NOTES
Introduction
Acknowledgements
The editors of this book owe many debts of gratitude â to its contributors (and especially those who submitted on time) for their forbearance; to Douglas Kelly, Elspeth Kennedy and Jane Taylor for organizing the material of multi-authored chapters into molt beles conjointures; to Simon Gaunt, Roger Middleton and above all to Elaine Polley for their advice, reference-checking and careful proofreading; to Linda Gowans for her expert indexing; to the University of Wales Press for its continued interest in our project; to the Vinaver Trust for much-needed financial and moral support; and to the late Ray Barron, general editor of the series, who sadly did not live to see this volume brought to fruition. Finally, we should like to express our sorrow that three of our distinguished contributors, EmmanuĂšle Baumgartner, Elspeth Kennedy and Roy Owen, died during the lengthy publication process. Arthurian Studies are much diminished by their loss.
Notes
1 Thoughout this book chapter references in roman numerals relate to the present volume.
2 See Barron ed. 1999*, 22â32. Items accompanied by an asterisk are to be found in the General Bibliography.
3 See Lacy, Kelly and Busby eds 1987â8*, but also the review by R. Middleton (MLR, 85 (1990), 438â9).
4 See Bromwich, Jarman and Roberts eds 1991*, chapters 6â8 and Lacy, Kelly and Busby eds 1987â8*, I, 337â42.
5 Greek and Serbo-Russian versions of the Arthurian Compilation by Rustichello of Pisa (Rusticien de Pise) have survived (see chapter IX).
6 See B. Schmolke-Hasselmann, âHenri II PlantagenĂȘt, roi dâAngleterre, et la genĂšse dâErec et Enideâ, CCM, 24 (1981), 241â6.
7 See B. N. Sargent-Baur, âDux bellorum/rex militum/roi fainĂ©ant: la transformation dâArthur au XIIe siĂšcleâ, MA, 90 (1984), 357â73.
I. The Manuscripts
Notes
1 Editions of texts are often the best sources of information on individual manuscripts, and bibliographical details can be obtained from the chapters that deal with the texts that they contain.
2 Detailed information on the manuscripts that contain works by ChrĂ©tien can be found in the Catalogue compiled by Terry Nixon (1993b), with what is known of their history being given in the Index of Former Owners and its accompanying Additional Notes (Middleton 1993). The count of sixty-seven includes the small fragment added to BNF, fr. 1429 (mentioned in the description of fr. 1429, but not separately numbered in the Catalogue of Manuscripts) and also the âfragmentsâ preserved as extracts by Fauchet and Borel (mentioned briefly in the Index of Former Owners). Further information on ownership has come to light since publication. Princeton, University Library, MS Garrett 125 was item 227 in the sale catalogue of the Baron dâHeiss in 1785 (information kindly supplied by William and Meradith McMunn). BNF, fr. 1429 came to Colbert from the collection of Habert de Montmor in 1682, being âLe Roman du St. Graalâ in the list preserved in BNF, MS Baluze 100, fol. 153. The potential ambiguity of the title is not a problem since all the other candidates owned by Colbert can be traced to other provenances, and the wording is in fact that of the seventeenth-century title on the flyleaf of the manuscript itself (âLi Romans du Saint Graal, composĂ© par Chrestiensâ). The manuscripts of Nicolas-Joseph Foucault (including BNF, fr. 1450 and the Edinburgh Perceval) appear in the sale catalogue of Jean-Jacques Charron, marquis de MĂ©nars (The Hague: Abraham de Hondt, 1720). This sale took place in June 1720, proving conclusively that Foucaultâs library was dispersed before his death (on 7 February 1721). The Edinburgh Perceval (NLS, Adv. 19. 1. 5) appears in a very rare Foulis catalogue of 1740, and was subsequently borrowed for many years by Bishop Thomas Percy (see Middleton 2006).
3 None of the arguments advanced for a more precise dating for Thomas, Marie or Erec can be considered reliable. For what it is worth, it seems to me that Erec may not have been written until the later 1170s. Caradigan, a place with no Arthurian pedigree, may have been better known to poets with Welsh or Breton connections after the supposedly well-publicized âeisteddfodâ of 1176, and the name Yvain de Cavaliot seems to reflect that of the historical Owein Cyfeiliog, who may have been a more suitable model after he was on good terms with King Henry II, particularly after his loyalty in 1173 (during the revolt of the kingâs sons) and after his attendance at such gatherings as the Council of Oxford in 1177. We could also suggest that Erec goes unrecognized by Kay and Gauvain because he is wearing a closed helm (usually said to have been introduced c.1180, but probably a little earlier). In the end, however, these points are of no great weight, and each could be explained in various different ways.
4 This question requires a new examination of the documents, which are differently transcribed by almost all who have published them. The record of the payment to Jacques Raponde is apparently dated 21 February 1405 (meaning 1406 by modern reckoning), but it is entered amongst accounts for 1407 (Cockshaw 1969, no. 67). There is also some doubt over the amount, either because there is a discrepancy in the original or because there have been errors of transcription. The payment is sometimes given as 400 francs, sometimes as 400 escus. The difference is relevant because 400 francs would correspond exactly to the 300 escus paid by the Duke of Berry for BNF, fr. 117â20. A further problem is that the description of the book paid for by John the Fearless does not quite match the description of the book in the inventory of 1420 (Doutrepont 1906, item 68), which is undoubtedly the present Arsenal MSS 3479â80.
5 Much detailed work remains to be done on this sale, but amongst the manuscripts that are identifiable with reasonable certainty there are more than a dozen with the ex-libris of Jacques dâArmagnac. In the original catalogue (Anet 1724) the entries are not numbered, but this deficiency is made good in Bauchart (1886), and some of the manuscripts have these numbers written on them in pencil. Two of the copies of Tristan now in Vienna, Ăsterreichische Nationalbibliothek, were in this sale: MS 2542 with the ex-libris of Jacques dâArmagnac was lot 135, and MS 2537 with the exlibris of Jean de Berry was lot 134.
6 The leaf with the transcription (and Douceâs marginal note) is reproduced in the Scolar Press facsimile of the Douce volume (Pickford 1978, Appendix II). Douceâs note is transcribed (not very accurately) by Vinaver (1925). Neither Vinaver, nor Pickford in the Scolar reprint, realized that Douce must be referring to the manuscript that is now British Library, MS Egerton 989, and they have also misread the second letter of Douceâs reference, which they both transcribe without explanation (Pickford has âM. h. B. II. 116â; Vinaver has âM. H. B. II. 116â). This should in fact be âM. N. B. II. 116â (as given above), being Douceâs standard abbreviation for the volumes that are now Bodleian Library, MSS Douce e. 9â15. These contain Douceâs notes on manuscripts in the British Museum (where he was an Assistant Curator from 1807 to 1811), and pp. 116â19 of vol. 2 (MS Douce e. 10) have his comments on MS Royal 20 D. ii (as specified in his note). His âMs. of the Mort de Tristanâ is Bodleian Library, MS Douce 189, obtained at the Soubise sale of 1789 (probably lot 5351).
7 I have seen examples, though not all in quite the...