opposition(angerprovokingfear).Thefaceonlyappearsatmomentsofisolation,of

internalisation,whenpeopleareobligedtodeducethesubject’sfeelingsfromtheoutside,or

whenthesubjectisbrutishanddistorted.Weareleftwiththeapparentcontradictionthatthe

facemustbeunitedwiththefeelingbodybutthatanydirectfacialexpressionofemotionis

aberrant.Thementionoftheheartmaybetakenasanunproblematicmetonymfortheblood,

forthebody,forthethoughtandsoul,sowhynottheface?Perhapspreciselybecausetheface

issodifficulttocontrol:socialfeelingandsociallysignificantbehavioursrequirealevelof

consciousaccomplishmentwhichtherebybecomes“proof”ofone’snoblenature.Thereisno

languageofminutefacialexpression,nolearnedartofvaluingthestudyofthehighly

personalisednuancesitmayreveal.Discoveryandrevelationarelessculturallyvaluedthan

thatwhichissociallygenerated,whichisbroughtforthandenactedbyaunifiedfeelingbody

inamannercomprehensibleandaccessibletoothers.Itfollowsthattheonlymomentsin

whichweseethefacepersearethemomentsinwhichsomebodyistryingtoaccessinner

secrets,toreadthatwhichisbeingdeniedtosocialinteraction.Almostwithoutexception,this

istextuallycodedasunnaturalandhighlydisturbing.Theprivilegingofthefacemustcome

later,withtheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,withapreferenceforthecontained

expressionandcontrolledmanners,withthenotionofhavingtoseekoutrealfeeling—thatis,

withasincerityculture.

StephanieTrigghaswrittenaboutoneremarkableexceptioninthelaterfourteenth-

century:GeoffreyChaucer’suseofatropethatshehasdubbed“thespeakingface”(“Chaucer’s

SilentDiscourse”).Thistropeinvolvesfacialexpressionbeingtranslatedbythenarrative

voiceintodirectspeech,usuallyintroducedbyaphrasesuchas“asiftosay”(or,forChaucer,

“ascaunces”).WhenTroilusfirstnoticesCriseyde,forexample,heispleasedbyher“moving”

andher“cheer”…

Whichsomdeldeignouswas,forsheletfalleHirelookaliteasideinswichmanere,Ascaunces,“What,mayInatstondenhere?”

(TroilusandCriseydeI.288–92)

TriggnoticestheexceptionalityofChaucer’suseofthetropeinthisperiod:heisthefirst

English-languageauthortouseit,andadaptsitfromFrench-andItalian-languageauthors

whomhetranslates.ElsewhereTriggtracesitintheworksofJaneAusten,whereitseems

morenaturallytobelong:ladiesexchanginglooksofsharedmeaningratherthanspeak

openlyinfrontofthegentlemen,loverswhocannotspeakaloudbutwhosefeelingscanbe


readintheir“speaking”looks,ifoneknowshowtointerpretcorrectly(“Facesthatspeak”).In

bothChaucerandAusten,however,thespeakingfacerequiresanactofinterpretation,the

masteryofasubtleandconsciouslyemployedsocialskill.Theunaccomplishedandinsensitive

RobertFerrarsdoesnotunderstandElinorDashwood’sindignantstare,norcanMrsAllen

readCatherineMorland’ssilentappealthatshestepintoexcuseCatherinefromanawkward

socialsituation(“FacesthatSpeak”,191–92).Chaucer’sspeakingfacesarehedgedwith

uncertainty:thephrasebywhichtheyareintroducedemphasisesthattheviewermust,toa

certainextent,guessattheemotionandthemessage(seeparticularlytheexamplesTrigg

discussesonpp.47–49).Inthecontextoftheemotionalnormsofthefourteenthcentury,the

necessityforsuchanactofinterpretationseemsunusualanduncomfortable.55Thereisno

suchdissonanceinthedrawingroomsofAusten’sworld,wheretheskillsinquestionarepart

ofanormativeemotionalpractice,althoughnot,ofcourse,universallymastered.Chaucer’s

useofthetropeisexceptionalinhisperiod,becauseitdoesallowforaformofexpressionin

theface,butitalsofunctionswithinthecontextofhisperiod:facesmayobscureand

destabilisemeaning,evenwhiletheyrevealit.

Gaze

MostofthecommunicativeeffectinChaucer’sspeakingfaceisconveyednotthrough

muscularchangesofexpressioninthefacebutthroughtheeyes:aglancedownandaside,or

agazefixedontheviewer.InthequotationfromTroilusandCriseydeabove,Criseyde’s

“cheer”,whichTroilusadmiressomuch,isnotherfacesomuchashersocialbehaviour:her

“moving”,her“deignous”attitude,andespeciallythewaysheletsherlookfalltooneside“as

iftosay,‘What,mayInotstandhere?’”.Inchroniclers,too,theeyesareanexceptiontothe

ruleofthenon-expressiveface.They“prove”therule,however,inbothsenses:theyputitto

thetest,andtheyconfirmit.Theyareexpressivenotintheirphysicalappearance,butintheir

socialaction.Thewordeyeappearslessoftenthanwordsmeaninggaze(asnounorverb);

andthenarrativefocusisnotonaportrait-likeimpressionofhowthisperson’seyeappears

asontheireffectonthesocialworldaroundthem.Inotherwords,thegazedirectlyreaches

outandeffectsemotionalchange.Wehavealreadyseen,inChapter2,momentsinwhicha

55ElinaGertsmanhasalsodiscussedtheambiguityoffacialexpressioninvisualrepresentations,especiallyofthesmile.


kingmightglarehorriblyinhisanger.Arthur’sglaringeyesaredescribedinthealliterative

MorteArthure—“fullebrymlyforbreth[they]brynteasthegledys”(117).Hisgazereaches

outtotheviewedobject,engagingwithitoralteringit:itdoesnotbelongentirelytothebody

inwhichitoriginates.

Froissart’suseofregarderisausefulcasestudyfortheactionandeffectofthe

emotionaleye.Itsbasicmeaningsinhisworkrangebroadlyacrossthreecategories:“thinking

aboutx”,“lookingatx”,and“conveyingsomethingtoxwithalook”.Inalmostevery

occurrence,however,morethanoneofthesemeaningsisinplay.

1.TheyregardacounselthatthecityofCambraiwasstrongandwellsupplied,andthatitwouldtakealongtimetoconquerit,andinfactthattheycouldnotbecertainofvictory.(SHF1–78)

2.Astheprinceandhismenadvancedontheenemy,heregardatohisrightandsawSirRobertdeDuraslyingtheredead…(SHF1–386)

3.Theking[ofFrance],seeingthathewastrappedandthatresistancewasuseless,regarda thesaidknightandsaidtohim,“TowhomshallIsurrendermyself?Whereismycousin,theprinceofWales?”(SHF1–392)

4.Becauseheregarda andconsideredthattheprinceofWaleswasofgreatandnoblebirthandcouldupholditwell,beingavaliantman…(SHF1–501)

5.Theprincetooktheirlettersandopenedthem,thenhereadthemclosely,andregardahowpitiablyKingPeterhadwrittentohimabouthishardshipsandhispoverty.(SHF1–549)

6.AndthenthekingofEnglandregarda deversthechurchofDamedeChartres,andhemadevowsandrenderedhimselfdevotedlytoOurLady...(SHF1–474)

7.ThekingwassilentandregardaveryfiercelyatthepeoplefromatthepeopleofCalais,onaccountofthegreatlossesthattheyhadinflictedonhimatseainthepast.Thesixburghersfelltotheirkneesbeforehim…Thekingfellsilentforamomentandregardathegoodladyhiswife,whowasheavilypregnantandwepttenderlyonherknees.Hisheartbegantosoften…(SHF1–312)

8.Hewasledwithnodignitiesbeforetheprince,whoregardahimangrily.Thekindestwordhecouldsaytohimwasthattheyshouldstrikeoffhishead,bythefaithheowedtoGodandStGeorge,andhehadthemtakehimoutofhispresence.[Later,theprinceseespeopleintercedingonbishop’sbehalf:]Assoonastheprince’scarriagecame


nearthemheregardathemverywillingly,andhewassoftenedandappeasedregardanthisanger.(SHF1–666)

Thefirstexamplehasnothingtodowiththeeyes,butonlythemind:theyconsiderthe

defencesandprovisioningofCambraianddrawaconclusionabouttherisksofbesiegingit.

Theylookuponitintheirimagination,theyemployinformationdrawnfromvisualreports.

Thenexttwoexamplesare,onthesurface,purelyaboutlooking:atacorpseandataknight.

Thefourthexplicitlycombineslookingatapersonwithconsideringthem,whileinthefifth—

and,inamoremetaphysicalsense,thesixth—theviewedobjectstandsinforthepersonwho

isintheviewer’smind.Butalreadyherewecanseethattheactofregardingishavinga

powerfulemotionalandspiritualeffectontheviewer.

Oncethisisacknowledgeditbecomesclearthateventheearlierexamplesarenotso

simpleastheyappear.Thisisnotsimplyaturningoftheeyesinaparticulardirection,butof

anintellectual,emotional,orspiritualengagementwiththeperson(s)lookedupon.Cambraiis

consideredindetailanditsstatusacknowledged.Theprinceandhismendonotsimplysee

thecorpseofRobertdeDuras:theyrecognisehim,andarestruckandmovedbythesight.

JeanII,defeatedattheBattleofPoitiersandcrowdedindangerouslybymenoflowdegree,

fixeshiseyesupontheonlyknighthecanfindandcriestohim“WhereismycousinthePrince

ofWales?”,appealingwiththatlookandthosewordstotheirsharedbondofknighthoodto

theexclusionoftherabble.Inalltheseexamples,itseemstome,thereissomepotentsenseof

recognition,ofaconnectionestablished,andofapivotalmomentofdecisionbroughtaboutby

thatregard.Inthefinaltwoexamplesthatconnectionisusedbythelordtowoundhisenemy

withhisownfury;andineach,thelordthenregardsasupplicant,andthesightofthemmoves

himtogentleremotions.Thegazeisbothactandactive,withthepowertoreshapeboth

viewerandviewed.Itencompassesattention,recognition,empathy,feeling,decision,action—

notnecessarilyelidingthem,butlinkingthemaspartsofasingleprocess.

Characterising the feeling body

Howcanwecharacterisethenormativemedievalfeelingbody,then,asitappearsinthese

texts?Firstly,itisanemotionalagent:emotionsdonothappentoit,butareproducedbyit.

Emotionalagencyisattributedtoitonalexicallevelandbyphrasingandsemantics—Ianger

[myself]athim,ratherthanIbecomeangryorAngerariseswithinme—aswellasbynarrative

discourse.Noristhisworkofemotionalproductionanunconsciousact,because,secondly,the


feelingbodyiscomplete:anembodiedselfwithinacommunity,ratherthanapassionate

bodyworkingonareasonedmind,oranindividualrepresentinginternalfeelingstoagroup.

Thereisnodistinctionbetweenfeelingandwill,orbetweeninteriorexperienceandoutward

performance,as,ideally,theactionsofthecompleteselfworktoachieveandcategorisethe

rightemotion.Thirdly,itisconsistentandcontinuous:nosinglepartofthisbodyworks

independentlyoftheothers,andthesamevocabularyandsentencestructuresareusually

usedof—say—thebloodandtheskin,orthemovingheartandthespreadofafeelingthrough

anation,ortheeffectofaglareandofaphysicalblow.

Theliteralmeaningofthewordemotionimpliessomethingbornwithin,movingout

fromsomesecretcentreofthesubjecttobecommunicatedtoorhiddenfromtheworld.This

exmotiomodelisforeigntotheunderstandingofemotionwithinthesetexts.AsSarah

McNamersuggests,thewordfeelingisamoreappropriateword,notonlyasbeing

contemporarytothelanguageandtimeperiodofmedievalEngland,butalsointheambiguity

ofitsgerundiveform:itisbothnounandverb(“Feeling”247).Feelingimpliesactivity;and

whileemotioninthesetextsmightnotmoveout,itdoesinvolveactivemotion,withinthe

subjectandbetweensubjects.Doingisinvolvedoneverylevel,fromheartandbloodto

nationalcommunity:feelingisgeneratedinpractice.Itisanactofengagementwiththe

variouspartsofthesociallypositionedsubject:experiencedinternally,yes,butalsoin

gesture,word,andaction,andinengagingwithandactingonotherpeople.

Theseemotionalpracticesareconceptualisedandlearnedinrelationtothe

community.ThisisabasicpreceptofScheer’smodelandappliestoemotionalpracticesin

general.Inthesetexts,however,aswebegintounderstandtheemotionalnormsoftheworld

theyrepresent,itisparticularlyapt.Feeling,inthisworld,doesnotbegininsomehidden

placewithinandmoveoutward:rather,itisproducedmoreorlessconsciouslybythe

socialised,acculturatedbody.Andthisisnotlimitedtothephysicalbodyoftheindividual.As

wewillsee,thecommunityisconceptualisedasabodyinitsownright,withindividual

humanseitherfunctioningaspartsofthewhole,orrepresenting—embodying—thesociety

theyrepresentwithintheirownbody,inaveryliteralway.

Chapter 10. Angry dole

The body wounded

Althoughemotionmaybedescribedassituatedwithintheheartormindorsoul,orasstirring

orrousingthebodyinternally,theinteriorofthebodyisnottheprimarysiteinwhich

emotionisworkedout.Thepriorityisoftengiventotheinteractionofthefeelingbodywith

thecommunity.Speech,behaviour,countenance,andgazemayfunctiontomovefeeling

withinthesocialbodyandthereforetopositiontheindividualfeelingbodywithinthesocial

worldandinrelationtothefeelingsofothers.Inmostcases—oratleast,inthenormative

modelofthefeelingbody—thereisnomeaningfulboundarybetweeninsideandoutside,or

betweenfeelingandcommunication.Feelingisgeneratedinmovement,spokenofas

movementortemperaturechanges,movementsofcommunitiesandbodiesandinternal

organs.Embodiedemotioninasocialcontextmoreoverleaksandflowsbetweenbodies:

internaldisturbancedisturbsothers.Giventhisessentialunity,andthemedievalhabitof

symbolicthought,anypartofthefeelingbodymayrepresentthewhole,metonymicallyrather

thanmetaphorically.Similarly,awholecommunitymaybeimaginedasafeelingbody,orthe

physicalbodyofalordmappedontothemetaphysicalbodyofthecommunitythathe

represents.

Community bodies

TheemotionalvocabularyoftheVitaEdwardiII—especiallyasregardsanger—recalls

thelanguageofturbulenceanddisruptioncharacteristicofheartandblood,butappliesitto

thecommunityofEnglandratherthantoanindividualbody.Itdepictsangerconsistentlyasa

stirringdisruptivemovementwithinboththebodyandthecommunity,creatingaconceptual

continuitybetweenindividualandsocialbody.Angerisconsistentlyassociatedwith

movementinthistext:stirring,rousing,growing,andsometimessevering.Thebarons’

indignationagainstGavestonis“excitata”(28–29);peopleareregularly“commotus”;

dissensionis“orta”betweenthekingandthebarons(10–11)orthearchbishop(72–73),and

thegardenmetaphoristakenfurtherwhenthechroniclerspeaksofa“seminariumireet

inuidie”(26–27).Angerstirsanddisturbs;and“pax”isitsopposite,“perturbata”bythefact

thatthekingandhisbaronsarenot“unanimis”—thatis,theydonotformasingleunited


feelingsubjectbetweenthem(70–71).Thenotionsofmovementandseparationareinvoked

curiouslyinthechronicler’sadaptationofaversefromGenesis:

Reueraquicquiddoloseactumestincuriaregisprocessitexconsiliariiseius,setconsiliumeorumestinefficaxetmachinacioperitura.Maledictusfuroreorumquiapertinax,etindignatioeorumquiadiuidenturtandemacuriaetdispergenturinignominia.Iustumestenimutsuosauctoresteneatpeccata,nemaleficiaremaneantimpunita.

Indeedwhateverwickednesswasperpetratedintheking’scourtproceededfromhiscounsellors,buttheiradviceisfutileandtheirplotswillfail.Cursedbetheirangerbecauseitisstubborn,andtheirwrathbecausetheyshallatlengthbeseparatedfromthecourtandscatteredindisgrace.Foritisrightthatsinsshouldbindthosewhocommitthem,sothatevildoingmaynotgounpunished.(72–75)

MaledictusfuroreorumquiapertinaxetindignatioillorumquiaduradividameosinIacobetdispergamillosinIsrahel.(VulgateBible,Gen.49:7)

Cursedbetheirfury,becauseitwasstubborn:andtheirwrath,becauseitwascruel:IwilldividetheminJacob,andwillscattertheminIsrael.(KingJamesBible,Gen.49:7)

Thebasicimagery,therefore,isnotoriginaltothechronicler,butthesmallchangehemakes

istelling.Ratherthancursingeachfeeling(furorandindignatio)fortheirqualities,then

promisingthedestructionofthecounsellors,hecursesindignatiospecificallybecauseitwill

resultintheirdestruction;andherethepromiseddivisionandscatteringarespecificallya

socialdisruption,asunderingfromthecommunityinwhichtheyhavebeenpowerful,as

opposedtotheVulgate’srathervaguethreat.Lestwemissthedirectconnectionbetween

angerandthebreakingofsocialbonds,thechronicleraddsafirmmoraltoassureusthatthe

punishmentfitsthecrime:theywillbecursedwiththeirownsinwhenitreturnstoenactits

ownnatureuponthem.Herewehavetheoppositeofaunifiedfeelingbody:thecommunity

oughttobeone,butinitscurrentunnaturalstateofaffairsitisdividedagainstitself.

TheVitaEdwardiIIgivesonemodelofhowacommunitymaybeconceptualisedasa

singlefeelingbody.However,themostcommonandcoherentconceptualisationofacollective

isthatofitsincarnationinthebodyroyal,or,byextension,inthebodyofanyleader.More

thanametaphor,thisseemstobeagenerallyheldconceptualmodelforsocialstructureand

socialinteraction,especiallywhenitcomestothegenerationoffeeling.Thelanguageof


woundingandaffrontrevealshowcloselyentwinedarethefeelingsoftheprince’sphysical

withhismetaphysicalbody:thatis,theinstitution,land,andpeoplewhomherepresents.

Thisisfarfrombeingtheonlytextinwhichtheprince’sbodyfunctions(oroughtto

function)asasymbolofunifiedandsuccessfulcommunity.ConsiderFroissart:hisversionof

EdwardIIIhasfullcommandofthesymbolismofhisbodyandusesittoheartenand

strengthenhiscommunityaroundhimself:turningafallandabloodiednoseintoagood

omen,orridingupanddowninfrontofthearmyholdingawhitebatontoheartenthem

beforebattle(SHF1–256and1–274).

IhavediscussedincidentsofemotionalcontagioninSectionsAandB.Bythispoint,

however,itseemsclearthatpeopleengagingingroupperformancesofemotionalcontagion

(suchasbaronssharingaleader’sfeudalanger,orpleadingwithhimtohavemercy)arenot

merelymimickingorrespondingtohisemotion,butparticipatinginitssocialgeneration.Ina

socialandliterarycontextwherechiereisemotion,face,andbehaviour,andgazemayboth

conveyandenactemotion,suchemotionalleadershipmustbeconsideredlessas

communicationandmoreasasharedbodilyexperience.Emotionalcontagionismore

resonantinasocietyinwhichsocialemotionismorefullypracticedthanindividualised

emotion.Leaderandfollowersoftenmergeintooneemotionalunit,evenmidwaythrougha

singleemotionevent.

See,forexample,PhilippeVI’sreactiontothebunglingoftheGenovesecrossbowmen

intheBattleofCrécy:

ThentheKingofFranceingreatangerspokeandcommanded:“Thisrabblehinderustonopurpose.”Andthenhismenatarmsbegantostrikeandslashamongst[theGenovese],sothatmostofthemfellandneverroseagain.(SHF1–278).

Thisis,functionally,atypicaltripartiteemotionevent:itcontainsfeeling,speech,andaction,

inthatorder.Thesubject,however,shiftsfromtheindividualtothesocialbody:thekingfeels

“grantcorroux”andmakesthespeech,butheandhis“gensd’armes”performtheactionas

one.Heisarepresentativeandaspokespersonofhisknights,orhisknightsareanextension

ofhim:hedoesnot(andoughtnot)functionasanentirelydiscreteindividual.


Dol and gref: injuries to the feeling body

Feeling,however,goesbothways.Notonlydoestheleaderdirectandinspiretheactoffeeling

inhisfollowers,buthefeelsinjurytothemorhislandsasifitwereaphysicalinjuryinhis

ownbody.Theusualresponsetothisisdeuil/dolorgref—wordswhichareusuallyread

nowadaysasiftheyweremoreorlessequivalenttotheirmodernmeanings,butwhichin

mostinstancesaremorecloselyalignedtoangerthantosorrow.

TheFrench/Anglo-Normandeuil/duel(ordouleur/dolur)oftenappearsinconnection

withanger(“ireetdoel”or“courroucezetdoulez”arecommonconstructions),andespecially

withfeudalanger.InMiddleEnglishandLatintexts,dolisalmostexclusivelyreservedfor

sorrow,butEnglishgrefandgreverfunctioninthesamewayastheFrenchdeuil.56Angry

kings,lords,evenknights,areoftensaidtofeeldeuil/gref—notasanadjuncttotheprimary

emotionbutasapartofit,likethe“furor”thatalsocommonlyaccompaniesanger(orany

otherstrongemotion).Theassociationsofthesewordswithpainandwoundinglocatethe

emotionanditscausefirmlywithinthephysicalbody,whileatthesametimeblurringthe

distinctionbetweenthatandthemetaphysicalbody.

WehavealreadyseenthiseffectinpassinginthechronicleofJordanFantosme,

discussedinChapter2.HenryII,confrontedwiththetreacheryofhisson,isbothgrevezand

irez,andheimmediatelyspeaksofhisdeuilandhisanger:“Iwasneversoadulezinallmylife.

IamsofilledwithragethatIamnearlycrazy”(vv.128–29).Thisdeuilcannotbesimply

sorrowatthelossofhisson:LouisVII,inhisparallelscene,isalsoalmostenragedwithdeuil

(“apoidedueln’esrage”),andhehasnosuchpersonallosstolament(v.34).InRobert

Mannyng’schronicle,thesonsofthesetwokingsfeelgrefduringaquarreloncrusade.The

dominantaffectofRichardIIandPhilippeIIthroughouttheencounterisanger:theyaccuse

eachotheroftreachery,biteattheirlips,hurlinsultsandthreats,andrefusetotrusteach

other,untilfinallytheirbaronsmustintervenesothatthekingsmightreturnto“luf&pes”

insteadofbeing“wroth”(2.3859–60).Inthemidstofthis,wefindexpressionssuchas

“Richardganhimgreue”and“ÞanspakPhilipogrefe”:thisisasenseofgrievance,notgrief

(2.3818,2.3831).

Theassociationbetweenangerandthisformofdeuil/grefisstrongenoughthatthey

maybeconventionallypairedtogether(e.g.,“estoientgravementgrevezetcorrucez”

Anonimalle154),or—asinthecasesabove—deuil/grefmaybeusedasifitisfunctionally

56Latindoldoesseemtoremainmorecloselyalignedtosorrow,includingastherootofformslikecondolere.


synonymouswithangerinagivencase.TheheroofSirGawainandtheGreenKnightis

“agreuedforgreme”[anger]and“grone[s]forgrefandgrame”(2370,2502).Hisking

“greue[s]”inresponsetothetauntsoftheGreenKnight:“Þeblodschotforschamintohis

schyreface/andlere;/Hewexaswrothaswynde”—asdoallhisfollowers—andhe

respondswithhastywordsandgesturesofanger,snatchinguptheaxetotakeonthe

stranger’sinsulttohimselfandhiscourt(316–31).Thisisnotaquickmovementfromsorrow

toanger—orthrough“fourfeelingsinquicksuccession”,asSarahMcNamerreadsit(“Feeling”

252)—butthepracticeofasinglefeeling:theflushofcolour,thewaxingwrothandbeing

“greued”,theangryspeech,theimpetuousrushofmovement,thecourt’sparticipationinthe

feeling.

TheGawainofthealliterativeMorteArthurehasonmultipleoccasionsasimilar

responsetoenemies’taunts:heis“greuede,andgrych[es]fullesore”andstrikesoutathis

opponent;heisso“greuyde”attheinsultingwordsofSirGayousthatherushesathimand

strikesoffhishead(2557–58,1352–54).Thissenseofactiveresentmentofaninjurymeans

thatdeuil/grefisparticularlylikelytoappearincasesoffeudalangerorbattlerage.Inthe

Morte,theEmperorofRome—whoisclaimingthatBritainishistoricallyatributarystateof

hisempire,andmustthereforetreatthekingasarebelliousvassal—isdescribedas“angerde”

inonelineand“soregreuede”inthenext(265–66).Later,Arthuriswarnedthatanevenless

rightful“lord”—thecannibalgiant—willbe“greuyde”ifnotapproachedwiththeexaggerated,

grovellingdeferenceofthemostabjectsubjectorpetitioner(1019–24).

RobertMannyngofBrunneoftenusestransitivegreventostandinfor“toanger”ina

feudalsense:onecharacteriswarnedthatifhepursueshispresentcourseandfloutshisroyal

brother,thatbrotherwillfeelgref;andsoindeedhedoes(1.2863,1.3206).EvenGodmaybe

grevedinthissense:WilliamIIiswarnedthat“Godisþeturnedgrym;/ouþerinwordorded

hasþougreuedhim”(2.2282–83).Thesecondextantmanuscriptforthissectionofthe

chroniclereadshere“ȝehaueywraþedhim”—ascribalsubstitutionsomewherealongthe

linethatmustsurelybeattributedtothealmostidenticalmeaningsofgrevenandwrathenin

thiscontext.Theprimarymeaningofdeuil/gref,then,isnot“grief”inthemodernsenseof

“sorrow”somuchasitisaninjuryoraresponsetoinjury—whetherthatinjurybephysical

(wounds)orsocial(insults).WedonothaveamodernEnglishwordthatfitsitsrangeof

applicationsinmedievaltexts,although“injure”comesclose;butinanycontexttheword

chosentotranslateitshouldconveyasenseofbeingwronged,ofhurtandaffront.

Thisisnottodenythattheredoesexistaconceptofdeuil/grefwhichisequatedwith

tristesce/sorwe,ratherthanire/wrath,andopposedtojoie/gladnessinsteadofamur/luf.


However,sorrowfuldeuilisfarrarer—atleastinhistoricalwriting—thanangrydeuil.Ofthe

threeinstancesthattheANDcitesasmeaning“grief,”noneinvolveswhatIwouldconsiderto

besorrowfuldeuil.OneisamongthequotesfromJordanFantosmecitedabove(“apoideduel

n’esrage”),andtheothertwobothpairitwithire(“Hounkpusn’outdelneire”LeLaideCor

459,“Tantadalquerdoeleire”ViedesaintGrégoire553)57.TheDMFismoredetailed,with

separatecategoriesforphysicalpain,“affliction/chagrin”,painwhichis“mêléedecourroux,

colère”,andpaincausedbysomebody’sdeath(inadditionto“thatwhichcausespain”and

“garmentswornasatokenofmourning”).However,thenecessityofsuchcategorisationfor

thepurposeofadictionaryentryenforcesaratherartificialdistinction.Inmanyofthe

examplescitedbytheDMFtheonlycleardifferenceisthecauseoftheemotion,notitsnature;

andthequestionastowhethersorroworangeristhedominantelementinanygiveninstance

mustbeasubjectivejudgement.

Thelinebetweenphysicalandemotionaldeuilseemstobeofevenlessimportance,

suchthateachisregularlydescribedand(apparently)experiencedasifitweretheother.

Therearecasesinwhichdeuil/grefdoesclearlymeanliteralphysicalpainorsickness.In

Mannyng’schronicle,forexample,MerlinpromisesAureliusthatthemagicofthestonesof

theGiants’Ringwillcurethe“pyne”ofthosewhoare“greuedofgreteþinges”;anarmyrests

becauseitiswearyandthegreatheatgrievesthem;sicknessgrievespeoplesore;andgrefisa

commonresponsetotheaggressiveinflictionofinjuryandpain(1.8700,1.14573,2.1591and

2.4069,2.1591and2.4608).Evenmoreoften,however,thedistinctionbetweeninjuringand

angeringsomebodyseemstobeoflittleimportance.InGawain’sconfrontationwithSir

Priamus,inthealliterativeMorte,theliteralsignificationoftheverbshiftsfluidlybetween

physicalandemotionalblows.Gawainis“greued”bythewordsofhisopponentandstrikes

outathim(2557).HewoundsPriamus,whogroansatthe“greefe”oftheinjuryandwounds

Gawainwithhismagicalsword,thentauntsGawain,sayingthathiswoundwillneverbe

staunched(2562).WhenGawainproteststhathisopponent“greuesmebotlyttille”,itisan

openquestionwhetherhemeansthatPriamushashardlyhurthim,thatheisunperturbedby

Priamus’taunts,orboth(2579).HeretortshisindifferencetoPriamus’assault,bothphysical

andverbal.

GrevenisoftenusedinMiddleEnglishdescriptionsofbattle,anditcanbeimpossible

totellwhetheritmeans“wounded”,“killed”,“gavepainto”,“grieved[x]bykillingtheirmen”,

orsimply“gave[x]ahardfight”(e.g.Mannyng1.13546,Morte1463).ThegiantofMontSt-

57TheAnglo-NormanTextof“LeLaiduCor”,ed.C.T.Erickson,ANTS24,London,1973.P.Meyer,“LaViedesaintGrégoireleGrandparFrèreAngier”,Romania12(1883),145-208.


MichelstrikesatArthur“fforgrefeofthegudekynge,thathymewithgramegretez”(Morte

1077;cf.thesameformula1471and3007);Arthursaysthatthegianthas“greued”him

sorelyandthathehasnothadsuchafightforfifteenyears(1173–1174).Byextension,greven

asatransitiveverbcanmean“tomakewarupon”ortoperformanywarlikeact:“Willeȝegyf

meleue/þerobboursonþesetogreue?”(Mannyng1.5820–21).WesawinChapter2how

feudalangercanbesynonymouswiththepracticeofwar:thesamemaybetrueofgref,at

leastinthissense.Andconsequently,apeopleorcommunitymayfeelthemselvesgrevedin

theeventofanattackonthe“body”orintegrityofthatpeople:atHengist’sinvasion,the

Britonsare“greued”andpreparethemselvestorepelhimandsethimtoflight;theScots

“estoientgrandementgrevezetcorucez”(Mannyng1.7708,Anonimalle154).Theyarenot

mourningtheirdeadhere,notgrieving.Beinggreved,theymakeanger:theymakewar.

Acommunal“body”experiencesgrefasaknightinbattleresentsinjurytohisown

body.However,whenthenarrativefocusesnotonthepeoplebutontheirleader—thatis,on

thepersonwhoembodiesthem—hereactsinexactlythesameway.Hefeelstheinjuryasifhe

werewoundedinhisphysicalbody,insteadofthemetaphysical.TheyoungKingDavidof

Scotlandfeels“grantdueil”atseeinghiscountriesplunderedandhispeoplecomplaining;at

similarnews,theDukeofAnjou“futmoultcourrouciéetdolent”(SHF1–152,SHF1–625).

Affrontisstillconflatedwithwounding,andanassaultonthebodyoftheindividualis

conflatedwiththebodyofthesocialgroupthatitrepresents.Thisideaofthelord’sbody

beinginjuredbyanattackonhispeoplegoesbeyondthesemanticsofdeuilandgref.HenryII

sendsmessengerstoWilliamofScotlandrebukinghimasarebelliousvassalforhispartinthe

allianceagainsthim,contrastingtheloveheexpectedfromhimtothe“damage”hehas

receivedinstead(Fantosme,laisse33).ThoughtheprimarymeaningoftheLatindolereisto

grieve,EdwardII“uehementerdoluit”whenhehearsofthelossofhiscastles.Heweeps—and

thenheattacks,anactionofgref(VEII86).EdwardIII’semotionalreactiontothepainofhis

meniscalled“discomfort”intheBrut,awordotherwiseusedinthattextexclusivelyto

connotemilitarydefeats,conflatingthephysical,theemotional,andthetacticalsensesatonce

(225).FroissartrepeatedlyattributesEdwardIII’sangeratthepeopleofCalaistothelossof

hismeninbesiegingthetown,andhisvengeanceagainstCaenearlierinthesamecampaign

hasthesamemotivation.

Inthiscontext,deuilandgrefmustbereadaswordsencompassingthesenseofanger

generatedasaresponsetoaliteralisedemotional“wounding”ofthebody:eitheraphysical

body,orthefigurativebodyoflandsandfollowerswhichiscontiguouswiththephysical

body.“Sorrow”isaveryinadequatetranslation.KingArthurisgrevedbythewordsofthe


GreenKnightbecausetheyconstituteanassaulton/affronttohimselfandtheworldof

Camelotthatisembodiedinhim;andhepreparestodefenditwiththatbody.HenryIIis

enragedanddizzywithgrefthathissoncouldsoinjurethedignityofhisstate,daringtooffer

theultimateinsultintheformofrebellion.Kantorowicz’smodeloftheking’stwodistinct

bodiesdoesnotapplyhere.Thelordlyorroyalbodyisunitedwithitsmetaphysicalaspects—

theinstitutions,lands,andpeoplewhichitrepresents—notdividedfromthem.Perhapsitwas

theveryfactthattheyhadbecomesoinseparablethatmadeitnecessaryforearlymodern

lawyers,facedwiththetaskofredefiningmonarchy,todividethemwithdelicatelegal

surgery.

Thereissomeevidencetosuggestthatdeuil/grefmaybeoneoftherareemotions

withinthesetextsthatisgendered.Thereareafewinstancesinwhichitclearlydoesmean

onlysorrow,withnoimplicationsofinjuryoranger—andmostoftheseoccurrencesconcern

femaleemotions.QueenIsabellaconductsherself“grantmentdedoeletdedolour”likea

womanwhohaslostherhusband,andArthurmusttellaweepingGuenevereto“[g]refethe

noghte”whenheleaveshertogotowar(Anonimalle120,Morte705).Thisraisesthe

possibilitythatfemininedeuil/grefisofadifferentcharactertothemasculineemotion:less

capableoftheaggressiveactionassociatedwithanger,ofresentingaffrontstodignityand

possessions,ofthefiercephysiologicalresponsethatinvolvesflushedcheeks,aswelling

heart,andsuddenmotion.Iwouldhypothesisethatfemaledeuilmustbeconfinedtosorrow,

whereasmasculinedeuilmayandshouldinvolveangryretaliation—evenwhenitisa

responsetolossordeath,suchasBernier’sgriefforhismotherinRaouldeCambrai,or

Gawain’sresponsetothedeathofcompanionsinthefieldinthealliterativeMorte.Therarity

ofbothfemaleemotionandsorrowfuldeuil,unfortunately,givestoosmallasamplegroupfor

anycertainty.

ThereisoneinstanceinFroissart,however,ofawomanfeelingdeuillikethatofa

prince.

NowIwillreturntotheCountessofMontfort,whohadthecourageofamanandtheheartofalion.ShewasinthecityofRenneswhensheheardthatherhusbandhadbeencaptured,asyouhaveheard.Atthenewsshewasdolenteetcourrouceeasyoumayexpect,becauseshethoughtitverylikelythathewouldbeputtodeathinprison.Andhowevergreatherdeuil,shedidnotbehavelikeanafflictedwoman,butlikeamanstrongandhardy,invaliantlyhearteningherfriendsandsoldiers.(SHF1–150)


ShethenproceedstotakecommandofMontfort’sforcesandfightoninhisnameandthe

nameoftheiryoungson.Underexceptionalcircumstances,anexceptionalwomanchanges

thedeuilofanafflictedwomanfortheangrydeuilofthelord—butonlyonbehalfofthetwo

menwhomightrightlywieldthatpowerandmovethatfeeling,whoareincapacitatedby

youthandimprisonment.Insodoingsheproveshercuertobethatofalionandhercourage

thatofaman,andsheisequalnotonlytothemilitarydutiesoflordshipbuttotheemotional

leadershipofreconfortantMontfort’s(her)people,mobilisingthemtoreuniteintothesingle

emotionalbodythattheyoughttobe.Froissart’sinsistenceontherarityofthiskindofdeuil

forawomanseemstoconfirmmytentativehypothesis.Ifangrydeuilpresupposestheability

toembodysomeinstitutiongreaterthanoneself—arolerarelyheldbyawoman—thismay

explainwhyawomanisusuallycapableonlyoflamenting,exceptunderexceptional

circumstancesinwhichsheisfunctioningtemporarilyasalord.58

What,then,doesdeuil/greffeellike—or,tophrasethesamequestioninawaymore

appropriatetothemedievalfeelingbody,whatscriptdoesonefollowtomakegref?Thereisa

rushofbloodandofheat(anger,shame,pain,grief);aweaponmaybeseizedupon,or

anothersimilarviolentandsuddenmotionmade;theremaybeanimpulsetorevengeorto

feudalanger,oftenverbalised;andanyfollowerspresentwillreactwiththesamefeeling.

Withthishelaughssoloudthatthelordgrieved[greued];Thebloodshotforshameinhisshiningwhiteface

Sofair;Hewaxedaswrothaswind,Sodidallthatwerethere.Theking,askeenbykindThenstrodethatstoutmannearer,

Andsaid,“Horseman,byheaven,thineaskingisfoolish…”

(SGGK316–23)

Theroleofthegoodprinceinfeelingthedeuilofhislandsandpeopleoffersanotherinsight

intothenormativeconceptualisationoffeudalsociety.Therelationshipbetweenlordand

vassalisnotmerelyanexchangeofprotectionforservice.WesawinSectionBthatitisbuilt

onanidealofactivelove;andtheroleofdeuilsuggeststhatthebondgoesdeeperyet,inthat

58ItispossiblethatthismodelofdeuilmightbeavailabletowriterstalkingofthewrathofMaryorfemalesaintswhentheirareaofprotectionorprerogativeisencroachedupon,orsaintswhosealtar,relic,ornamehasbeendisrespected.Ihavefoundnoexamplesofthis,butitmightbeworthinvestigationintextswithamorehagiographicfocus.


hefeelshisfollowers’painashisfollowersfeelwithhim.Thesefamiliar,internalisedscripts,

learnedfromchroniclesandfromsocialexampleandthereforeembeddedintheprecious

continuityofgenealogyandhistory,notonlydemonstratethatemotionalunitybutworkto

createit.Engaginginpracticeslikethecorrectscriptforgrefallowstheformationasingle

socialbody,which—underidealcircumstances—feelsandactsasone.

IntheearlierchaptersofthisdissertationIfocussedparticularlyonemotionscripts,

whichare,ineffect,mobilisingpractices:thechronicleoffersdemonstrationsordirect

instructionsofhowtogoaboutdoingafeeling.Moregenerally,however,thereisone

particularcategoryofmobilisationthatthesetextsmodel,ashasbecomeincreasinglyclear

overthelastfewchapters.Emotionalcontagion,andtheparticipationinacommunalfeeling

bodywhichitimplies,issofundamentalapartofthedominantemotionalstylethatitneed

hardlyeverbe“recommended”outright.Deuil/grefcarrieswithitanemotionalscript—when

grevedonerespondswithcertainsensations,onedoescertainthings—butitisdeeplyrooted

inasenseoftheelisionofthephysicalbodywiththesocialone,includingone’sreputation

andone’scommunity.Feelingisasocialaction.Scheermentionsemotionalcontagionasa

communicativepractice,butinthesetexts,itfallsclearlyintothecategoryofmobilisation.

Besidesrecordingandteachingthesemobilisingpractices,somechroniclesdoseemat

timestoputthemintoeffect,activelymobilisingsympatheticemotionsinthereaderby

meansofthatcontagion.ThesearenotinstructionalmanualsinthesamesensethatSarah

McNamer’stextsexplicitlyteachcompassion,butitwouldbepossibleforareadertoreadand

re-readepisodeslikethatoftheburghersofCalais,orthedeathofthesonoftheCountof

Foix,orthejeeringdisdainofRobertBruce,withthedeliberateintentionofrehearsingnot

onlywhattofeelbuthowtogenerateandexperiencethatfeeling.Chroniclesbythismeans

wouldnotonlyshareexistingvaluesandbehavioursbutparticipateingeneratingand

sustainingthem;andthatroleisevengreaterwhenweturnfrommobilisingpracticesto

consideremotionalregulation.

Chapter 11. Difference and deviation

Mismanaged bodies

Chronicledepictionsofemotionalcontagionofferanaffirming,enticingimagetothereaderof

personalengagementinthesocialmeaning-makingofgroupfeelingwithinthetext.Butwe

havealreadyseeninChapter7howchroniclersmayfumbleanddisplayanxietywherethere

isnoclearprecedentfortheemotionalstyleofthehistoricalcharactertheydepict.Invarious

ways,theseincomprehensiblebehavioursaretranslatedbychroniclersintothenegative

imagesofcomprehensibleandapprovedemotionalpractices,teachingnotonly“thisishow

youmustunderstandthestoryofEdwardII”but“thisisnotthewayyououghttofeel,and

thisiswhathappensifyoudo”.Thelatterregulatoryfunctionissharedbymanyformsof

literature—frominstructionmanualstohighromanceorthebroadestfabliaux—but

chroniclesareuniqueintheirabilitytogroundtheseexamplesinalltheauthoritativeweight

ofthehistoryoffamilyandtherealm.

Emotion-as-practiceislearned,meaningthatfeelingsaretransferredbetweenpeopleintergenerationallyorthroughsocializingprocessesbetweenadults.Historianscanattempttoreconstructthecirculationandmodificationofemotionalpracticesespeciallywhenthereiscontestationinthisprocess,whichcouldindicatethatacertainemotionalpracticeisnolongerworkingforsomepeople.Subversiveperformances,changesinritualformulas,genresthatfalloutoffavorcanallbecluestofollow.(Scheer218)

Thefeelingbody—porous,unified,andactiveinitsgenerationofemotion—maybecalled

normative:itisthedominantmodelofemotionalpracticewithintheworldimaginedbythese

texts.Butnotallhistoricaleventsproceedaccordingtoaneatandcomprehensiblepattern,

andnotallcharactersinachronicleconformtothismodel.Overthecourseofthisproject,my

focusonmomentsandepisodesofangerhasexposedthetensionsthatarisewhencharacters

(andthechroniclersthemselves)strugglewiththeseincongruities.Whetheroneconsiders

themas“subversiveperformances”orasfailurestomastertheproperemotionalpractices,

angeroftenarisesfromthem,drawsattentiontothem,andexacerbatesthesituation.Thisis

wherewefindproductivetensions:thosemomentsofconflictthat“containexplicitand

implicitassumptionsabouthowemotionswork,howtheyshouldbelivedout,andwhatthey

mean”(Scheer218).


Whathappens,then,whenalordwhoselifeformspartofthechronicler’ssubject

cannotbeportrayedasbehavingaccordingtothisdominantemotionalstyle—whenthe

chroniclercannotmakehisactionsconformtothehabitusthattheycancomprehendwithin

thetermssetbytheirnarrative?Howdotheyrespondtothechallengeposedby—most

obviously—thedeviantroyalbodyofEdwardII?Theimportanceoftherelationshipbetween

thelordlybodyandthatofthecommunityexplainswhybodilytransgressionsonthepartof

princesmaysoreadilycapturethechronicler’simagination,orwhyfailuresatkingshipareso

oftenrepresentedinembodiedterms.Hisbodybecomesinaccessible;andworse,itfailsto

fulfilitsmostbasicsocialduty,thatofmirroringandmovingthefeelingbodyofthe

community.Eachchroniclerrespondsdifferentlytosuchachallengepresentedbyaking

withintheirtext.

OneepisodeintheVitaEdwardiIIfocusesontheideaoftheface—which,asIhave

alreadynoticed,canfunctiontosignaladisjunctureinwhatshouldbeaunifiedfeelingbody.

Herethefaceisthesiteofanxietyaboutfailuresofsocialengagementandtheintersection

betweenpublicandprivate.WeglimpsethefacesofEdwardandGavestonduringtheperiod

ofGaveston’srise—notonce,butseveraltimesinrapidsuccession.Forthemostpart,theyare

seeninaratherabstractmanner:wearetoldthatGaveston’s“uultus”demandsgreater

reverencethandoesthatoftheking,andthatGavestonalonereceives“graciametuultus

hillaremregis…etfauorem”.Grace,favour,andtheking’sfriendlycountenanceare

semanticallyequated.Gavestonhasexclusiveaccesstothem:toEdward’sfeudallove.Inboth

thesecases,vultusisprobablycloserinmeaningtocontenancethanthephysical“face”.

However,withinafewlines,wefindmentionoftheking’s“faciemhillarem”:thesame

adjectiveofemotion,butthistimedisplayedexplicitlyinthe“facies”—andofGavestonhaving

grace“inoculisregum”.Bothfaciesandoculisrefermorespecificallytotheanatomicalface

thandoesvultus;andalthoughtheseusagesaremoreorlessmetaphorical,theydorelyfor

thatmetaphorontheideaofemotionsbeingconveyedandexchangedbylookingattheface

(28–29).Onthefollowingpage,however,wefindthisdescriptionofGaveston’spride:

…noritissurprisingifheinhisprideshouldbeacceptabletoneitherGodnorman.For,scornfullyrollinghiseyesupwards[oculosdistorquensinfastum]inprideandininsult,helookeddownuponallwithoverbearinganddisdainfulcountenance[pomposaetsuperciliosafacie]…Andthehaughtinesswhichheaffectedwouldcertainlyhavebeenunbearableenoughinaking’sson.(30–31)

Thereisanincreasingfocusthroughoutthispassageonthephysicalfaceanditsdisplayof

emotion,culminatinginthevividimageofGaveston’sfacedistortedandtwistedupinhis


prideandscorn,staringdownattheworld.Edward’sfaceisturnedawayfromwhereit

shouldlook,andtowardsGavestoninstead;Gavestonkeepshiseyeshaughtilyraisedabove

hisstationand,simultaneously,looksdownonhissuperiors.Thereareechoeshereofthe

distorted,monstrousfaceofgargoylesandvices;butthisimageryalsoreaffirmstheideaof

theemotionalfaceasdisturbinglyindividualised,failingtoengageinfunctionalsocial

meaning-making.

WehavealreadyseenhowtheVitaEdwardiIIcodesnegativeemotionintermsof

disturbance,disruption,and(ultimately)division,withintheindividualbodyandsocietyasa

whole.Thisfiguringdependsheavilyontheidealofaseamlessunitywithinboth“bodies”.

Whenthisunityfailsitresultsinamalfunctionofbothcommunicationandcommunity.Like

thefaceofIsabellaofBavaria,thefacesofGavestonandEdwardIIarementionedhereas

capableofemotionalexpressiononlytopointoutthefailureofanyemotionalengagement

withthosewhoseethem.Thereferencetotheking’s“faciemhillarem”beingdeniedtothe

otherbaronsimpliesthehypotheticalpossibilityoftheface’sintegrationintosocial

engagement,butitsrealisationisdenied.Itremainsasymbolofaccesstothekingandhis

feelings,onethatishardlyevermentionedexceptwherethataccessisproblematicordenied.

Edward’sfaceistwistedawayfromitsrightfulobject,andGaveston’sisdevotedtoa

disruptivedisdainofhisbetters.Edward’savertedchiereseversanypossibilityofemotional

communicationbetweenhimselfandhisbarons,andthisinturndividesthecommunity.

ThechronicleroftheAsectionoftheAnnalesPauliniislessanalyticalthanthatofthe

VitaEdwardiII,buthehandleshisstorydramatically,topointedeffect.Onlyafewpageslong,

thischronicleisamoreunifiednarrativethanitinitiallyappears.Chroniclers(atleast,

chroniclersofrecentevents)cannoteasilyre-ordertheeventsoftheirnarrative,asthe

sequenceisimposedonthembytime;butthisLondon-basedchroniclertellsastory

structuredaroundthedisastrousmismanagementofpublicevents,usingthatstructureto

criticiseEdwardII’sfailuresofemotionalleadership.Thistextisoftenquotedpiecemealfora

fewluridphrasesthatseemtohintwithfascinateddisgustatthesexualrelationshipbetween

EdwardIIandPiersGaveston.Theauthoriscertainlypreoccupiedwiththeideaoftheking’s

bodyandwhoispermittedtoapproachit,butEdward’ssexlifeisnottheprimarytargetofits

critique.WhatEdwarddoesisnottheproblemsomuchasthehowofit:thatis,whilehe

performsmanyoftheactionsofaking(holdinggrandpublicevents,beingweddedand

crowned,acceptingcounsel)hedoestheminsuchawayastoisolatehisbaronsandhis

people,keepinghisemotionstoaclosedcircuitofhimselfandGavestonratherthanengaging

withcommunalemotion.


Wehavemetthischronicleralready,puttingthemostviciousofhiscriticismsinthe

mouthofRobertBruce.EvenwithinafewyearsofEdwardII’saccession,however,heisusing

thesametechniquewith“thecommonpeople”:populumorvulgus,withthelattervoicingthe

moreextremecriticisms.Threefailedorsubvertedtournamentsinrapidsuccessionbringa

crescendoof“popular”indignationandthechronicler’sowninvective,includingdescribing

Gavestonas“raisedfromthedust”then,barelyahundredwordslater,“raisedfromshit”.

Hereistheapexofthediatribe:

Intheexcessofhislove,thekingcalledPiershisbrother;butthecommonpeopletrulycalledhimtheking’sidol,whomhefearedtoangerashewouldafather,andwhomhestudiedtopleaseashewouldateacher.Thereweremanydifferentkindsofgraces[gratia]whichbelongedbyroyalprerogativetohimselfandnottoothers,andwhoseenactmenthebestowedonPiers.Sothatanyamongtheearlsormagnatesthatheneededtheking’sparticulargrant[gratiam]todothisbusinessorthat,thekingsenthimtoPiers;andwhateverheordainedthattheyshouldreceive,soitwas,andthekingsubmittedtoit.Thusallthepeoplewereindignant,toseetwokingsruletogetheroveronerealm:thatishowtheyexpressedit,andsoitwas.(259)

Eventhemagnates’relationshipswiththekinghavebeenreroutedviaGaveston.Froma

practicalpointofviewthisaffectstheday-to-daybusinessofmanagement;symbolically,itis

evenmoreabhorrent,becausethesplittingofthekingintotwobodieshasseveredany

emotionalrelationshipwiththeking.

Beingundifferentiatedandunexamined,theseemotionsarenotinthemselvesthe

focusofattention,ofauthorialapprovalordisapproval.Theyare,innarrativeterms,purelya

resultofandreactiontotheking’sbehaviour,andtheirstrengthisproportionatetoEdward’s

outrages.Whenwehearthatallthepeopleare“indignatus”athaving“twokingsinone

realm”,thisisagaugeoftheking’sunfitnessratherthanacarefulexaminationofthefeelings

ofeverymanandwomanonthestreet.Remember,too,thatindignarehasitslinguisticroots

inthelanguageofhonourandshame:atthispoint—certainlyinthistext,whichleansheavily

onthatwordanditsderivatives—thesensesof“havingone’shonourreduced”and“being

angryaboutit”arebothinplay.PopularangerrisesasaneffectofEdward’spooremotional

leadership,likeanaturalphenomenon.Itis,onceagain,asignthatsomethinghasgonebadly

wrongintherelationship;butthistime,withthekingunwillingtoacknowledgeitor

negotiateonthematter,noresolutioncanbeachieved.


Thefrustrationsimplicitinthispassageareborneoutelsewhereinthetext.Thisisan

authorwhoviewskingshipintermsofpompandceremony,ofpublicaccess;andsothestory

ofEdwardII’sfailureasakingistoldthroughhisrepeatedfailuretoperformthepublic

functionsofkingshipappropriately.Eventhebaronscannotreceivegratiadirectlyfromhis

person,initsemotionalorbureaucraticaspect.Inthechronicle’sopeningparagraphswesee

EdwardI’smagnificentfuneralceremoniesandthemassfortheillustriousdeadspokenbya

prestigiousSpanishbishop,bothofwhichfunctiontoreinforcecommunalbondsthrough

theirmagnificenceandlustre.Describingthemass,thechroniclerexplicitlylinkstheglorious

starry(heavenly)effectofallthecandles—“fulgorradiantiumluminariumquasicaelum

stellatum”—tothe“jocundita[s]”stirredinthesoulsofthosepresent(256).EdwardII’s

reign,however,isalitanyofceremonialoccasionsortraditionsdisrespected.Herecalls

Gavestonand,“like[theBiblical]Rehoboam,”adherestothecounselofhisyoungfriends

ratherthanengagingwiththevenerableEnglishbarons(257);thebishopofLichfield,

arriving(itisimplied)todosomeceremonialdutyoverEdwardI’sbody,isarrestedovera

grudgeonGaveston’spart(257).

Next,Edward’sweddingtoIsabellaturnsfromlavishaffirmationtopublicdisasteron

multiplelevels.Initselfitisagoodthing—although,asitwasorganisedbyEdwardIand

broughtaboutbythepope(wearetold),thechroniclergivesnocreditforittothepresent

king.Theoccasionbeginsgloriously,andthenumberofillustriousattendeesislistedwith

relish.ItgoessourwhenEdwardsendsallthemagnificentgiftsfromhisnewin-lawstoPiers

Gaveston(258).Thetournamentsthatheholdsexacerbatetensionsbetweenthebarons

(primarilyduetoGaveston’sbehaviourandtheking’sapprobationofit)tosuchanextentthat

athirdonehastobecancelledforfearofGaveston’slife(258–59).

Thisculminatesinthedisastrouscoronation,fromthetravestyofGaveston’s

ostentatiousdressandhispositioncarryingtherelicsofEdwardtheConfessor“withhisfilthy

hands”(“manibusinquinatis”)tothedisorganisedshamblesofthebanquetandthedeadly

crushofthecrowdoutsidethechurch(261–262).Thewholeepisodebeginstoreadnotonly

asapracticalresultofEdward’sbadkingship,butasadivinesignofit.Materialconsequences

follow,withthefuryoftheFrenchambassadors,thedeath“sineviatico”ofaknightcrushed

bythecrowd,anddivisionamongstthebaronsandclergy.Finallyweseetheboycottingofa

tournamentthatEdwardarrangesforthebarons,afterhehasbeenpersuadedtoexile

Gavestonagain.Thisoughttohavebeenaconciliatorygesture,ahopeofreturntotheglories

andunityofEdwardI’sday;butnobodyhasanywishtoparticipateinit.


ThefinalcriticismsareputinthemouthofthekingoftheScotsashepreparesto

invade.ImentionedthisbeforewhenIwasdiscussingshamingspeech,butletmerepeatit:he

“claimedtofearthebonesofthedeadkingmorethanhefearedtheonewholived,and[said

that]itwouldhavebeenagreatermilitaryglorytowinhalfafootoflandfromKingEdward

whowasgonethantowinakingdomfromhimwhowasleft”(265).Herethischronicleends,

withthedamageofjusttwoshortyearsapparentlyirremediable.EdwardII’sbodyhasno

socialefficacy—eventheremnantsofthatofhisfatherhavemoreforce—andtherefore,the

bodyoftherealmisviolatedbyinvasion.

Isitanoverstatementtodrawamoralequationbetweenthemismanagedbodyofthe

kingandtheviolatedbodyoftherealm?Ifthetextwereanovel,ratherthanachronicle,

woulditbeamoreplausibleinterpretation?Afterall,RobertBrucedidattackthenorthof

Englandatthispointinthe“narrative”:thechronicler’sagencyoverthesequencingofevents

hascertainlimitations.Butthen,thesameargumentmightbemadeforanyretellingofa

knownstory,orthetranslationofanoveltothescreenorstage.Thecommentsandactions

attributedtoRobertBrucedomorethanrepeatthechronicler’sstylisticandmoralchoicesup

tothispoint:theyvindicatethem,andprovetheconsequencesofEdwardII’sfailuresof

emotionalleadership.

TheepisodeofEdwardIII’sattractiontotheCountessofSalisburyalsoreveals

concernsabouttheroyalbody’spotentialfailuresofsocialengagement.Herewehaveanother

instanceofregardercausingaphysicalandemotionalchangeinanother:“thekingkepton

regardingthegentlelady,soardentlythatshebecamequitehonyeuseetesbahie”(SHF1–157).

Weseethesameconcerncarriedthroughinthenecessityofconcealmentofhisfeelingsfrom

hismen:Edwardcannotberead;andtheovertnecessityofbeingreadisinitselftheproblem.

Beforeheconfesseshisfeelingstoher,theCountessseessadnessinhimbutcannot

understandthecause.Afterthisconferencebetweenkingandcountess,hismen(notbeing

privytoit)repeatthemisunderstanding.Thisisanemotioninwhichtheycannotparticipate,

whichconcernstheking’sbodyalone:“someothermattermetoucheandpressesonmyheart

thatyoudonotknow/cannotimagine[autre…quevousnepenséz]”(SHF1–158).Thereisa

warninghere,thepossibilityofdisruptionandseverance.Hereaselsewhereinthetextthere

isastrongnarrativefocusontheroyalbody;butwherethatbodywouldusuallysymbolise

andunitehispeople,Edward’sbodilygesturesinthisepisodeareallhighlyindividual,non-

communicativeandincapableofmobilisingthesocialbody.Heleansinthewindowto

supporthimself,heturnshiseyesontheladyeventhoughhedoesnotdaretolookather

(regarderagain),hecannottouchfoodordrink:hesuffersalone(SHF1–159).


EdwardIII’sloveisvalorisedintermsappropriatetoromancebythenarrativevoice,

buttheCountess’sshameforbidsustooverlookthedangerofadulterousfeelings.Shecharges

himnottodishonourthefeudalbondbetweenthekingandherhusband“whoissucha

vailliantknight,andhasservedyousowell”;andsheclaimsthat,wereshetogivein,she

woulddeservenobetterfromthekinghimselfthanthatheshouldpersonally“justicieret

desmembrer”herbody(SHF1–158).Thethreatenedseveranceoffeudalbonds(notto

mentionthepossibilityofrape)istransfiguredgraphicallyontothedismembermentofthe

femalebody—butbyspeakingso,byevokingthelogicalextremeresultofhisfeelingsand

proposedactions,sheprovokeshiminturntoshameandpreventsanysuchoutcome.

TheAnonimallechroniclertakesamoreextremeapproach.Responding,apparently,to

thesameconcernswhichEdwardII’sreignpromptedfortheauthoroftheVitaEdwardiII,he

characterisesallinternalfeelingintermssonegativeastobealmostpathological.Tonamea

character’semotion,forthischronicler,istocriticisethatcharacter;andheartsconceal

feelingandnurturevengeance.Positivefeeling,ontheotherhand,isonlyrevealedtothe

readersthroughsocialinteraction—speechandaction—notthroughthenarratornamingthe

emotionordescribinghowitfeels.

Inthischronicle,EdwardIIIandothersociallyfunctionalcharactershavenointernal

processesatall:indescribingthem,thechroniclerspeaksalmostentirelyofactionsand

speechacts,ratherthanofinternalthoughtsandfeelings.Typically,thoughtandmotivation

seemnottomatter,oraresotransparentastonotbeworthmention:

ButsoonnewsreachedsirWilliamMeltonarchbishopofthecity,andsirJohnHotham,whowasthentheking’schancellor,andimmediatelytheyassembledalltheforcethattheycouldgatherandraiseforthemselves.(98–99)

Thisclerk[ThomasNewbiggin]accusedthegoodpeopleofhavingspokenwiththesaidsirRoger[Mortimer]aboutmaintainingandsupportinghimtogoabroad,andofhavingaidedandabettedhisescapefromtheTowerofLondon,fromwhichaccusationthegoodpeopleclearedthemselvesbyeverymanneroflegalprocedurebeforetheking’sjustices,sothattheclerkwasheldtobealiarandputinprison.(116–17)

Theking[EdwardIII]withtheadviceofhismenkindly[bonement]grantedthetruceandorderedhisforcestostoptheirassaultandthatnoEnglishmanshouldharmorinjurethosewhowereinthetown.Thereforethoseinsidethetown[Berwick]hadarespitefromtheassaultandtheykeptthepeaceawhile,butsoonaftertheybrokethesaidtrucelikemenwhowerefalseandfulloflies[fauxetpleins


demencionges],forbeforetheendofthesaidtrucetheyarmedthemselvesagainsttoattacktheEnglishandtodefendthetownagainstthem.ForthisreasonkingEdwardofEnglandagainorderedhismentoprepareenginesandotherequipmenttomakeanassaultonthesaidtownandtotakeitquicklybyforce.(160–61)

Hereisacompleteunityofthoughtandemotionwithaction,tothepointwhereany

possibilityofinternalprocesseshasdisappearedalmostentirelyfromthenarrative,because

thecharacter’sactionstellusallthatweneedtoknow.

Theprimarysubjectofthenegativekindofemotionalityis,asever,EdwardIIhimself.

Hisfeelingsareinternalised,divorcedfromexternalsociety.Exceptinganoccasionalmention

ofHughDespenseroranotherminorcharacterofwhomthechroniclerdisapproves,noother

characterisdescribedwithinternalprocessesatall.ButEdwardIIfeelsandthinksand

desires:“hewasgreatlycorouceeetirre,andhesecretlycontemplatedinhisheardallthetime

howtorevengehimself”(86–87);he“received[Gaveston]joyouslydespitetheOrdinances”

(84–85);he“lovedhimdearlyasmuchashesavoieetpoeitaboveallothers”(92);“he

abandonedthesiegeandwenttoLondonmultdolent”(98).Moreover,thewordvolerandits

variantformsoccuroverandoveragaininreferencetoEdwardII,sometimesthreetimesina

singlesentence,reinforcinghisveryliteralwilfulness.Thisking’smindsimplycannotberead

inhisactions,butmustbedescribedindependently.Infact,asthechroniclertoldusinhis

firstparagraph,EdwardIIissoeasilyswayedbyhisownwillthathecannotbetrustedtohold

onecourseforlongenoughtoact:“AndwhentheyhadcometoPortsmouththekingchanged

hismind[lavolente…chaungea]andwouldnotletthemcross,sothateachcompanyreturned

toitsownregionwithoutachievinganything”(118).Whatmightunderothercircumstances

benarratedasadeliberatechangeofpolicy,orthemisfortuneofcontrarywinds,isherea

symptomofakingwhoseinternalprocessesarenolongercontiguouswithhisbehaviour.His

actionsaresoerraticastodrawattentiontothefeelingsanddesiresthatliebehindthem,and

theillusionofunityhasbeenbroken:thechroniclernownarrateseverythingfromthat

perspective.Thethreetypesofnarrativeemotionalexpressionthatareinmostnarratives

united—internalprocesses,speech,andaction—becomedistinctinthehandsofthe

Anonimallechronicler,tocharacteriseasdysfunctionalanyemotionthatexistsonlywithinthe

bodyandnotasasocialaction.


Anxieties of history-making

EdwardII’spersonalityandtheeventsofhisreignprovidedaninterpretativechallengetoany

chronicler.InChapter3wesawtwootherchroniclerswhofoundcontrastingwaystonarrate

theking’semotionalisolation:GeoffreyleBaker,apologistandquasi-hagiographerforthe

king,andtheAnonimallechronicler,scathinginhiscritiqueofEdward’sdysfunctional

emotionality.TheAnonimallechroniclerpathologisestheking’semotionallifebyemphasising

itsprivate,internalisednature:angerandvengeancerepeatedlyseethewithinhisheart,

cuttinghimofffromthewise,lovingadviceofmenlikeThomasofLancaster,andtheauthor

consistentlyopposestheking’s“privequoer”and“privecounseil”tothe“communprofist”of

theland.Bycontrast,hissonEdwardIII—the“good”leader,inthechronicler’sview—never

hasanyemotionattributedtohim.Hemerelyacts,insuchawaythathismenare

strengthenedandheartened.He“conforta”hismenwellandnobly,andtheypursuetheir

fleeingenemies“coraiousement”(162and168,emphasismine).Inotherwords,EdwardIII’s

heartexistsonlypublicly,inthecontextofacommunalemotionthatlendsstrengthtohis

followers.

Althougheachofthesechroniclerssituateshisideasofemotionslightlydifferently,

theysharethesameconcerns:anxietyaboutstabilityunderadysfunctionalroyalbody,

derivedfromthedisjuncturebetweentheking’sbehaviourthedominantemotionalstyleof

thecommunity.TheAnnalesPaulinicomparesEdward’semotionalleadershiptothevery

literalpublicandvisualperformanceofkingshipthatthechroniclerwitnessedat

WestminsterintheageofEdwardI.TheAnonimallecompareshimtohisson,andby

implicationtotheheroicexpectationsofromance,orthefeudalidealsworkedoutinepics

andpoliticalnarratives.Bothfindhimwanting,andcentretheircritiqueofhisleadershipon

hisemotionalisolationism.GeoffreyleBaker,althoughheismagnifyingEdwardIIinsteadof

accusinghim,doesnotdenythatthisemotionaldivideexists:instead,hesubsumesitintoa

virtuebyshiftingthegenreexpectationsofhisnarrative.TheVitaEdwardiIIspeaksofhis

failurestoengagewiththebaronsorthepopulus,andtheillfeelingthatspreadthroughthe

bodyofthekingdominresult.Althoughtheirconclusionsabouttheking’scharacterandthe

argumentstheyusetoproveitareverydifferent,allfourchroniclersarerespondingtothe

samefundamentalconcernsraisedbyEdwardII’slifeandreign.Theirpreoccupationwith

emotionalleadershipacknowledgesitasaserioussubjectofanxiety:emotionalunity

betweenthekingandhisbaronsisfundamental.Theirconcernmanifestsparticularlyintalk

ofconcealment,ofalackofaccessfromoutsidetowithin:EdwardIII’sselfishemotionsbeing


hiddenfromhismenandrequiringinterpretation,EdwardIIdenyinghisrealfaceorheartto

thosearoundhim.Thedivisionofthefeelingbodyintoitscomponentparts—heart,face,

feeling,gesture,action,socialengagement—isbothmetaphorandcauseoffractureinthe

bodyofthecommunity.

AttheendofChapter9Iproposedamodelofthemedievalfeelingbodyasitis

conceivedinthesetexts:threemainpoints,coveringitschiefcharacteristics.Thesewerethat

itisanemotionalagent,beingactiveratherthanpassiveintheproductionofemotion;thatit

iscompleteinitsagency,withnomeaningfuldistinctionmadebetweeninternalorgans,

whole-bodymovement,andsocialpresence;andthatthesamevocabularyforsensationand

feelingisusedforallpartsofthatbody,onalllevels.Iwillconcludebyaddingthree

consequences,whichhavebecomeclearoverthefinaltwochapters.

Firstly,sincerityisnotarelevantcategory.Thefactthatmanyoftheexpressions

andscriptsofemotionthatIhavediscussedthroughoutthisdissertationare

conventionalised,evenritualisedandrehearsed,doesnotmeanthatthefeelingstheyshow

areinsincere.Ihavenotedseveraltimesthatbehaviouralsignsandspeechhavethesame

truthvalueasanauthorialstatementthat“thischaracterfeelsangry”:wecannowseethat

thereasonforthisisthatthebehavioursareimaginednotasrepresenting(andpotentially

faking)anemotion,butashelpingtoproduceit.Feelingdoesnotprecedebehaviourorexist

independentlyofit:thebehaviourisanaspectofthefeeling.

Secondly,thismodelofemotionalitylaysaheavyemphasisonsocialinteractionand

communitycohesionfortheproductionandworkingoutofemotion.Emotionalleadership

andcontagionarenotonlyimportantbutvital:theabilitytosuccessfullyinspiretheright

emotionsinotherpeople,theparticipationinsharedemotions,andtheperceptionofoneself

aspartofacommunal“feelingbody”,areessentialskillsthatunderlieallotherlearned

emotionalpractices.

Thirdly,theobviouscorollary:detachmentcreatesdissonance.Afailuretomaster

theseskillsleadstoimperfectorincompleteemotionalpractices,andaninabilitytoadoptthe

correctemotionalstylefortheoccasion(orforthegenre).Themostvalorisedcharactersare

thosewhoaremostaccomplishedatemotionalleadershipandparticipationinthefeeling-

makingoftheircommunitybody.Internalisedorhiddenemotion,thoughnotuniversally

disapproved,isviewedwithdeepsuspicionbydefault.Afailuretochoosetorecognisethe

correctemotionalstyleortosuccessfullycarryouttheappropriateemotionscript—say,

shamedangerinresponsetoprovocativespeech—hasgravesocialandpersonal


consequences;andfailuresofemotionalleadershipcandisorderandwoundthebodyofthe

communityortherealm.

Chroniclesarevehiclesoftradition:eventhosewhichonlynarraterelativelyrecent

eventshavetheirrootsinotherswhichreachback“timeoutofmind”.Manyare,asphysical

objects,continuationsofolderchronicles,writtenonleavesthatfollowthemorevenerable

material.Thosethatarenotdependneverthelessontheseoldertraditionsforsomeoftheir

style,andfortheirextraauthorityoversomeotherformsofnarrative.WhenIhavespokenof

“community”throughoutthisdissertationIhaveusuallymeantacommunityinthe“present”:

peopleexistinginmoreorlessthesamehistoricalmomentaseachother,whateverthat

momentmaybe.Butfeudalbondsexistnotonlybetweenlordandvassal,husbandandwife,

allyandally,butbetweenpresentandpast.Genealogy,asMatthewGiancarlopointsout,isa

strongpreoccupationofchronicles,asitisofsimilargenressuchasromances,becauseitisan

essentialingredienttotheconceptionofselfinlate-medievalsociety—oratleast,thoseparts

ofitwhosefamiliesarelikelytoberepresentedinhistoricalrecord.Onewouldideally

maintainthevaluesandemotionalstylesofthatcommunityaswellasofthepresentone:

behaveinawaythatwoulddoyouhonourintheeyesofyourgreat-grandfather,andemulate

thelostperfectionofCamelot.Continuityisessential,andhistoriography,morethanmost

narrativegenres,carrieswithittheweightandauthorityofmaintainingthatcontinuity.

Itcarries,too,theanxietiesofcontinuity:morethaneventhemostelegaicoftalesof

thefallofCamelot,chroniclesaredisapprovingordisturbedbyanysenseofbreakingwith

tradition,oroffailurestoliveuptotheperfectionsofolderdays.“Timeoutofmind”—“a

temporeaquononextititmemoria”—isthephraseusedbytheFineshadechroniclerto“date”

certaintreasuresplacedinWestminsterbytheancestorsofEdwardII(f.86rl.26).That

wistful,self-contradictingconnectiontothepastismentionedwhenitissevered:whenthe

newkingtakesthosetreasuresout,andgivesthemtoGaveston.Atinyincident,inacatalogue

ofsimilarexamplesofEdwardII’sbetrayalsofthepast,inoneamongmanychroniclesthat

includesimilarcatalogues:thoselosttreasurescarrymorethantheirownweightin

symbolism.Forthewantofagoblet,Englandisdoomed.

Anxietiesaboutthefailuresofthepresenttomatchuptothepastarenotuniquetothe

reignofEdwardII,nortotheMiddleAges.Hisreignmerelyofferedoneparticularsetof

problemsforchroniclerstointerpret;andtheyrespondedbyconcentratingondissonancesof

emotionalstyle.Scriptsandpracticesandidealswerealreadyavailableinthetraditionof

chroniclesandothernarrativegenrestoshowhowoneoughttoparticipateintheemotional

communityofpastandpresent.Fourteenth-centurychroniclersemployedthatfamiliar


vocabularyofemotionalpracticestobringtheweightofchronicleauctoritasintoplay.

Protesting,apologetic,regretful,vitriolic,orfearful,eachinhisownwaydelineatesand

regulatestheboundariesoflong-establishedemotionalstylesforthebenefitofpresentand

futurereaders.Intheprocesstheyshoreupandreshapethatintergenerationalcontinuity

whoselosstheymourn—asperhapschroniclershavealwaysmourned,“atemporeaquonon

extititmemoria”.

Coda

Whetherornotmedievalpeoplewereconsciousofindividualised,interiorformsof

subjectivityhasbeenhotlydebatedoverthelasttwentyyears.Oneofthemostimportant

contributionsofthehistoryofemotionsisanunderstandingthattherearedifferentwaysof

valuingformsoffeeling,andofexperiencingtheselfinrelationtothesocialworld.Onthe

evidenceoflate-medievalnarrative,Isuggestthatinteriorformsofsubjectivitywereless

cultivatedandvaluedinthedevelopmentofmedievalemotionalitythanthosecentredon

socialbelonging.Nevertheless,theprototypicalhabituswasalsodeeplyembodied:thefeeling

bodymoveswithinthecommunity,andbyitsnatureengageswithothersintheproductionof

feeling.

Inasocietystructuredaroundrelationships,angerisaparticularlyusefullensthrough

whichtoviewemotionalnorms.Ithasacrucialroleinnegotiatingthoserelationships,and

canbeapositiveordestructiveforcewithinthatnetwork.Thereareelaboratelyritualised

andrecognisedscriptsaroundanger—itscommencement,itsprogression,itsconclusion—

andyetitmayalsoattimesappearasformlessandsavageanddysfunctionalasthewild-

hairedIrawhoaccomplishesnothingexcepttofallonherownsword.Angerhasmany

differentfaces,fromtheseethingmutinousangerofarebellioussubject,totheflashof

shamedangerthatstirsaknighttoviolentaction(butnothereandnow),orthedolofprince

whosehorseorlandhassufferedanenemy’sblow.Eachkindofangerservesadifferent

functionandissubjecttodifferentkindsofregulatorydiscussion—andmaybeusedto

mobilisedifferentemotionalresponsesinthereader.Behindanydepictionofangerina

chronicleliesadiscursiverelationshipbetweenthehistoricaleventinquestion(oratleast,

whatthechroniclerknowsaboutit),literaryandhistoriographicalprecedentfordepicting

similaremotionevents,andthestyleofstorythatthechroniclerwantstotell.

Byreadingangereventsinchroniclessidebysidewithangereventsinsimilar

narrativegenres,wecanbegintoappreciatetherichtextureofthematerialwithwhichthe

chroniclerworks.Ihave,Ibelieve,unpickedenoughofit(oratleastlaidbackthepile)to

exposesomeofthewealthofreferentialmaterialandassumedknowledgethatmakeupits

threads.Fromthisperspective,wecanappreciatethesubtlerundercurrentsinafamiliar

storylikethatoftheburghersofCalais.When,forexample,wearefamiliarwiththescriptof

shamedanger,wecanseetheglaringomissioninWalterofGuisborough’saccountofEdward

I’sverbalabuseofhisson:theoldking’sangerisnomoreremarkablethanhisson’sfailureto


respond.Ifwecanrecogniseemotionscriptsastheyoccur(andstillmorewhentheauthor

deviatesfromorsubvertsascript),wehaveapowerfultoolkitforunderstandingasociety’s

emotionalpracticesandhowtheywereproduced,debated,andregulated,andemployed.

Emotionscriptsareparticularlyrelevantinstudyingmedievalliterature,becausethis

isasocietyandatextualtraditionthatconsciouslyvaluesrepetition,reference,metaphor,

synecdoche,andotherrhetoricalorimaginativetechniquesthatfindmeaninginonethingby

figuringitontooragainstanother.Fastforwardafewhundredyearsandtheywoulddraw

accusationsofcliché,dustyoldmetaphors,alackoflife.Nowadays,aclichéissomethingthat

hasbeenrepeatedsooftenthatithaslostallimaginativeforce:toomuchreferencehas

rendereditmeaningless,ratherthanaddingtoitsrichness.Woulditbeimpossible,then,to

usethestudyofemotionscriptsforanyotherperiodthanthatoflate-medievalEngland?

Impossible,no—althoughonemustaccountforculturalandstylisticdifferences,most

emotionalpracticesdorunbyscripts.Fromthatdelightfulortiresomeoldstockphrase,“their

eyesmetacrossacrowdedroom”,tothehighlypredictablestructureofasuperhero’s

confrontationwiththeirnemesisintheclimaxofanactionmovie,theoverwhelmingmajority

ofourstorytellingnowadays(fictionalorotherwise)followspredictablescripts,withvery

littleefforttodisguisethem.Thatmuchisobvious—themaindifferenceisthemedieval

preferencefornotdisguisingthem,forpreferencingthatdirectlinkwithwhathasbeen

alreadysaidandknown.Eventoday,however,thelayersofdisguisearerarelyverydeep.For

astorytropeoranemotionscripttobesatisfying,orevenmeaningful,wemustrecogniseit

moreorlessconsciously:whileweexperienceitasreaders/viewersweshouldbepredicting

it,engagingwithit,withsomeideainourheadabouthowitshouldplayout.

Thesamemightbesaidforpersonalexperienceofemotion.Emotionsdonotoccurina

singleinstance,withnocontextbeforeorafter.Theyoccurinaseriesofinstancesand

impressions,withthe(acculturated)bodyandmindinvolvedateverymomentinevaluating,

mediating,engagingwith,andaffectingtheprocess.Ihaveusedstoriesasametaphorfor

emotions,hereandthere:thatis,Ihavesuggestedthatwelearnstoriesandtropesinthe

samewaythatwe(lessconsciously)learnemotionalstylesandpractices.Thisishalfway

betweenananalogyandadirectdescription:storiesareanintegralaspectofhowwelearn

andprocessandrecalltheworldaroundus,particularlyasitrelatestootherhumansanda

senseofself.Emotionalpracticesareprocessedandlearnedandproducednotonlyinthe

samewayasstoriesare,butasstories:welearnandstoreemotionsascontextualised

meaningfulscripts,withconsciousorunconsciousreferencetoourexperienceoftheworld.


RobBoddice,inhisrecentsummaryofthefieldofthehistoryofemotions,madeone

particularcriticismofBarbaraRosenweinthatstuckwithme:thatthoughshelinks

experienceandexpression,sayingthatweunderstandourtruefeelingsbymeansofwords,in

herworkthe“dyadoftruefeelingsandexpressedemotion”remainsimplicit(Boddice79).I

findthatexpressionnotonlycategorisesemotionsbutshapesthem—andthat,inmedieval

chroniclesandineverydaylife,“expression”doesnotmeanonlythechoiceofasingleword,

butactions,events,rememberedreferences,insequenceandincontext.Emotionsare

complex,composedofmanyelements,possessinganarrativestructure,needingtobeworked

outinsequenceandinrelationtoaphysicalorsocialbody.Inshort:emotionsare,orare

experiencedandlearnedas,stories.

Weknowthatthebrainisplastic,andthatrepeatedpatternsofthoughtphysically

changethebrainandliterallyshapethepathwaysforfuturethought.Westillstruggletoapply

thisconceptuallywhenitcomestoemotionshistory,andindeedtothehumanitiesingeneral.

Butstoriesdoexactlythis,storiesandtheirshapes:storiesareoneoftheprimaryvehiclesby

whichweprocessandretainpatternsofinformation,andpatternsofmeaning.Werehearse

familiarstories(scripts,tropes,emotionalpractices)overandoverwithcharactersonthe

page,orinthespokenword.Isuggestweneedtothinkaboutemotionssimply(and

complexly)asstories,givingagreaterroletostorytellingwhenwethinkaboutemotional

practiceinhistory.

Appendix Anger events

Thisappendixcontainsaselectionofangereventsfromafewofmykeytexts.Itspurposeisto

illustratethelistofangersignsofferedinChapter1:toofferageneralsampleofhowthey

workinpractice,includingtheircomparativefrequenciesandthedifferencebetweenfully

dramatisedinstancesandbriefallusions.TothisendIhaveincludedaslightlysimplified

versionofthatlisthere,andreferencedthesignsindividuallytotheleftofthequotations.By

theirnature,someoccuronlyinasinglelineandthereforecorrespondexactlywiththe

positionatwhichIhavelabelledthem(e.g.,areferenceto‘heart’willbearthelabel1.c),

whereasotherswillextendoverseverallinesormore(suchasasceneofcounsel,orthe

momentinwhicharelationshipturnsfromlovetoanger).

Thisselectionalsoillustratesafewofthepotentialambiguitiesofthesesigns:for

example,somesignsmaybeassociatedwithmultipleemotions(pallorwithanger,fear,and

sorrow,laughterwithmockeryandjoy,authorialnamingofemotionwithanyemotionatall).

InthesecasesIhavelabelledthemwhetherornottheyindicateanger,todemonstratethat

ambiguity;butIhavenotlabelledsignssuchaskneelingorkissingwhichdonottypically

belongtoangerevents.

Therearealsosomeinstancesherewheretheemotionsignorscripthasbeen

subverted,implied,orinvokedthenavoided:theseareindicatedbylabellingtheminitalics.

Mostwillincludeanexplanatorynote.

NotethatIhavesilentlyinsertedparagraphbreaksintomanyofthetranslations,and

sometimesintotheoriginaltextifitisprose,inordertokeeptextandtranslationaligned,or

tobreakuplargeblocksofprose.


Appendix Contents

Listofemotionsigns 190

AnnalesPaulini 192

Anonimallechronicle 194

GeoffreyleBaker’schronicle 197

Brut(MiddleEnglishproseversion) 203

ChansondeRoland 209

JordanFantosme’schronicle 213

Fineshadechronicle 216

Froissart’schronicle 217

WalterofGuisborough’schronicle 225

GeoffreyofMonmouth’schronicle 226

AlliterativeMorteArthure 229

RaouldeCambrai 232

VitaEdwardiII 237

VoeuxduHéron 242

List of emotion signs

1. Internal signs

a) Authorialnamingofemotionsb) Bloodc) Heartd) Afeelingofmadness

2. Affect and action

a) Theface:i) Distortion,especiallyofthemouthii) Changingcolouriii) Glaringeyesiv) Wildhairv) Tears

b) Sweating,trembling,swellingc) Hastymovement:

i) Wildoruncontrolledmotion


ii) Leapingtoone’sfeetiii) Rushingfromoneplacetoanotherwithoutstoppingiv) Throwingobjects(otherthanataperson)

d) Lossofsens:i) Madnessii) Fainting

e) Violenceagainstself:i) Tearingatone’shairorfaceii) Rendingone’sclothesiii) Suicideorotherself-harm

f) Violenceagainstothers(actualorthreatened):i) Destructionofenemy’spossessionsorlands,especiallybyfireii) Displacementofaggressionontoanobjectiii) Throwingobjectsatsomebodyiv) Damagingtheirclothes,armour,orhorsev) Drawingorgrippingaweaponvi) Strikingsomebodyvii) Killingorseriouslywoundingsomebodyviii) Capturingsomebody

g) Withdrawaloflovei) Banishmentii) Wariii) Legalproceedings

3. Speech and voice

a) Tone:i) Loud,clear,“high/haut”ii) Initialspeechlessness

b) Declaration:i) Statementofangerii) Recitalofgrievancesiii) Petitionforredressofgrievances

c) Threateningspeech:i) Vowsofviolence/warii) Maledictions

d) Provocativespeech:i) Appealsto/denialofhonourii) Jeersandtaunts

e) Wordlessgroupspeechi) Murmurii) Clamour

4. Reactions to anger

a) Communalemotion/sympathy:otherssharetheanger


b) Commandofroom/fearinreaction:othersareintimidatedbytheangerc) Counselscene:determinesthecorrectamountofangerd) Pleaforclemencyorrestraint

5. Symbols and analogies associated with anger

a) Fireandheatb) Thecolourred(includingvisibleblood)c) Certainanimals

i) Lionsii) Boarsiii) Wolvesiv) Leopardsv) Dogs

d) Demons,pagans,foreigners,peasants,etc.

Annales Paulini (A section)

ThefullAnnalesPaulinicoverstheperiod1307–41,andiswrittenbyaseriesofchroniclers.

Inthemanuscript,theAPisacontinuationofaversionofRogerofWendover’sFlores

Historiarumto1306,whichStubbsdoesnotincludeinhisedition.Iconsideronlythesection

calledtheAsectionbyAntoniaGransden,coveringtheyears1307–09(HistoricalWriting28–

29).ItwaswritteninLondonandprobablyatSt.Paul’sbyasinglechronicler,withinavery

fewyearsoftheeventsnarrated.

Textisfrompp.255–66ofWilliamStubbs’RollsSeriesedition.Therearenoavailable

translations.PagereferencesaretoStubbs’edition,andtranslationsaremine.

TheendofEdwardI’sreign(255).1.a24.c2.g.i

SubilloquoquetemporecernensrexAngliæquodfiliussuus,princepsWalliæ,adamaretquendamVasconiensemmilitemultramodum,exquomultaincommodeconjecturabatipserexpostmortemsuamregnopossecontingere,exconsiliocomitumetbaronumsuorumcompulitrexipsummilitemabjurarequoadviveretregnumsuum.HuicautemmilitiPetrusdeGavastonenomenerat.

InthattimethekingofEngland[EdwardI],realisingthathissontheprinceofWaleshadanexcessiveloveforacertainGasconknight,andconsideringthatgreatmisfortunesmightbefalltherealmafterhisowndeathasaresult,bythecounselofhislordsandbaronsthekinghadthisknightbanishedfromhisrealmforlife.Thisknight’snamewasPiersGaveston.

Note:EdwardIshowsnobehaviouralsignsofanger,onlythosethatbelongtothestructureofpoliticsandnarrative.Heproceedsfromcalmobservation(“cernens”)andforesight(“conjecturabit”),throughconsultationwithhisbarons,tofirmaction.ThisisnotnarratedasanemotioneventonEdwardI’spart—hedoesnoteven“fear”thatevilwillcometotherealm,


but“considers”it.Hisactionsareframedasproceedingfrompolicyandcounsel,inresponsetothedangerouslyexcessivefeelingsofhisson(“adamaret...ultramodum”).ContrasthisangerintheFineshadechronicleandthechronicleofWalterofGuisborough.

********** Withhisfatherdead,EdwardIIhasrecalledGaveston,

whoshocksandangerseverybodywithhisarrogantbehaviour(258–59).1.a

PorroPetrusdeGaveston,dictuscomesCornubiæ,depulvereelevatus,cœpitAnglicosdetestari...

SoonPiersGaveston,so-calledEarlofCornwall,raisedupfromdust,begantobedetestedbytheEnglish...

Hewinstwotournamentsthroughtrickery,1.a hinccrevitmajorindignatiocomitumet

baronum.whichgaverisetomuchangeramongsttheearlsandbarons...

Athirdtournamentisannounced.1.a

[Gaveston,]metuenseoire,suggessitregimortemsuaminibiacomitibusmachinari,etrexstatimprohibuittorniamentum.

[Gaveston,]fearingtoattend,toldthekingthattheearlswereplanningtokillhimthere,sothekingimmediatelybannedthetournament.

1.a3.e.i4.a

Iccircomagisodiumcontraeumetmurmurinpopuloresonabat.Etquantocrevitodiumpopuliexvitæmeritocontraelevatumdestercore,tantoferventiusaugebatregisdilectioergaPetrum.RexvocavitPetrum,præamorenimio,fratremsuum;vulgusveroeumregisydolumvocitabat...

Becauseofthis,evengreaterhatredandmurmuragainsthimbegantoresoundamongthepeople.Andthemorethathatreddeservedlythrivedamongsthispeopleagainstthemanwhohadbeenraisedupfromshit,themoreferventgrewtheking’sloveforPiers.Intheexcessofhislove,thekingcalledPiershisbrother;butthecommonpeopletrulycalledhimtheking’sidol...

1.a Undeindignatusestpopulusuniversus,duosregesinunoregno,istumverbaliter,istumrealiterconregnare.

Thusallthepeoplewereindignant,toseetwokingsruletogetheroveronerealm:thatishowtheyexpressedit,andsoitwas.

Notes:Herethechroniclerbeginstocommithimselftoanopinion:criticismofGavestonandoftheking’sconducthassofarbeenmostlyvoicedbygroups(“populus”/“comitesetbarones”),andthechronicler’sagreementhasbeenimplied.Overthecourseofthesetwopagesthenarrativevoiceexplicitlybeginstoagree.Notetheincreasinglylackofrestraint,shownespeciallygraphicallybythechangefrom“pulvere”to“stercore”todescribeGaveston’s(supposedly)humbleorigins.Notealsothelanguageusedtodescribegroupfeeling—“murmur”,“reson[are]”,“cre[scere]”—suggestiveofsoundandmovement.“Crescere”mayalsorefertogrowthasofaplant.Itisusedtwiceinthispassage,andIhavetranslateditas“grow”and“thrive”.Sofarinthischronicleemotions,especiallystrongemotions,havebelongedalmostexclusivelytogroups—and,ofcourse,toEdwardII.HerethegrowthofhisfeelingsforGavestonisexplicitlytrackedagainstthegrowthof(justified)angerinthepopulace.Itishardlyaflatteringcomparison.

********** AtthecombinedcoronationandweddingofEdwardII,

Gavestondressessoostentatiouslyastooutshinetheking(262)…1.a2.f.vii

…nonregissedgloriampropriamquærens,etquasiAngloscontempnens...Quapropterindignatuscomesunusvoluitinterimereeumpalam.Cuialiussanior

…seekingnottheking’sglorybuthisown,asifincontemptoftheEnglish...Asaresult,oneindignantearlwantedtoslaughterhimpublicly.Tohim,awiser


3.c.i/ii1.a,2.c.iii,2.f.viii3.e.i

respondebat;“Nonindiefesto,nefortefiattumultusinpopuloetdedecusinconvivio.Sedexpectarevincerenobiserit.”KarolusetLodowicuspatruireginæ,cernentesquodrexplusexerceretPetritricliniumquamreginæ,cumindignationeadFranciamremigarunt.Inomnemigiturterramexiitrumoriste,quodrexplusamarethominemmagumetmaleficumquamsponsamsuamelegantissimamdominametpulcherrimammulierem.

earlresponded:“Notonafeastday:letnotthetumultamongthepeoplenortheshameuponthesefestivitiesgrowstronger.Weshouldinsteadwaitforourtimetotriumph.”CharlesandLouis,brothersofthequeen’sfather,seeingthatthekingspentmoretimeattablewithPiersthanwiththequeen,returnedtoFrancewithgreatindication.Acrossalltheland,therefore,thismurmurarose:thatthekinglovedanevilsorcerermorethanhedidhisbride,whowasamostelegantwomanandverybeautifulwife.

Note:Thechroniclersaysthattheking“exerceret”(exercised)theGaveston’s“triclinium”morethanthatofthequeen,whichItranslateneutrallyas“spentmoretimeattablewith”.Thereisprobablysomedegreeofeuphemismhere.InclassicalLatin,atricliniumisadiningcouchforthreepeople.Itisrareinmedievalusage,anddoesnottranslatewellintothesettingofamedievalbanquet:shouldwethinkofitintermsofbeingaperson’spartneratboard?MEDatteststwofifteenth-centuryinstancesof“tricline”usedtomeanadiningroom,suggestingthatthewordmayhaveretaineditsassociationwithsharedmealsandlostthespecificnumber,andpossiblytheconnectionwithfurniture.Here,“exerceret”suggeststhataspecificitemoffurnitureisintended,possiblywithsexualundertones.ItisalsonotquiteclearwhetherthepreferencethatCharlesandLouisseeisgeneralorspecifictotheoccasion:dotheyseethathespendsmoretimewithGavestonduringthebanquet,ordotheyperceivethathewillalwayspreferGaveston’s“couch”?

********** RobertBruceattacksthenorthofEngland,

despisingtheEnglishandtheirking(265).5.d3.d.ii1.a

Hictyrannus,intermultasblasphemiasquasevomuitinvituperiumregisAngliæ,dicebatseipsumplustimereossaregismortuiquamregemvivum;etmajormagnificentiabelliesset,cuiquamregnarevolenti,adquirerespatiumsemipedisdeterraaregeEdwardodumviveret,quamaregesuperstiteunumregnum.

Thistyrant[RobertBruce],amongstthemanyblasphemieswhichhevomitedforthinhisabuseofthekingofEngland,claimedtofearthebonesofthedeadking[EdwardI]morethanhefearedtheonewholived[EdwardII];andthatitwouldhavebeenagreatermilitaryglorytowinhalfafootoflandfromKingEdwardwhowasgonethantowinakingdomfromhimwhowasleft.

Anonimalle chronicle

AvariantoftheFrenchProseBrutfortheyears1307–33,attestedinasingle(probably

autograph)manuscriptfromStMary’sAbbey,York.ExistsaspartofalongerBrutmanuscript,

butthesectioninquestionwasprobablywrittenprobablyshortlyaftertheeventsnarrated.


TextandtranslationarefromChildsandTaylor’sfacing-pageedition.Inthisandother

textswithafacing-pagetranslationedition,Igivethecitationintheformat(80–81):80isthe

editedtextand81thetranslation,ratherthanthetextbeginningonpage80andcontinuingto

81.Beawarethatthismeansthereferencewilllookfarlongerthanitisifitliesoverapage

break:80–83wouldnotbefourpageslong,butmaybeonlyasingleparagraphthathappens

tofalloverthepagebreakfrom80to82.

EdwardIIsucceedstothethrone(80–81).1.a,1.c2.g4.a2.g

AprescestuiboneroiEdwardregnaEdwardsonficz.EdwarddeCarnervanfustappelle,beaushommeetfortdecorpsetdemembre,mesilforslisnadelestetchesetdelamaneresonpere,qarilnefistforcedechivalerienepruesce,mestantsoullementdesavolentedemene.CestuiroiEdwardfusichaungeabledecorageetdequoer,qeceoqilgrantaunejourpurcommunprofistdelaterreillevoleitdediruneautrejour.Etauxifustilhommedegrantevengeance,qarquantilcomencaderegnertostapresgrandedescordetgrandeestrifsourdirententrelietunesireWalterdeLangetoun,qifustevesqedeCestreettresorereleroisonpere,purceoqeleditevesqeliaccusaquantilestoitprincesdeGalesdascunestrespasetmeffaitz,desqueuxleboneroisonperelireprovaetchastiapardroitetreson.Cestiroiaimacherementdecoerascunsgentzqisonpieresoventfoithlidefendilacompaigniedeeux...

Afterthisgoodking,Edward,hissonEdwardreigned.HewascalledEdwardofCaernarvan,ahandsomemanandstronginbodyandlimb,buthefellshortofthequalitiesandthestyleofhisfather,forhewasconcernednotwithdeedsofchivalryorprowessbutonlywithhisowndesires.ThiskingEdwardwassofickleinpurposeandfeelingsthatwhathegrantedonedayforthecommonprofitofthelandhewouldwanttoretractonanother.Alsohewasamanbentonvengeance,forsoonafterhebegantoreigngreatdiscordandconflictarosebetweenhimselfandacertainsirWalterLangton,whowasbishopofChesterandhadbeentreasureroftheking,hisfather,becausethesaidbishophadaccusedhim,whenhewasprinceofWales,ofvariousevildeedsandwrongdoingsforwhichthegoodking,hisfather,hadreprovedandrightlyandreasonablypunishedhim.Thiskinglovedwithallhisheartcertainpeoplewhosecompanyhisfatherhadfrequentlyforbiddenhim...

Note:Thisisthechronicler’sfirstdescriptionofEdwardIIonhisaccession,anditsetsthetonefornarrationthroughouthisreign.Notetheemphasisonhisemotionalityandhisfailuretomaketherightbondsoflove.

********** ThekinghearsthatthebaronshavewaylaidandkilledGaveston(86–87).1.a1.c3.b.ii

QuantleroiavoitoietentenducomentsirePiersdeGavestounestoitmisamortparlesgrantzdelaterre,ilestoitdurementcorouceeetirre,etpensaprivementtouzjoursensonquoerdeseivengerdeceuzqifeurentassentaunzasamortquantilverroittemps.

WhenthekingheardandunderstoodhowsirPiersGavestonhadbeenputtodeathbythelordsofthecountryhewasgreatlyangeredandannoyedandhesecretlycontemplatedinhisheartallthetimehowtorevengehimselfwhenheshouldseetheopportunityonthosewhohadassentedtohisdeath.


**********

Thebeginningsofcivilwar(102–03).1.c,1.a2.g3.b.iii3.c.i/ii

...lagrossuredelcoerleroisurmontadurementdevengeauncefairesourlapartieqeluicontraria,nepurquantillesavoirfetchartresdepees...EtlegentilcountedeLancastremandaamiablementauroiparsezletttres,qilcessatdelapersecucionqilcomencaaffairesursezliegesgentzareson.Etleroitintendespitquantqelegentilcounteetautresgrantzliavorentmande,mestoutzjourspensadeseivengerdeeux...

...theking’sheartwasburstingwithdesireforvengeanceonthepartywhichwasopposinghim,althoughhehadgrantedthemchartersofpeace...AndthenobleearlofLancastertoldthekinginafriendlyway,byhisletters,thatinjusticeheshouldstoppersecutinghisliegepeople.Andthekingheldincontemptwhatthegentleearlandotherlordshadtoldhim,buteverydaythoughtofrevenginghimselfonthem.

Note:Thereareseveralsubvertedorfailedangersignshere.ThefirstisthatthefeelingsofEdwardII’sheartdonotmatchthelegalstatusoftherelationship,asattestedbypeacecharters.ThesecondisthenecessityforLancastertomakepetitioninsteadof,as(ostensibly)themostpowerfulbaronintheland,beingabletoadvisethekingdirectly.ThethirdisEdwardII’slackofdecisiveactionorspeech:hedoesnotvowviolence,makeacurse,orformallymovetoresolvetherelationshipbyashowofangerorlove,butwaitsandhopesforachanceofrevenge—justasIsabelladoesinseveraloftheextractsfromGeoffreyleBakerbelow.

********** AfterthedefeatandcaptureoftheEarlofLancaster(106–107).2.f.viii3.d.ii1.a

…leroilimaundatanqeaPountfreitlequellieuleditcounteamastplusqenulautrevilledelaterre.Etilluqesleroifustentrelechastelleditcounte,etoveliHughliencontraetliledengaparmaliciousparolesetdespitousesenmysonvisageendespitdeli.

…thekingsenthimtoPontefract,aplacethesaidearllovedmorethananyothertownintheland.Andtherethekinghadenteredthesaidearl’scastleand,sirHughbeingwithhim,mettheearlandcontemptuouslyinsultedhimtohisfacewithmaliciousandarrogantwords.

**********

Thecollapseofastageatatournament(146–47).1.a,4.d3.b4.a

Laquelesodeineaventurefustparmyladefautedescarpenters.Etleroidesafranchevolenteetgraciousegraceetparmylapriereladamelaroignepardonaletrespas,etfistcrierpeespartut,etamour,etqenuldeveroitderienestreabaieneaffraie.Etleroicomandalaroigne…montersonpalefrayenhastetchivauchersusetjuselrenkovebelesemblaunt,aconforterlepoeple,etlehurdiz,qesisodoignementcheist,fustreparailledenuytetfetassetzfort,

Thissuddenaccidentwasduetothefaultofthecarpenters.Thekingofhisfreewillandgraciousmercyandthroughtheprayersoftheladythequeenpardonedthefault,andhadpeaceandloveproclaimedeverywhere,andthatnooneshouldbeinanywayscaredorafraid.Andthekingorderedthequeen...tomountherpalfreyquicklyandtorideupanddownthelineswithagoodcountenancetoreassurethepeople.Thestagingwhichfellsosuddenlywasrepairedatnightandwasmadestrongenoughsothatthenextday


issintqelendemainfeulejeucontenunoblement.

thegamewascontinuedinanoblemanner.

Note:Insteadofproclaiminghisanger,EdwardIIIproclaimspeaceandlove,andhasPhilippahelphimunitehispeopleinfeeling.

**********

Undersiege,thenobilityofBerwicktrytocedethetowntotheEnglish(154–55).1.a2.c.iii2.f

EtquantlacommunaltedeBerewykavoitaperceucomentlesjuvencelsdeladitevillevoleientavererendulavilleauroiDengleterreetasireEdwarddeBaillolsanzlourcongieetlourassent,ilsestoientgrandementgrevezetcorucez,ethastivementmounterentlesmursdeladitevilleetnoblementladefenderentencountrelesEngleis.

WhenthecommonaltyofBerwickhadperceivedhowtheyoungmenofthesaidtownwantedtogivethetowntothekingofEnglandandtosirEdwardBalliolwithouttheirleaveandassent,theyweregreatlyaggrievedandangeredandquicklymountedthewallsofthesaidtownandhonourablydefendeditagainsttheEnglish.

Note:Herethe“grevezetcorucez”reactionisfeltnotbyasinglelordbutbyacommunitybodyinresponsetoinjuryandthreat.

Geoffrey le Baker’s chronicle

Coverstheyears1303–56.Composedc.1350withadditionsto1360.TheLatintextisthatof

E.MaundeThompson’s1889edition.Thateditionisthesourcetextforthetranslationby

DavidPreest,whoincludespagereferencestoThompson’seditioninhisEnglishtext.My

citationsherearegivenintheformat(1;2–3),where‘1’istheLatintextand‘2–3’theEnglish.

InthebodyofmythesisIreferencethetranslationunlessIamexplicitlycitingtheLatin.

Gaveston’ssuccessfulmilitaryleadershipagainsttheScots(4;3–4).2.f.i2.d.i1.a5.a2.f.i

…dequovalenciumdiceretestimoniumquod,ipsoinpartibusScocieducatuimiliciepresidente,ScotosvaldeterruitetrepulitapredisetaliisvesaniismagnanimitasAnglorum;quoperinvidiamfelicessuccessusipsiusodienciumdemediosubtracto,incanduitetinvaluitinministrosregisAngliecastrisScociedeputatosversutaScotorumvigilancia.

Thoseinapositiontospeakabouthimtestifythat,whileGavestonwasincommandofthearmyinScottishlands,theheroismoftheEnglishgreatlyscaredtheScotsandstoppedthemfromplunderingandotheractsofmadness.ButwhenGavestonwastakenfromtheirmidstthroughtheenvyofthosewhohatedhishappysuccesses,thecunningScotswerewideawakeoncemoreand,whitehotwithrage,launchedattacksonthegovernors,whomtheEnglishkinghadputincommandofthecastlesofScotland.

Note:ItwasactuallyIrelandthatGavestonwassenttogovern,andwherehehadthesesuccesses.TheScotsfitthisanecdotebetter,however:thedepictionoftheminchroniclesas


raging,furiousenemiesonthebordersofcivilisationwasafamiliarone.Theirangerhereisotheringanger:theyarenotangryatthefactthatGavestonhasbeenrecalled,butbecauseitistheirevilnaturetobehavelikethis.

********** QueenIsabella’shatredfortheDespensersastheygainascendancy(17;16–17).1.a5.d5.a1.a3.b.ii1.a

Adhoccontraseipsosinuniversumnefasrapidissimamiramfemineamregineconcitabant,eoquod,illorumavaroconsilioetordinacionefamiliaconsortisregieminorata,sibicertiredituscumprecisionefueranttaxati,parcioriannonaquamsolebatvicture.Undeavariciainsaciabilisfemininaconcupitisfrustrata,autcerteprodigalitasmuliebrisartata,quarumalterisoletsemperillesexusindulgere,nonsolumcontraDispensatores,setetcontramaritum,plusillosquamillamconsiliisimitatum,exarsitiniras.IamlugetFrancorumsanguinemregale,immoregisfiliamatquesuccessiveregum…unicamsororem,regisetavaromaritarem;promissamforereginam,setincondicionemancillaremconversam,Dispensatorum,quosplusquamodioperfectooderat,stipendiarium.

Inadditiontothis,theDespensersveryquicklyarousedthefeminineangerofthequeenagainstthemselves.Shewasveryreadytocommitanycrimeagainstthem,whentheylessenedthehouseholdoftheroyalconsortthroughtheirgreedydecisionsandorders,fixedwithinpreciselimitstheamountofmoneyshewasallowed,andsaidshewouldbelivinguponsmallersuppliesoffoodthanbefore.So,nowthatawoman’sinsatiablegreedhadbeenfrustratedofitsdesires,oratanyrateawife’sexcessivespendinghadbeenchecked(andthefemalesexisalwaysindulgingintheoneorotherofthese),thequeenblazedupinangernotonlyagainsttheDespensersbutalsoagainstherhusband,whoinhisdecisionswascopyingthemmorethanherself.Herlamentwasthatshe,whowasoftheroyalbloodofFrance,or,morethanthat,thedaughterofakingandtheonlysisterofthreesuccessivekings…nowfoundherselfmarriedtoakingwhowasamiser.Thepromisehadbeenthatshewouldbequeen,butshehadbecomenobetterthanamaidservant,receivingherwagesfromtheDespensers,whomshehatedwithamorethanperfecthatred.

Note:Here“woman”becomesacategoryverylike“devil”or“pagan”—acreaturemovedbyitsnaturetoanunreasoning,otheringanger.ShecantakenoviolentorformalactionagainsttheDespensersbutnurseshatredinternally,andsimilarly,herrecitalofgrievancesishiddenratherthandeclaredaloud.

********** IsabellaandhersondelayreturningfromFrance,whileIsabellaplotsagainsttheDespensers

(20;19–20).

CommovebaturAngliadereginemoraadregisdisplicenciamextraregnumfiliumsuumdetinentis,quibusdamasserentibusquodinvitidetinebantur,aliisconicientibusquodillicitiscomplexibusR[ogeri]deMortuomaridelinita,cum

TheEnglishwereworriedthatthequeendelayedinFranceandtothedispleasureofthekingwaskeepingtheirsonoutsidethekingdom.Somedeclaredthatthetwoofthemwerebeingdetainedagainsttheirwills.OthersguessedthatshehadfoundcomfortintheunlawfulembracesofRogerMortimer,andwasjustas


1.a,5.d1.a4.c

ipsoetaliisprofugisAnglorumquosinFranciareperivit,noluitredire;sethasetaliascausasdiversasquibusdamfalsas,quibusdamverosemiplenaspretendentibus,episcopiLincolniensisetHerefordensis,consciinegociicuiusfinemexpectavitiratavirago,conscienciesecretumdissimularunt.Vindictamuliebrisannidispendioiamexcogitata,calicempropinandumsuorumamatorumconsultufinaliterpreparavit.

unwillingtoreturntoEnglandaswasMortimerandtheotherEnglishexileswhomshefoundinFrance.Butallthetime,whiletheseandotherdifferentreasonsforherdelaywerebeingputforward,someofthemfalseandothershalftrue,thebishopsofLincolnandHereford,whoknewoftheplotforwhosecompletiontheenragedviragowaswaiting,kepthiddenthesecretsoftheirhearts.Thequeenhadnowspentayearplottingherrevenge,andfinallyontheadviceofherloversshepreparedtodrinkitscup.

**********

EdwardIIispersuadedtoabdicate(27;26).3.b1.c2.a.v2,3

Istisetaliisimportunispromissisatqueminisinflexumpiissimumcorregale,nonsinesingultibus,lacrimisetsuspiriis,monitisepiscoporumcondescendit,paraciorproChristovitamfinire,quamsuorumfiliorumexheredacionemautregnidiuturnamperturbacionemoculisviventiscorporisvidere,sciensquodbonuspastoranimamsuamponitproovibussuis.

Bytheseandotherbullyingthreatsandpromisesthepiousheartofthekingwaswonover,and,notwithoutsobs,tearsandsighs,heclimbeddownandtookthebishops’advice.Knowingthatagoodshepherdlaysdownhislifeforhissheep,hewasmorereadytoendhislifeasafollowerofChristthantolookwiththeeyesofalivingbodyuponthedisinheritanceofhissonsoralengthycivilwarinhiskingdom.

Note:TakingontheroleofPatientiaorofamartyr,EdwardIIdoesnotrespondwithangrybehaviourorspeech.

********** EdwardII,incaptivity,lamentsthelossofhiswife’slove(29;28).1.a1.a4.a1.c1.a5.c.i4.c5.d

Amorlanguentis,inceterisadversispaciencia,comitemcustodemetomnesillorumfamiliaresadmiseracionemtantamprovocarunt,quodgenerosimilitisamoremlanguidumuxorissuecordidurioriincudeadamantinenondimiseruntnunciare.Unde,nonamoremotasetfurorecommota…Talibusetaliiscogitatibusangustiata,truculentaleena[sic],recurrensadconsiliumsuimagistri,sacerdotisBaalilliusHerefordensis…

ThisloveshownbythedespondentEdwardandhispatienceinadversityawokesuchpityintheearlhisguardianandinboththeirhouseholdsthattheydidnotomittosendmessagesofthedespairingloveofthenoblelordforhiswifetoaheartthatwasharderthananadamantineanvil.Forthequeenwasstirrednottolovebythesemessagesbuttoanger…Thefiercelionessagainsoughtadvicefromhermaster,thatpriestofBaalthebishopofHereford…

Note:GeoffreyleBakeraddsmoreotheringcategories:theBishopofHerefordisnowlikenedtothe“wicked”priestsofBaal.

**********


EdwardIIIandhisfriendsstageacoupandsuccessfullycaptureRogerMortimer(46;41).?5.a2.c.iii2.f.v2.f.vii

Speculatorpredictustorticibusaccensisduxitdominumsuumregemperquoddamitersecretumsubterraneum,quodincipitaremotisextracastrumetterminaturadmediumcoquinevelauleturrisprincipalis,ubifuitospitataregina.Demedioigiturfundoettramitesubterraneoprosilientes,regisamiciadcameramregine,quamperDeigraciaminveneruntapertam,armatistrictisensibusproficissebantur,regeeciamarmatoextrahostiumcamere,neamatresuavideretur,expectante.IngressioccideruntHugonemdeTurpintonemilitem,resistenciameiisinferreconantem,dominoIohannedeNevilledeHornebyictumdirigente.

Withlightedtorchesthekeeperledhismasterthekingintothecastlebyasecretundergroundpassage,whichbeganfromfaroutsidethecastleandendedinthemiddleofthekitchenorofthehallofthemaintowerwherethequeenwaslodged.Springingfromthedepthsoftheundergroundpathway,thefriendsofthekingarmedwithdrawnswordsmadeforthequeen’sbedroom,whichbythegraceofGodtheyfoundopen.Theyleftthekingoutsidethedoorsothathismothershouldnotseehimandenteredtheroom.TheykilledtheknightHughTurpingtonwhotriedtostopthem,theblowbeingdealtbylordJohndeNevilleofHornby.

2.f.viii4.d

Deindeinveneruntreginammatremquasiparatamadlectisoporem,etcomitemMarchiequemvolebant;etcaptumsecumabducebantinaulam,clamanteregina:“Bealfitz,bealfitz,eiezpitiedegentilMortymer.”Suspectamenimhabuitfiliipresenciam,quamoculononpercepit.

ThentheyfoundthequeenmotherapparentlypreparedforbedandsleepandtheearlofMarch,themantheywanted.Theyseizedhimandtookhimawayintothehall,withthequeencryingaloud,“Dearboy,dearboy,havepityongentleMortimer.”Forshesuspectedthathersonwasthere,evenifshecouldnotseehim.

**********

Collapseofstagingatatournament(48;43).2.f–g1.a4.d4.a

…etantefinemmensisAprilisrediit,etfuitapudDertefordsolempnetorneamentum.EtparumantefestumsanctiMichaelisLondoniisinChepepulcherrimahastiludiafuerunt,ubidominareginaPhilippacummagnadominarumcomitivadetentoriis,undemilitaresactusspecularentur,noviteredificatis,ceciderunt,setillese.Carpentariosproindepunirinonpermisitiliapiissimaregina,setabiracundiaregemetamicosregisprecibusetgenuflexionibusitarevocavit,quodinsuiamoremomneseiuspietatemconsiderantesreginamisericorsconcitavit.

BeforetheendofthemonthofApril…therewasanimpressivetournamentatDartford.AndalittlebeforethefeastofStMichaeltherewerethemosthandsometournamentsatCheapsideinLondon,attendedbytheladyqueenPhilippaandalargeretinueofhermaidservants.Thecanopiedtents,whichhadbeennewlysetupforthespectatorsofthetournament,collapsed,thoughwithoutdoinganyharm.Thepiousqueendidnotallowthecarpenterstobepunished,butbyherprayersandgenuflexionssorecalledthekingandhisfriendsfromtheirangerthatbythisactofmercyshecausedeveryonetoloveher,astheythoughtabouthergoodness.

**********


1336:thestartoftheHundredYearsWar.TheFrenchenvoysreturntoKingPhilip(whomGeoffreyleBakeralwayscalls‘thetyrant’or‘theusurper’,not‘theking’).TheyreportthatEdwardIIImeanstoresumewarwiththeScots,disregardingthe

“threateningletters”thatPhiliphassentaskinghimtokeeppeacewiththem.(58;51)3.c1.a2.g.ii2.b,1.a2.g.ii2.f

Congratulabaturtirannusnunciatis,nonreminiscenstreugarumquasprosuigraciarexAngliecumScotissibidispendiosasconfirmavit,set,ruminansquodsuasliterascomminatoriasparvipendebat,gavisusestoccasionemseinvenissequacontrasuumconsanguineumetregniFrancie,cuiincubuit,verumheredemvexillumliliatumpossetexplicare.Inflatusigiturtirannusspiritufurorisetsuperbie,concitavitGalloscontraAnglicos;undeguerraterribilisfuitsuscitata,quamipse,deprelionavalietcampestripluriesfugatus,postoccisionemetcapturamregumBoemie,Scocie,etFrancieetmultamChristisanguineredemptorumsanguiniseffusionem,nonpotuitterminare.

Thetyrantcongratulatedthemontheirreport.ForheputoutofhismindthetruceswhichtopleasehimthekingofEnglandhadmadewiththeScotstohisowndisadvantage.Insteadheruminatedonthelackofattentionpaidtohisthreateningletter,andrejoicedthathehadfoundapretextforunfurlinghisfleur-de-lysbanneragainsthiskinsmanandthetrueheirtothekingdomofFrancewhichhehimselfhadusurped.So,puffedupbyangerandpride,thetyrantrousedtheFrenchtowaragainsttheEnglish.Thiswasthebeginningofthatterriblewar,whichthetyranthimselfcouldnotbringtoanend,evenwhenhehadbeenoftenroutedinbattlesonseaandonland,andwhenthekingsofBohemia,ScotlandandFrancehadbeenkilledorcapturedandmuchbloodhadbeenspiltbythosewhowereredeemedbythebloodofChrist.

**********

BehaviourofthetwoarmiesandrulersbeforethebattleofCrécy:

theEnglisharedisciplinedandpious,theFrenchareunrulyandself-indulgent.ThisforeshadowstheEnglishvictory.(81–82;72)

5.d3.e.ii3.c.i4.b,2.f

AdvesperumdieiVenerissequentis,regesuperlitusdeSummeresidente,venitsuperripam,quamanteaperagrarunt,PhilippusdeValesiotirannusFrancorum,etcumipsoregesBoemieetMalogrie,cumexercituinnumerabiliinaciesoctomagnasdiviso.GalliciregemetAnglicossuperbeexclamaverunt,militibusutrinqueinvadoetsuperlitusmoreguerrehastiludiantibus.Rexmisittirannoofferenspacificumetindempnemtransitumpervadumadeligendumsibilocumaptumbello;setformidolosusistePhilippus,quiseanteaminabaturinsequiturumregem,noluittuncbellum,setquasiadaliumlocumaquamtransiturusdivertebat,etrexipsumexpectabatpertotamnoctem.

OntheeveningoftheFridayfollowing,withthekinginhisquartersonthebankoftheSomme,thereappeared,onthebankalreadycrossedbytheEnglish,PhilipdeValois,thetyrantoftheFrench,andwithhimthekingsofBohemiaandMajorca,attheheadofanarmybeyondcountingdividedintoeightgreatbattle-arrays.TheFrenchshoutedboastfulcriesagainstthekingandhisEnglishmen,asknightsonbothsidesjoustedinthefordandonthebanks,aswasthecustominwar.Thekingsentanenvoytothetyrant,offeringhimapeacefulandunharmedpassageacrossthefordsothathemightmakehisownchoiceofasitesuitableforabattle.ButthisPhilip,whopreviouslyhadthreatenedtopursuetheking,wasnowfulloffearandrefusedtofightthen,butturnedasideasiftocrosstheriveratanotherplace.


Incrastino,scilicetdieSabbati,rexpromovitsuumexercitumadcampumdeCressi,ubiobviaviteiiexercitustiranni.Igiturrexsemperadpreliumpreparatus…

Onthenextday,aSaturday,thekingmovedhisarmytothefieldsofCrécy,wherehewasmetbythearmyofthetyrant.Thekingasalwayswasreadyforbattle…

Hearrangedhistroops,then… omniaDeoetVirginibeatecommendavit,

observatoquodsuiomnespeditesinsultumhostilemexpectabant,dextrariisetcursariiscumvictualibusvenacionihostiumfugitivorumreservatis.

Whenhehadseenthatallhismenwereawaitingtheenemy’sattackasinfantrymen,withthewarhorsesandcoursersandtheirfoodbeingkeptinreserveforhuntingdownenemyfugitives,thekingentrustedeverythingtoGodandtotheblessedVirgin.

**********

TheCountofEureturnstoFrancefromhiscaptivityinEngland.

TheFrenchkingresentshisadmirationforEdwardIII.(113–14;98)1.a2.g2.f.vii2.f.vii2.g

ItemquecomesdeEwinlaudesregiasprofudithabunde,adnumeranssolaciaetbeneficiaqueinAngliarecepitaregetemporesuecaptivitatis,recensenscumaliisquamlongefuitaboptimoregeinvidiarelegata,quandoipsiinAngliacaptivohastiludianti,ubieciamrexhastiludiavit,noninvidebatcampigraciamacclamari.LaudibusprefetisquantumcumquecitracondignumpredicatisinvidebatcoronatusFrancorum,etperindignacionem,exinvidia,novercaiusticie,spuriopartuprogenitam,predictarumlaudumpreconesimpieiussitdecapitari,fingenscomitemcumsuaregiauxorenimiamhabuissefamiliaritatem,atquesuumfratremleseregiemagestatisFranciefuissereum,quandosuamcausamduellaremregisAnglieexaminicommisit.Postpredictumfratricidium,uxoremsuam,filiamnobilisregisBoemie,inpreliodeCressidudumoccisi,fametorsitusqueadmortem.

AlsothecountofEushoweredlavishpraisesontheEnglishking,enumeratingthecomfortsandkindnesseswhichhehadreceivedfromthekingatthetimeofhiscaptivityinEngland.Amongstotherthingsherecalledtheextenttowhichthatbestofkingshadbanishedenvyfromhisheart.Foratatournamentinwhichbothhehimself,aprisonerinEngland,andtheEnglishkingweretakingpart,thekinghadnotbegrudgedhimbeingacclaimedthevictorinthetournament.ButthecrownedheadofFrancewasenviousofsuchpraises,eventhoughtheywerecompletelyandfullydeserved.Consumedwiththewrath,whichisthebastardoffspringofenvy,thestepmotherofjustice,hewickedlyorderedthetwospeakersofthesepraisestobebeheaded.HepretendedthatthecountofEuhadenjoyedtoocloseafamiliaritywithhiswife,thequeen,andthathisbrotherhadbeenguiltyoflese-majesteagainstFrancewhenhehadentrustedhisduellingdisputetothejudgmentofthekingofEngland.Afterthuskillinghisbrother,hetorturedhiswifebystarvinghertodeath,althoughshewasthedaughterofthenoblekingofBohemia,whohadrecentlybeenkilledinthebattleofCrecy.

**********


EdwardtheBlackPrincehearsthatoneoftheFrenchgeneralsissuccessfullystirringupAquitaineagainsttheEnglishandharmingEnglishsupporters(128;110).

ItissaidthatbythesemeanstheCountofArmagnac…2.f.i1.a,5.a4.c2.f.i

…plusceterisderegnoFranciepatrieetfidelibusregisAnglieiniessitnocumenti,incanduitiraprincipistremendicontraprefatumguerreDexitanepersecutorem;etobhoc,annuenteprocerumconsultu,princepsexercitumdestinavitindemolicionemcomitatusArminacensis.Igiturincitataprofeccione,primorecepitdedicionemfortaliciorumpatrieIuliacensis,etextuncdepopulansArmeniacensemvaldeconfortavitfidelesdeVasconia,quiconsimiliaperpessiabillistruculentisviciniisantetamnobilisprincipisadventum.

…haddonemoreharmtothecountryandloyalsupportersofthekingofEnglandthanothersofthekingdomofFrance.Havingheardthisreport,theangerofthefuriousprinceglowedwhite-hotagainstthispursuerofawarinAquitaine,andwiththeagreementofthecouncilofhislordshedispatchedhistroopstoravagethecountshipofArmagnac.TheyspeedilysetoutandtheprincefirstreceivedthesurrenderofthefortsofcountyofJuliers,andthen,byhisravagingofArmagnac,gavegreatcomforttotheloyallordsofGascony,whobeforethearrivalofthisnobleprincehadsufferedsimilartreatmentatthehandsofthoseviolentneighboursoftheirs.

Brut (Middle English prose version)

Englishtranslation,datingfromthesecondhalfofthefourteenthcentury,ofthelongerAnglo-

NormanproseBrut.TexttakenfromBrie’s1906EETSedition.ThesectionsoftheAnglo-

NormantextrelatingtotheeventslaterinEdwardII’sreignwereprobablywrittenbefore

1350,butafter1330.

KingLeir’sthirddaughter,Cordeile,refusestoflatterherfatherashersistershave:shesaysthatsheloveshimasmuchasisherduty,andasmuchasheisworth(17)

3.d.ii1.a3.b,3.c,2.g

Thekyngherefaderwendeþatshehadescornedehim,andbicomewonderwroth,andsworebyheuenanderþeþatsheshuldeneuerhauegoodeofhim;buthisdouȝtresþatlouedehimsomicheshuldebewelauauncedeandmariede.andþeferstedougterhemariedetoMangles,KingofScotlande;AndþesecundehemariedetoHanemos,ErlofCornewaile;andsoþaiordeynedeandspekebituenehamþatþaishuldedeparteþereaunebituenehamtoo,afterþedeþofLeirherfader,SoþatCordeilhisȝongestdoughtershuldenoþinghaueofhislande.

Thekingherfatherthoughtthatshehadscornedhim,andbecamemarvellouslyangry,andsworebyHeavenandEarththatsheshouldneverhaveanythingfromhim;butthathisdaughterswholovedhimshouldhavegoodpromotionsandmarriages.AndhemarriedthefirstdaughtertoMangles,KingofScotland,andthesecondtoHanemos,EarlofCornwall.AndtheyarrangedandsaidbetweenthemselvesthattheyshoulddividetherealmbetweenthetwoofthemafterthedeathofLeirtheirfather,sothatCordeilehisyoungestdaughtershouldhavenopartofhisland.

**********


UtherandIgraine(66).Hefallsinlovewithheratabanquet,

althoughsheisthewifeofhisliegeman,theEarlofCornwall.1.a,2.c.iii2.g1.a2.g.ii2.f

…hemadetowardeherenycesemblantinlokyngandleiȝhyng.soatþelastþeErlperseuedeþepriuelokyngandLaughing,andþelouebitueneham,andarosevpframþetablealinwraþ,andtokhiswif,andcalledetohimhisknyȝtes,andwentþensalinwraþ,wiþoutentakyngLeueofþeKyng.þekynganonesentafterhimþatheshuldecomeaȝeyne,&gonouȝtþensindespiteofhim;andþeErlwoldenouȝtcomeaȝeyneinnomanerwise.Whereforþekyngwasfulwroþ,&inwraþhimdefiedeashisdedelichenemy.andþeErlwentþensintoCornewailewiþhiswif,intoþecastelofTyntagell.andþekyngleteordeyneagretehost,&comeintoCornewailefortodestroieþeerl,ifhemyȝt.

…hemadeafineshowwithmuchlookingandlaughingtoher.Soatlasttheearlperceivedthesecretlooksandlaughterandthelovebetweenthem,andheroseupfromthetableingreatwrathandtookhiswifewithhim,andsummonedhisknights,andlefttheplaceingreatwrathwithouttakingleaveoftheking.Thekingimmediatelysentafterhimtoorderhimtocomeback,andnottogofromthereincontemptofhim;andtheearlwouldnotcomebackinanywayatall.Asaresultthekingwasentirelyangry,andinwrathherenouncedhimashisdeadlyenemy.AndtheearlwentfromthereintoCornwallwithhiswife,tothecastleofTintagel.AndthekinghadagreatarmyassembledandcameintoCornwalltodestroytheearlifhecould.

**********

WhileArthurisfightingtheEmperorofRome,

MordredmarriesGuenevereandseizestheland(89).1.a2.f3.c.i2.g

WhenþistydyngescometoKyngArthureþereþathewasinBurgoyne,hewasfulsoreannoiede,andtokealFrauncetoHoelfortokepe,wiþhaluendelehismen,&praiedehimþathewoldehitkepetilþathecomenaȝeyne,fforhim-selfwoldewendeintoBritaigneandavengehimopponMordredeþatwashistraitoure...

WhenthesetidingscametoKingArthurwherehewasinBurgundy,hewasfuriouslyangry,andgaveallofFranceintoHoel’skeepingwithahalfofhismenandaskedhimtokeepituntilArthurshouldcomeback,forhehimselfwouldgointoBritainandavengehimselfuponMordredwhowasatraitortohim...

**********

HenryII’ssonsrebelagainsthim(150).

2.g.ii2.g

Andanoneafter,Henry,þenewKyng,bigannefortomakewerropponHenry,Kyng,hisfader,&ekeopponhisbreþern.AndsoopponatymeþeKyngofFraunceandalþeKyngessones,&ekþeKyngofScotland&þegretestlordesofEngland,werearisenaȝeynesHenryþefader;&atlast,asGodwolde,heconqueredehisenemys;andþeKyngofFraunce&hewereaccorded.andþosentKyngHenr[i],þefaderspecialyvntoþeKyngofFraunce,andpraedehimhertly,forhisloue,þathe

Andsoonafterthat,[Young]Henry,thenewking,begantomakewaruponKingHenryhisfather,andalsouponhisbrothers.AndtherecamethetimewhentheKingofFrance,andallKing[Henry]’ssons,andalsotheKingofScotlandandthegreatestlordsofEngland,roseupagainstHenrythefather.Andatlast,accordingtoGod’swill,heconqueredhisenemies,andheandtheKingofFrancewerebroughtintoaccordwitheachother.AndthenKingHenrythefathersentparticularlytotheKingofFranceandprayedhimfromtheheartthathe


1.a,3.b2.g.,3.c.ii1.a1.a,4.b2.g

woldesendetohimbylettreþenamesofhamþatbigonneþewerropponhim.AndþeKyngofFrancesentaȝeyntohimbylettreþenamesofhamþatbigonþewerr:ferstwasIohnhissone,andRichardhisbroþer,&Henryhissone,þeneweKyng.ÞowasHenryþeKyngwonderwroþ,&cursedeþetymeþateuerhehambigate.Andwhileþewerredurede,Henryhissone,þenewekyng,deide,sorerepentyngehismysdede;andmostesorwmadeofenymanforcauseofSeyntThomasdeþofKaunterbery;&prayedehisfader,wiþmichesorweofhert,mercyofhistrespasse;andhisfaderforȝafithim,&hadeofhimgretepite...

would,forhislove,sendhiminwritingthenamesofthosewhohadbegunthewaragainsthim.TheKingofFrancesentbacktohiminwritingtheirnameswhohadbegunthewar:thefirstwasJohnhisson,andRichard[John]’sbrother,andHenry[theKing]’sson,thenewking.ThenKingHenrywasmarvellouslyangry,andhecursedthetimethatheeverbegotthem.AndwhilethewarwasstillgoingonhissonYoungKingHenrydied,sorelyrepentinghismisdeed,andmademoresorrowthananymanonaccountofthedeathofStThomasofCanterbury;andheprayedofhisfather,withmuchsorrowofheart,mercyforhistreachery;andhisfatherforgavehimforit,andhadgreatpityforhim.

**********

WarswithScotland(193).

2.f.vii2.f.i,1.a2.g2.f.i

WhenþistydyngwascomentoKyngEdward,þatWilliamWalishadeordeynedesocheastrongepower,andþatalScotlandtohimwasentendant,andredytoquelleEnglisshemen&destroyehislande,hewassoreannoied,andsentanonebyhislettresto[variousofhiscaptains]þatþaishuldetakepower,andwendeintoNorthumberlond,&soforþintoScotland,fortokepethecontres.

WhenKingEdward[I]heardthisnews—thatWilliamWallacehadgatheredsuchagreatarmy,andthatallScotlandheededhimandwasreadytokillEnglishmenanddestroytheKing’sland—hewasveryangry,andimmediatelysentlettersto[hiscaptains]orderingthemtogathertroopsandgointoNorthumberlandandthenceintoScotland,todefendthoselands.

**********

Onbeingrecalledfromexile,Gavestoninsultsthebarons,

whorespondbykillinghim(206–07).2.g.i1.a3.d.ii1.a

WherforePiersofGauastoncomeaȝeyneintoEngeland;andwhenhewascomenaȝeynintoþislande,hedespisedeþegrettestlordesofþislande,andcalledeSirRobertClareErlofGloucestre,‘Horessone,’andþeErlofLyncoln,SirHenryþeLacy,‘Brostebely,’andSirGuyofWarryk,‘blanke[MSvariants:blac,Blake]houndeofArderne.’AndalsohecalledeþenobleErlandgentil,ThomasofLancastre,‘Cherl,’andmenyothereshamesandscornhamsaide,&bymenyoþeregretelordesofEngeland,wherforeþaiweretowardeshimfulangriandsoreannoiede.AndinþesametymedeideþeErlofLyncoln;buthecharged,orhewasdede,

SoPiersGavestoncamebackintoEngland,andwhenhehadreturnedintothisland,hescornedthegreatestlordsoftheland,andcalledSirRobertClareEarlofGloucester“Whoreson”,andtheEarlofLincoln,SirHenryLacy,“Burst-belly”,andSirGuyofWarwick,“White[/Black]HoundofArden”.AndalsohecalledthegoodandnobleEarlThomasofLancaster“churl”,andspokemanyothershamesandscorntothem,andalsotomanyothergreatlordsofEngland,sothattheyweretowardhimveryinsultedandangry.AroundthattimetheEarlofLincolndied;butbeforehewasdead,hechargedhis


3.c.i2.f.vii1.a3.c.ii

ThomasofLancastre,erl,þatwashissone-in-lawe,þatheshuldemayntenehisquerellaȝeynsþesamePiersofGaueston,opponhisbenison.Andsohitwasordeynede,þrouȝhelpeofþeErleofLancastrandofþeErlofWarrwyk,þatþeforsaidePierswasbiheuededeatGauersichebisidesWarwik,þexixdayofIun,inþeȝereofgraceMlCCC&xij;whereforeþeKyngwassoreannoiede,andprayedeGodþathemightseeþatdaytobeneavengedeofþedeþofþeforsaidePiers.

soninlaw,ThomasEarlofLancaster,that,uponhisblessing,[Lancaster]shouldmaintain[Lincoln’s]quarrelagainstthesamePiersGaveston.Andsoitwasordained,bytheworkoftheEarlofLancasterandtheEarlofWarwick,thattheaforesaidPierswasbeheadedatGaversichebesideWarwick,the19thdayofJuneintheyearofgrace1312;atwhichthekingwasfuriouslyangry,andprayedGodthathemightlivetoseethedaywhenhecouldbeavengedforthedeathoftheaforesaidPiers.

Note:HereGaveston’sdeathcomesasadirectresultofthebarons’reactiontohisjeeringspeech.ThedyinginstructionsoftheveneratedoldEarlofLincoln(whoseestateLancasterinherited)emphasisethattheirangerisproper,judicial,andappropriate.

**********

HughDespenserandhissonareexiled(214).

1.a2.a.v2.g.i3.b.i3.b.ii3.c.ii

AndSirHugheþefaderwenttoDouer,andmademichesorwe,andfelleadounbytheseebank,&clippedacroswiþhisArmes,andsorewepyng,saide:“now,fareweleEngeland!&godeEngeland,toGodeyþebitak!”andþriescussedeþegrounde,andwendeneuerhauecomenaȝein,andWepyngfulsore,cursedeþetymeþateuerhebigateSirHughhissone,andsaide“forhimhehadelosteEngeland”;andinpresenceofhamþatwerehimaboute,heȝafhimhiscurse,andwentouertheseetohislandes.

AndSirHughtheElderwenttoDoverandmademuchsorrow,andfelldownontheseashore,andembracedtheearthwithhisarmsspreadwide,andweepingsore,hesaid,“now,farewell,England!And,goodEngland,IentrusttheetoGod!”andhekissedthegroundthreetimes,andthoughtthatheshouldneverreturn,andweepyingverysorely,hecursedthetimethatheeverbegotSirHughhisson,andhesaidthat“forhimhehadlostEngland”.Andinthepresenceofthemthatwerearoundhimhegavehimhiscurse,andhewentovertheseatohislands.

**********

Civilwars:EdwardIIrelievesTickhillCastle,besiegedbyhisbarons(215–16).

3.c.i2.g.ii

AndwhenþeKyng[EdwardII]herdetelleþathiscastellwasbisegede,hesuore,byGodandbyhiscrowne,þatþesegeshuldeberemevede,andassembledeanhugepowerofpeple,andwentþiderwardfortorescueþecastell;andhispowerencressedeframdaytoday.

AndwhentheKing[EdwardII]heardtellthathiscastlewasbesieged,heswore,byGodandbyhiscrown,thatthesiegeshouldberemoved,andheassembledahugepowerofpeople,andsetouttorescuethecastle,andthenumbersofhisarmyincreasedfromdaytoday.

**********

SirRobertHollandfightsonthesideoftheking,thoughLancasterhadraisedhimup

(216).2.g,1.a

WhenþegodeErlThomaswistþathewassobitraiedehewassoreabasshede,andsaidetohim-self:“Oalmyghtygod!”

WhenthegoodEarlThomas[ofLancaster]realisedthathewassobetrayedhewasverydismayed,andhe


3.b.ii1.c

quodhe,“howmightRobertHolondefyndeinhishertmetobitraye,siþensþatyhaueLouedehimsomiche?”

saidtohimself,“OhalmightyGod,”saidhe,“howcouldRobertHollandfinditinhishearttobetrayme,whenIhavelovedhimsomuch?”

**********

AfterthedefeatatBurton-upon-Trent,therebelliousbaronsconfer:

mostthinktheyshouldtravelnorthtofindadefensiblepositioninoneofLancaster’scastles(217).

4.c2.c

butwhenþegodeErlThomasþisherde,heansueredeinþismaner,andsaide:“Lordes,”quodhe,“ifwegonetowardþenorth,menwilseynþatwegontowardþeScottes;andsoweshulbeholdetraitoures...”

ButwhenthegoodEarlThomasheardthis,heansweredinthisway,saying:“Lords,”saidhe,“ifwegonorthwardmenwillsaythatwegotowardtheScots,andtheywillbelieveustraitors...”

HerefusestogofurthernorththanPontefract.2.c.ii,1.a2.f.v3.c.i1.a

AndwhenSireRogerCliffordherdeþis,hearosvpanoneinwraþ,anddrowhissuorde,&sworebyAlmyghtyGodandbyhisholynames,butifþathewoldegowiþham,heshuldebedede,andþathewoldesleehimþere.ÞenobleErlThomasofLancastrewassoreadrade,andsaide:“fairesires,ywilgowiþþowwhider-so-euerȝemelede.”ÞowentþaitogederesintoþeNorth...

AndwhenSirRogerCliffordheardthisheleaptupatonceinangeranddrewhissword,andsworebyAlmightyGodandbyhisholynamesthatifhewouldnotgowiththemhewouldbedead,andthathewouldslayhimhere.ThenobleEarlThomasofLancasterwasveryfrightened,andsaid,“Fairsirs,Iwillgowiththeewheresoeveryouleadme.”ThentheywenttogetherintotheNorth.

**********

BattleofBoroughbridge:HarclaycapturesLancasterinachurch,

androutstheremainingbaronialforce(219–20).?3.d.ii5.c.iii3.a.i3.c.i

2.c.i5.d2.f.iv2.f.viii1.a

AndSirAndrew[Harclay]aȝeincriedeopponSirThomascompany,ȝellyngeasawolfe,andsaide:“ȝeldeȝow,traitourtaken!ȝeldeȝow!”andwiþanhyevoicesaide:“beþware,sires,þatnomanofȝowbesohardy,opponlifandlyme,tomisdoThomasbodyofLancaster.”Andwiþþatworde,þegodeErlThomaswentintoachapel,andsaide,knelyngdounopponhisknees,andturnedhisvisagetowardþecrois,andsaide:“almyghtiGod!toþeymeȝelde,andhollicheputmeintoþimercy.”Andwiþþat,þevileinsribaudesleptenabouthim,oneuerysideþatGentilErl,astirauntȝandWoodeturmentures,anddespoiledhimofhisArmure,&cloþedehiminarobbeofRay,þatwashissqyersliueray,andfourþladehimvntoYorkbywater.þeremightmenseemichesorweandcare,forþegentilknyghtesfleddenoneueryside,andþeribaudesand

AndSirAndrew[Harclay]raisedthecryagainuponSirThomas[ofLancaster’s]company,yellinglikeawolf,andsaid,“Yieldyourselfacapturedtraitor!Yieldyourself!”andwithaloudvoicehesaid:“takecare,sirs,thatnomanofyoubesodaring,byhislifeandlimb,toharmthebodyofThomasofLancaster.”Andwiththatword,thegoodEarlThomaswentintoachapelandkneltdownonhiskneesandturnedhisfacetowardthecrossandsaid,“AlmightyGod!Iyieldmyselftothee,andputmyselfwhollyintothymercy.”Andwiththat,therudeknavesboundedinuponthatnobleEarloneveryside,liketyrantsandmadtorturers,anddespoiledhimofhisarmour,andclothedhiminhissquire’sroughclothes,andledhimtoYorkbywater.Theremightmenseemuchsorrowandcare,forthenobleknightsfledoneveryside,andthepeasantsandknaveschased


3.d.ii,3.a.i3.e.ii2.f.viii

vileinsegrelyhamdescried,andcriedeinhye,“ȝeldeȝow,traitoures!ȝeldeȝow!”Andwhenȝaiwereȝolden,þaiwererobbed,andbondeasþeues.

themdowneagerly,cryingloud,“Yieldyourselves,traitors!Yieldyourselves!”Andwhentheyhadyieldedtheywererobbedandboundasiftheywerecommonthieves.

**********

Lancasterismockedand“scourged”onthewaytohisexecution(221).

1.a3.d.ii3.c.ii2.f.iii2,3

When[Lancaster]wastaken&brouȝttoȜork,menyofþecitewerefulglade,andopponhimcriedewiþhyevoice,“A,siretraitoure!ȝearnewelcome,blessedbeGod!fornowshalȝehaueþerewardþatlongetymeȝehauediserued!”andcasteopponhimmenysnoweballes,andmenyoþerreprouesdedehim.ButþegentileErlþatsoffrede,andsaideneþeronneoþere.

When[Lancaster]wascapturedandbroughtintoYorkmanyinthecitywereveryglad,andshoutedathimwithloudvoice,“Ah,SirTraitor!Youarewelcome,blessedbeGod!Fornowyoushalhavetherewardthatyouhavelongdeserved!”andtheythrewmanysnowballsathim,andscornedhiminmanyotherways.ButthenobleEarlsufferedthatandsaidnotonethingnoranother.

**********

EdwardIIhearsthatIsabellaandhisson,whileinFrance,

arenegotiatingontheirownbehalf,beyondhisauthority(233).1.a1.a1.a3.b.i2.g2.g.iii3.g.i

WhenKyngEdwardofEngelandeherde[thesethings]…hebicomewonderwroþ,andsenttohissonebihisletter,&tohiswifalso,þatþaishuldecomeintoEngelandwiþalþehasteþatþaimight.TheQueneIsabelle,&SireEdwardhersone[laterEdwardIII],werewondersoryanddradeoftheKyngusmanaceandofhiswraþ,andprincipallyofthefalsetraitouresþeSpensers,boþeofþefaderandofthesone,&athiscommandementþaiwoldenouȝtcome.WhereforeKyngEdwardwasfulsoreannoiede,andletemakeacrieatLondonþat,ifQueneIsabellandEdwardhersonecomenouȝtintoEngeland,þatþaishuldebeneholdenasenemys,boþetoþereaume&toþecroune;andforþatþaiwoldenouȝtcomeintoEngeland,boþwereexiled,þemoderandhersone.

WhenKingEdwardofEnglandheardthis,hebecamemarvellouslyangry,andhesenttohissonandalsotohiswifeinwritingtosaythattheyshouldreturntoEnglandwithallpossiblehaste.QueenIsabelandhersonSirEdward[laterEdwardIII]weremarvellouslysorryandfearfulofthethreatsandangeroftheking,andespeciallyofthefalsetraitorstheDespensers,boththefatherandtheson;andtheywouldnotcomeathiscommand.AtthisKingEdwardwascompletelyangry,andhehadacryputoutinLondonthat,ifQueenIsabelandEdwardhersondidnotcomeintoEnglandtheyshouldbeconsideredenemiestotherealmandcrown;andbecausetheywouldnotcomebacktoEnglandbothmotherandhersonwereexiled.

**********

ThreeyearsafterEdwardIII’saccession,MortimerisshownaletterfromtheEarlofKent,

brotherofEdwardII,claimingthattheoldkingisstillaliveandtryingtorecruitbaronstofightinhisnameagainstIsabellaandMortimer(265).

1.a,1.c2.b1.c

whenSirRogerþeMortymersawandvnderstodeþemightandþestrengþoftheLettre,anoneforwraþhishertganbolne,andeuelhertbaretowardSirEdmundofWodestokþatwasErlof

WhenSirRogerMortimersawandunderstoodthepowerandstrengthoftheletter,hisheartbeganatonceto[swell/boil/heat]inwrath,andhebore


2.c.iii

Kent.andso,wiþalþehasteþethemight,hewentvntoDameIsabelþeQuene,þatwasþeKyngusmoder,andshewedeherSirEdmundusLettr,ErlofKent…

anevilhearttowardSirEdmundofWoodstock,EarlofKent.Andso,asquicklyashecould,hewenttoDameIsabeltheQueen,motheroftheking,andshowedherKent’sletter...

**********

RogerMortimer,whohasbeenbehavingasifheweretheking,

hearsthattheyoungEdwardIIIandsomeofhisclosefriendsareseekingawaytoremovehimfrompower(268–69).

1.a5.d3.c.i5.d,2.b1.a

AndsommeþatwereofþeKyngusConseillouedeþeMortymer,andtoldehiminpriueteehowþatþeKyngandhisconseilweraboutframdaytodayhymfortoshendeandvndo;WhereforeþeMortymerwassoreannoiede,andangryasþeDeuelaȝeyneshamþatwerofþeKyngusConseil,andsaideþathewoldeonhambenavenged,how-se-euerhetokeon.…AndþattymeHitfellesoþatþeMortymer,asaDeuelforwraþ,bolnedeforwraþþathehadetowardtheKyngesmenEdward…

Andsomepeoplewhowereintheking’sconfidencelovedMortimer,andtheytoldhimsecretlyhowtheKingandhisconfidantssoughtfromdaytodaytoshameandundohim.AtthisMortimerwasveryannoyed,andangryastheDevilatthemenintheking’sconfidence,andsaidthathewouldbeavengedonthem,inanywaythathemight.…AndinthattimeithappenedthatMortimer,likeadevilinhiswrath,[swelled/boiled/raged]inthewraththathehadtowardthemenofKingEdward...

Chanson de Roland

Lateeleventhcentury,setduringthereignofCharlemagne.TextfromBédier’sedition,

translationbyCrosland.Citationsgivenbylaisse.

RolandsuggestshisstepfatherGanelonbethemessenger

totheSpanishkingMarsilie(laisse20).1.a2.c.iv(2.e.ii?)2.a.iii2.d.i1.a3.b.ii3.c.i

EliquensGuenesenfutmultanguisables.

Desuncolgetetsesgrandespelsdemartre

Eestremésensunblialtdepalie.Vairsoutlesoeilzemultfierluvisage;Gentoutlecorselescostezoutlarges;Tantparfutbelstuitsiperl’enesguardent.

DistaRollant:«Tutfol,purqueit’esrages?...

Çosethombenquejosuitisparastres,Siasjugetqu’aMarsiliunenalge.SeDeusçodunetquejodelarepaire,Jot’enmuvraunsigrantcontraire

CountGanelonwasfilledwithanguishatthesewords.Hethrewhislargecrimsoncloakfromhisneckandstoodthereinhisjerkinofsilk.Hehadflashingeyesandaveryproudcountenance;hewasnobleofformandbroadofchest.Hewassogoodtolookatthatallhispeersgazedathim.AndhesaidtoRoland:“Madman,whythisanger?EveryoneknowsthatIamthystep-fatherandthisiswhythouhasdecreedthatIshouldgotoMarsilie.IfGodgrantthatIreturnthence,Iwillstirupsuchtroublefortheeaswilllastalltherestofthylife.”


2.d.i

Kidureratatrestuttunedage.»RespuntRollant:«Orgoilloiefolage.Çosethombenn’aicuredemanace.Maisaiveshomildeitfairemessage:Silireisvoelt,prezsuiporvusleface!»AOI

Rolandreplies:“Thisisnothingbutprideandfolly.EveryoneknowsthatIcarenotforthreats.Butitneedsaclevermantobeagoodmessenger;ifthekingwishesit,Iamreadytogoinsteadofyou.”

**********

Thequarrelescalates(laisse22).3.d.ii1.a,2.b1.d2.g

QuantçoveitGuenesqu’ores’enritRollant,

Duncadteldoelpurpoid’irenefent;Abenpetitqueilnepertlesens,Editalcunte:«Jonevusaimnient:Surmeiavezturnetfalsjugement.Dreizemperere,veizmecienpresent:Ademplirvoeillvostrecomandement.

WhenGanelonseesthatnowRolandismockinghim,hismortificationissogreatthathenearlyburstswithanger.Hissensesalmostleavehim,buthesaystothecount:“Indeed,Ihavenocausetoloveyou;youhavebroughtanunjustjudgmentonme.Justemperor,hereamI;Idesiretocarryoutyourbidding.”

Note:Crosland’stranslationof“fent”hereisadaptedtoourmodernidiom“burstwithrage”:fendrewouldbemoreliterallytosplitopen.

********** NegotiatingwithMarsilie,GanelonthreatenshimwithCharlemagne’smight(laisses33–34).1.a2.f.v2.f.vi

LireisMarsiliesenfutmultesfreed.Unalgiertint,kid’orfutenpenet;Ferirl’envolt,sen’enfustdesturnet.AOI.

KingMarsiliewasdumbfoundedatthisspeech;hewasholdinginhishandadartfeatheredwithgold,andhewouldhavestruckhimifhehadnotbeenprevented.

Laisse342.a.ii2.f.v2.f.v

LireisMarsiliesadlaculurmuee,Desunalgeiradlahanstecrollee.QuantlevitGuenes,mistlamainal’espee,

Cuntredousdeiel’addelfurrelgetee.

KingMarsiliehaschangedcolourandhehasseizedtheshaftofhisweapon.WhenGanelonsawthisheputhishandtohisswordanddrewitfromitssheathabouttwofingers’length.

Note:Ganelonchangescolourandthreatensviolence.Hisresponseisnotentirelydefensive:heissignallinghisreadinesstomeetMarsilieinangerifnecessary.

********** Negotiationscontinue(laisse37).2.a.ii,1.a2.b.ii1.a3.c.i1.a4.c

Marsiliesfutesculurezdel’ire,Freintleseel,getetenadlacire,Guardetàbref,vitlaraisunescrite:«Carlememandet,kiFranceadenbaillie,

Quemeremembredeladoluredel’ire,ÇoestdeBasanedesunfrèreBasilieDuntprisleschefsaspuisdeHaltoïe;Sedemuncorsvoeilaquiterlavie,Dunclienveimununclel’algalife;Altrementnem’ameratilmie.»

Marsiliewaspalewithangerashebrokethesealandthrewawaythewax.Helooksattheletterandseeswhatiswrittentherein:“Charles,therulerofFrance,bidsmecalltomindthegriefandtheangerwhichIcausedhimconcerningBasanandhisbrotherBasilie,whoseheadsItookfromtheminthemountainsofHautoıe;ifIwishtobequitwithmylife,ImustsendtohimmyuncletheAlgalife;otherwisehewillneverbemyfriend.”ThenthesonofMarsiliebeganto


2.d.i2.f.vii2.f.v

AprèsparlatsesfilzenversMarsiliesEdistalrei:«Guenesadditfolie.Tantaderretnenestdreizqueplusvivet.Livrezlemei,joenferailajustise.»Quantl’oïtGuenes,l’espeeenadbranlie;Vaits’apuiersuzlepinalatige.

speak,andhesaidtotheking:“Ganelonhasspokenfolly.Hehasgonetoofaranditisnotrightthatheshouldliveanylonger.HandhimovertomeandIwilldealwithhim.”WhenGanelonheardthishebrandishedhisswordandhewentandleanedagainstthestemofthepinetree.

**********

TheFrencharmy,retreatingnorththroughthepasses,mustdecideonarearguard;

Ganelon’sresentmentleadshimtosuggestRoland(laisse58).1.a2.a.iii5.d1.a

Liempereresmultfierementchevalchet.«Seignursbarons,»distliemperereCarles,

«Veezlesporzelesdestreizpassages!Karmejugezkiertenlarereguarde.»Guenesrespunt:«Rollant,cistmiensfillastre:

N’avezbarondesigrantvasselage.»Quantl’otlireis,fierementlereguardet,Siliaddit:«Vosestesvifsdiables.Elcorsvosestentreemortelrage.»

Theemperorridesproudlythroughhisarmy...andthushespaketothem:“Sirbarons,youseethedefilesandthenarrowpasses!Chooseoutnowwhoshallbeintherearguard.”Ganelonreplies:“ItshallbeRoland,mystepson;youhavenobaronsocourageousashe.”WhentheKingheardit,helookedathimfiercelyandsaidtohim:“Youarealivingdevil.Deadlyragehastakenpossessionofyou.”

**********

TheSpanisharmyapproachesthepositionoftheFrenchrearguard(laisse88).1.a,5.c

QuantRollantveitquelabatailleserat,Plussefaitfiersqueleonneleupart.

WhenRolandseesthatthebattlewilltakeplacehebecomesfiercerthanalionoraleopard.

**********

OliverconfrontsaSpanishknight(laisse94).1.a3.a.i3.d.ii1.a2.c2.f.vi2.f.iv2.f.vii

Unduciest,siadnumFalsaron;IcilerfrereàreiMarsiliun.IltintlatereDathaneAbirun.Suzcetnenatplusencrismefelun.Entrelesdousoilzmultoutlargelefront,Grantdemipiedmesureripouthom.Asezaddoelquantvitmortsunnevold,Istdelaprese,sisemetenbandun,Esiescrietl’enseignepaienor.EnversFranceisestmultcuntrarius:«EnquoiperdratFrancedulces’onur!»OtleOliver,sinadmultgrantirur.Lechevalbrochetdesoriezesperuns,Vaitleferirenguisedebaron.L’escutlifreintel’osbercliderumpt,Elcorslimetlespansdelgunfanun,Pleinesahanstel’abatmortdesarçuns;Guardetatere,veitgesirleglutun,

TherewasadukethereFalsaronbyname—andhewaskingMarsilie’sbrother.HeruledthelandofDathanandAbironandthereisnovilertraitorbeneaththesky.Sowidewasthespacebetweenhistwoeyesthatonemightmeasureagoodhalffoot.Heisfilledwithgriefwhenheseeshisnephewdead;headvancesoutofthecrowdandputshishorsetothegallopshoutingtheheathenbattle-cry.MostinsultingishetowardstheFrench:“To-dayfairFrancewillloseherhonour,”hecries.Oliverhearshimandheisveryangry;heurgesonhishorsewithhisgoldenspursandrideslikeabarontostrikehim.Hebreakshisshieldandrendshishauberk,hedrivestheflapsofhisensignrightintohisbodyandthelengthofhishafthehurlshim


3.d.ii

Siliadditparmultfiereraison:«Devozmanaces,culvert,jon’aiessoign.Ferezi,Francs,kartrésbenlesveintrum!»

Munjoieescriet,çoestl’enseigneCarlun.AOI.

fromhissaddle.Thenhelooksdownandseesthevillainlyingontheground,andsaysproudlytohim:“Icarenotforyourthreats,sonofaslave!Strike,Frenchmen,forweshalleasilyconquerthem!”Andheshouts“Montjoie,”thebattle-cryofCharles.

**********

CharlemagnesearchesforthedeadamongsttheslaughteredFrenchrearguard

andSpanisharmy(205).5.b1.a,2.a.v1.a2.c.iii2.d.ii,1.a

Quantl’empereresvaitquerresunnevold,

DetantesherbeselprétruvatlesflorsKisuntvermeillesdelsancdenozbarons!

Pitetenad,nepoetmuern’enplurt.Desuzdousarbresparvenuzest…LescolpsRollantconutentreisperruns;Surl’erbeverteveitgesirsunnevuld.NenestmerveilleseKarlesadirur.Descentapied,alediestpleinscurs.…Surluisepasmet,tantparestanguissus.

Whentheemperorissearchingforhisnephewhefindstheflowersofthefieldallvermilionwiththebloodofourbarons.Heisfilledwithpityforthem,andhecannotrestrainhistears.Hemakeshiswaybeneathtwotrees...andherecognizestheblowsofRolandonthethreeblocksofstone.Andthereonthegreengrassheseeshisnephewlying.ItissmallwonderifCharlesisfilledwithgrief.Hedismountedandranquicklytohim....Butheswoonedonthebody,hisanguishwassogreat.

Note:Charlemagne’semotionatthesightofRoland’sbodyiscalledirur,notsorroworevendol/gref.

********** CharlemagnemournsRoland(laisse207).2.d.ii4.a2.a.ii1.a1.a2.e.i4.a,1.a2.a.v

Carleslireissevintdepasmeisuns;Parlesmainsletienent.IIII.desesbarons.

Guardetatere,veigesirsunnevuld.Corsadgaillard,perdueadsaculur,Turnezsesoilz,multlisunttenebros.Carleslepleintparfeideparamur:«AmiRollant,Deusmetett’anmeenflors,

Enpareïs,entrelesglorius!CumenEspaignevenisamalseignur!Jamaisn’ertjurndetein’aiedulur.Cumdecarratmaforceemabaldur!N’enavraijakisustiengetm’onur.Suzcielnequidaveiramiunsul;Sejoaiparenz,n’eniadnulsiproz.»Traitsescrignelspleinessesmainsamsdous;

CentmilieFrancenuntsigrantdulurN’eniadcetkidurementneplurt.AOI.

KingCharleshasrecoveredfromhisswoonandfourofhisbaronsholdhimupintheirarms.Helooksdownandseeshisnephewlyingthere.Hisformisstillfair,buthehaslosthiscolour;hiseyeshaveturnedinhisheadandthelighthasgoneoutofthem.Charlesmournsforhiminallfidelityandlove:“FriendRoland,mayGodputthysoulamongtheflowersinparadisewiththeangels!TothymisfortunehastthoufollowedthylordtoSpain!NeverwilladaypassbutIfeelthepangsofsorrowforthee.Howwillmypowerandmystrengthbefallen!Ishallhavenoonenowtoupholdmyhonour.IfeelnowthatIhavenotasinglefriendbeneaththesky,andifIhaverelativestherearenonesovaliantasthou.”Hetearsouthishairbyhandfuls,andahundredthousandFrenchmenaresogrievedforhimthatthereisnotonewhodoesnotweepbitterly.


Jordan Fantosme’s chronicle

JordanFantosmewasprobablyaclerkatWinchester.Thechroniclecoverstheyears1173–

74,probablywrittenin1774.TextandtranslationaretakenfromJohnston’sfacing-page

edition.Citationsaregivenbyverseforquotationsspecifictowithinafewlines,orbylaisse

otherwise.

JordanFantosmeexplainsthematterofhischronicle(laisse1,vv.5–20).2.g3.c.ii2.g(.ii)1.a2.f.vii2.g.ii3.c.ii

Gentilreid’Engleterrealachartreshardie,

Alcurunerdevostrefiznevussuviengeilmie

Kel’umagedesesmeinslereid’AubanieLifeïstespresentersenzfeiavermentie?

Puislurdeïstesambesdous:‘Deuslesmaldie

[10]Kidevusdepartiruntamurnedruerie!

Encuntretutesgenzdelmundenforceeenaïe

Odmunfizseieztenant,salvemaseignurie!’

Puisentrevusevostrefizmortelnasquidenvie,

Duntmaintgentilchevalieradpuisperdulavie,

Mainthumedeschevalchié,mainteselevoidie,

Maintbonescuestroé,maintebruinefaillie.

Aprésicestcurunement,eapréscestebaillie,

Surportastesavostrefizauquesdeseignurie,

Tolistesluisesvolentés,n’enpotaverbaillie.

[20]Lacrutguerresenzamur:Damnesdeuslamaldie!

NoblekingofEnglandwiththerightboldcountenance,doyounotrememberthatwhenyoursonwascrownedyoumadethekingofScotlanddohimhomage,withhishandplacedinyourson’s,withoutbeingfalsetohisfealtytoyou?Thenyousaidtothemboth:‘MayGod’scursefallonany[10]whotaketheirloveandaffectionfromyou.[Andyou,William]standbymysonwithyourmightandyouraidagainstallthepeopleintheworld,savewheremyownoverlordshipisconcerned!’Thenbetweenyouandyoursonarosedeadlyillwill,whichbroughtaboutthedeathsofmanyanobleknight,unhorsedmanyaman,emptiedmanyasaddle,shatteredmanyashield,andbrokemanyacoatofmail.Afterthiscrowningandafterthistransferofpoweryoutookawayfromyoursonsomeofhisauthority,youthwartedhiswishessothathecouldnotexercisepower.[20]Thereinlaytheseedsofapitilesswar.God’scursebeonit!

**********

HenryIIhearsthathissonhasdeclaredwaronhim(laisses13–14,vv.125–61).1.a,2.g3.c.i3.b.i1.a,1.d

Quantçooïlepere,greinsenfudeirez,Ejuresunserrement—marfudunquespensez!—

Editaseschevaliers:“Seignurs,orm’entendez!

Unquesmesenmavienefuisiadulez.Elcorsmetientlarage,apoimesuidesvez:

WhenHenry,hisfather,heardthis,hewasbothsaddenedandangry,andhesworehisoath—alasthathissoneverthoughtofdoingsuchathing—andhesaidtohisknights:‘Mylords,nowgiveheedtowhatIsay!Iwasneversogrievedinallmylife.IamsofilledwithragethatIamnearlycrazy.


3.b.ii1.a2.f.i3.c.i4.a

[130]LesbarunsdeBretaignem’untjacuntrariez;

Aceusquemehëentamortsesuntabandunez,

AlreiLowisdeFranceeamunfizainznez,

Kimevuntdeseritantdeçoduntsuichasez.

Tolirmevoltmaterreefieuseheritez.Nesuipassienvielli,çoseventgentasez,

Kedeiveterreperdre,nepurmesgranzhëez.

Odlaluneserieanuiteschilguaitiez,QueFlamengneterrïenneseientenbuschiez.

LesbarunsdeBretaine,vuslesavezasez,

[140]Tresqu’enFinebusterresuntenmespoestez;

MesRaüldeFeulgiereestversmeirevelez—

LicuensHugedeCestreenestsisafiez.Nelarraiquenesveiepurfinoresmerez,

Sitroverlespöeiededenzlurfermetez.Epuisquenozenemissuntsiaseurez,Dunclesfaitbonenvaïrpargranzenemistiez.

Mielzvaltengindeguerresurgentdesmesurez

Kemalveis’asaillie,s’ilsuntdescuragiez.”

Respuntsunbarnage:“Pleinsestesdebuntez.

[150]Trestuzvozenemissuntenmalanentrez.

Vostrëestlaterre,siladefendez!Atortvusguerreielivostreengendrez.”

[130]ThebaronsofBrittanyhaveopposedme;theyhavejoinedforceswiththosewhosehatredofmeismortal,withKingLouisofFranceandwithmyeldestson,whoarestrippingmeofmyrightfulpossessions.Hewantstotakeawaymylands,myfiefs,andmyinheritance.Iamnotsoovercomewithagenorsoburdenedwithyears,asiswellknownofmanypeople,thatIshouldlosemyrealm.‘KeepgoodwatchthisnightintheclearmoonlightandseethatnoFlemingsormenofthisregionconcealthemselvesinambush.ThebaronsofBrittany,[140]rightuptoFinistère,arefeudallysubjecttome;butRalphdeFougèresisinrevoltagainstmeandEarlHughofChesterisinleaguewithhiminthis.FornoamountofpurerefinedgoldshallIfailtolookthemout,ifIcancomeonthemintheirfastnesses.Andsinceourenemiesaresococksureofthemselves,itisagoodpolicytopressinonthemwithgreathostilities.Asiege-engineisabetterweaponagainstfoesinthefullflushofinsolencethanahalf-heartedattackwhentheyarenotsofullofvalour.’Hisbaronsreply:‘Youarefullofmartialfervour.[150]Luckhasturnedagainstyourenemies.Thelandisyours,defenditwell!Yoursonisinthewrongtomakewaronyou.’

Laisse144.a,2.c2.f.v2.g3.c.i

Atantesvusceschevaliersdescendezdelpaleis,

Evuntsaisircesarmesigneusedemaneis,

Vestirhaubercsebruines,lacierceshealmesfreis,

Prendreparlesenarmescesescuzvianeis.

DuncoïssiezDeuaramirlivielzHenrilireis:

‘Marm’avruntentreacuntrelitraitreeschaumeis!’

Delavilesuntissuzchevaliersascunreis:

Seenowtheknightscomingdownfromthecastle,suddenlyandswiftlyseizingarms,puttingonhauberksandcoatsofmail,lacingontheirnewhelmets,andtakingtheirVianeseshieldsbythearm-straps.ThenyoucouldhaveheardKingHenrytheEldercallingonGod:‘Itwilldothesetraitorsnogoodtohavemetmeinthestubble-fields!’Theknightsintheirbattle-arrayhavecomeforthfromthetown:[160]some


4.a

[160]Meinsdeseisantemileeplusdeseisantetreis,

N’adceluiquinequidevaleirunreiwaleis.

sixtythousandofthemandmorethansixtycompanies,andnotoneofthembutthinkshimselftheequalofaWelshking.

**********

TheFrenchhearthatoneoftheirnumberhasbeencaptured(laisse22,vv.240–243).4.b1.c,2.b4.a1.a–c

EspoëntésuntliFranceisdelafierenovelle:

Lecueralplushardientrembleechancele.

Mesicillescunfortëkitrestuzleschaele;

Irruradensuncuer,lisancliestencele.

TheFrencharealarmedbythisdirenews:theheartoftheboldesttremblesandmissesabeat.Buthewhoeverleadsthemallstrengthenstheirresolution:hisheartisfullofangerandhisbloodboilswithrage.

**********

3.b.ii2.d.i1.a2.g2.g2.d.i3.c.i3.d.i

ThemessengersfromHenryIIdelivertheirmessagetotheKingofScotland(laisses33–34,vv.365–90).

‘Ore,oiezsunmandement;neltenezafolage!

Mults’esmerveilledevusk’elcorsvustientlarage.

Ilvusteneitasageshum,nemied’enfantilage,

Eceluiquilplusamotsenzmusternuldamage.

…[376]Ainzverraseliferrezamurecusinage,

Cumentvusvuscuntendrez,cumfolucumesage.’

Duncoïssiezceschevaliers,lagentjuefneesalvage,

Jurerricheserrementeafichiercurage:[380]‘Sivuscelreineguerreiez,kipartelvushansage,

Nedeveztenirterrenenulseignurage,AinzdevezalfizMahaltservirenservage!’

‘Hearnowhismessageandweighitcarefully!Heisverysurprisedthatthereissomuchmadnessinyou.Healwaysthoughtyouawiseman,devoidofthefollyofinexperience,andonewholovedhimmostdearlywithoutofferinghimanyhurt.…hewillwaitandseeifyouacttowardshimasalovingkinsmanshould,andwhetheryoubehavelikeafoolorlikeawiseman.’Thenyoushouldhaveheardtheknights,thoseyounganduntutoredmen,swearingmightyoathsandmakingashowofboldness:[380]‘Ifyoudonotmakewaronthiskingwhotreatsyouthuscurtly,youarenotfittoholdlandsandoverlordships,rathershouldyouserveMaud’ssoninbondage!’

Laisse343.d.i4.c2.d.i2.g.ii

Oreotlireisd’Escocesagentquilcuntrarie.

…[387]Siquelireismeismessuventlecuntralie

Parl’enticementdecesqu’aimentlafolie.

Ejuresunserrement:‘DeulefizMarie,[390]Neremeindralaguerrepurvostrecuardie!’

NowthekingofScotlandhearshismenupbraidinghim.[EarlWaltheofiswiserandthinksthatwarwouldbefoolish…]anditcomesaboutthatthekinghimselfmanytimesopposeshim,luredonbythosewhoaregivenovertofolly.Heswearshisoath:‘ByGod,thesonofMary,[390]yourcowardicewillnotpreventwarbeingwaged!’


Fineshade chronicle

Thisisashort,anonymouschroniclewritteninthesmallprioryofFineshadebetween1322

and1327,indirectresponsetothedisruptionofthecivilwarsof1321–22(Kilpatrick,“The

ProblematicPresent”).Textismytranscriptionofthemanuscript(CottonCleopatraD.IXff.

84–90),andtranslationismine.Referencesarebylineandfoliotothemanuscript,withcross-

referencestothepagesofGeorgeL.Haskins’1939transcriptioninSpeculumbracketed.I

prioritisemyowntranscriptionratherthanthepublishedonebecauseHaskinsisunreliable

onafewdetailswhenitcomestoexpandingtheauthor’sabbreviations,includingonekey

pronouninthefirstquotation(Kilpatrick,“EdwardI’sTemper”).NotealsothattheBritish

LibraryhasrefoliatedthecodexsinceHaskins’transcription:hisfoliationforthechronicle

portionofthemanuscriptbeginson83r,mineon86r.Hedoesgivelinenumbers,whichwill

matchwithmine.

ThecodexcontainsseveralothermanuscriptsboundtogetherbySirRobertCotton;

theFineshademanuscriptencompassesfolios84–90(inmodernfoliation),andincludes

transcriptionsofseveraldocumentsrelevanttothecivilwarsof1321–22,addressedtoSir

JohnEngayne,thenpatronoftheFineshadepriory,besidesthechronicleitself.Thewhole

Fineshademanuscriptseemstohavebeencompiledbyoneortwohandsattheprioryshortly

afterthatdate,withsomejottingsaddedinattheprioryinthefollowingdecadeortwoonthe

emptypagesattheend.

PrinceEdwardaskshisfather,EdwardI,tograntacountytoGaveston(86rll.15–21;Haskins75)

1.a2.f.ii1.a,2.c.iv2.b.ii1.a2.g.i

Elapsoveroaliquantotemporeadiitproeopatremsuum&petiitsibidariCornubiecomitatum.Quodrexutaudiuitgrauitermouebaturinanimo&peticionemimportunamferensindignanteripsamadterramdeiecitpedibusqueconculcauitdicenstotamregionemanglicanamperipsumforeamittendam.Huiusigiturpeticionisoccasionealiisquegestibusillicitis&inhonestisidemrexirasuccensuspredictumPetrumiussitexulemfieriabsquealiquagraciaseuspeinpostmodoredeundi.factumqueestita.

Aftersometimehadpassed,theprincewenttohisfatheronhisbehalf,andrequestedthattheearldomofCornwallbegiventothisPiers.WhentheKingheardthishewasgravelymovedinhissouland,indignantlytakingtheimportunatepetition,heflungittothegroundandcrusheditwithhisfeet,sayingthathissonwouldgiveawayalltherealmofEngland.Andso,bytheoccasionofthispetitionandofotherdeedsbothillicitanddishonest,thatKing,aflamewithrage,commandedthatthesaidPiersbeexiledwithoutgraceorhopeofreturn,andsoitwasdone.

Note:EdwardIis“movedinhissoul”butheisnotspecificallysaidtobefeelinganger.Similarly,hedisplaceshisimpulsetoviolenceontothepetition,ratherthanhisson,andeventherecitalofgrievances(“sayingthathissonwouldgiveawayalltherealmofEngland”)seemsalamentratherthanareasonforanger.HeisindignantatthepetitionandangryatGaveston,


butthechroniclerwillnotsaythatheisangryathisson.CompareGuisborough’saccountofthesameincident(includedbelow).

**********

ThebaronsmoveagainsttheDespensers(87rll.5–12;Haskins77)1.c2.g.iii2.b.ii2.g.i

NuncveropostpremissamouenturcordamagnatumcontrapredictumdominumHugonemdeconsensudominiRegisparliamentumseuconsiliumstatueruntdeextorsionibusiniuriispredictumdominumHugonemfactisipsuminstanteraccusantesintantumutexigentibusdemeritissuisacpatrissuivterqueregnumanglieeuaceret.regeadhocconsenciente&verbaexilijinpuplicopronunciante.Quofactomagnatesregnicredebantquicquidactumfueratratum&stabilemfieriabsquedolo.Tandempatermutauitaerem&adpartestransmarinassetranstulit,filioinangliasubalisdominiregislatitante.

NowindeedtheheartsofthemagnatesweremovedagainsttheaforesaidSirHugh.And,withtheconsentofthelordKing,theyheldaparliamentorcounciltoexaminetheunjustextortionsdonebythesaidSirHugh,prosecutinghimsorigorouslythatwhenhiscrimesandthoseofhisfatherwereexaminedtheyhadbothtoleavetherealmofEngland,theKingconsentingtothisandpronouncingthesentencepublically.Oncethiswasdone,themagnatesoftherealmbelievedthattheactwassetandstable,withnotrickery.Aftersometimethefathertookachangeofairandcrossedtheseas;buthissonremainedinEngland,hidingbeneaththewingsoftheKing.

Froissart’s chronicle

TextisfromthetranscriptionsprovidedbytheOnlineFroissartProject,thebasisformostof

whichisMSSBesançon864–65.ReferencesarebySHFchapter,whichisoneoftheseveral

optionsthattheOFPprovidesforsearchingwithintextsandusuallythemostconvenientfor

intertextualcross-reference.Translationsaremine.

TheCountessofMontforttakescommandofherhusband’sforces(SHF1–150).1.c,5.c.i1.a1.a4.a,(2.f)

OrvueiljeretourneralacontessedeMontfort,quibienavoitcouraged’ommeetcuerdelyon.ElleestoitenlacitédeRennesquantelleentenditquesonseigneurestoitprisenlamanierequeouyavéz.Seelleenfutdolenteetcourrouceecenefaitpasademander,carellepensoitmieulxqueonledeustmettreamortqueenprison.Etcombienqu’elleeustgrantdeuil,sinefistellepascommedesconforteefemme,maiscommehommefortethardi,enreconfortanttoussesamisvaillamentetsessouldoyers.

NowIwillreturntotheCountessofMontfort,whohadthecourageofamanandtheheartofalion.ShewasinthecityofRenneswhensheheardthatherhusbandhadbeencaptured,asyouhaveheard.Atthatshefeltduelandangerasyoumayexpect,becauseshethoughtitverylikelythathewouldbeputtodeathinprison.Andhowevergreatherduel,shedidnotbehavelikeanafflictedwoman,butlikeamanstrongandhardy,invaliantlyhearteningherfriendsandsoldiers.


********** KingDavidofScotlandreactstothedeathofhispeople(SHF1–152).1.a2.a.v

LejeuneroyDavidotgrantdeuiletgrantpitiédesonpaïsainsidestruit,etilvitsesgensainsicomplaindre.Sifistlaroynesafemme,quienplouraasséz.

YoungKingDavid[BruceofScotland]feltgreatduelandgreatpityatthisdestructionofhislands,andathearinghispeoplelament.Sodidthequeenhiswife,whoweptagreatdealaboutit.

Note:Comparethistothepreviousextract.Hereduelisgenderedinamoretypicalfashion:thelordreactswithduel(andwilltakeaction),whiletheladylaments.TheCountessofSalisburytakesonthemasculinerole,butonlyonbehalfofherhusbandandson.

********** BattleofCrécy.TheGenovesebowmen,hiredtofightfortheFrenchside,

areundisciplinedandgetinthewayofthecavalary.(SHF1–278)1.a,2.g3.b.ii4.a2.f.vii

CarleroydeFrancepargrantcourrouxcommandaetdist:“Cesteribaudaillenousempeschentsansraison.”Lorsveissiézgensd’armesairézentr’eulxferiretfrappersureulx,etlespluseurstrebuchierquioncquepuisneseleverent.

ThentheKingofFranceingreatangerspokeandcommanded:“Thisrabblehinderustonopurpose.”Andthenhismenatarmsbegantostrikeandslashamongst[theGenovese],sothatmostofthemfellandneverroseagain.

**********

BattleofCrécySHF1–2801.a,1.c2.f.vii4.c2.b,1.a3.a.ii2.c.iii

VousdevézsavoirqueleroydeFranceotgrantangoisseaucuerquantilveoitsesgensainsidesconfireparunepoingneedegensquelesAngloisestoient.SiendemandaconseilamessireJehandeHaynault,qu’illuirespondistetdist:“Certes,sire,jenevousfaireconseillier.Lemeilleurcen’estoitquevousvousretrayssiézasauveté,carjen’yvoypointderecouvrer.Ilferatantosttart:sipourriézaussibienchevauchiersurvozennemisetestreperdu,queentrevozgens.”Leroy,quitoutfremissoitd’aÿretdemaltalent,neresponditpointadont,maischevauchaencoresplusavant,etluisemblaqu’ilsevouloitadrecierverssonfrereleconted’Alençon,dontilveoitlabannieresurunepetitemontaigne.

YoumustknowthattheKingofFrancehadgreatdistressofheartatseeinghispeoplesotornapartbysuchasmallnumberofmenastheEnglishwere.HeaskedcounselofSirJohnofHainault,whoreplied,“Indeed,sire,Imaynotcounselyou.Thebestforyoutodowouldbetogetyourselftosafety,asIseenochanceofrecoveringthebattle.Thedayisgettinglate:youmightaseasilyfallinwithyourenemiesandbelostasamongyourownmen.”Theking,whoquitetrembledwithangerandrage,didnotreplyatonce,butrodeonfurther,thinkingtoreachhisbrothertheCountofAlençon,whosebannershecouldseeonasmallhill.

Hecannotgetthrough,losesmostofhismen,andisalmostlosthimself.

**********

KingPhiliparrivestoattempttorelieveCalais,butcannotgetthroughtheEnglishlines,

andisobligedtomakecampandnegotiatewiththem


insteadofattackingthem(SHF1–307).1.a2.g1.a

QuantceulxdeCalais,quis’appuioientaleursmurs,lesvirentpremierementapparoirsurlemontdeSagattes,etbannieresetpennonsventeler,ilzorentgrantjoyeetcuiderentcertainementestredesassegiéz.Maisquantilzvirentqueonselogoit,ilzfurenttouscourrouciézetleursemblaungpetitsigne.

WhenthosepeopleofCalaiswhowereleaningagainstthebattlementsfirstsaw[theFrenchtroops]appearonthehillofSangatte,bannersandpennantsflying,theyfeltgreatjoyandweresurethatthesiegewastobebroken.Butwhentheysawthattheyweresettingupcamp[insteadofattackingtheEnglish],theywereveryangryanddecidedthatitallmeantnothing.

**********

KingPhilipsendsamessagetoEdwardIII,admittingthathecannotapproach

theEnglishpositionandsuggestingtheymeetatsomeplaceagreeabletobothtodobattle(SHF1–309)

4.c3.b.ii3.c.i4.b

Leroyd’Angleterre,quientenditbiencesteparolle,futtantostconseilliéetaviséderespondreetdist:“Seigneurs,j’aybienentenducequevousmerequerrézdeparmonadversaire,quitientmonheritageatort,dontilmepoise.Etsiluidirézdeparmoyquejesuiscyendroitetaydemourépresd’unan.Toutceailbiensceu,etyfeustvenuzplustosts’ilvoulsist.Maisilm’alaissiécysilonguementdemourerquej’aydespendugrossementdumien.EtypenseavoirtantfaitquejeseraytemprementseigneurdeCalais.Sinesuismieconseilliédefairedutoutasadevise,neasonaise.Siluidirézqueseilnesesgensnepeuentparlapasser,sivoisentautourpourquerrelavoie.”LesmessagesduroydeFrancevirentbienqu’ilzn’enporteroientautrechose.

ThekingofEngland,hearingthesewords,tookcounselandthenrespondedaccordingly:“Sirs,Iunderstandwellthatyouaskthisofmeonbehalfofmyenemy,whoholdsmyinheritancewrongfully,asitseemstome.TellhimfrommethatIamherebyrightandhavebeenherealmostayear.Heknewthisquitewell,andcouldhavecomeheresoonerifhehadwishedit.ButhehasletmestaycampedheresolongthatIhavespentalotofmoney.AndIbelievethatIshallverysoonbethelordofCalais.Idonotfeelinclinedtodoanythingforhisconvenience.Tellhimthatifhispeoplecannotpass,theymustseekoutanotherapproach.”ThemessengersoftheFrenchkingsawwellthattherewouldbenootherreply.

**********

Calaishassurrendered.RatherthanthewholecitysufferingthewrathofEdwardIII

forthelosseshehassufferedduringtheprolongedsiege,sixrepresentativesofthetownhaveagreedtotakethepunishmentforthemall.

SirWalterMannypresentsthemtotheking.(SHF1–312)3.a.ii1.a,2.a.iii3.b.ii

LeroysetuttoutcoyetregardamoultfellementsurceulxdeCalais,pourlesgransdommagesqueoutempspassésurmerluiavoientfais.Cessixbourgoissemistrentagenoulxdevantleroy…

TheKingwassilentandlookedveryfiercelyatthepeoplefromCalais,onaccountofthegreatlossesthattheyhadinflictedonhimatseainthepast.Thesixburghersfelltotheirkneesbeforehim…

4.d Theypleadformercy.


4.b

Certesiln’yotadoncenlaplaceseigneur,chevaliernevaillanthommequisepeustabstenirdeplourerdegrantpitié,nequipeustenpieceparler:etvraimentcen’estoitpointmerveillecarc’estpitiédeveoirhommesdebiencheoirenteldangier.

Indeed,everylord,knight,andwarriorwhowasthereweptforpityandcouldnotspeak:andindeeditwasnowonderbecauseitwasagreatpitytoseegoodmeninsuchdanger.

2.a.ii,1.a1.c3.a.ii1.a2.f.vii4.d,2.a.v

Leroyregardasureulxmoultyreusement,carilavoitlecuersiduretsiesprisqu’ilnepouoitparlerdegrantcourroux.Etquantilparla,ilcommandaqueonleurcoppastlestestes.Touslesbaronsetchevaliersquilaestoientenpriantplouroientsiacertesquepluspouoientauroyqu’ilenvoulsistavoirpitiéetmerci,maisiln’yvouloitentendre.

Thekinglookedontheburghersveryangrily,forhisheartatthatmomentwassohardenedandsoinflamedthathecouldnotreplythroughhisanger.Andwhenhespoke,heorderedthattheirheadsbecutoffatonce.Allthelordsandknights,weeping,earnestlybeggedhimtohavemercy,butherefusedtolisten.

4.c/d AdoncparlamessireGaultierdeMaunyetdistainsi:“Ha,gentilsires,vueilliézrefrenervostrecourage.Vousavézlenomdesouverainegentillesceetnoblesce:ornevueilliézdoncqueschosefaireparquoyellesoitamendrie,nequeonpeustparlersurvousennullevillennie.Sevousn’avézpitiédecesgenstoutes,autresgensdirontqueceseroitgrantcruaultésevousestessidurquevousfaciézmourirceshonnestesbourgois,quideleurproprevoulentésesontmisenvostremercipourlesautressauver.”

ThenSirWalterMannyspokeup:“Ah,noblesire,reininyourheart.Youareknownforsovereigngentilesseandnoblesse:donotnowdoanythingthatwillmarit,ortoassociateyournamewithvillainy.Ifyouwillnothavepityonthesemen,peoplewillcallitagreatcrueltyandwillsaythatyouahardmantoputsuchhonestburgherstodeath,whentheyhavewillinglyputthemselvesatyourmercytosaveothers.”

2.a.i3.c.i2.f.vii3.b.ii4.d2.a.v1.a

Acepointgrignaleroylesdensetdist:“MessireGaultier,souffrézvous,ilneseraautrement.”Maisfistonvenirlecoppetestes,etdistencoresleroy:“CeulxdeCalaisonttantfaitmourirdemesgensqu’ilconvientceulxmourir.”Adoncfistlanobleroyned’Angleterregranthumilité,quiestoitdurementençainte,etplouroitsitendrementdepitiéqueonnelapouoitsoustenir.Ellesegettaagenoulxdevantleroysonseigneur,etdistainsi:“Hagentilsires,puisquejerapassaylamerengrantperilcommevoussçavéz,jenevousayriensrequisnedondemandé.OrvousrequierjehumblementetprieenpropredonquepourlefilzSainteMarieetpourl’amourdemoy,vousvueilliézavoirmercydecessixbourgois.”

Atthisthekinggroundhisteeth,andsaid,“SirWalter,youmustbearit,forsoitshallbe.”Andhesentfortheexecutioner,andsaid,“ThepeopleofCalaishavecausedthedeathsofsomanyofmypeoplethatitisrightthattheyshoulddie.”AtthatthenoblequeenofEnglandhumbledherselfgreatly,pregnantasshewas,andweepingsotenderlyinpitythatnobodycouldremainunmoved.Shethrewherselftoherkneesbeforethekingherlordandsaid:“Ah,mynoblelord!SinceIcrossedtheseaingreatperil,asyouknow,Ihaveaskedfornothing.ButnowIprayandimploreyouwithclaspedhands,fortheloveofOurLady’ssonandbyyourloveforme,havemercyonthesesixburghers.”

3.a.ii2.a.v2.c1.a

Leroyattenditungpetitaparleretregardalabonnedamesafemme,quimoultestoitençainteetplouroitagenoulxtendrement.Etceluiamolialecuer,carenvisl’eustcourroucieeoupointouelleestoit.

Thekingfellsilentforamomentandhelookedonthegoodladyhiswife,whowasheavilypregnantandwepttenderlyonherknees.Hisheartbegantosoftenalittle,forhedidnotwishtoanger/distressherinhercurrentstate.


Sidist:“Hadame,jeamassemieulxquevousfeussiézautrepartquecy.Vousmepriézsiacertesquejenevousoseescondire.Etcombienqu’ilsefaceenvisdeparmoy,tenéz,jelesvousdonne.Sienfaitesvostreplaisir.”

Hesaid:“Ah,lady,Iwishverymuchthatyouwereanywhereelse.YoupraytomesothatIcannothelpbutheedyou.ThoughIdoitagainstmywill,Iwillgivethemtoyou.Takethemanddowiththemasyouplease.”

Labonnedamedist:“Monseigneur,tresgransmercis.”Lorsselevalaroyneetfistlevercessixbourgois,etleurfistosterleurschevestresd’entoursleurscolzetlesemmenaavecqueselleensachambre,etlesfistrevestiretdonneradisnertoutaise,etpuisdonnaachascunsixnoblesetlesfistconduirehorsdel’ostasauveté.

Thegoodladysaid:“Mylord,verygreatthanks.”Sheroseandhadtheburghersride,andhadthehalterstakenfromtheirnecksandhadthemledintoherchambers,wheretheyweredressedinnewclothesandgivenaneasydinner.Thenshegavetoeachofthemsixnobles,andhadthemconductedthroughthearmytosafety.

**********

BattleofPoitiers:EdwardtheBlackPrinceseesthebodyofRobertofDuraslyinginthefield

andordersittobecarriedtotheman’suncle,theCardinalofPérigord,“withmycompliments”(SHF1–386).

3.b.ii2.f2.g1.a,2.g2.vii4.c

Orvousdirayquimutleprinceacefaire.Lesaucunspourroientdirequ’illefistparmanieredederision.Onavoitjainforméleprincequelesgensducardinalestoientdemourézsurleschampsetarmézcontrelui,cequ’iln’estoitmieappartenantnedroitfaitd’armes;cargensd’eglisequipourtraittiédepaixtraveillentdel’unal’autrenesedoiventpointarmernepourl’unnepourl’autre.Etpourtantqueceulxl’avoientfait,estoitleprincecourrouciésurleditcardinal.EtluienvoyavraiementsonnepveumonseigneurRobertdeDuras,etvouloitauchastellaind’Amposte,quilafutprins,fairecopperlatesteetl’eustfaitsansfaulteensonayr,pourcequ’ilestoitdelafamilleduditcardinal,sen’eustestémonseigneurJehanChandosquilerefrenapardoulcesparolles.

Iwilltellyounowwhytheprincedidthis.Somewouldsaythatheactedinmockery.Buthehadbeeninformedthatsomeofthecardinal’speoplehadstayedonthebattlefieldtofightagainsthim,whichwasquiteimproperaccordingtoalltherulesofwar,becausepeopleofthechurchwhotravelinpeacetoactasmediatorsbetweensidesmustnottakeuparmsagainstonesideortheother.ItwasbecausethesehaddonesothatthePrincewasangryattheCardinal.Andindeedhesenttohim[thecorpseof]hisnephewRobertdeDuras,andwantedtobeheadtheCastellanofAmpostawhomhehadcaptured.Andcertainlyhewouldhavedonesoinhisanger,becausehewasamemberofthecardinal’shousehold,ifSirJohnChandoshadnotrestrainedhimwithsoftwords.

Note:Here,asinsomeplaceselsewhere,Froissartprovidesthelistofgrievancesinthenarrativevoice,ratherthanhavingthecharacterrecitethemhimself.

********** TheJacquerie(SHF1–413).


3.b.ii3.d.i4.c2.f.v2.f.vi2.f.i

Caraucunesgensdevilleschampestressanschiefs’assemblerentenBeauvoisinetnefurentmiecenthommeslespremiers.EtdistrentquetouslesnoblesduroyaumedeFrance,chevalliersetescuiershonnissoientleroyaumeetqueceferoitgrantbienquitouslesdestruiroit.Etchascundist:“Ilditvoir.Honnissoitilparquiildemourraquetouslesgentilzhommesnesoientdestruis.”Lorsserecueillirentets’enalerentsansautreconseiletsansnullearmeureforsquedebastonsetdecousteaulxenlamaisond’unchevalierquipresdelademouroit,etbriserentettuerentlechevalier,ladameetleursenfansgransetpetis,etardirentlamaison.

CertaincountrypeoplegatheredwithoutanyleaderintheBeauvaisregion,notmorethanahundredofthematfirst.TheysaidthatallthenoblesoftherealmofFrance,theknightsandthesquires,wereputtingtherealmtoshame,andthatitwouldbeagooddeedtodestroythemall.Andeveryoneofthemsaid:“That’sthetruth!Shameuponanybodywhodoesn’tagreethatthegentryshouldbedestroyed.”Theygatheredtogetherandsetoff,withoutanymorecounselandarmedonlywithcudgelsandknives,tothehouseofaknightwholivednearby.Andtheybrokeandkilledtheknight,thelady,andtheirchildren,bothlargeandsmall,andburnedthehouse.

2.f.vi2.f.vii2.f.viii2.f.i2.f.i

Secondementilzalerentenungautrefortchasteletfirentpisasséz,carilzpristrentlechevalieretlelierentauneestacheetviolerentsafemmeetsesfilles,voiantlechevalier,etpuistuerentladame,quiestoitençainte,etsesfillesetsesenfansetlechevalieragrantmartire.Etardirentetabatirentlechastel.

Nexttheywenttoanotherstrongcastleanddidevenworse,becausetheytooktheknightandtiedhimtoastakeandviolatedhiswifeanddaughtersbeforehiseyes,thentheykilledthelady,whowaspregnant,andthedaughtersandchildrenandtheknight,withgreatcruelty.Andtheyburnedandrazedthecastle.

Theydothesamethingsinmanyotherplaces…2.f.i2.f.vii5.c.v

…Etroboientetardoienttouttelzmanieresdegens,etoccioienttousgentilzhommesetefforçoientetvioloienttoutesdamesetpucellescommechiensenragiéz.

…Andthesemenplunderedandburnedeverything,killingallthenoblesandrapedandviolatedalltheladiesandgirls,likemaddogs.

Note:Thisisnotapetition,arequestthatgrievancesbeaddressed.Ifanythingitresemblesasubverted(perverted?)sceneoffeudalanger.Thepeoplegathertoforma“court”(butonewithoutaleader),thereisarecitalofgrievances,a“war”isplanned,everybodyagrees,andtheyundertakeit.But,asatthecourtofScotlandinJordanFantosme’schronicle(laisses33–34,seeabove),thedecisiontogotowarisprovokedbyanoutburstofshamingspeechintheonlookers,notbyreasonedcounsel,andthesharedfeelingsarethoseofagroup,notofasingleleader.Froissartemphasisesthelackofleadershipandthelackofcounsel—and,curiouslyenough,neversaysthattheyareangry.Althoughthereareangerscriptsandsignsinplay,Froissartdoesnotcreditthemwithanyemotionthatmightexplaintheiratrociousactions:theimpressionisthattheydowhattheydoforloveofit,orbecauseitisintheirnature.Thisisotheringanger,sovery“other”thatitseemsincomprehensibleandcannotbegiventhesamenameasthefeelingsthatmotivatehisprincesandknights.

********** SackofLimoges(SHF1–663and1–666).3.b.ii2.g

QuantlesnouvellesvindrentauprincedeGallesquelacitédeLimogesestoittourneefrançoiseetquel’evesqueduditlieu,quiestoitsoncompereetenquiilavoiteudutempspasségrantfiance,avoitestéatouslestraittiézetl’avoit

WhennewsreachedthePrinceofWalesthatLimogeshadgoneovertotheFrenchandthattheBishopoftheplace,whowasthegodfatherofoneofhischildrenandinwhomhehadalwaysplacedthegreatesttrust,hadbeen


1.a3.c.i

aidiéarendre,sienfutdurementcourrouciéz,etentintmoinsdebienetmoinsdecomptedesgensd’eglise,ouiladjoustoitaudevantgrantfoy.Sijural’amedesonpere,queoncquesneparjura,queilnetendroitjamaizaaultrechosesilararoitetauroitfaitauxtrahistrescomparerlefaitchierement…

concernedinallthenegotiationsandhadbeenapartytothesurrender,hewasfuriouslyangry,andlostmuchofhisesteemforchurchmen,inwhomhehadpreviouslyhadgreatfaith.Hesworeonthesoulofhisfather—anoathwhichheneverbroke—thathewouldattendtonootherbusinessuntilhehadwonthecitybackandhadmadethetraitorspaydearlyfortheirdisloyalty…

Limogesistaken(SHF1–666).1.a2.f.i/vii4.d5.a2.f.i1.c2.a.v2.f.vii2.f.viii2.a.iii1.a3.a.ii2.f.vii2.g

Etlaotgrantpitié,carhommesetfemmesetenfanssegettoientagenoulzdevantleprinceetcrioient:“Merci,gentilzsires!”Maisilestoitenflammézdeardeurquepointn’yentendoit,nenulnenullen’estoitouy,maiztoutmisal’espeequanqueontrouvoitetencontroit,ceulxetcellesquipointcoulpablesn’enestoient.Jenesçaycommentilzn’avoientpitiédespovresgensquin’estoientmietailliézdefairetrahison:maisceulxlecomperoientetcompererentplusquelesgransmaistresquil’avoientfait.Iln’estsidurcuerques’ilfeustadontenlacitédeLimogesetilluisouvenistdeDieuquin’enplourasttendrementdugrantmeschiefquiyestoit.CarplusdeIIIMpersonnes,hommes,femmesetenfansyfurentdecollézetocciscellejournee.Dieuenaitlesames,carilzfurentbienmartiriéz.Enentrantenlaville,unerouted’Angloiss’enalerentdeverslepalaisdel’evesque.Sifutlatrouvézetprisauxmainsetadmenézsansconroyetordonnancedevantleprince,quileregardafelonneusement,etlaplusbelleparolequiluisceutdirecefutquiluiferoittrancherlatesteparlafoyqu’ildevoitaDieuetasaintGeorge,etlefistosterdesapresence.

Therewerescenesofgreatpity,formenandwomenandchildrenflungthemselvestotheirkneesinfrontoftheprinceandcried:Mercy,gentlesirs!Buthewassoinflamedwithardourthathecouldnotlisten,norwouldheheedanyofthem,butputallhecouldfindtothesword,thoughtheywerenottoblame.Idonotknowhowtheycouldhavenottakenpityonthosepoorpeoplewhowerenotimportantenoughtohavecommittedtreason,buttheypaidforitmoredearlythandidtheirgreatmasters.Thereisnoheartsohardthat,haditbeeninthecityofLimogesandrememberedGod,itwouldnothavewepttenderlyatthegreatmischiefthattherewas.Formorethan3000people,menandwomenandchildren,werebeheadedandkilledthatday.MayGodhelptheirsouls,fortheyweretrulymartyrs.Whentheyenteredthecity,someoftheEnglishwenttowardtheBishop’spalace.Hewasdiscoveredandtakeninhandandledwithnodignitiesbeforetheprince,wholookedathimangrily.Thekindestwordhecouldsaytohimwasthattheyshouldstrikeoffhishead,byGodandStGeorge,andhehadthemtakehimoutofhispresence.

Note:ThesackofLimogesismotivatedbyangeragainsttheBishop,andtheviolencedonetothecityanditsinhabitantsthereforecounts,fromthePrince’spointofview,as2.f.i:destructionoftheenemy’spossessionsorlands(anattackonhissocialbody).However,Froissartrejectsthatandforegrounds2.f.vii:killingorseriouslywoundingsomebody.Hekeepsthephysicalbodiesofthetownspeoplefirmlyinview,encouragesthereadertofeelpityforthem,andmournsthefactthattheyarepayingmoredearlythantheirmasters.

********** ThesonoftheCountofFoixhasbeenstayingwithhisuncle,theKingofNavarre,

withwhomhismotherisstaying.Beforehereturnedtohisfatherhisuncletookhimasideandgavehimapurseofpowder,


tellinghimtofindsomeopportunitytoslipitintohisfather’sfood,sayingthatitwouldmakehimfallinlovewithhiswifeagainandtakeherback.TheCounthearsjustenoughofthistosuspectthathissonisinontheconspiracy,

andonenightatdinner,heseesthepurse.(SHF3–21)1.b/2.b

...lecontegiettesesyeux,quiestoittoutenfourmédesonfait,etvoitlespendansdelaboursetteaugipondesonfilz.Lesanclimua,etdist:“Gaston,viengavant,jevueilparleratoyenl’oreille.”Lienfents’avançasurlatable.Leconteouvrilorssonseingetdesnoullasongiponetprinstuncousteletcoppalespendansdelaboursette,etlidemouraenlamain.Etpuisdistasonfilz:“Quelechoseestceencesteboursette?”

Thecountlookedthatwayathimandsawthestringsofthepursehangingaroundtheneckofhisson.Hisbloodtrembled,andhesaid:“Gaston,comehere.Iwanttosaysomethinginyourear.”Thechildcameuptothetable.Atoncethecountopenedhisvestanduncoveredhistunicandtookaknifeandcutthestringsofthepurse,andtookitinhishand.Andhesaidtohisson,“Whatisinthispurse?”

3.a.ii2.a.ii2.b5.c.v

Lienfes,quifutoutsurprinsetesbahis,nesonnamot,maisdevinttoutblancdepaourettoutesperdus,etcommençafortatrembler,carilsesentoitforfait.LecontedeFoisouvrilabourseetprinstdelapouldreetenmistsuruntailloerdepain,etpuiscyflaunlevrierqueilavoitdelézlui,etluidonnaamengier.Sitostquelechienotmengiélepremiermorsel,iltournalespiézdessusetmourut.

Thechild,allstartledandconfused,madenosound,butwentcompletelywhitewithfearandquitedistraught,andhebegantotremblehard,becausehewassurethathewaslost.TheCountofFoixopenedthepurseandtooksomeofthepowderandputitonatrencherofbread,thenwhistledtoanearbyhoundandgaveitthebreadtoeat.Assoonasthedogtookabiteitrolledoveranddied.

1.a2.c.ii2.f.v,2.f.vi2.f.vii4.c

QuantlecontedeFoisenvitlamaniere,seilfucourrouciézilyotbiencause;etselevadetableetprinstsoncousteletvoultlancierapréssonfilz.Etl’eustlaoccissansremede,maischevaliersetescuierssaillirentaudevantetdistrent:“Monseigneur,pourDieumercisnevoushastézpas,maisvousenformézavantdelabesoigne,quevousfaciézavostrefilznulmal.”

WhentheCountofFoixsawthishebecamefurious,andnowonder.Herosefromthetableandtookuphisknifeandtriedtostabhisson.Andhewouldhavekilledhimwithoutremedy,buttheknightsandsquiresleaptforwardandsaid,“Mylord,byGod’smercydon’tacthastily!Findoutmoreaboutthematterbeforeyoudoanyharmtoyourson.”

3.a.ii3.b.ii3.a.i

Etlepremiermotquelecontedist,cefuensongascon:“Zo,Gaston,traïtour!Pourtoyetpouraccroistrel’eritaigequitedevoitretourner,j’enayeuguerreethayneauroydeFrance,auroyd’Angleterre,auroyd’Espaigne,auroydeNavarreetauroyd’Arragon;etcontreeulxmesuijebientenuetporté.Ettumeveulzmaintenantmurdrir!Iltevientdemauvaisenature;sachesquetuenmourrasacecoup.”

Andthefirstthingthatthecountsaid,whichwasinhisnativeGascon:“Ha,Gaston,traitor!ForyoursakeandtoincreaseyourinheritanceIhavehadwarandhatredwiththekingsofFrance,England,Spain,Navarre,andAragon,andIhaveheldoutagainstthem.Andnowyouwanttomurderme!Itcomestoyoufromsomeevilnature:youwilldiebythisstroke.”

2.c.i2.f.v–vii2.a.v4.d

Lorssaillioultrelatable,lecoustelenlamain,etlevouloitlaoccirre,maischevaliersetescuierssemistrentagenoulzenpleurantdevantlui,etluidistrent:“Haa!Monseigneur,pourDieumerci!N’occiézpasGaston,vousn’avézplusd’enfans:faicteslegarder,etvousinformézdelamatiere.Espoirnesavoit

Heleaptacrossthetable,knifeinhand,tryingtokillhim,buttheknightsandsquiresflungthemselvesontheirkneesweepingbeforehimandcried,“Ah,mylord,mercy,forGod’ssake!DonotkillGaston,youhavenootherchildren.Puthimunderguardandfindoutabouttheaffair.Thereishopethathedidnotknowwhathewascarryingandhasno


2.g2.f.viii

ilqueilportoit,etn’anullecoulpeacemeffait.”“Ortost,”distleconte,“mettézleenlatour,etsoittelementgardézqueonm’enrendecompte.”

faultinthisevil.”“Thenatonce,”saidthecount,“puthiminthetower,andlethimbeguardedinsuchamannerthattheguardswillbeaccountabletome.”

TheCountofFoixhearsthathissonhasdiedinprison.1.a1.d2.e2.a.v

AdoncfulecontedeFoiscourrouciézoultremesure,etregretasonfilztropgrandement.Etdist:‘Haa!Gaston!compovreaventurecia.AmalheurepourtoynepourmoyalasonquesenNavarreveoirtamere.Jamaisjen’auraysiparfaitejoyecommejeavoiedevant.’Lorsfistilvenirsonberbieretsefistreretoutjus,etsemistmoultbasetsevestidenoir,ettousceulxdesonhostel.Etfulecorpsdel’enfantportézenpleursetencrisauxFreresMeneursaOrtais,etlafuensepulturéz.

AtthattheCountofFoixbecamecourrouciezbeyondmeasure,grievingvery/toodeeplyforhisson.Andhesaid:“Ah,Gaston!whataterriblebusinessthisis.Alas,itwasanunhappydayforbothofusthateverwewentintoNavarretoseeyourmother.IshallneverknowanyperfecthappinessagainsuchasIhaveknownbefore.”Hesummonedhisbarberandhadhisheadcompletelyshaved,andhehumbledhimselfanddressedallinblack,anddidthesametoallofhishousehold.Andthechild’sbodywascarriedwithtearsandcriestotheFranciscansatOrthez,andburiedthere.

Note:Notethatthechildandthefatherbothhaveamomentofspeechlessness:thechild’s,however,iscausedbyfear,notanger.TheCount’sismoreinteresting:“thefirstthinghesaidwas…”alreadysuggestsamomentoffuriousspeechlessness(seesimilarconstructionsaboveinSHF1–666and1–312),andhislapseintoGasconratherthan“goodFrench”isaninterestingvariantformofinarticulaterage.

Walter of Guisborough’s chronicle

Writtenc.1290–1305,coveringtheperiodfromtheNormanconquest,withafewadditionsto

1312.TextfromRothwell’sedition,translationmine.

RobertBrucehassentforJohnComynofBadenoch,meaningtokillhimundertheguiseof

negotiations(366).2.g3.a.i2.a,33.b.ii2.f.vi2.f.vii

Quinichilmalisuspicansvenitadeumcumpaucisetmutuosereceperuntinosculumsednonpacisinclaustrofratrumminorum.CumquemutuoloquerenturadinuicemverbisvtvidebaturpacificisstatimconuertensfaciemetverbaperuertenscepitimproperareeidesedicionesuaquodeumaccusaueratapudregemAnglieetsuamcondicionemdeterioraueratindampnumipsius.Quicumpacificeloquereturetexcusaretsenoluitexaudiresermonemeiussedvtconspiraueratpercussiteumpedeetgladioetretrorsumabiit.

[Comyn]cametohimsuspectingnoevil,andwithfewfollowers.TheyreceivedeachotherinthecloistersoftheFranciscanswithakiss,thoughnotofpeace.Andwhentheywerespeakingtogethertoeachotherwordsofseemingpeace,suddenly[Bruce],changinghisfaceandtwistinghiswords,begaintoupbraid[Comyn]withhavingaccusedhimofseditiontotheKingofEngland,damaginghiscausetohisdestruction.Andwhenhenolongerwantedtospeakpeacefullyandheedhiswordsbutto


4.a2.f.vii

Atsuiextuncinsequenteseumprostrauerunteuminpauimentoaltarispromortuodimittentes.

conspire,hestruck[Comyn]withfootandswordandwentaway.Andhismenfollowinghimoutknocked[Comyn]downonthealtarpavementandlefthimfordead.

**********

PrinceEdwardsendsBishopWalterLangtontoEdwardItopleadonhisbehalf(382–83).

Langtonsaystotheking:1.a,3.a.i3.c.i2.d.i2.c.i/ii2.e.i

“Dominemirex,expartedominimeidominiprincipisfiliivestrimissussum,licetinuitus,vivitdominus,vtipsiusnominepetamavobisquodbakelariumsuumdominumPetrumdeCauerstonpossitpromoueredelicenciavestraadcomitatumdePontyff.”Etiratusrexnimisait,“Quisestuquitaliaaudespostulare?Viuitdominus,nisiessettimordominietquodabiniciodixistiquodinuitussuscepistinegocium,noneuaderesmanusmeas.Nuncautemvideboquiddicturuseritquimisitte,etnonrecedas.”Quovocatodixiteirex,“Quidnegociimisistiperhominemistum?”Quiait,“VtcumpacevestradarepossemdominoPetrodeCauerstoncomitatumdePontyff.”Etaitrex,“Filimeretricismalegenerate,vistumodoterrasdarequinuncquamaliquasimpetrasti?Viuitdominus,nisiessettimordispersionisregninuncquamgaudereshereditatetua.”Etapprehensiscapillisvtraquemanudilaceramteosinquantumpotuitetinfinelassuseieciteum.

“Mylordking,Icomeonbehalfofmylordtheprinceyourson,whohassentmehere(thoughagainstmywill,astheLordlives)toentreatinhisnamethatyoupromotehisbachelorSirPiersGavestonbyyourgifttoCountofPonthieu.”Furious,thekingsaid,“Whoareyouthatyoudaremakesuchabolddemand?AstheLordlives,ifnotforfearoftheLordandbecauseyousaidatthebeginningthatyouundertookthisbusinessunwillingly,youwouldnotescapemyhands.Now,however,Iwillseewhathewhosentyouhastosay—andyoushallnotgoaway.”When[theprince]hadbeencalled,thekingsaidtohim,“Onwhatbusinessdidyousendthisman?”Hesaid,“ThatwithyourblessingImightgivethecountyofPonthieutoSirPiersGaveston.”Andthekingsaid,“Youill-bornsonofawhore,doyouwanttogiveawaylandsnow,youwhoneverwonany?AstheLordlives,ifitwerenotforfearofbreakinguptherealmyoushouldneverenjoyyourinheritance.”Andseizinghisownhairinbothhandshetoreoutasmuchashecould,andfinally,exhausted,threwhimout.

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s chronicle

Writtenc.1135–39,coveringtheperiodfromBrutus’conquestofEnglandtothedeathof

Cadwallader(CE689).OriginatoroftheBruttradition.Facing-pagetextandtranslationfrom

ReeveandWright’sedition.EvennumbersareLatin,oddnumbersareEnglish.


UtherandIgerna(184–85).4.a1.a4.a2.g1.a2.g.ii1.a3.c.i2.f.i1.a2.f.i2.f.i

Aduenerantnamquetotnobilescumconiugibusetfiliabussuis,laetoconuiuiodigni.AderatinterceterosGorloisduxCornubiaecumIgernaconiugesua,cuiuspulcritudomulierestociusBritanniaesuperabat.Cumqueinteraliasinspexisseteamrex,subitoincaluitamoreilliusitautpostpositisceteristotamintentionemsuamcircaeamuerteret.Haecsolaeratcuiferculaincessanterdirigebat,cuiaureapoculafamiliaribusinternuntiismittebat.Arridebateimultociensetiocosauerbainterserebat.Quodcumcomperissetmaritusconfestimiratusexcuriasinelicentiarecessit.Nonaffuitquieumreuocarequiuisset,cumidsolumamitteretimeretquodsuperomniadiligebat.Iratusitaquepraecepiteiredireincuriamsuamutdeillatainiuriarectitudinemabeosumeret.CuicumparerediffugissetGorlois,admodumindignatusestiurauitqueiureiurandoseuastaturumnationemipsiusnisiadsatisfactionemfestinasset.Necmora,manentepraedictairaintereoscollegitrexexercitummagnumpetiuitqueprouinciamCornubiaeatqueigneminurbesetoppidaaccumulauit.AtGorloisnonaususestcongredicumeo,quiaeiusminoreratarmatorumcopia;undepraeelegitmunireoppidasuadonecauxiliumabHiberniaimpetrasset.Etcummagisprouxoresuaquamprosemetipsoanxiaretur,posuiteaminoppidoTintagolinlittoremaris,quodprotuciorirefugiohabebat;ipseueroingressusestcastellumDimilioc,neinfortuniumsuperuenissetamboinsimulpericlitarentur.Cumqueidreginuntiatumfuisset,iuitadoppidumquoineratGorloisetobseditilludomnemqueaditumipsiuspraeclusit.Emensatandemebdomada,reminiscensamorisIgernae…

Asbefittedajoyousbanquet,manynoblesattendedwiththeirwivesanddaughters.AmongthemwasthedukeofCornwall,Gorlois,withhiswifeIgerna,themostbeautifulwomaninBritain.Assoonasthekingsawheramongtherest,hesuddenlyburnedwithloveforherandhadeyesonlyforher,neglectingtheothers.Toheraloneheconstantlypresenteddishes,toheralonehedirectedgobletsofgoldwithfriendlymessages.Hekeptonsmilingandjokingwithher.Herhusbandnoticedandangrilystormedoutofcourtwithoutpermission.Noonecouldcallhimback,sincehefearedtolosethethinghevaluedaboveallelse.Utherangrilycommandedhimtoreturntocourt,intendingtopunishhimfortheslighthehadinflicted.WhenGorloisrefused,Utherwasenragedandsworetoravagehisproviceifhedidnotcomplyimmediately.Whenneither’sfuryabated,thekinggatheredalargearmy,marchedtoCornwallandsetaboutburningitscitiesandtowns.Gorloisdidnotdaretoopposehim,sincehisforceswereoutnumbered;sohedecidedtofortifyhisstrongholdsuntilhecouldgethelpfromIreland.Fearinglessforhimselfthanforhiswife,heplacedherinfortofTintagel,asafeplaceofrefugeonthecoast.HehimselfenteredthecastleofDimilioc,sothatbothofthemshouldnotbeendangeredtogetherincaseofasetback.Whenthiswasreportedtotheking,hemarchedonthecastlewhereGorloiswasandbesiegedit,cuttingoffallaccess.AfteralongweekhadpassedherecalledhispassionforIgerna…

**********

Despitehisadvancingage,UtherstirshimselftodefendBritain

fromtheinvadingSaxons(188–91).1.a3.d.i

Vastataitaquefereinsule,cumidreginuntiaretur,ultraquaminfirmitasexpetebatiratusestiussitquecunctosproceresconuenire,utipsosdesuperbiaetdebilitatesuacorriperet.Etcum

Whentheking[Uther]learnedthattheislandhadbeenalmostlaidwaste,moreangrythanwasgoodforhisillness,heorderedallthenoblestomeetsothathecouldrebukethemfortheirprideand


3.c.i

omnesinpraesentiasuainspexisset,conuitiacumcastigantibusuerbisintulitiurauitquequodipsemeteosinhostesconduceret.Praecepititaquefierisibiferetrumquoasportaretur,cumgressumalteriusmodiabnegaretinfirmitas…

weakness.Seeingthemgatheredbeforehim,hetauntedthemwithharshwordsandsworetoleadthemagainsttheenemyinperson.Hehadalittermadeforhimselfashewastooilltotravelinanyotherway...

TheSaxonsrefusetofightanenemywhoisalreadyhalfdeadandretreatintothecity.Utherordersthecitybesieged,anddefeatsthem.

Hefindshimselfsuddenlyabletoriseandsituponhislitter,andhelaughsashespeaks:3.c.ii “Vocabantmeambronesregem

semimortuum,quiainfirmitategrauatusinferetroiacebam.Sicequidemeram.Malotamensemimortuusipsossuperarequamsanusetincolumissuperarisequentiuitaperfuncturus.Praestantiusenimestmoricumhonorequamcumpudoreuiuere”.

“Thevillainscalledmeakinghalf-dead,becauseIlaysickonalitter.AndsoIwas.YetIpreferconqueringthemwhenhalf-deadtobeingbeatenwhenhaleandhearty,andhavingtoendurealonglifethereafter.Itisbettertodiewithhonourthantoliveinshame.”

**********

KingArthurrallieshismenagainstthelatestSaxoninvasion(198–99).1.a3.b.ii2.f.v2.c.i2.f.vi2.f.vii4.a

QuibusSaxonespectorapraetendentesomninisuresisterenituntur.Cumquemultumdieiinhuncmodumpraeterisset,indignatusestArturusipsisitasuccessissenecsibiuictoriamaduenire.AbstractoergoCaliburnusgladio,nomensanctaeMariaeproclamatetsesecitoimpetuinfradensashostiumaciesimmisit.QuemcumqueattingebatDeuminuocandosoloictuperimebat,necrequieuitimpetumsuumfaceredonecquadringentosseptuagintauirossoloCaliburnogladioperemit.QuoduidentesBritonesdensatisturmisillumsequuntur,stragemundiquefacientes.

TheSaxonsstoodfirm,strivingtoputupthebestresistancetheycould.Muchofthedaypassedlikethis,untilArthurwasangeredthattheirprowesswasdenyingthemvictory.UnsheathinghisswordCaliburnus,hecalledoutthenameofStMaryandswiftlyhurledhimselfuponthedenseranksoftheenemy.AshecalledonGod,hekilledanymanhetouchedwithasingleblowandpressedforwarduntilwithCaliburnusalonehehadlaidlowfourhundredandseventymen.Atthissight,theBritonsclosedranksandfollowedhim,spreadingslaughter.

**********

ArthuragainsttheRomanarmy(244–47).2.c.iii2.f.v3.a.i3.d.i2.f.vi2.f.vii2.f.iv4.b5.c.i

Ipseetenim,auditasuorumstrage,quaepauloanteeisdemdabatur,cumlegioneirrueratetabstractoCaliburnogladiooptimocelsauoceatquehisuerbiscommilitonessuosinanimabat,inquiens:“Quidfacitis,uiri?Vtquidmuliebrespermittisillaesosabire?..”Haecetpluraaliauociferandoirruebatinhostes,prosternebat,caedebat,etcuicumqueobuiabatautipsumautipsiusequumunoictuinterficiebat.Diffugiebantergoipsumuelutbeluaeferocemleonemquemsaeuafamesinstimulataddeuorandumquicquidcasussubuectat…

HearingofthelossestheBritonshadjustsuffered,Arthurhadrushedupwithhislegionand,drawinghismightyswordCaliburnus,wasurgingonhisfellow-soldiers,shouting:“Whatareyoudoing,men?Whyareyoulettingthesewomengetawayunharmed?...”Withcriessuchasthese,hechargedtheenemy,bowlingthemover,cuttingdownanymanwhogotinhiswayandkillinghimorhishorsewithasingleblow.Theyfledfromhimlikepreybeforeafiercelion,whosehunger-pangsdriveittodevourwhateveritcanfind…


4.a Visoigiturregesuoinhuncmodumdecertare,Britonesmaioremaudatiamcapessunt,Romanosunanimiterinuadunt,densatacateruaincedunt.

Seeingtheirkingfightingsovaliantly,theBritonstookheartandalltogetherassaultedtheRomans,closingranksastheyadvanced.

**********

Cadwallader’sgrief(266–67).1.a2.e

OccupauitcontinuoCaduallonemtantusdoloretiraobamissionemsociorumsuorumitauttribusdiebusetnoctibuscibouesciaspernareturacinlectoinfermatusiaceret.

ThereuponCaduallowasseizedbysuchdolorandangeratthelossofhiscomradesthatherefusedtoeatandlaysickinhisbedforthreedaysandnights.

Alliterative Morte Arthure

AlliterativeMiddleEnglishpoemofthelatefourteenthcentury,focussingprimarilyonthe

warofArthurwiththeforcesofRome,beforereturningtoEnglandtofallagainstMordred.

TextisEdmundBrock’sEETSedition,andcitationsarebylinenumber.Translationsaremine.

TheRomansenatordemandsthatArthurpaytributetotheEmperorandacknowledgehimasliegelord(116–39).

2.a.iii1.a,5.a2.a.ii5.a.i,2.a.i

Thekyngeblyschitonetheberynewithhisbrodeeghne,

Thatfullebrymlyforbrethbrynteasthegledys;

Kestecoloursaskyngewithcrouellelates,

Lukedasalyone,andonhislyppebytes!

Thekinglookedredlyuponthemanwithhiswideeyes,

That,veryfiercewithwrath,burnedlikehotcoals,

[He]changedcolours,astheking,withapitilessexpression,

Lookedlikealion,andbitesathislip!4.b Theycowerlikecurs,andonecriesout:4.d

“Kyngecorounedeofkind,curtaysandnoble,

Misdoonomessangereformenskeofthiseluyne…

Wecomeathiscommaundment;hauevsexcused.”

“Rightfullycrownedking,courteousandnoble,

Harmnomessenger,forthyhonour’ssake!...

Wecamehereby[theEmperor’s]command—holdusexcused!”

3.d.ii Arthurmocksthemwithharshwordsandcallsthemcowards.4.b2.a,2.f.vii5.c.i

“Sir,”saisthesenatour,“soCristmottmehelpe,

Thevouteofthivisagehaswoundydevsalle!

ThowartethelordlyesteledethateuerIonelukyde;

Bylukynge,with-owttynelesse,alyonethesemys!”

“Sir,”saysthesenator,“asChristmayhelpme,

Theviewofthyvisagehaswoundedusall!

ThouartthelordliestmanthateveryIlookedupon,

Byyourgaze[oryourappearance],Isaytruly,youseemlikealion!

**********

Arthurrecountsearliereventstohisknights(265–70).


3.b.ii,1.a1.a3.d.ii3.a.i3.b.i,3.a.ii,1.a,1.c

“Thouseesthattheemperouresangerdealytille;

Ytsemesbehissandismenethatheessoregreuede;

Hissenatourhassommondeme,andsaidwhathymlykyde,

Hethelyinmyhalle,wythheynȝouswordes,

Inspechedisspyszedeme,andsparedemelytille;

Imyghtnoghtespekeforspytte,somyhertetrymblyde!”

“Thouseestthattheemperorissomewhatangry:

Itseems,byhismessengers,thatheissoregrieved.

Hissenatorhassummonedme,andspokenashepleased,

SpitedmescornfullywithhatefulwordsSpokenaloudinmyhall,andsparedmebutlittle,

MyhearttrembledsothatIcouldnotspeakforrage!”

**********

Gawain’sbattlerage(1352–55).1.a,3.d.ii2.c.i,1.c2.f.vii2.c.iii,2.f.iv

ThanegreuydesirGawayneathisgrettwordes,

Graythesto-wardethegomewithgrucchandeherte;

Withhysstelynebrandehestrykesofhysheuede,

Andsterttesowttetohysstede,andwithhisstalewendes!

ThenSirGawaynfeltgrefathisboldwords,

Herushestowardthemanwithangryheart.

Withhissteelyswordhestrikesoffhishead,

Thendartsto[theotherknight’s]horse,andmakesoffwithhisbooty!

**********

TheEmperorofRomehearsofArthur’svictoriesagainsthismen(1957–72).1.a,1.c1.c,3.b.i3.c.i

Thantheemperouriruswasathisherte…

“Myhertesothelyessette,assenteȝifȝowlykes,

Tosekein-toSexone,withmysekyreknyghttez,

Tofyghtewithmyfoo-mene,iffortunemehappene,

ȜifImayfyndethefrekewith-inthefourehaluez;

Orentirein-toAwgusteawnterstoseke,Andbydewithmybaldemenewith-intheburgheryche;

Ristevsandreuelle,andryotteoureselfene,

Lendethareindelytteinlordechippezynewe,

TosirLeobecomenewithallehisleleknyghtez,

WithlordezofLumberdye,tolettehymethewayes.”

Thentheemperorwasangryinhisheart...

“Myhearttrulyisset—agree,ifthispleasesyou—

ToquestforthintoSaxony,withmytrustedknights,

Tofightwithmyfoe-men,shouldFortunepermit

ThatImayfindthemanwithinthefourhallows,

OrenterAostatoseekadventures,Andabidetherewithmyboldmenwithinthatrichcity:

Restthereinrevelandriot,Lingerthereindelight,infullpower,UntilSirLeoshouldarrivewithallhisloyalknights,

WiththelordsofLombardy,tobar[Arthur’s]way.”

Note:Thisisthescriptoffeudalanger,butsubverted.Theemperorgivesaformalstatementofangerandwar(3.b.i),leadingintoavowofwar(3.c.i).However,insteadoflistingthespecificmilitaryvictoriesheintendsagainsthisenemy,theemperortalksoftheriotandrevelhewillenjoyduringthecampaign.


********** GawainfightsaRomanknight(2557–80)1.a2.f.v2.f.vi,2.f.iv2.f.vii1.a2.f.v2.f.vi2.f.iv2.f.vii1.d2.f.iv5.b2.c.iii3.c2.a.ii3.d.ii

ThanesirGawaynewasgreuede,andgrychgidefullesore;

WithGaluthehisgudeswerdegrymlyehestrykes!

Clefetheknyghttesscheldeclenlicheinsondre!

Wholokestotheleftesyde,whenehishorselaunches,

Withthelyghteofthesonnemenmyghteseehislyuere!

Thanegranesthegomeforegreefeofhiswondys,

AndgyrdusatsirGawayne,ashebyglentis;

Andawkewardeegerlysorehehymsmyttes…

ThenSirGawainwasgreved,and,fullofresentment,

WithhisgoodswordGaluthehestrikesfiercely!

Clovetheknight’sshieldcleanlyasunder!

Ifoneweretolookat[theknight’s]leftside,whenhishorselunges,

Bythelightofthesunmenmightseehisliver!

Thenthemangroansforthegrefofhiswounds,

AndhestrikesatGawainashedashesby,

Andwithasharpbackhandstrokehestrikeshimsorely…

HecutsthroughornatelayersandwoundsGawain...Withthevenymousswerdeavaynehashetowchede!

Thatvoydessoviolentlythatallehiswittechangede!

Thevesere,theaventaile,hisvesturisryche,

Withthevalyantblodewasverredealleouer!

Thanethistyrantetiteturnesthebrydille,

Talkesvn-tendirly,andsais,“thowarttowchede!

Vsbushaueablode-bande,orthiblechange,

fforallethebarboursofBretaynesallenoghtethystawnche!

fforhethatesblemestewiththisbradebrande,blyneschalleheneuer.”

“Ȝa,”quodsirGawayne,“thowgreuesmebotlyttille!

Thowwenystoglopynemewiththygretwordez!”

Withthevenomousswordhehasstruckavein!

Whichemptiessoviolentlythatall[Gawain’s]witchanged[i.e.,hefeltsuddenlyfaint]

Hisvisor,hisneckpiece,hisrichgarments,

Werebespatteredoverwiththevaliantblood!

Thenthistyrantquicklyturnshisbridle,Talksuntenderly,andsays,“Thouarttouched!

Weshallneedabandagebeforethycolourchanges,

ForallthebarbersofBrittanyshallnot[beableto]staunchthee!

Forhewhoiswoundedwiththisbroadbladeshallnevercease[tobleed].”

“Ya!”sirSirGawain,“thougrevestmebutlightly!

Thouthinkesttofrightenmewiththygreatwords!”

**********

1.a,2.a.ii5.c.ii2.f.v

Mordrediswoundedinbattle(4213–19).Theberyneblenkesforbale,andallehisblechaunges,

Botȝitthebyddysasabore,andbrymlyhestrykes!

Hebraydesowteabrandebryghtealseueronysyluer,

ThatwassirArthureawene,andVterehisfadirs,

Themanblanchesinpain,andallhiscolourchanges,

Butyetherallieslikeaboar,andboldlyhestrikes!

Helashesoutabladebrightasanysilver,

WhichhadbeenSirArthur’sown,andUther’shisfather,


2.f.vi4.b

InthewardropofWalyngfordhewaswontetobekepede;

Thare-withthederfedoggesychedynttesherechede,

Thetotherwith-dreweonedregheanddurstedononeother.

WhichwaswonttobekeptinthetreasuryatWallingford;

Withthatthewickeddogdealssuchblows,

Thattheotherwithdrewtoasafedistanceanddareddonomore.

Raoul de Cambrai

12–13Cchansondegeste.TextandtranslationbySarahKay.

ThekingrefusestogiveRaoulhisfather’sland,ashegiftedittoanotherknight

whileRaoulwasinhisminority(laisses32–33;vv.466–534).4.c

Guerriparoleolegrenonflori.‘Parmafoi,sire,nevoseniertmenti,moltlongementvosamesniésservi.Riennelidonne[n]t,sesachiés,siamiqantsonserviceneliavezmeri.Rendezliviaxl’onnordeCambrizi,toutelaterreTailleferlehardi.’‘Jenelpuisfaire,’liroislirespondi…

Guerrispeaks,withhissnow-whitewhiskers:‘Bymyfaith,mylord,Itellyoutruly,mynephewhasservedyouforaverylongtime.Hisfriendswillgivehimnothingsolongasyoufailtorewardhisservice.AtleastrestoretohimtheCambresis,allboldTaillefer’sestate.’‘Iamunabletodoso,’thekingansweredhim…

2.c.iii1.a2.f.iv3.c.i

[478]Etditlisors,‘malensommesbailli.Cechalengje,parlecorsSaintGeri!’Isnelementforsdelachambreissi;parmaltalantvintelpalaisanti.AseschésjoueR[aous]deCamhrizissiconlihomqimaln’ientendi:G[ueris]levoit,parlebraslesaisi,sonpeliçonlidesrontetparti.‘Filaputain,’leclama—simenti—‘malvaislechieres,porqoijoestuci?N’astantdeterre,parvertéletedï,outupeüsesconreerunro[n]ci.’

[478]‘Thisisshamefultreatment’,said[Guerri]theRed.‘BythebodyofStGéri.Icontestit!’Hewentquicklyoutoftheroomandenteredtheancienthallinanger.Raoulisplayingchesslikeamanwhomeantnoharm:Guerriseeshimandseizeshimbytheann,tearinghisfurmantle.‘Sonofawhore’,hecalledhim—quitewithoutfoundation—‘cowardlybrute,whyareyouhereplayinggames?Itellyoutruly,youhaven’tenoughlandtorubdownanoldnagon!’

2.c.ii3.a.i3.b.ii1.b,2.b4.a2.c.iii

[490]R[aous]l’oï,desorcespiéssailli—sihautparoleqelipalaisfremi,qeparlasalel’amainsfranshonoï.‘Qilametout?tropletaingahardi!’G[ueris]respont,‘Jateseragehi:liroismeïsmes—bientetientahoni—dontdevonsestretenséetgaranti.’R[aous]l’oï,tozlisanslifremi.Duichevalierqecesperesnorrienentendirentetlanoiseetlecri—[500]deluiaidierfurentamanevi;etB[erniers]sertqilehenap[t]endi.Devantleroivienentcilaati.

[490]Raoulheardhim;leapingtohisfeet,hespeakssoloudlythatthegreathallshakesandmanynoblemenalldownthehallcouldhearhim:‘Whoistakingitfromme?Ithinkhimveryfoolhardy!’Guerrireplies:‘I’lltellyounow:it’sthekinghimself—howhemustregardyouasdisgraced!—whoshouldbeupholdingandprotectingus.’Hearingthis,Raoul’sbloodboiled.Twoknightsbroughtupathisfather’scourtheardtheuproarandshouting;[500]theywereallsettohelphim;andBernieriswaitingonthem,holdingoutadrinkingcup.Theyallhastenedintotheking’spresence.Hedid


Celeparolepasapiénechaï.R[aous]parole,dejosteluiG[ueris].

notfallathisfeet.RaoulspeakswithGuerribesidehim.

Laisse33,v.5051.a3.b.ii-iii3.a.i3.d.i3.b.ii3.d.i

Raousparoleqiotgrantmaltalant.‘Droisempereres,parlecorsSaintAmant,

servivosaiparmesarmesportant;nem’endonnasteslemontantd’unbezant.

Viaxdematerrecarmerendezlegant,[510]sicomlatintmespere[s]aucorsvaillant.’

‘Jenelpuisfaire,’liroisrespontatant.‘Jel’aidonneeauMancelcombatant.Nelitolroieporl’onnordeMelant.’G[ueris]l’oïsisevaescriant:‘Ainzcombatroiearmezsorl’auferrantversGiboinleMancelsouduiant!’R[aoul]clamamalvaisetrecreant.‘Parcelapostreqeqiere[n]tpenaant,s’ornesaisistaterremaintenant,[520]huioudemainainslesoleilcouchant,

jenemihomenet’ierentmaisaidant.’C’estlaparoleouR[aous]cetinttant,dontmaintbaronfurentpuismortsanglant.

‘Droisemperere,gevosditotavant,l’onnordelpere,ceseventliauqant,doittotpardroitreveniral’esfant.Desicesteeure,parlecorsSaintAmant,meblasmeroientlipetitetligrantsejeplusvoismahonteconquerant[530]qedematerrevoieautrehometenant.

Maisparceluiquifistlefirmamant,semaisitruisleMancelsouduiant,demortnovelel’aseüramonbrant!’Oitlelirois,sisevaenbronchant.

Inatoweringrage,Raouladdresseshim.‘ByStAmant,rightfulemperor,Ihaveservedyouatarms;younevergavemesomuchasabezantforit.Atleastrestoremylandtome,pledgedwithyourglove,[510]justasmyvaliantfatherheldit.’‘Icannotdoso,’thekingrepliesatonce.‘IhavegivenittothewarriorGiboin.NotforthewealthofMilanwouldItakeitfromhim.’Hearingthis,Guerriburstsout:‘IwouldsoonerfightthatvillainousMansel,armedandonhorseback!’HecalledRaoulacowardandabreak-faith.‘Bytheapostlewhompenitentpilgrimsseek,ifyoudonotseizeyourlandatonce,[520]todayortomorrowbeforesunset,neitherInormyvassalswillhelpyoueveragain.’ThisisthespeechthatRaoulwastostandbysounshakeablythatmanybaronslaterdiedbloodydeaths:‘Rightfulemperor,Itellyoustraightout,everybodyknowsthatafather’sfiefoughtinalljusticetopasstohisson.Fromnowon,byStAmant,smallandmightywouldreproachmeifIcourtfurtherdisgrace[530]bycountenancinganothermanholdingmyland.Butbyhimwhomadethefirmament,ifeverIcatchthatvillainousMansel,Iguaranteehimanearlydeathonthepointofmysword.’Hearingthis,thekingbowshishead.

**********

Inlieuofhisfather’slands,thekinghaspromisedRaoulthegiftofcertainlands

whentheircurrentincumbentshoulddie.Whenthishappens,hegoestothekingtoaskforthispromisetobecarriedout.

Thekingrefuses.(Laisse40,vv.682–85.)1.d3.d.i/ii1.a2.c.iii

R[aous]l’entent,lescensqidederver.Escharnisest,neseitmaisqepenser.Parmaltalents’encommenceatorner;Desq’a[u]palaisnesevostarester.

Hearingthis,Raoulnearlygoesoutofhismind.Hehasbeenmadealaughingstock,andiscompletelyataloss.Turningangrilyaway,hedidnotstopbeforereachingthegreathall.

**********


Raoul’smother,thoughshewouldapproveofhistakingbackhisfather’slandsbyforce,begshimnottopursuewarfortheotherlandsthatwerepromisedhim,becausetheybelongedtoafriendofhisfather.Theybelongbyright

tothatotherknight’sfoursons,oneofwhomisthefatherofRaoul’sbestfriendBernier.RaoulsaysthatBernierisalreadyprotestingthegiftofthelandstoRaoul.

(Laisse54,vv.911–59.)1.a3.a.i4.c1.d3.c.ii2.a.v

Oitleladame,qideviveesraigier;ahautevoiscommençaahuchier:‘Bienlesavoie,acelernelvosqier,ceestlihomdontavrasdestorbier,c’ilenaaise,delatestetrenchier.BiaxfixR[aous],unconselvosreqier,q’asfixH[erbert]vosfaitesapaisieretdelaguereacorderetpaier.Laisselorterr[e],ilt’enarontpluschier,[920]sit’aiderontt’autregu[e]reabaillier,

etleManceldelpaïsachacier.’R[aous]l’oï,lesensquidachangier,etjureDieuqitotaajugier,q’ilnelferoitporl’ordeMonpeslier.‘Maldehaitait—jeletaingporlanier—legentilhomme,qantildoittornoier,agentildameqantsevaconsellier!Dedensvoschambresvosalezaasier:beveizpuisonporvopanceencraissier,[930]etsipensezdeboiwreetdemengier,

card’autrechosenedevezmaisplaidier!’Oitleladame,sipristalarmoier.‘Biaxfils,’distele,‘ciagrantdestorbier!

WhenshehearsthisAliceiswildwithrage.Shestartedtoshoutatthetopofhervoice:‘Iknewitwell,Iwillnothideitfromyou:thisisthemanwhowillcauseyourdownfall.andwillsliceyourheadoffifhegetsthechance.Raoul,myson,Iurgethiscounselonyou,makepeacewithHerbert’ssons,andagreeasettlementandcompensationforthewar.Leavetheirlandalone,theywillthinkbetterofyouforit,[920]andhelpyouwageyourotherwartodrivetheManselfromthecountry.’Hearingthis,Raoulisbesidehimself,andheswearsbyGodwhojudgesallthingsthatbewouldnotdosoforallthegoldofMontpellier.‘Deviltakethenobleman—whatacowardhemustbe—whorunstoawomanforadvicewhenheoughttogoofffighting!Goandlollaboutinbedroomsanddrinkdrinkstofattenyourbelly,[930]andthinkabouteatinganddrinking,foryou’renotfittomeddlewithanythingelse!’WhentheLadyAlicebearsthis,shestartstocry.‘Myson,’shesaid,‘Whatgreatviolencethisis!

3.a.ii Shereproacheshimwitheverythingshehasdonetocareforhimandincreasehishonour,andthegoodthathascometohimbecauseofit.

1.a3.c.ii

[950]‘Tesanemisenvimoltembronchier,

ettesamislorgoiesorhauciercaraubesoings’enqidoientaidier.Orviexalertelterrechalengieroutesancestresnepristainzundenier,etqantpormoineleviexorlaisier.cilDamerdiexqitoutaajugiernet’enramaintsainnesaufneentier!’Parcelmalditotilteldestorbier,comvosorez,delatestetrenchier!

[950]Isawyourenemiesdowncastandyourfriendsexult,fortheycountedonyourhelpincaseofneed.Nowyouwanttolayclaimtolandwhereyourforebearnevertooksomuchasapenny,andifyouwon’tgiveitupformysake,thenletGodwhojudgeseverythingnotbringyoubacksafeandsoundandinonepiece!’Disasterovertookhimasaresultofthiscurse,asyoushallhear—hehadhisheadslicedoff.

**********

RaoulordersOrignyattackedanddestroyedbecauseitisdeartohisenemies.

Heordersthathismenshouldcampinthechurch,rapethenuns,andstablethehorsesintheporch.ThoughhismensetfiretothelandaroundOrigny

theycannotbringthemselvestoattackthechurch,andinsteadtheycampinthefieldoutside.Raoulisfuriousatthisdisobedience.(Laisses61–62,vv.1085–1102.)


1.a3.d.ii4.d5.d1.d3.d.ii1.d,4.c

R[aous]ivintendroitprimesonnant; asamaisnietençaparmaltalant. ‘Filaputain,felgloutonsouduiant! Moltestesore[cuvert]etmalpensantqitrespassezonqueslemiencommant!’ [1090]‘Mercibiausire,porDieuleraemant!

NesommesmieneGiuenetirant, qilescorsainsalomesdestruiant.’

Raoularrivedataboutthehourofprime,andangrilyreprimandedhismen.‘Yousonsofwhores,youtreacherous,low-bornvillains!Howbaseandwrong-headedcanyoube,evertodisobeymyorders![1090]‘Donotbehardonus,lord,forGodtheRedeemer’ssake!WearenotJewsorexecutioners,todestroyholyrelics.

Laisse62,line1093LiquensR[aous]fumoltdesmesurez.‘Filaputain’—cedistlidesreez— jecommandaielmostierfustmestrez, tenduslaiens,etlipommiausdoreiz. Parqelconcelenestildestornez?‘Voir,’distG[ueris],‘tropiesdesmesurez!Encorn’agairesquetufusadoubés.[1100]SeDiexteheit,tuserastostfinez. Parlesfranshomesestcisliushonnorez; nedoitpasestrelicorsainsvergondez.’

CountRaoulcastallmoderationaside.‘Yousonsofwhores!’—thosewerethemadman’swords—‘Iorderedmytenttobeinthechurch,pitchedrightinsideit,completewithgildedtop.Whoseideawasittoputitsomewhereelse?’‘Indeed,’saidGuerri,‘youaregettingaboveyourself!It’sscarcelyanytimesinceyouwereknighted.[1100]IfGodtakesagainstyou,youwon’tlastlong.Thisplaceisveneratedbymenofgoodstanding;theholyrelicsshouldnotbebroughtintodishonour.’

**********

RaoulattacksOrigny—angrynowatthetown,notatitsowners,

becausetheyfoughtback(laisse70,vv.1284–1293).1.a,1.c3.b.ii3.c.i2.f.i/vii5.a

LiquensR[aous]otmoltlequeririéporlesborgoisqil’ontcontraloié.Dieuenjuraetlasoiepitiéq’ilnelaroitporRainsl’arseveschiéqetoznesardeainzq’ilsoitanuitié.Lefucria—esquierl’onttouchié;[1290]ardentcessalesetfoude[n]tcilplanchier,

tounelesprene[n]t—liserclesonttrenchié,

lieffantardentadueletapechié.LiquensR[aous]enamalesploitié.

CountRaoulwasheartilyangrywiththetownspeopleforcrossinghim.HesworebyGodandhismercythatnotforthedioceseofReimswouldheholdofffromburningeveryoneofthembynightfall.Heshoutedtheorderforfire—and[now]thesquireshavelitit.[1290]Roomsareburninghereandfloorscollapsingthere,barrelsarecatchingfire,theirhoopssplit,andchildrenareburningtodeathinhorribleagony.CountRaoulhasbehavedatrociously.

**********

RaoulhassackedOrigny,killingBernier’smotherintheprocess.

NowheproposestoslaughterHerbert’ssons:Bernier’sfatheranduncles.Bernierobjects.(Laisse78,vv.1470–75.)

3.b.ii3.b.i1.d4.d.ii

‘Orviexm[es]oncle[s]etmonpereessillier—

n’estpasmervelles’ormevuelcorecier.Ilsontmioncle,jelorvolraiaidier,etpresseroiedemahontevengier!’R[aous]l’oï,lesensquidachangier;lebaronpristformentalaidengier.

‘Nowyouwanttoslaughtermyunclesandmyfather—it’snotsurprisingIwishtoventmyanger.Theyaremyuncles,Imeantohelpthem,andIwouldbereadytoavengetheoutragedonetome!’Hearingthis,Raoulwasbesidehimselfandbegantoheapabuseonhisvassal.

Thequarrelgrowsmoreheated.RaoulcallshismotherawhoreandBerniersonofawhore;


3.b.ii–iii

BernierreproachesRaoulwithhisgoodserviceandwhatheisowed.FinallyRaoulbecomesviolent.(Laisses84–85,vv.1534–74.)

2.a.iii2.f.v1.a2.f.vi5.b,(2.ii?)1.d1.a,2.c.i2.f.vi–vii3.a.i2.g

OitleRaous,sialefronthaucié.Ilasaisiungranttronçond’espiéqeveneoriavoientlaissié;parmaltalentl’acontremontdrecié—fiertB[erneçon],qantill’otaproichié,partelvertulechiefliabrisié,[1540]sanglantenotsonerminedelgié.VoitleB[erniers],totalesenschangié.[Par]grantirouraR[aoul]enbracié—jaeüstmoltsongrantduelabaissié.Lichevalieriqeurenteslaissié—cillesdepartent,q’ilnecesonttouchié.SonesquieraB[erneçons]huchié:‘Ortostmesarmesetmonhaubercdoublier,

mabonneespéeetmonelmevergié!Decestecortpartiraisancongié!’

Hearingthis,Raoullookedup.Seizingabigspearshaftthathuntsmenhadleftthere,heangrilyraisedituphighandhityoungBernierasheapproached,fetchinghisheadsuchapowerfulcrack[1540]thathisdelicateerminewasshoweredwithblood.Seeingthis,BernierwentoutofhismindandgrappledfuriouslywithRaoul—nowhemighthaveallayedmuchofhisraginggrief,[but]theotherknightscomerushingup,andseparatethembeforetheycandoeachotheranyharm.YoungBerniercallshissquire:‘Quick,myarmsandmydoublehauberk,mygoodswordandmybandedhelmet!I’llquitthiscourtwithoutanyfarewells!’

Laisse85,v.15501.a5.b1.a,1.d1.a

LiquensR[aous]otlecoraigefier;qantilvoitciB[erneçon]correcié,etdesatestelivoitlesancraier,oratelduellesensquidachangier.‘Baron,’distil,‘savezmoiconcellier?ParmaltalentenvoialerB[ernier].’

CountRaoulwasinafiercemood.NowthathecanseeyoungBernier’sfury,andthebloodstreamingfromhishead,heissoappalledthatheisquitebesidehimself.‘Barons,’hesaid,‘canyouadviseme?IseeBernierleavinginanger.’

4.c Theyadvisehimtooffercompensation(v.1565)…3.b.i3.b.ii3.c.i5.b

EtdistR[aous]:‘Millorconcelneqier.B[erneçon],frere,porDieuledroiturier,droitt’enferaivoiantmaintchevalier.’‘Teleacordanseqiporroitotroier?mamereasarceqesimetenoitchier,[1570]demoimeïsmeasfaitlechiefbrisier!

Mais,parceluiq[u]inosdevonsproier,jaenvervosnemeverréspaierjusqelisansqecivoirougoierpuistdesongréenmonchiefrepairier.’

AndRaoulsaid,‘Ican’taskforbetteradvice.Bernier,mybrother,asGodtherighteousismywitness,Iwillmakereparationinthesightofallmyknights.’‘Whowouldacceptsuchasettlement?Youhaveburnedmymotherwholovedmesodearly,[1570]andasforme,youhavesplitmyheadopen!Butbyhimtowhomwepray,youwillnotseemereconciledwithyouuntilthebloodthatIseerunningredreturnstomyheadofitsownaccord.’

Note:EvenupuntilthemomentoftheblowBernierdoesnotfeelangerorintendtorebelagainstRaoul(adistinctionwhichKaymissesinhertranslation).Hesaysthatitisnotsurprisingthathewantstocorecier(“tobecomeangry”,not“toexpresshisanger”),andthathe“wouldlike”tohelphisuncles,notthathe“intends”to.Oncetheblowisstruck,however,thesightofthebloodrunningfromhisheadisavisibleandlegiblesigntoallofthebreakingofthebond(andislaterreferredbacktoseveraltimestoexplainit).Hecanimmediatelyfeel“grantirour”andperformthecorrespondingscripts.

**********

5.b

GuerrifindsRaoul’sbodyonthebattlefield,nexttothatofagiantknight(Laisse160,vv.3055–72.)

Devantluigarde,vitJehanmortsanglant:entouteFrancen’otchevaliersigrant;R[aous]l’ocist,ceseventliauqant.

Glancinginfrontofhim,hesawJohnlyingdeadandbloody;therewasn’tabiggerknightinallFrance,[yet]Raoul


2.c1.c1.a2.a.v1.c

G[ueris]levit—celepartvintcorant:luietR[aoul]aprisdemaintenant,[3060]andeuslesoevreal’espeetrenchant,

lescuersentraist,sicontrovonslisant.Sorunescuafinorreluisantlesacouchiésporvëoirlorsamblant:l’unsfupetizausicond’uneffant;etliR[aoul],ceseventliauquant,fuasezgraindres,parlemienesciant,qed’untorelacharuetraiant.G[ueris]levit—deduelvalarmoiant;ceschevaliersenapeleplorant,[3070]‘Franccompaignon,porDieuvenezavant.

VesdeR[aoul]lehardicombatant,qelcuerilaencontrecelgaiant!’

killedhim,asiswidelyknown.Seeinghim,GuerrigallopedoverandatoncetookhisbodyandRaoul’s.[3060]Withhissharpswordheopensthembothupanddrewouttheirhearts,soourreadingtellsus.Helaidthemonashieldglisteningwithgoldtoseewhattheywerelike:onewassmall,likeachild’s,whileRaoul’s,ascommonknowledgeandmyownconfirm,wasverymuchlargerthanthatofadraughtoxattheplough.Seeingthis,Guerrishedstearsofgriefandcallsout,weeping,tohisknights.[3070]‘Noblecomrades,comeoverhere,forGod’ssake.SeewhataheartRaoul,thefearlessfighter,hadincomparisonwiththatgiant!’

Vita Edwardi II

Singleanonymouschronicler,covering1307–1325.Writtenininstalments,ratherthanatthe

endofthatperiod,witheachinstalmentprobablyclosetotheeventsnarrated.Showsclose

knowledgeofeventsandpersonsatcourt,ananalyticalturnofmind,andastrongrhetorical

focusonvices.TextandtranslationfromWendyChilds’edition.

StrifearisesinEnglandonaccountofEdwardII’sloveforPiersGaveston(10–11).3.e.i4.a2.f.i1.a

HecsediciosadissenciointerdominumregemetbaronesortapertotamAngliamiamdiuulgataest,setettotaterraprotalitumultuualdedesolataest;omneenimregnuminsediuisumdesolabitur.Hominesmediocrespacifici,pacisamatores,guerrametpacisexiliumualdeformidabant;predonesueroquipredamcaptabantetadalienamanumextendere,bellumnonpacemaffectabant.Rexuerociuitatessuasetcastramunirifecitetreparari,setmagnatesexpartesuahocidemfecerunt.Pertotamterramueroincomitatibus,hundredis,ciuitatibus,burgisetuillis,conuocacionesetinprouisionesfactesunt,etquibusquilibetarmis,necessitateinueniente,utereturexdebitoprouisumestetordinatum.

Thistreacherousquarrel,whichhadarisenbetweenthelordkingandthebarons,nowspreadfarandwidethroughallEngland,andthewholecountrywasutterlydevastatedbysuchadisturbance:foreverykingdomdividedagainstitselfshallbebroughttodesolation.Ordinarypeacefulmen,peace-lovers,greatlyfearedwarandthebanishmentofpeace;butrobbers,wholongedforbootyandtolayhandsonthegoodsofothers,desiredwarnotpeace.Thekinghadhistownsandcastlesfortifiedandrepaired,andthegreatmenfortheirpartdidthesame.Throughoutthewholelandinshires,hundreds,cities,boroughs,andvills,meetingswereheldandregulationsmade,anditwasdulyprovidedandordainedwhatarmseachshoulduseintheeventofnecessity.


Certissimeenimputabaturdiscencionemiamceptamsinemagnaruinasedarinonposse.

Foritwasthoughtmostcertainthatthequarreloncebeguncouldnotbesettledwithoutgreatdestruction.

Note:Thewrongkindofemotionalleadership:itisthedisunitybetweenEdwardIIandhisbaronsthatisnowbeingspreadtotherestoftherealm.

********** ThekingrecallsGavestonfromexile(14–15).1.a2.f4.a1.a2.g.i

Rexitaque,sciensPetrumiamrediisse,obuiamilliuenitadCestriam,ibiquedereditusuoletusgratanterualdeeumtamquamfratremsuumhonorificesuscepit.Reuerafratremsuumsemperappellauerat.Nullusautembaronumaususestampliusuelcontraeummanumextendere,ueldereditusuoquerelamdeponere;claudicabatenimcetuseorum,etparseorum,insediuisa,infirmataest.Sicigiturquibisanteadampnatuseratinexilium,iamexultatreuersusadsolium.

Theking,therefore,knowingthatPiershadreturned,cametomeethimatChester,andthere,delightedathisreturn,heveryjoyfullyreceivedhimwithhonourashisbrother.Indeedhehadalwayscalledhimhisbrother.Noneofthebaronsnowdaredfurthertoraiseafingeragainsthim,ortolayanycomplaintabouthisreturn;theirrankswavered,andtheirparty,dividedagainstitself,wasweakened.Sohewhohadtwicebeencondemnedtoexileexults,havingreturnedtohighposition.

**********

BaronialhatredofGaveston(26–29).1.a1.a

QueretautemaliquisundetantamindignacionembaronummerueratPetrus;quecausaodii,quidseminariumireetinuidieextiterit,uehementerforsanadmirabitur,cuminomniumferemagnatumdomibusoptentumsithodieutunusaliquisdefamiliadominicedileccionisgaudeatprerogatiua….

ButifanyoneaskshowPiershadcometodeservesuchgreatbaronialdispleasure,whatwasthecauseofthehatred,whatwastheseedbedoftheangerandjealousy,perhapshewillbeverysurprised,sinceithappensinalmostallnoblehousestodaythatsomeoneofthelord’shouseholdenjoysaprerogativeofaffection…

28–29

1.a3.d.ii2.g2.a1.a1.a

Credoigituretconstanterteneoquia,siPetrusabinicioprudenterethumiliterergamagnatesterresegessisset,nunquameorumaliquemsibicontrariumhabuisset.Eratenimcausaodiisecundariahec,quodcumabantiquoomnibusdesiderabileexstiterithaberegraciaminoculisregum,solusPetrusgraciametuultumhillaremregishabuitetfauorem,intantumut,sicomesuelbarocolloquiumhabituruscumregecameramregisintraret,inpresenciaPetrinullirexuerbadirigebat,nullifaciemhillaremostendebat,nisisoliPetro.Etreueraextalibusfrequenteroririsoletinuidia.Sanenonmeminimeaudisseunumalterumitadilexisse.IonathasdilexitDauid,AchillesPatroclumamauit;

IthereforebelieveandfirmlymaintainthatifPiershadbehaveddiscreetlyandhumblytowardsthegreatmenofthelandfromthebeginning,noneofthemwouldeverhaveopposedhim.Buttherewasasecondarycauseoftheirhatred,namelythat,thoughofoldithasbeendesirableforallmentofindfavourintheeyesofkings,Piersalonereceivedtheking’sfavour,welcome,andgoodwill,tosuchanextentthat,ifanearlorbaronenteredtheking’schambertospeakwiththeking,whilePierswastherethekingaddressednoone,andshowedafriendlycountenancetonooneexceptPiersalone.Andintruthenvyisaccustomedfrequentlytospringfromsuchbehaviour.CertainlyIdonotrememberhavingheardthatonemansoloved


1.d1.a

setillimodumexcessissenonleguntur.Modumautemdileccionisrexnosterhaberenonpotuit,etproptereumsuioblitusessediceretur,etobhocPetrusmalificusputareturesse…HiismaximedecausisexcitataeratcontraPetrumindignaciobaronum;etPetrusnihilominusmagnanimus,tumidusetelatuspermansit.

another.JonathancherishedDavid,AchilleslovedPatroclus;butwedonotreadthattheywentbeyondwhatwasusual.Ourking,however,wasincapableofmoderateaffection,andonaccountofPierswassaidtoforgethimself,andsoPierswasregardedasasorcerer…TheseweretheprincipalcauseswhichhadarousedtheangerofthebaronsagainstPiers;andPiersneverthelessremainedarrogant,haughty,andproud.

Note:Ihaveincludedjeeringspeechhere,becauseGaveston’sarrogancehasinvolvedtaunts,givingsomeofthemostpowerfulbaronsinsultingnicknames.Thechroniclermentionsthisearlier(16–17),andreturnstoitlater(44–45).(Cf.Brut206–07above).Hereweseethebarons’responsetoit.

********** Gaveston’spride(30–31).1.a2.a.i

…necmirumsiinsuperbiasuanecDeonechominiforetacceptus.Naminsuperbiaetinabusionesublimesoculosdistorquensinfastum,quadampomposaetsuperciliosafaciedespexituniuersos…Etcerteinfilioregissatisessetintollerabilesuperciliumquodpretendit.

noritissurprisingifheinhisprideshouldbeacceptabletoneitherGodnorman.For,scornfullyrollinghiseyesupwardsinprideandininsult,helookeddownuponallwithoverbearinganddisdainfulcountenance…Andthehaughtinesswhichheaffectedwouldcertainlyhavebeenunbearableenoughinaking’sson.

**********

ThebaronshaveGavestonexiledagainandtrytore-ordertheking’shousehold(38–39).1.a3.b.ii1.a,2.g.i

Adhecrexultramodumcommotus,quodnecunumfamiliaremiuxtapropriumuotumretineresibiliceret,setsicutprouideturfatuo,tociusdomussueordinacioexalienodependeretarbitrio,inodiocomitumreuocauitPetrum,peranimamDeiiuransexsolitoquodlibereproprioutereturarbitrio.

Atthistheking,angeredbeyondmeasurethathewasnotallowedtokeepevenonememberofhishouseholdathisownwish,butthat,asisprovidedinthecaseofanidiot,theorderingofhiswholehouseshoulddependuponthedecisionofanother,recalledPiersoutofhatredfortheearls,swearing,ashewaswont,onGod’ssoulthathewouldfreelyusehisownjudgement.

**********

4.c4.a1.a1.a

MembersofGaveston’shouseholdremainattheking’scourt,andtheystillcausetrouble(70–71).

…perturbantpacemtociuspatrieetregeminducuntuindictamquerere.Dapacem,Domine,diebusnostris,etrexcumbaronibusfiatunanimis.…Setrexexasperatus,etaduersusprimatemettociusAnglieclerumuehementercommotus,publicauoce

[They]disturbthepeaceofthewholecountryandpersuadethekingtoseekvengeance.Givepeaceinourtime,OLord,andmaythekingbeatonewithhisbarons!...ButthekingbeingwrathfulandstronglyrousedtoangeragainsttheprimateandtheclergyofallEngland,publicly


2.g.iii2.f.iv

promisitcurialibusutinnullopenitusdefferrentclericis,set,siuereligiosisseusecularibusobuiarent,ipsosabequisprotinusdeicerentetinusumpropriumequosassumerent,etindistinctenullisparcerentnisiregiaproteccionegauderent.

announcedtohisofficialsthattheyshouldhavenoconsiderationatallforclerks,but,whentheymetregularsorsecularclergy,shouldatoncehavethemofftheirhorsesandtakethehorsesfortheirownuse,and,withoutdiscrimination,theyshouldsparenooneunlesstheyenjoyedroyalprotection.

**********

1314:RobertBrucecapturessomeofEdwardII’scastles(86–87).1.a2.a.v3.c.i4.a2.g.ii

Audienshecrexuehementerdoluit,etprocastrorumcapcionelacrimascontinereuixpotuit.Mandauitigiturcomitibusetbaronibusquatinusinauxiliumsuumuenirent,etproditoremquiseregemfacitexpungnarent.

Whenthekingheardthenewshewasverymuchgrieved,andforthecaptureofhiscastlescouldhardlyrestrainhistears.Hethereforesummonedtheearlsandbaronstocometohishelpandovercomethetraitorwhopretendstobeking.

Note:EdwardIIweeps,butthenherespondswithaggressiveaction:thisisgref.

********** 90–934.c3.d.ii5.a

ComesautemGloucestrieconsuluitregineipsodieinbellumprodiret,setpropterfestumpociusuacaret,etexercitumsuumualderecrearet.Setrexconsiliumcomitisspreuit,etprodicionemetpreuaricacionemsibiimponensinipsumuehementerexcanduit.‘Hodie,’inquidcomes,‘eritliquidumquodnecproditornecpreuaricatorsum’,etstatimparauitseadpungnandum…

TheearlofGloucester,ontheotherhand,counselledthekingnottogoforthtobattlethatday,butrathertorestonaccountofthefeastandlethisarmyrecuperateasmuchaspossible.Butthekingscornedtheearl’sadvice,andgrewveryheatedwithhim,charginghimwithtreacheryanddeceit.‘Today,’saidtheearl,‘itwillbeclearthatIamneitheratraitornoraliar’,andatoncepreparedhimselfforbattle…

2.f.vi2.c.i2.f.iv2.f.vii4.a

Cumautemadhocuentumessetutcongredisimuloporteret,JacobusDouglas,quiprimeturmeScotorumpreerat,aciemcomitisGloucestrieacriterinuasit.Etcomesipsumuiriliterexcepit,semeletiterumcuneumpenetrauit,ettriumphumutiquereportassetsifidelessocioshabuisset.Setecce,subitoirruentibusScotisequuscomitisoccidituretcomesinterramlabitur.Ipseeciamdefensorecarensetmolecorporisnimisoneratusfaciliterexsurgerenonpotuit,setinterquingentosarmatorumquossuissumptibusduxeratadbellum,ipseferesolumoccubuit.Cumenimuiderentdominumsuumabequodeiectum,stabantquasiattonitinonferentesauxilium.

When,however,ithadcometothepointthatthetwosidesmustmeet,JamesDouglas,whocommandedthefirstdivisionoftheScotsvigorouslyattackedtheearlofGloucester’sline.Theearlwithstoodmanfully,timeandagainhepenetratedtheirwedge,andwouldwithoutdoubthavebeenvictoriousifhehadhadfaithfulcompanions.Butlook!AtasuddenrushofScots,theearl’shorseiskilledandtheearlfallstotheground.Furthermore,withoutadefenderandburdenedbytheweightofitsbodyhecouldnoteasilyrise,andofthefivehundredmen-at-armswhomhehadledtobattleathisownexpense,almostonlyhewaskilled.Forwhentheysawtheirlordthrownfromhishorse,theystoodstunnedanddidnothelphim.


Maledictamiliciacuiussummanecessarieperitaudacia.

Cursedbetheknighthoodwhosecouragefailsinthehourofgreatestneed!

**********

Reflectionsonprideandmalice(98–99).2.c.ii/2.d.ii5.a2.b

Hodiepauperettenuis,quinecobolumhabetinbonis,maioremsecontempnit,etmaledictumpromaledictoreferrenonmetuit.Setexrusticitateforsanhocaccidit.Veniamusigituradeosquiseputanteruditos.Quisputasmaioririxainaliumexcandescitquamcurialis?Dumforterancoretumescitinferioremnonrespicit,paremfastidit,maioriparfierisemperintendit.Namarmigermilitem,milesbaronem,barocomitem,comesregem,inomniferecultuantecederenitituretlaborat.

Todaythepoorandneedyman,whohasnotahalfpennytohisname,despiseshisbetters,andisnotafraidtoexchangeacurseforacurse.Butperhapsthisarisesfromrusticity.Letuscomethereforetothosewhothinkthemselveseducated.Whodoyouthinkisinflamedwithgreatermaliceagainstanotherthanthecourtier?Whileheisgreatlypuffedupwithbitterill-feelingheignoreshisinferiors,despiseshisequals,isalwaysstrivingtoequalhisbetters.Forinalmosteveryaspectoflifethesquirestrainsandstrivestooutdotheknight,theknightthebaron,thebarontheearl,theearltheking.

**********

ThekingrespondstounrestinBristol(124–27).1.a2.g3.c.iii3.b.i2.g3.b.iii

Nolensergorexmalicieeorumulteriussatisfacere,militesetmaioresdecomitatuGlouernieuocanturLondonias,quibusiniunxitinuirtutesacramentiibidemprestiticausamBristollieetcuiusessetiniuriapatenteredicere.QuiomnesdixeruntcommunitatemBristolliepartemsinistramfouere,etoctogintauirosauctoresiniurie.MisitergoBristollieAdolmarumcomitemdePenbrok,quiuocatismaioribuscommunitatisdixiteisexparteregis:‘Dominusrex,’inquit,‘caussamuestramuentilans,uosreosinuenit,etutiuripareatisuosmonetetprecipit.Homicidasetreosillostradite,etuosetuillauestrainpacemanete.Promittoquod,sisicfeceritis,dominumregemergauossatisplacibilemetmisericordeminuenietis.’Responditcommunitas:‘Nosiniurieauctoresnonfuimus;nosindominumregemnichildeliquimus.Quidamnitebanturiuranostratollere,etnossicutdecuitecontradefendere.Iccirco,sidominusrexeaquenobisinponuntur

Unwilling,therefore,toputupanylongerwiththeirwickedness,thekingsummonedtheknightsandthemoreimportantmenofGloucestershiretoLondon,andenjoinedthembyvirtueofanoathtakentheretomakeaclearpronouncementonthecaseofBristolandwhohadsufferedwrong.AndtheyallsaidthattheBristolcommunityhadfavouredthewrongcauseandthattheeightymenweretheauthorsofthewrongdoing.SothekingsenttoBristolAymer,earlofPembroke,whocalledtogethertheleadersofthecommunityandspoketothemontheking’sbehalf:‘Thelordking,’hesaid,‘onhearingyourcausehasfoundyouguilty,andhewarnsandcommandsyoutoobeythelaw.Handoverthekillersandtheguilty,andyouandyourtownshallremaininpeace.Ipromisethatifyoudothisyouwillfindthelordkinglenientandmercifulenoughtowardsyou.’Thecommunityreplied:‘Wewerenottheauthorsofthiswrongdoing;wehavedonenothingwrongtowardsthelordking.Certainmenstrovetotakeawayourrights,andwe,aswasproper,strovetodefendthem.Thereforeifthelordking


3.c.i1.a2.g.ii2.f.i

remiserit,siuitametmembra,redditusetpredianobisconcesserit,sibiutdominoparebimus,etomniaquecunqueuolueritfaciemus;alioquinpersistemusutcepimus,etlibertatesetpriuilegianostrausqueadmortemdefendemus.’Audiensrexcontumaciameorum,etconsideransremessemaliexempli,iussituillamobsederi,etnonrecederedoneccaperenturobsessi.

willremitthepenaltiesplaceduponus,ifhewillgrantuslifeandlimbandrentsandproperty,wewillobeyhimaslordanddowhateverhewishes;otherwiseweshallcontinueaswehavebegun,anddefendourlibertiesandprivilegestothedeath.’Thekinghearingoftheirstubbornness,andthinkingthatthiswasabadexample,orderedthetowntobebesieged,andnotleftuntilthosebesiegedhadbeentaken.

**********

LancasterandtheotherrebelsarecapturedaftertheBattleofBoroughbridge(212–13).1.c1.a

Parsenimcomitisnumeroarmatorumpartempersequenciumexcessitinseptuplum.CaptisuntenimcumcomiteLancastrieetceterisbaronibusmilitesualentescentumetamplius.Setetscutariorumnonminusualenciummultomaioremcredofuissenumerum.Quareigiturnonrestitissentetprosalutesuauiriliterdimicassent?Reueracordelinquenciumsemperestpauidumetideominusualensadnegocium.

Forinthenumberofmen-at-armstheearl’ssidewasmorethanseventimesthatofitspursuers.MorethanahundredvaliantknightswerecapturedwiththeearlofLancasterandtheotherbarons.Ibelievethenumberofsquires,nolessstrong,wasmuchgreater.Whythereforeshouldtheynothavestoodfirmandfoughtmanfullyfortheirsafety?Infactthecriminal’sheartisalwaysfearfulandthereforelesseffectiveinaction.

Les Voeux du Héron

Composedc.1346,narratingthebeginningoftheHundredYearsWarandreferencingin

predictionseveraleventsoverthedecadeprecedingitscomposition.Textandtranslation

fromGrigsbyandLacy’sedition.

RobertofArtoisbringsinthedressedheronandchallengesthecourt(66–92).3.a.i3.d.i3.e.ii

EtchilRoberss’escriehautementahautcris:

“Widiéslesrens!Widiés,mauvaisegentfalis!

…[74]Lepluscouartoyselayprins,cem’estavis,

Quisoitdetouslesautres,dechesoitchescunsfis,

CarlihaironsesttelzdenaturetoudisSitostqu’ilvoitsonumbre,ilesttousestordis.

Tantdorts’escrieetbraitcoms’ilfustamortmis.

Alidoventvouuerlesgensdechestpaïs;

AndRobertcalledoutloudly,“Cleartheway!Cleartheway,youmiserablefailures!

…IbelieveIhavecaughtthemostcowardlybird

Ofallbirds,havenodoubtofthat,ForthenatureoftheheronissuchThatwhenitseesitsownshadow,itisterrified;

Itcriesoutandscreamsasifbeingputtodeath.


3.d.i1.c

2.a.ii1.a,1.c3.c.i

[80]Etpuisquecouarsest,jedimonavis,C’aupluscouartquisoitnequionquesfustvis

Dourraylehayron,ch’estEdouartLoeïs,DeshiretésdeFranche,lenobilepaïs,Qu’ilenestoitdroishoirs,mescuersliestfalis,

Etparselasquethéenmorradessaisis,S’endoitbienauhaironvoerlesienavis.”Etquantliroysl’entent,touslirougilivis.

D’ireetdemautalentliestlicoersfremis,Etdist:“Puisquecouarsestpardevantmoymis,

[90]Droisestquemieuxenvaille,s’endiraimonavis,

Ets’enverraylefaitselonguementjevis,Oujemorayenpainnedemenveuacomplir…”

Thepeopleofthiscountryoughttoswearonit;

Andsinceitiscowardly,itismyintention

Togivetheherontothemostcowardlyone

Wholivesorhaseverlived:thatisEdwardLouis,

DisinheritedofthenoblelandofFrance,Ofwhichhewasrightfulheir;buthisheartfailedhim,

Andbecauseofhiscowardicehewilldiewithoutit;

Soheshouldvowontheheronandtellwhathethinks.”

Whenthekingheardthat,hisfacereddened.

Hisheartpoundedwithangerandresentment,

Andhesaid,“Since‘coward’isthrownuptome,

Ishoulddefendmyself,soIwillspeakmymind;

AndifIlivelongenoughIwillseemyvowrealized,

OrIwilldietryingtoaccomplishit.”3.b,2.g,3.c.i

EdwardIIIswearstobreakfaithwiththeKingofFrancebeforetheendoftheyear,thendescribestheitinerarybywhichhewillenterFrance

andwhichregionshewillattack.

********** EdwardIIIfinishesspeaking,andRobertofArtoislaughstohimself(119–23).3.d.ii3.c.i1.a

EtquantRobersl’entent,s’enjetéunris,Etdisttoutenbasset:“Oraijemenavis,Quantparichelhaironqueaujourd’ewyayprins

Commencheragrantguerre,selonclemienavis.

JedoibienavoirjoieparDieudeparadis.”

WhenRobertheardthat,helaughedAndsaidtohimself,“NowIhavemywish,

Since,onthisheronthatIcaughttoday,Agreatwarwillbegin,Ithink.Ishouldbehappy,byGodinheaven.”

**********

TheEarlofSalisburyclosesoneeyeandtakeshisvows(190–99)1.c3.c.i

Adontdistdelaboucheduceurlepensement:

“EtjeveuetpromechaDieuomnipotentEtasadoucheMere,quidebeautéresplent,

Qu’iln’ertjamaisouverspororenepourvent,

Pourmalnepourmartire,nepourencombrement,

Thenwithhismouth[he]spokethethoughtinhisheart:

“IvowandpromisetoGodalmightyAndtohissweetMother,resplendentwithbeauty,

Thatmyeyewillneverbeopen,forstormorwind,

Forevilorpainordisaster,


2.f.i2.f.vi

SeseraydedensFranche,ouilaboinegent,

Etsiarailefuboutéentierement,EtserayconbatusagrantefforchementContrelesgensPhilippe,quitantahardement…”

AndyetIwillbeinFrance,wheretherearegoodpeople,

AndIwillsetfireeverywhere,AndfightwithgreatforceAgainstthearmyofPhilip,whoisverybold…”

Works cited

Primary texts

AlliterativeMorteArthure.SeeMorteArthure.

AnAnonymousShortEnglishMetricalChronicle.EditedbyEwaldZettl,EETSOS196,Oxford

UP,1935.

AnnalesPaulini.ChroniclesoftheReignsofEdwardIandEdwardII,editedbyWilliamStubbs,

RollsSeries76vol.1,London,1882,pp.254–370.

AnonimalleChronicle1307–1335:FromBrothertonCollectionMS29.Editedandtranslatedby

WendyR.ChildsandJohnTaylor,LeedsUP,1991.

LeBaker,Geoffrey.ChroniconGalfridileBakerdeSwynbroke.EditedbyEdwardMaunde

Thompson.Clarendon,1889.

----------TheChronicleofGeoffreyleBaker.TranslatedbyDavidPreest,editedbyRichard

Barber.Boydell,2012.

LeBel,Jean.ChroniquedeJeanleBel.EditedbyJulesViardandEugèneDéprez.Sociétéde

l’HistoiredeFrance,Paris,1905.

----------TheTrueChroniclesofJeanleBel1290–1360.TranslatedbyNigelBryant,Boydelland

Brewer,2011.

BookofVicesandVirtues.SeeOrleans.

ChronicleofBuryStEdmunds1212–1301.TranslatedandeditedbyAntoniaGransden,Nelson

1964.

ChansondeRoland.EditedbyJosephBédier,Paris,1922.

----------TheSongofRoland.TranslatedbyJessieCrosland,InParentheses,1999.

Chaucer,Geoffrey.TroilusandCriseyde.TheRiversideChaucer.GeneraleditorLarryD.Benson,

3rdedition,OxfordUP,1987.

Fantosme,Jordan.JordanFantosme’sChronicle.Ed.andtrans.R.C.Johnston.Oxford:

Clarendon,1981.

Fineshadechronicle.“AChronicleoftheCivilWarsofEdwardII.”Ed.GeorgeL.Haskins.

Speculum14.1(1939):73–81.

----------London,BritishLibrary,MSCottonCleopatraDIX,ff.84–90.


Froissart,Jean.ChroniquesdeJ.Froissart.EditedbySiméonLuceetal.,Sociétédel’Histoirede

France,Paris,1869–1975.

----------TheOnlineFroissart.HRIOnline,EditedbyPeterAinsworthandGodfriedCroenen.

Chroniques,http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/,version1.5.Accessed

August2019.

GawainandtheGreenKnight.SeeSirGawainandtheGreenKnight.

GeoffreyofMonmouth.SeeMonmouth.

GoldenLegend.SeeVoragine.

Guisborough,Walterof.TheChronicleofWalterofGuisborough,previouslyeditedasThe

ChronicleofWalterofHemingfordorHemingburgh.EditedbyHarryRothwell,

CamdenSociety3rdser.89,RoyalHistoricalSociety,1957.

Haskins.SeeFineshade.

JeanleBel.SeeBel.

Laȝamon’sBrut.EditedbyG.L.BrookandR.F.Leslie,EETSOS250and277,OxfordUP,1963–

78.

Mannyng,Robert.RobertMannyngofBrunne:TheChronicle.EditedbyIdelleSullens,

BinghamptonUP,1996.

Monmouth,Geoffreyof.TheHistoryoftheKingsofBritain:AnEditionandTranslationof‘De

GestisBritonum:HistoriaRegisBritanniae’.EditedbyMichaelD.Reeve,translatedby

NeilWright,Boydell,2007.

----------TheHistoryoftheKingsofBritain.TranslatedbyMichaelA.Faletra,Broadview2008.

MorteArthure,or,TheDeathofArthur.EditedbyEdmundBrock,1871,EETSOS8,OxfordUP.

Murimuth,Adam.ContinuatioChronicarum.InAdaeMurimuthContinuatioChronicarumet

RobertdeAvesburyDeGestisMirabilibusRegisEdwardiTertii.EditedbyEdward

MaundeThompson,RollsSeries93,London,1889,pp.1–276.

d’Orleans,LorensTheBookofVicesandVirtues:AFourteenthCenturyEnglishTranslationof

theSommeLeRoiofLorensD’Orleans.EditedbyW.NelsonFrancis,EETSOS217,

OxfordUP1942.

RaouldeCambrai.EditedandtranslatedbySarahKay,Clarendon,1992.

Roland.Roland.SeeChansondeRoland.

SirGawainandtheGreenKnight.EditedbyDanielDonoghue,translatedbyLarryD.Benson,

WestVirginaUP,2012.

SommeleRoi.SeeVoragine.

SongofRoland.SeeChansondeRoland.


TheBrut;or,theChroniclesofEngland.Ed.FriedrichBrie.EETSOS131.London:Paul,Trench

andTrübner,1906.

VitaEdwardiII.EditedandtranslatedbyWendyR.Childs,Clarendon,2005.

Voragine,Jacobusde.TheGoldenLegend:ReadingsontheSaints.TranslatedbyWilliam

GrangerRyan,PrincetonUP,1993.

VowsoftheHeron(LesVoeuxduHéron):AMiddleFrenchVowingPoem.EditedbyJohnL.

Grigsby,translatedbyNorrisJ.Lacy,Garland,1992.

WalterofGuisborough.SeeGuisborough.

Reference works

Anglo-NormanDictionary.Anglo-NormanOn-lineHub,2001–2019,www.anglo-norman.net/.

AccessedthroughoutAugust2019.

DictionnaireduMoyenFrançais(1330–1500).9thedition,ATILF(AnalyseetTraitement

InformatiquedelaLangueFrançaise),2019,www.atilf.fr/dmf/.Accessedthroughout

August2019.

EncyclopediaoftheMedievalChronicle.Gen.ed.GraemeDunphy.Brill,2010.

LewisandShortLatinDictionary.PerseusDigitalLibrary,

www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.04.0059.

AccessedthroughoutAugust2019.

MiddleEnglishDictionary.MiddleEnglishCompendium,editedbyFrancesMcSparranetal.,

2000–2018,quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/.Accessedthroughout

August2019.

Secondary texts

Ahmed,Sara.TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion.2nded.,EdinburghUP,2014.

Ailes,MarianneJ.“TheAnglo-NormanBoevedeHaumtoneasachansondegeste.”SirBevisof

HamptoninLiteraryTradition,editedbyJenniferFellowsandIvanaDjordjević,

Brewer,2008,pp.9–24.

Allen,Rosamund,etal.ReadingLaȝamon’sBrut:ApproachesandExplorations.Rodopi,2013.


Althoff,Gerd.“IraRegis:ProlegomenatoaHistoryofRoyalAnger.”Rosenwein,Anger’sPast,

pp.59–74.

Antón,IsabelAlfonso.“TheLanguageandPracticeofNegotiationinMedievalConflict

Resolution(Castille-Léon,Eleventh–ThirteenthCenturies).”TutenandBillado,pp.

157–74.

Baden-Daintree,Anne.“VisualisingWar:TheAestheticsofViolenceintheAlliterativeMorte

Arthure.”BellisandSlater,pp.56–76.

Barber,Richard.EdwardIIIandtheTriumphofEngland:TheBattleofCrécyandtheCompany

oftheGarter.AllenLane,2013.

Bartlett,Robert.“‘MortalEnmities’:TheLegalAspectofHostilityintheMiddleAges.”Tuten

andBillado,pp.197–212.

Barton,RichardE.“MakingaClamortotheLord:Noise,Justice,andPowerinEleventh-and

Twelfth-CenturyFrance.”TutenandBillado,pp.213–35.

----------“‘ZealousAnger’andtheRenegotiationofAristocraticRelationshipsinFrancein

Eleventh-andTwelfth-CenturyFrance.”Rosenwein,Anger’sPast,pp.153–70.

Bellis,Joanna.TheHundredYearsWarinLiterature,1337–1600.BoydellandBrewer,2016.

----------“MappingtheNationalNarrative:Place-nameEtymologyinLaȝamon’sBrutandIts

Sources.”Allenetal.,pp.321–42.

----------“‘TheReaderMyghteLamente’:ThesiegesofCalais(1346)andRouen(1418)in

chronicle,poem,andplay.”WarandLiterature,editedbyLauraAsheandIan

Patterson,BoydellandBrewer,2014,pp.84–106.

----------andLauraSlater,editors.RepresentingWarandViolence1250–1600.Boydelland

Brewer,2016.

BenzStJohn,Lisa.ThreeMedievalQueens:QueenshipandtheCrowninFourteenth-Century

England.PalgraveMacmillan,2012.

Bloch,Marc.LaSociétéFéodale:LaFormationdesLiensdeDépendance.AlbinMichel,1949.

Boddice,Rob.“Emotions,morals,practices.”TheScienceofSympathy:Morality,Evolution,and

VictorianCivilization.UofIllinoisP,2016,pp.1–25.

----------TheHistoryofEmotions.ManchesterUP,2018.

Brandsma,Frank,etal,editors.EmotionsinMedievalArthurianLiterature:Body,Mind,Voice.

BoydellandBrewer,2015.

Bryan,Jennifer.LookingInward:DevotionalReadingandthePrivateSelfinLateMedieval

England.UofPennsylvaniaP,2008.


Bull,MarcusandDamienKempf,editors.WritingtheEarlyCrusades:Text,Transmissionand

Memory.BoydellandBrewer,2014.

Burgess,R.W.andMichaelKulikowski.“MedievalHistoriographicalTerminology:The

MeaningoftheWordAnnales.”TheMedievalChronicle,vol.8,2013,pp.165–92.

Burrow,John.GesturesandLooksinMedievalNarrative.CambridgeUP,2002.

Busby,Keith.“NarrativeGenres.”TheCambridgeCompaniontoMedievalFrenchLiterature,

editedbySimonGauntandSarahKay,CambridgeUP,2008,pp.139–52.

Butterfield,Ardis.TheFamiliarEnemy:Chaucer,Language,andNationintheHundredYears

War.OxfordUP,2009.

Cels,MarcB.“God’sWrathAgainsttheWrathfulinMedievalMendicantPreaching.”Canadian

JournalofHistory/AnnalesCanadiennesd’Histoire,vol.43,no.2,2008,pp.217–26.

----------“‘AnIrousMan’:AngerandAuthorityintheSummoner’sTale.”TheChaucerReview,

vol.53,no.3,2018,pp.308.

Classen,Albrecht.“AngerandAngerManagementintheMiddleAges:Mental-Historical

Perspectives.”Mediaevistik,vol.19,2006,pp.21–50.

Crocker,HollyA.“Medievalaffectsnow.”Exemplaria,vol.29,no.1,2017,pp.82–98.

----------andGlennBurger.MedievalAffect,Feeling,andEmotion.CambridgeUP,2019.

Croenen,Godfried.“TheReceptionofFroissart’sWritingsinEngland:TheEvidenceofthe

Manuscripts.”Wogan-Browneetal.,pp.409–19.

Davies,Wendy.“AngerandtheCelticsaint.”Rosenwein,Anger’sPast,pp.191–202.

DeMarco,Patricia.“ImaginingJewishAffectintheSiegeofJerusalem.”BurgerandCrocker,pp.

47–69.

Diggelman,Lindsay.“EmotionalResponsestoMedievalWarfareinTheHistoryofWilliam

Marshal.”Downesetal.,24–41.

Downes,Stephanie,etal.,editors.EmotionsandWar:MedievaltoRomanticLiterature.

PalgraveMacmillan,2015.

Downes,Stephanie,andRebeccaF.McNamara.“TheHistoryofEmotionsandMiddleEnglish

Literature.”LiteratureCompass,vol.13,no.6,2016,pp.444–56.

Dumville,David.“WhatisaChronicle?”TheMedievalChronicle2,2002,pp.1–27.

Dunn,Caroline.“TheLanguageofRavishmentinMedievalEngland.”Speculum,vol.86,no.1,

2011,pp.79–116.

Echard,Siân.ArthuriannarrativeintheLatintradition.CambridgeUP,1998.

Elias,Marcel.“MixedfeelingsintheMiddleEnglishCharlemagneromances:Emotional

reconfigurationandthefailuresofcrusadingpracticesintheOtueltexts.”New


MedievalLiteratures16,editedbyLauraAsheetal.,BoydellandBrewer,2016,pp.

172–212.

Elias,Marcel.“Violence,Excess,andtheCompositeEmotionalRhetoricofRichardCoeurDe

Lion.”StudiesinPhilology,vol.114,no.1,2017,pp.1–38.

Elsweiler,Christine.Laȝamon’sBrutbetweenOldEnglishHeroicPoetryandMiddleEnglish

Romance:AStudyoftheLexicalFields‘Hero’,‘Warrior’and‘Knight’.PeterLang,2011.

Eustace,Nicole,etal.“AHRConversation:TheHistoricalStudyofEmotions.”American

HistoricalReview,vol.117,no.5,2012,pp.1486–1531.

Flannery,MaryC.“ABloodyShame:Chaucer’sHonourableWomen.”ReviewofEnglishStudies,

vol.62no.255,2011,pp.337–57.

----------“TheConceptofShameinLate-MedievalEnglishLiterature.”LiteratureCompass,vol.

9,no.2,2012,pp.166–82.

Flynn,Maureen.“TamingAnger’sDaughters:NewTreatmentforEmotionalProblemsin

RenaissanceSpain.”RenaissanceQuarterly,vol.51,no.3,1998,pp.864–86.

Foot,Sarah.“Findingthemeaningofform:NarrativeinAnnalsandChronicles.”Writing

MedievalHistory,editedbyNancyPartner,HodderArnold,2005,pp.88–108.

Freedman,Paul.“PeasantAngerintheLateMiddleAges.”Rosenwein,Anger’sPast,pp.171–

88.

Frevert,Ute.EmotionsinHistory:LostandFound.BudapestandCentralEuropeanUP,2011.

----------etal.,editors.EmotionalLexicons:CommunityandChangeintheVocabularyofFeeling

1700–2000.OxfordUP,2014.

Gammerl,Benno.“EmotionalStyles:ConceptsandChallenges.”RethinkingHistory:TheJournal

ofTheoryandPractice,vol.16,no.2,2012,pp.161–75.

Garrison,Jennifer.ChallengingCommunion:TheEucharistandMiddleEnglishLiterature.Ohio

StateUP,2017.

Gertsman,Elina.“Thefacialgesture:(Mis)ReadingEmotioninGothicArt.”JournalofMedieval

ReligiousCultures,vol.36,no.1,2010,pp.28–46.

Giancarlo,Matthew.“Speculativegenealogies.”Strohm,MiddleEnglish,pp.352–68.

Given-Wilson,Chris.“TheEarlofArundel,theWarwithFrance,andtheAngerofKingRichard

II.”TheMedievalPython:ThePurposiveandProvocativeWorkofTerryJones,editedby

R.F.YeagerandToshiyukiTakamiya,PalgraveMacmillan,2012,27–38.

Gordon,Stephen.“EmotionalpracticeandbodilyperformanceinEarlyModernvampire

literature.”Preternature:CriticalandHistoricalStudiesonthePreternatural,vol.6,no.

1,2017,pp.93–124.


Gransden,Antonia.“ThecontinuationsoftheFloresHistoriarumfrom1265to1327.”Medieval

Studies,vol.36,1974,pp.472–92.

----------HistoricalWritinginEngland.Routledge,1974–1982.2vols.

Greenway,DianaE.“HistoricalwritingatStPaul’s.”StPaul’s:TheCathedralChurchofLondon,

604-2004,editedbyDerekKeeneetal.,YaleUP,2004,pp.151–56.

Guenée,Bernard.“Histoires,Annales,Chroniques:EssaisurlesGenresHistoriquesauMoyen

Age.”Annales-Economies,Sociétés,Civilisations,vol.28,1973,pp.997–1016.

Gunn,Vicky.Bede’sHistoriae:Genre,rhetoric,andtheconstructionofAnglo-Saxonchurch

history.Boydell,2009.

Hallett,Nicky.TheSensesinReligiousCommunities,1600–1800:EarlyModern‘Conventsof

Pleasure’.Ashgate,2013.

Hanning,Robert.TheVisionofHistoryinEarlyBritain:fromGildastoGeoffreyofMonmouth.

ColumbiaUP,1966.

Harbus,Antonina.“CognitiveApproachestotheHistoryofEmotionsandtheEmotional

DynamicofLiterature.”CognitiveApproachestoOldEnglishPoetry,Boydelland

Brewer,2012,pp.162–76.

Hassig,Debra.“Theiconographyofrejection:Jewsandothermonstrousraces.”Imageand

Belief,editedbyColumHourihane,PrincetonUP,1999,pp.25–46.

Hatcher,John.“FictionasHistory:TheBlackDeathandBeyond.”History,vol.97,no.325,

2012,pp.3–23.

Hiatt,Alfred.“Genrewithoutsystem.”Strohm,MiddleEnglish,pp.277–94.

Hillier,RussellM.“‘ValourWillWeep’:TheEthicsofValor,Anger,andPityinShakespeare’s

Coriolanus.”StudiesinPhilology,vol.113,no.2,2016,pp.358–96.

Huneycutt,Lois.“IntercessionandtheHigh-MedievalQueen:TheEstherTopos.”Powerofthe

Weak:StudiesonMedievalWomen,editedbyJenniferCarpenterandSally-Beth

MacLean,UofIllinoisP,1995,pp.124–46.

Hyams,PaulR.“WhatdidHenryIIIofEnglandThinkinBedandinFrenchaboutKingshipand

Anger?”Rosenwein,Anger’sPast,pp.92–124.

Jaeger,C.Stephen.EnnoblingLove:InSearchofaLostSensibility.TheMiddleAgesSeries.Uof

PennsylvaniaP,1999.

Justice,Stephen.AdamUsk’sSecret.UofPennsylvaniaP,2015.

Kaufman,AlexanderL.“‘Andmanyoþerdiuersetokens…’Portentsandwondersin

‘Warkworth’s’chronicle.”Rajsicetal.,pp.49–63.


Kilpatrick,Hannah.“EdwardI’sTemper:AngeranditsMisrepresentationsintheChronicleof

WalterofGuisboroughandtheFineshadeChronicle.”TheMedievalChronicle,vol.12,

2019,pp.75–93.

----------“TheProblematicPresent:LocatingandLosingMeaningintheNarrativeStructureof

theFineshadeChronicle.”Parergonvol.21,no.1,2015,pp.31–51.

Kjaer,Lars.“WritingReformandRebellion.”BaronialReformandRevolutioninEngland,1258-

1267,editedbyAdrianJobson,Boydell,2016,pp.109–24.

Knaller,Susanne.“EmotionsandtheProcessofWriting.”WritingEmotions,editedbySusanne

Knalleretal.,TranscriptVerlag,2017,pp.17–28.

Kooper,Erik.“LongleatHouseMS55:AnUnacknowledgedBrutManuscript?”Rajsicetal.,pp.

75–93.

Larrington,Carolyne.“LearningtoFeelintheOldNorseCamelot?”ScandinavianStudies,vol.

87,no.1,2015,pp.74–94.

Laynesmith,J.L.TheLastMedievalQueens:EnglishQueenship1445–1503.OxfordUP,2004.

Lazikani,A.S.Cultivatingtheheart:FeelingandEmotioninTwelfth-andThirteenth-Century

ReligiousTexts.UofWalesP,2015.

LeSaux,FrançoiseH.M.“TheLanguagesofEngland:MultilingualismintheWorkofWace.”

Wogan-Browneetal.,pp.188–97.

Leek,Thomas.“OntheQuestionofOralitybehindMedievalRomance:TheExampleofthe

‘Constance’Group.”Folklore,vol.123,no.3,2012,pp.293–309.

Léglu,Catherine.“TearfulPerformance:WhenTroubadoursWeep.”Neuphilologische

Mitteilungen,vol.101,no.4,2000,pp.495–504.

Leitch,Megan.“SleepingKnightsand‘Suchmanerofsorow-makynge’.”ArthurianLiterature

XXXI,editedbyElizabethArchibaldandDavidF.Johnson,BoydellandBrewer,2014,

pp.83–100.

Leverett,Emily.“AnAffectiveRomance?GenreBlendinginTheSiegeofJerusalem.”Medieval

Perspectives,vol.27,2012,pp.111–24.

Little,Lester.“AngerinMonasticCurses.”Rosenwein,Anger’sPast,pp.9–35.

Lynch,Andrew.“‘BlisseWesonLonde’:TheFeelingofPeaceinLaȝamon’sBrut.”Downeset

al.,42–59.

----------“‘Manlycowardyse’:ThomasHoccleve’speacestrategy.”MediumÆvum,vol.73,no.2,

2004,pp.306–23.

----------“‘Whatcheer?’EmotionandactionintheArthurianworld.”Brandsmaetal.,pp.47–

63.


Macdonald,AlastairJ.“Courage,FearandtheExperienceoftheLaterMedievalScottish

Soldier.”ScottishHistoricalReview,vol.92,no.235,2013,pp.179–206.

Marchant,Alicia.TheRevoltofOwainGlyndŵrinMedievalEnglishChronicles.YorkMedievalP,

2014.

Marvin,Julia.“AlbineandIsabelle:RegicidalQueensandtheHistoricalImaginationofthe

Anglo-NormanBrutChronicles.”ArthurianLiterature,vol.18,2001,pp.143–91.

----------“LatinityandVernacularityintheTraditionofGeoffreyofMonmouth:Text,

Apparatus,andReadership.”TheMedievalChronicle,vol.8,2013,pp.1–33.

----------“Narrative,Lineage,andSuccessionintheAnglo-NormanBrutChronicle.”Broken

Lines:GenealogicalLiteratureinMedievalBritainandFrance,editedbyRalucaL.

RadulescuandEdwardDonaldKennedy,Brepols,2008,pp.205–20.

----------“TheVitalityofAnglo-NormaninLateMedievalEngland:TheCaseoftheProseBrut

Chronicle.”Wogan-Browneetal.,pp.303–19.

Marx,William.“AnAbsentKing:PerceptionsofthePoliticsofPowerintheReignofRichardII

andtheMiddleEnglishProseBrut.”ChaucerinContext:AGoldenAgeofEnglish

Poetry,editedbyGeraldMorgan,PeterLang,2012,pp.135–52.

Maurer,Helen.MargaretofAnjou:QueenshipandPowerinLateMedievalEngland.Boydell,

2003.

McClary,Susan,editor.StructuresofFeelinginSeventeenth-CenturyCulturalExpression.Uof

TorontoP,2012.

Mcdougall,Sara.“TheTransformationofAdulteryinFranceattheEndoftheMiddleAges.”

LawandHistoryReview,vol.32,no.3,2019,pp.491–524.

McGrath,Kate.“ThePoliticsofChivalry:TheFunctionofAngerandShameinEleventh-and

Twelfth-CenturyAnglo-NormanHistoricalNarratives.”TutenandBillado,pp.55–70.

McNamara,RebeccaF.“TheSorrowofSoreness:InfirmityandSuicideinMedievalEngland.”

Parergon,vol.31,no.2,2014,pp.11–34.

----------“Wearingyourheartonyourface:Readinglovesicknessandthesuicidalimpulsein

Chaucer.”LiteratureandMedicine,vol.33,no.2,2015,pp.258–78.

----------andJuanitaFerosRuys.“UnlockingtheSilencesoftheSelf-Murdered:Textual

ApproachestoSuicidalEmotionsintheMiddleAges.”Exemplaria,vol.26,no.1,2014,

pp.58–80.

McNamer,Sarah.AffectiveMeditationandtheInventionofMedievalCompassion.Uof

PennsylvaniaP,2010.

----------“Feeling.”Strohm,MiddleEnglish,pp.241–57.


MedievalConceptsofthePast:Ritual,Memory,Historiography,editedbyGerdAlthoffetal.,

CambridgeUP,2002.

Megna,Paul.“Langland’sWrath:RighteousAngerManagementinTheVisionofPiers

Plowman.”Exemplaria,vol.25,no.2,2013,pp.130–51.

Miller,AndrewG.“‘Tails’ofMasculinity:Knights,Clerics,andtheMutilationofHorsesin

MedievalEngland.”Speculum,vol.88,no.4,2013,pp.958–95.

Morse,Ruth.TruthandConventionintheMiddleAges:Rhetoric,RepresentationandReality.

CambridgeUP,1991.

Munro,Lucy.“SpeakingHistory:LinguisticMemoryandtheUsablePastintheEarlyModern

HistoryPlay.”HuntingtonLibraryQuarterly,vol.76,no.4,2013,pp.519–40.

Newbold,Ron.“TheNatureofAngerinGregoryofTours’LibriHistoriarum.”Nottingham

MedievalStudies,vol.51,2007,pp.21–39.

Newhauser,RichardG.,andSusanJ.Ridyard,editors.SininMedievalandEarlyModern

Culture:TheTraditionoftheSevenDeadlySins.YorkMedievalP,2012.

Novikoff,AlexJ.TheMedievalCultureofDisputation:Pedagogy,Practice,andPerformance.Uof

PennsylvaniaP,2013.

O’Reilly,Jennifer.StudiesintheIconographyoftheVicesandVirtues.Garland,1988.

Ormrod,W.Mark.“TheLanguageofComplaint:MultilingualismandPetitioninginLater

MedievalEngland.”Wogan-Browneetal.,pp.31–43.

Orning,HansJacob.“RoyalAngerbetweenChristianDoctrineandPracticalExigencies.”

CollegiumMedievale,vol.22,2009,pp.34–54.

Partner,Nancy.SeriousEntertainments:TheWritingofHistoryinTwelfth-CenturyEngland.U

ofChicagoP,1997.

Peverley,SarahL.“GenealogyandJohnHardyng’sVerseChronicle.”BrokenLines:Genealogical

LiteratureinMedievalBritainandFrance,editedbyRalucaL.RadulescuandEdward

DonaldKennedy,Brepols,2008,pp.259–82.

Peyroux,Catherine.“Gertrude’sfuror:Readingangerinanearlymedievalsaint’slife.”

Rosenwein,Anger’sPast,pp.36–56.

Plamper,Jan.“TheHistoryofEmotions:AnInterviewwithWilliamReddy,BarbaraH.

Rosenwein,andPeterStearns.”HistoryandTheory,vol.49,no.2,2010,pp.237–65.

----------HistoryofEmotions:AnIntroduction.2012.TranslatedbyKeithTribe,OxfordUP,

2015.

Pollock,LindaA.“AngerandtheNegotiationofRelationshipsinEarlyModernEngland.”The

HistoricalJournal,vol.47,no.3,2004,pp.567–90.


Purdie,Rhiannon.“MedievalRomanceandtheGenericFrictionsofBarbour’sBruce.”

Barbour’sBruceanditsCulturalContexts:Politics,Chivalry,andLiteratureinLate

MedievalScotland,editedbySteveBoardmanandSusanForan.BoydellandBrewer,

2015,pp.51–74.

----------andMichaelCichon,editors.MedievalRomance,MedievalContexts.D.S.Brewer,2011.

Radulescu,Raluca.TheGentryContextforMalory’sMorteDarthur.D.S.Brewer,2003.

----------“‘OuteofMesure’:ViolenceandKnighthoodinMalory’sMorteDarthur.”Re-ViewingLe

MorteDarthur:TextsandContexts,CharactersandThemes,editedbyK.S.Whetter

andRalucaL.Radulescu,D.S.Brewer,2005,pp.119–31.

----------RomanceanditsContextsinFifteenth-CenturyEngland:Politics,Piety,andPenitence.D.

S.Brewer,2013.

Rajsic,Jaclyn,etal.,editors.TheProseBrutandOtherLateMedievalChronicles:BooksHave

TheirHistories:EssaysinHonourofListerM.Matheson.YorkMedivalP,2016.

Reddy,WilliamM.MoneyandLibertyinModernEurope:ACritiqueofHistoricalUnderstanding.

CambridgeUP,1987.

Reddy,WilliamM.TheInvisibleCode:HonorandSentimentinPostrevolutionaryFrance,1814–

1848.UofCaliforniaP,1997.

----------TheMakingofRomanticLove:LongingandSexualityinEurope,SouthAsia,andJapan,

900–1200CE.UofChicagoP,2012.

----------TheNavigationofFeeling:AFrameworkfortheHistoryofEmotions.CambridgeUP,

2001.

----------“SentimentalismanditsErasure:TheRoleofEmotionsintheEraoftheFrench

Revolution.”JournalofModernHistory,vol.72,2000,pp.109–152.

Richardson,H.G.“TheAnnalesPaulini.”Speculum,vol.23,no.4,1948,pp.630–40.

Rosenfeld,Jessica.“EnvyandExemplarityinTheBookofMargeryKempe.”Exemplaria,vol.26,

no.1,2014,pp.105–21.

Rosenwein,BarbaraH.,editor.Anger’sPast:TheSocialUsesofanEmotionintheMiddleAges.

CornellUP,1998.

----------“Afterword:ImaginedEmotionsforImaginedCommunities.”ImaginedCommunities

ontheBalticRimfromtheEleventhtoFifteenthCenturies,editedbyWojtekJezierski

andLarsHermanson,AmsterdamnUP,2016,pp.379–86.

----------EmotionalCommunitiesintheEarlyMiddleAges.CornellUP,2006.

----------“ReviewofWilliamM.Reddy,TheNavigationofFeeling.”AmericanHistoricalReview,

vol.107,no.4,2002,pp.1181–82.


----------“TheoriesofChangeintheHistoryofEmotions.”AHistoryofEmotions,1200–1800,

editedbyJonasLiliequist,Pickering&Chatto,2012,pp.7–20.

----------“WorryingaboutEmotionsinHistory.”AmericanHistoricalReview,vol.107,no.3,

2002,pp.821–45.

Rota,Michael.“TheMoralStatusofAnger:ThomasAquinasandJohnCassian.”American

CatholicPhilosophicalQuarterly,vol.81,no.3,2007,pp.395–418

Saunders,Corinne.“AffectiveReading:Chaucer,Women,andRomance,”ChaucerReview,vol.

51,no.1,2016,pp.11–14.

Scase,Wendy.LiteratureandComplaintinEngland,1272–1553.OxfordUP,2007.

Scheer,Monique.“AreEmotionsaKindofPractice(andisthatwhatmakesthemhavea

history)?”HistoryandTheory,vol.51,2012,pp.193–220.

Sikorska,Liliana.“DealingwithAnger:RobertofCisyleandtheMedievalDidacticTradition.”

Poetica,vol.66,2006,pp.115–25.

Somerset,Fiona.FeelingLikeSaints:LollardWritingsafterWycliffe.CornellUP,2014.

----------andNicholasWatson,editors.TruthandTales:Culturalmobilityandmedievalmedia.

OhioStateUP,2015.

Spiegel,Gabrielle,editor.PracticingHistory:NewDirectionsinHistoricalWritingafterthe

LinguisticTurn.Routledge,2005.

----------RomancingthePast:TheRiseofVernacularProseHistoriographyinThirteenth-century

France.UofCaliforniaP,1993.

----------“TheoryintoPractice:ReadingMedievalChronicles.”TheMedievalChronicle,vol.1,

1999,pp.1–12.

Stearns,PeterN.AmericanCool:ConstructingaTwentieth-CenturyEmotionalStyle.NewYork

UP,1994.

----------Shame:ABriefHistory.UofIllinoisP,2017.

----------andCarolZ.Stearns.Anger:TheStruggleforEmotionalControlinAmerica’sHistory.U

ofChicagoP,1986.

----------andCarolZ.Stearns.“Emotionology:ClarifyingtheHistoryofEmotionsand

EmotionalStandards.”TheAmericanHistoricalReview,vol.90,no.4,1985,pp.813–

36.

Strohm,Paul.Hochon’sArrow:TheSocialImaginationofFourteenth-CenturyTexts.Princeton

UP,1992.

----------,editor.MiddleEnglish.OxfordUP,2007


Summerfield,Thea.“‘‘Fiadebles,’quaththeking’:LanguageMixinginEngland’sVernacular

HistoricalNarratives,c.1290–c.1340.”Wogan-Browneetal.,pp.68–90.

Tiller,KennethJ.“Laȝamon’sLeir:Language,Succession,andHistory.”Allenetal.,pp.155–78.

Trigg,Stephanie.“Chaucer’sSilentDiscourse.”StudiesintheAgeofChaucer,vol.39,2017,pp.

33–56.

----------“Weepinglikeabeatenchild:FigurativelanguageandtheemotionsinChaucerand

Malory.”BurgerandCrocker,pp.25–46.

----------“FacesThatSpeak:ALittleEmotionMachineintheNovelsofJaneAusten.”Spacesfor

Feeling:EmotionsandSociabilitiesinBritain,1650–1850.EditedbySusanBroomhill,

Routledge,2015,pp.185–201.

Turcan,RobertandYinLiu.“MiddleEnglishRomanceasPrototypeGenre.”ChaucerReview,

vol.40,no.4,2006,pp.335–53.

Tuten,BelleS.andTraceyL.Billado,editors.Feud,ViolenceandPractice:EssaysinMedieval

StudiesinHonorofStephenD.White.Ashgate,2010.

Vecchio,Silvana.“Iramala/irabona.Storiadiunviziochequalchevoltaèunavirtù.”Doctor

Seraphicus:Bollettinod’InformazionedelCentrodiStudiBonaventuriani,Bagnoregio,

vol.45,1998,pp.41–62.

Wall-Randell,Sarah.TheImmaterialBook:ReadingandRomanceinEarlyModernEngland.U

ofMichiganP,2013.

Weiss,Judith.“ModernandMedievalViewsonSwooning:TheLiteraryandMedicalContexts

ofFaintinginRomance.”MedievalRomance,MedievalContexts,editedbyRhiannon

PurdieandMichaelCichon,BoydellandBrewer,2011,pp.121–34.

White,Stephen.“ThePoliticsofAnger.”Rosenwein,Anger’sPast,pp.127–52.

Windeatt,Barry.“Laȝamon’sGestures:BodyLanguageintheBrut.”Allenetal.,pp.253–66.

Wogan-Browne,Jocelyn,etal.,editors.LanguageandCultureinMedievalBritain:TheFrench

ofEnglandc.1100–c.1500.YorkMedievalP,2009.

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s:

Kilpatrick, Hannah Elizabeth

Title:

Writing with Feeling: Practising Angers in Late-Medieval English Chronicles

Date:

2019

Persistent Link:

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/235596

File Description:

Final thesis file

Terms and Conditions:

Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the

copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner.

Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own

personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from

the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.

Date post:	01-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

practising angers in late-medieval English chronicles

Documents