Citation
An Introduction to the Laud Troy Book

Material Information

Title:
An Introduction to the Laud Troy Book
Creator:
Stevenson, Sharon Lynn, 1941-
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1971
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 156 leaves ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Death ( jstor )
Hems ( jstor )
Love ( jstor )
Narrators ( jstor )
Poetry ( jstor )
Renaissance ( jstor )
Revenge ( jstor )
Theater ( jstor )
War ( jstor )
Warfare ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- English -- UF
English poetry -- History and criticism -- Middle English, 1100-1500 ( lcsh )
English thesis Ph. D
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 152-156.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022129351 ( AlephBibNum )
13534224 ( OCLC )
ACY7390 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










An Introduction to the Laud Troy Book


By

SHARON LYNN STEVENSON








A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1971























Copyright by
Sharon L. Stevenson
1971




























For Blaine and Zack








ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would like to acknowledge my debt to Dr.

Richard A. Dwyer for helping me plan and write this study

and for his guidance throughout my program. I would like

to thank Drs. John Algeo and Claude Abraham for patiently

reading my work and offering invaluable advice. The

Department of English, particularly Drs. James Hodges and

Alton Morris, should be thanked for the appointments and

fellowship which made my training possible.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


ABSTRACT vi

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. NARRATOR AND GENRE 20

III. 'STRUCTURE AND THEME 41

IV. CHARACTERIZATION AND THEME 79

V. DESCRIPTIVE TECHNIQUES 109

VI. CONCLUSIONS 119

APPENDIX I. SUMTIARY OF THE LAUD TROY BOOK
BY LINE NUMER 131
APPENDIX II. THE TWO STORIES OF TROY 141

APPENDIX III. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 147

BIBLIOGRAPHY 152







Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAUD TROY BOOK

By

Sharon Lynn Stevenson

August, 1971

Chairman: Richard A. Dwyer
Major Department: English

Scholars of the Italian Renaissance generally agree

that the rebirth was not a sudden phenomenon, but the

continuation of pre-existing interests. Most scholars of

English literature, too, believe there is a continuity between

the medieval and Renaissance periods, but few studies have

been done to point out precise areas of continuity.

.This study attempts to show that the Laud Troy Book,

a fifteenth century MS in the Bodleian Library, contains

ideas and techniques related to the Renaissance revenge

tragedies. The structure of the poem is investigated, and

comparisons to other versions of the fall of Troy, partic-

ularly to the Gest Hystcriale of the Destruction of Troy,

are made to delineate the predominant characteristics

of the poem. These characteristics are then related to

revenge tragedies.

Comparisons to the other versions indicate that the

vi





poet altered the story to emphasize revenge. This theme

is accompanied by motifs of madness, treachery, intrigue,

love, insult, and blood responsibility--motifs also present

in the revenge tragedies. The characterizations of the

strong men move from Hector, the most virtuous knight ever,

to Achilles, a sighing lover who sees the war as senseless

folly, to Pirrus, Achilles' son who not only kills innocent

women and old men, but also desecrates their bodies. This

characterization of Pirrus as the extreme model of revenge

is also found in Hamlet, but no direct influence is evident.

Because the characters become more and more vengeful, the

poem ends in total social destruction; only the traitors,

the weak, and the unheroic Greeks are left. Most revenge

tragedies also end with the death of the protagonists and

many of the antagonists.

Although the work is not a play, the poet dramatizes

his narrative by using motivation, conversation, soliloquy,

and realistic description to make the tale vivid. The

sensational passages describing brutality and death are also

related to the sensational horrors in plays like Titus

Andronicus. An examination of the passages spoken by the

narrator shows that the poet conceived of his work as a

tragedy caused by the actions of specific individuals. The

recognition of the individual as causal agent lies at the

heart of the great Renaissance portraits, and thus moves the

poem away from earlier explanations of Fate, Fortune, or

Providence as the cause of the fall.


vii





The study indicates that medieval poets were interested

in the theme of revenge and that the theme carried with it

some techniques and subordinate motifs which are also

present in the Renaissance revenge tragedies. The similar-

ities spring not from a direct influence, but from a nucleus

of ideas which surrounded the theme in both periods. Thus,

the study establishes one area of continuity. The

continental sources of the revenge tragedy should be seen,

to some extent, as amplifying and psychologizing an

interest already present in native works.


viii














I. INTRODUCTION


The fifteenth century Italian Renaissance is often

spoken of as a rebirth, a flowering, or an awakening as if

it were an unprecedented phenomenon in that nation's

literature. Yet some historians argue that this Renais-

sance owed much to a twelfth century Latin Renaissance.1

Friederich Heer writes:

The poets and natural philosophers of
the Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries had their
predecessors in the humanists, Platonists,
natural philosophers, poets and
theoretical exponents of the ars amandi...
of the twelfth century.

Similarly, Frederick Artz says:

What the 'Renaissance of the Twelfth
Century' bad been on the verge of
accomplishing was achieved by Italy
in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. The Italian humanists
came to be the heirs and successors
of the mediaeval rhetoricians.3

Herbert Muller also writes: "The more exuberant humanism

of the Renaissance was a continuation of the medieval

trend, not a sudden rebellion."4 There is debate and

qualification concerning the theory of a twelfth century

Renaissance,5 but few historians deny its existence and

influence. In view of the relationship between the two




2

periods, the later Renaissance becomes not so much a sudden

flowering as the culmination of a movement that began two

or three centuries earlier.

Despite these revisions in the theory of the Italian

Renaissance, students of medieval and Renaissance English

literature are only beginning to explore the continuity

between the two periods. The inaccessibility of manuscripts,

a situation now being alleviated by technology, and the

large body of literature which was apparently destroyed

encourage scholars to look to Italy and the continent for

the precursors of the English Renaissance rather than to

native sources. Yet the studies that have been done on

native sources indicate that a continuity between the two

periods does exist. For example, Walter Schirmer success-

fully demonstrates a relationship between Lydgate's Fall

of Princes, the Mirror for Magistrates, and Shakespeare's

history plays. Ranging over the whole of the middle

ages, Willard Farnham focuses on numerous ideas that were

ultimately fused in the production of Renaissance tragedies.

Mary Mroz indicates some medieval origins, both theological

and literary, for the ideas of divine vengeance contained

in Renaissance revenge tragedies.8 Marguerite Hearsey

links specific passages in The Complaint of Henry, Duke of

Buckingham with similar passages in Lydgate and Gower.9

Raymond Chapman traces the idea of Fortune in Shakespeare's

plays to the medieval traditions of Fortune.10 Even D.S.

Brewer admits that, despite his failure to distinguish




5
adequately between the terms "middle ages" and "Renaissance,"

Alain Renoir's emphasis on Lydgate as a transitional figure
11
is a "welcome" piece of scholarship. Brewer's statement

indicates the growing awareness of the need for studies in

the continuity between the two periods.

This dissertation investigates one small area of

continuity. It focuses on the Laud Troy Book (MS.595 in

the Bodleian Library), a fifteenth century version of the

fall of Troy, in an attempt to show that the ideas and

some of the techniques existing in the poem are related to

the Renaissance revenge tragedy. The analysis utilizes

point of view, organization, contrast, and repetition--

devices often associated with structuralism. Contemporary

structuralistic theory, playing on Eliot's idea of literature

as an entire existing order which alters with each new work,

welcomes studies which relate a specific work to the larger

body of literature:

To be transitively understood, to be
understood in such a way that it can
play its role in society, the work must
be placed among other works, and finally
among that ideal order of existing mon-
uments which Eliot mentioned.'

However, it is not possible to relate the poem to the

larger body of literature without first understanding

clearly what the nature of the work is and something about

what it meant to the medieval audience.13

The story of Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas who

founded Britain, was first introduced into English liter-




4

ature by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudo-history of

England. Sebastian Evans, editor of Monmouth's history,

believes that the final form of the work was instigated by

the Norman ruling class, who wished to give the English

and the Normans a common heritage. If the Normans in

fact wanted the tale disseminated as history, then no

literary contrivance could have been more successful.

Various chronicles from Geoffrey of Monmouth to Milton

indicate the popularity of the legend.15 Its widespread

acceptance marks a change in the English perspective which

was essential for any renaissance to occur: the British

began looking to Rome, Greece, and Troy for their ancestry,

not to Germany, Denmark, and Scandinavia.6 The advantage

of this new perspective is evident; it brought both national

and international prestige. At a time when most of the

other countries of Europe had already claimed descent from

the Trojans, England could ill afford not to associate

itself with the splendor of the Mediterranean past. The

wonders of the East--the subtle compounds for preserving a

body after death, the golden trees which bore gold and

silver fruit, the marvelous architectural craftsmanship,

and sumptuous surroundings--were all a part of the English-

man's background. He was no barbarian. And the church,

of course, raised no objection to Geoffrey of Monmouth's

fabrication since it was consistent with the Providential

history of the world. Brutus could be traced to Aeneas;




5
and Aeneas, to Noah. Consequently, the story of Trojan

descent became the fashionable explanation for the mysteries

of the British past and its link, both secular and divine,

to the larger world. But more importantly, the essential

direction of the English Renaissance was shaped. An attitude

to the culture that produced the classics and the models

for the Renaissance was decided.


If the medieval man saw the splendor of the past,

he also saw the moral lesson contained in its destruction.

The earthly world is mutable; the sinful and the virtuous

alike are subject to misfortune. It matters little whether

the Trojans fell by Fortune, the machinations of Providence,

the influence of the stars, treason, false priests, the

nature of women, the worship of pagan gods, or the general

human desire for revenge. The people fell, and their

destruction effectively underscores the instability of the

world. This conception of the world as unstable lies at

the heart of the contemptus mundi idea:17 if this world

is mutable, then scorn it and trust in a world that is

unchanging. According to Willard Farnham, the conception

of the world as unstable, mutable, fickle, and unpredictable

is essential to Renaissance tragedy since that form deals

with a character's changing fortune. Similarly, the conflict

in the revenge play grows out of a character's desire to

stablize virtues in a mutable world. Hamlet and Hieronimo

try to establish justice; Romeo and Juliet, a lasting love.




6

As Farnham adequately shows, the medieval contemptus mundi

theme is closely related to the Renaissance tragedy.

In terms of history and morality, then, the Troy

legend was a part of the medieval man's understanding of

the world about him. Consequently, it is not surprising

to find a number of versions of the story still extant.

Most of them are based, not on Homer, but on the Latin

reconstructions of Dictys Cretensis' Ephemeria de Historia

Belli Trojani of about the fourth century and Dares Phrygius'
18
De Excidio Trojae Historia of about the sixth century. 18

N. E. Griffin indicates that Homer's use of the gods, his

removal in time from the actual events of the war as

compared to Dictys and Dares' claim to eyewitness authority,

and the medieval preference for Latin over Greek are major

reasons for the medieval choice of the Latin writers over

Homer.19 Although these two versions were often found

together in medieval manuscripts, they were sometimes not

the direct source for later works.

During the second half of the twelfth century, Benolt

de Ste.-Maure, a Norman-French poet, composed Le Roman de

Troie. a vernacular versification of the Troy story in over

30,000 verses.20 Although some authorities posit an

expanded Dares from which Beno'it drew much of his information,

that work is not extant; thus Benolt's poem must be assessed

as a highly creative elaboration of the story. In 1287

Guido de Columnis apparently condensed Benoit's verse into

a Latin prose version which omitted much of his model's







dramatization and ornamentation, generally leaving plot

episodes without descriptions, but sometimes inserting
21
his own interpretations and didactic passages. Guido

and Benolt are most often the sources for medieval English

versions of the Trojan war.

The Excidium Troiae, a Latin account preserved in a

manuscript from the ninth century, apparently influenced
22
one English version, The Seege or Batayle of Troy. As

a source, however, the Excidium Troiae is relatively

insignificant; its importance lies instead in its form--a

school exercise--and its content--Homeric or classical

material rather than that of Dictys and Dares. Carol C.

Esler in her work on Joseph of Exeter discusses other
2z
school exercises based on classical materials.23 In

comparison to the Excidium, however, these poems are short

and obviously the work of students, not the text students

were to emulate.

The first lengthy work produced in England and devoted

in its entirety to the fall of Troy is the six-book, Latin

epic by Joseph of Exeter entitled De Bello Trojano. It

was composed around 1184 and uses Dares as its primary

source. Although popular in its own time and again in the

Renaissance, this Latin work did not serve as a source

for later English versions probably because its form and

epic conventions interested later writers less than the

conventions of the romance.2

Several fourteenth and fifteenth century English







versions of the Troy material are extant. The Seege or

Batayle of Troy, dating from the beginning of the fourteenth

century, is evidently of minstrel composition, relying

primarily on Dares and occasionally on Benott and the

Excidium Troiae.25 It is a highly compact work, emphasizing

plot action rather than description, didacticism, or theme.

The Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy, done in

long-line alliterative verse, dates from the end of the

fourteenth century and is a fairly close translation of

Guido.26 Chaucer's treatment of the Troilus episode was

also composed at the end of the fourteenth century.27

The Laud Troy Book, composed around 1400 or slightly before,

claims to be a Hector romance and is neither a close

translation nor a free rendering of any other extant work.28

Lydgate's Troy Book, begun around 1412, at the request of

Prince Henry, is a creative translation of Guido containing

numerous insertions of learned material from the author's

own reading.29 The Prose Siege of Troy, dating from the

second quarter of the fifteenth century, is a condensation

of Lydgate's Troy Book.30 In addition to these full-

length works, there are two Scottish Troy fragments

probably dating from the fifteenth century, although they

are sometimes attributed to John Barbour.31 Based

primarily on Guide, these English versions testify to the

widespread interest in the story.

Around 1474 Caxton translated and printed a prose

romance entitled The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye




9
based on a French work by Raoul Lefevre.32 It represents

a turning away from the Dictys-Dares tradition to a

restoration of classical accounts. The translation enjoyed

a number of editions and served as the basis for Thomas

Heywood's Great Britain's Troy, a long poem in ottava rima,

and The Four Ages, a series of plays; both works date

from the first quarter of the seventeenth century.33

Although Shakespeare evidently put together a number of

sources for his Troilus and Cressida, the inspiration for

his account is primarily classical.34
-.
This historical resume indicates that the legend

underwent some significant changes in the later middle

ages.55 The end of the twelfth century fostered interest

in new sources of the legend, which in turn gave way to

classical sources again in the Renaissance; and the form

changed from episodic to full-length accounts. This

period between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries thus

represents a unique interlude in the English history of

the legend and opens the way for explorations of the

relationship between the legend and historical and sociolog-

ical factors which might have influenced the literary mode.

Such a study is obviously outside the scope of this

dissertation, but an understanding of the history of the

legend is important here because the Dictys-Dares tradition

is significantly different from the more familiar Homeric

tradition. The standard elements of the former should not

be mistaken for creative innovations by the Laud poet.







For the reader's convenience, a table of the major differences

is presented in Appendix II.

The numerous versions attest to the story's popularity

and also indicate that it represents a significant grouping

within the total body of medieval literature. Despite its

importance, the English Troy material has been the subject

of little scholarship. One reason for this inattention

may be that the works are of a lesser artistic caliber

than most of Chaucer's work, The Pearl, Sir Gawain and the

Green Knight, Piers Plowman, and the other cycles,

especially the Arthurian stories. The Laud Troy Book,

in particular, seems to lack artistic merit. It has

neither the stately alliterative movement of the Gest

Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy nor the rhythmic,

minstrel brevity of the Seege or Batayle of Troy to

commend it. In fact, R. K. Root in a review of J. Ernst

WUlfing's edition of the Laud for the Early English Text

Society writes:

Though quite untouched by any breath of
true poesy, and extended to the weary
length of 18,664 verses of halting
octosyllabic couplets, the Laud Troy
Book is, nevertheless, so important a
document for the English development
of the great Troy cycle that students
of Middle English will gladly welcome
this edition of the poem....56

Here, then, is the medieval scholar's dilemma:

should a poem lacking in artistry be the subject of analysis?

In the case of the Laud, the answer is clearly affirmative

because the work is a precursor of the Renaissance revenge







tragedy and as such brings into question the whole theory

of the Renaissance as a kind of package suddenly imported

from Italy and then modified. Troilus and Criseyde can

be called the first psychological novel if psychological

means minutely portraying the frustrations of one man.

But Chaucer is extraordinary, a genius compared to the

other artists of his time; consequently, he is expected

to be a forerunner of later, more subtle developments.

But the Laud poet's powers are less extraordinary; and

consequently, his subject-matter and techniques are

probably a better indication of the popular literature of

the time than are Chaucer's. For these reasons, then, the

work of intermediate quality needs to be explored.37


Some preliminary investigations have been done, two

of them article-length studies. The first, by Dorothy

Kempe, takes the form of a brief introduction.8 She

presents a description of the manuscript, then hypothesizes

that the poem, because it fails to make elaborate use of

the Troilus-Criseyde material, was written before Chaucer's

romance. She also attempts to establish Guido, rather than

Benolt, as the immediate source. She considers the

illustrations of contemporary life the most interesting

element of the poem. Among these illustrations are the

naive mixture of paganism and Christianity not found in

Guido, Benolt, or Lydgate, and the descriptions of the

civic state, dress, armour, weapons, and architecture.




12

She concludes with an evaluation of the style, which she

finds almost devoid of literary skill. Any innovations in

the story are accomplished "without definite artistic_..

purpose" and the versification is "rough, often deficient
"39
in grammar." According to Kempe, the poet's strong.points

seem to be innovations in dialogue, narrative expansions

of the Pirrus story, and descriptions of storms, battles,

and military life. She notes as "curious" the frequent

use of similes and indicates that "the author keeps completely

out of sight."40 Her article shows a number of insights

into the poem, but is most important in that it stimulated

Wulfing to complete his edition of the manuscript for the.

Early English Text Society.

Wulfing has also written an article which, in the

absence of a formal introduction to his edition, must serve
Li1
as a guide to his thoughts on the poem.41 This article

makes two major points. The first section supplements,

confirms, or corrects Dorothy Kempe's article; the second

deals with the problems of sources, and place and date of

composition. He presents several arguments indicating

that Guido's work was probably not the only material used

by the Laud poet for his composition. He indicates that

the Laud, the Gest and the Scottish Troy fragments are

based to some extent on another common source, probably

French. He believes that Benolt and Statius could have

been additional sources for the Laud. The date and place

of composition he assigns to the northwest Midlands between







the last quarter of the fourteenth century and the

first ten years of the fifteenth century. Although he

favors Dorothy Kempe's conclusion that-the poem was--

written before Chaucer's romance, he finds it impossible

to prove. The article contains no interpretation of the

poem, and Wulfing himself considers it a preliminary,

not a definitive study.

Two dissertations include passing discussions of

the Laud while investigating other, more comprehensive

topics dealing with the cycle as a whole. D. N. Hinton

treats the Laud in terms of a popular romance.42 He

finds that the words "curtays," "noblay," and "chivalrous"

occur only infrequently in the Gest, but are used regularly

in the Laud. He notices that marvelous qualities are

stressed throughout the Laud; for example, the description

of the fleece is lengthy and Medea's powers as sorceress

are not disclaimed. Banquets, music, dancing, dress, and

formal behavior, in short, attributes of courtly life, are

stressed. Warfare, including descriptions of armour and

battles, is emphasized, and Hector behaves according to'

the chivalric ideals of fourteenth century knighthood.

Because he considers the work to be a Hector romance,

Hinton finds the structure deficient: the hero enters

late and dies early. Strangely enough, he believes that

most of the material following Hector's death is a

straight translation of Guido; but such a view fails to -

consider the poet's treatment of the Achilles' episode






and the addition of the story of Pirrus which Dorothy

Kempe had previously noted as an apparently original

elaboration.

Gordon R. Wood sees the Laud as a translation of

Guido, but in the "new manner."43 This new manner is

signaled by the use of certain phrases to acknowledge

the poet's debt to his source--"of this matter I will

not tell," "these are the words of him whom I translate,"

"as the trety says"--or by the use of direct references

to the author being translated. Since Wood has chosen

to interpret the Laud as a translation of Guido, he must

account for its marked divergence from the other two

translations, the Gest and the Troy Book. His

explanation of the "new manner" is one attempted account,

and another is based on the purpose for translating:

If one can judge from the poet's silence,
he did not make the translation because
some patron ordered him to. From internal
evidence such as the poet's colloquial style
of writing (432-44, 484-500, 765-92), one
may conclude that he intended the poem for a
more general audience. If this is so, we
have, perhaps, an explanation of the
difference in content between the Laud
translation and those contemporary with
it: a translation designed to please a
general audience need not follow the source
closely. Its author, in order to keep
the attention of the audience, may reject
everything which stops the progress of the
story, and he may greatly elaborate those
things which he thinks will add to it.44

Such explanations of the differences between the Laud and

other versions cf the Troy story are not exhaustive and are

certainly biased by the initial assumption that the Laud is






a translation of Guido. Wood does, however, recognize

a number of important differences between the Laud and the

two other versions: the Laud poet "discards all elements not

relating to the Trojan war"; he adds "Hector's own words,"

"detailed accounts of armour and fighting," and "an analysis

of the emotions of the contestants"; and he leaves out the

Greeks' return.45

These last two approaches to the Laud are less than

satisfactory because, of course, they do not focus primarily

on the Laud and thus are only partial and sometimes

inaccurate explanations. The first two approaches represent

exploratory studies which, for the most part, are concerned

with the circumstances of the manuscript and its composition

rather than with the contents. This study differs from the

previous studies in that it focuses solely on the Laud and

attempts to delineate its distinguishing characteristics,

relating it ultimately to the Renaissance revenge tragedies.

The division of the following work is based on

various aspects of the poem. One chapter focuses on the

narrator, another on theme, another on characterization,

and still another on descriptive techniques. An outline

of the contents of the Laud is presented in Appendix I,

and an annotated bibliography of relevant works is included

in Appendix III.












NOTES


1Charles Homer Haskins The Renaissance of the Twelfth
Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1927-).
Friedrich Heer, The Medieval World: Europe 1100-
1350 (New York, 1962), p. 19.
3Frederick B. Artz, The Mind of the Middle Ages,
3rd ed. rev. (New York, 19581 pp. 434-435.
Herbert Muller, The Uses of the Past (New York,
1952), p.252.
5C. Warren Hollister, The Twelfth Century Renaissance
(New York, 1969), note particularly the bibliographic
essay, pp. 165-167.
6Walter F. Schirrer, "The Importance of the Fifteenth
Century for the Study of the English Renaissance with
Special Reference to Lydgate," English Studies Today, ed.
by C.L. Wrenn and G. Bullough (London, 1951), pp. 104-110.
7Willard Farnham, The Medieval Heritage of Elizabethan
Tragedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1936).
8Mary Bonaventure Mroz, Divine Vengeance: Philosophi-
cal Backgrounds of the Revenge Motif in Shakespeare's
Chronicle History Plays (Washington, D.C., 1941).
9Marguerite Hearsey (ed.), The Complaint of Henry,
Duke of Buckingham (New Haven, 1936).

1lRaymond Chapcan, "The Wheel of Fortune in Shakespeare's
History Plays," Review of English Studies, new series I
(1950), 1-7.
ID.S. Brewer, rev. of The Poetry of John L-.-'te,
by Alain Renoir, Speculum, XLIVTT(9), $17-518.
12
1Geoffrey Hartman, "Structuralism: The Anglo-
American adventure," Strutturalism, ed. by Jacques Ehrmann
(Garden City, New York, 1970, p. 148.
13Doroty Everett its: "Hoever the scholar ay
Dorothy Everett writes: the scholar may






sympathize with the natural reactions of his contemporaries
to any work of art, it is part of his business to make
clear its significance for the time in which it was
created..." "A Characterization of the English Medieval
Romances," E&S, XV (1929), 98-99.
14Sebastian Evans (trans. and ed.), Histories of the
KinRs of Britain, by Geoffrey of Monmouth (New York, 1911),
p. xv.
15Laura Keeler, Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Late
Latin Chroniclers 1300-1500 (Los Angeles and Berkeley,
1946), pp. 1-2.
16George Gordon, "The Trojans in Britain," E&S, IX
(1924), 28, and J.J. Jusserand, The English Novel in the
Time of Shakespeare, trans. by Elizabeth Lee (London, 1890),
p. 39.
17Farnham, p. 79.
18A.J. Valpy (ed.), Dictys Cretensis et Dares Phrygius
De bello Trojano, II (London, 1825). All citations are
from this edition.

19N.E. Griffin, Dictys and Dares: An Introduction
to the Study of the Medieval Story of Troy (Baltimore,
1907) and "The Un-Homeric Elements in the Medieval Story
of Troy," JEGP, VII (1908), 32-52.
20
2Leopold Constans (ed.), Le Roman de Troie, par
Benolt de Sainte-Maure, Societ6 des Anciens Textes Frangais,
6 vols., (Paris, 1904-1912). All citations are from this
edition.
21N.E. Griffin (ed.), Guido de Columnis. Historia
destructionis Troiae, (Cambridge, Mass., 1936). All
citations are from this edition.
22
E. Bagby Atwood and Virgil K. Whitaker (eds.),
Excidium Troiae (Cambridge, Mass., 1944).

25
Carol C. Esler, "Joseph of Exeter's Bellum Troianum:
A Literary Study and English Translation," Diss. Bryn
Mawr College, 1966.
24
Geoffrey B. Riddehough, "A Forgotteu Poet: Joseph
of Exeter," JEGP, XLVI (1947), 254.
25Mary E. Barnicle (ed.), The Seege or Batayle of
Troye, Early English Text Society, 172 (London, 1927).
2George A. Panton and David Donaldson (eds.), The






Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy, Early English
Text Society, 39, 56 (London, 1869-1874). All citations
are from this edition.
2Geoffrey Chaucer, The Complete Works of Geoffrey
Chaucer, ed. by Fred N. Robinson, 2nd ed. (Boston, 1l57).
All citations are from this edition.
28
J. Ernst Wulfing (ed.), The Laud Troy Book, Early
English Text Society, 121, 122 (London, 1902-1903). All
citations are from this edition.
29John Lydgate, Lydgate's Troy Book, ed. by Henry
Bergen, Early English Text Society, extra series 97, 103,
106, 126 (London,1906-1935). All citations are from this
edition.

30N.E. Griffin, "The Sege of Troy," PMLA, XXII (1907),
157-200.
31Carl Horstmann, Barbour's, des schottischen
Nationaldichters, Legendensamnlung nebst den Framnenten
seines Trojanerkreiges, II (Heilbronn, 1881), 255ff.
32Raoul Lefevre, The Recuyell of the Historyes of
Troye, trans. by William Caxton, ed. by H.O. Sommer,
2 vols. (London, 1894).
3Thomas Heywood, "The Iron Age, Parts I and II,"
The Dramatic Works of Thomas Heywood, III (London, 1874);
Troia Britannica: Or, Great Britaines Troy (London, 1609).
34G.B. Harrison (ed.) Shakespeare: The Complete
Works (New York, 1948), p. 974. All citations are from
this edition.

35E. Bagby Atwood and Virgil Whitaker discuss various
foreign versions of the tale in their introduction to
Excidium Troiae.
36R.K. Root, rev. of The Laud Troy Book, ed. by
J. Ernst Wilfing, JEGP, V (1903- 1905), 367-368.
37George Kane assesses the Laud as "first among the
works of intermediate quality." Micadle English LiterattLe
(London, 1951), p. 26.
8orothy Kempe, "A Middle English Tale of Troy,"
Englische Studien, XXIX (1901), 1-26.
39Kempe, pp. 22-25.

40Kempe, p. 25.




19

41J. Ernst illfing, "Das Laud Troy-Book Englische
Studien, CXIX (1901), 374-598.

4D.N. Hinton, "A Study of the Middle English Poems
Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of
Wisconsin, 1957.

4Gordon R. Wood, "The Middle English Alliterative
Destruction of Troy: A Critical Study," Diss. Princeton,
1952, p. 29.

4Wood, pp. 22-23.

45Wood, p. 27.












II. NARRATOR AND GENRE


The following chapter attempts to show that the

Laud Troy Book is narrated by a speaker who believes the

Trojans fell because they made a number of wrong decisions

and who also links his tale to other medieval tragedies

of Fortune, but does not offer Providential explanations

of the fall. This emphasis on the individual rather than

on Fortune or Providence helps to make the Laud a transi-

tional piece, standing somewhere between medieval and

Renaissance tragedy.

First of all, the poem is narrated by a speaker who

is sympathetic to the Trojans and laments their fall. The

passages spoken by this narrator can be easily identified

because they all begin with similar phrases: "So weylaway

that it was so" (2705), "A, Priamus, if that thow wistes"

(3600), "Alas, Paris, what hastow do"(3352), "Alas, Ector!
he rewys my thought" (3356), "Alas, me rewes of Priamus"

(3367), "A noble Troye, that was rial" (3373). Each
passage laments the action of some indiviudal and foretells

disaster; and each one also emphasizes the element of

tragedy by underscoring the difference between what might

have been and what will actually come to pass.






The lamentations occur at strategic points in the

story. The first follows the proposal that Paris should

go to revenge his father on the Greeks. Cassandra

prophesies destruction if he does, but Priam refuses to

listen. At this point, the narrator interrupts to indicate

that if Paris had not gone to Greece, the destruction could

have been avoided:

So weylaway that it was so,
That he nolde afftir hir [Cassandr] do!
For hadde he don afftir hir rede,
Hadde he not so sone ben dede,
Ne the Cite not be brent,
Ne alle hir kyn so foule be schent.
In al the world such a Cite
Neuere was ne neuere schal be. (2705-2712)
Here Priam, by refusing to believe Cassandra's prophecy,

brings about total destruction of his lineage and city.

This pattern occurs at least two other times in the Laud:

during an .early council Helenus warns of destruction (2519-

2540), but is mocked by Troilus; and, again, Partheus,

during an open council, repeats his father's prophecy

(2635-2662), but the general citizenry cry out against

him (2663-2672). Thus, Priam hears three prophecies

against sending Paris on the mission to the Greeks, and

he chooses to disregard all three. His decision itself

does not constitute a tragic situation, but the narrator's

lamentation, which recalls the final effect of the decision,

forces the reader to see that this action will cause

ultimate destruction. From the narrator's point of view,

then, failing to act on true prophecy is a significant

element in the final tragedy.







Late in the council which finally sends Paris to

Greece, Hector offers a number of reasons why the Trojans

should not engage in a war against the Greeks (2319-2572),

but Priam also disregards this advice. The narrator then

laments:

A, Priamus, if that thow wistes
The sorwe that comes to the and thine
Off noble Troye the gret ruyne!
Haddest thow don be Ectores rede,
Then haddest thow not be dede.
Now comes thi sorwe and thi wo,
Alas, thi Ioye schal ouer-go! (3600-3606)

In the eyes of the narrator, Priam's failure to take

Hector's advice, like his failure to act on Cassandra's

prophecy, is directly related to the tragic outcome.

Priam also grants too many truces. The Greeks have

heavy losses; the weather sometimes works against them;

and they often need time to get supplies. Therefore, they

ask for truces under the guise of honoring the dead.

Because the Trojans are anxious for peace, they willingly

grant the truces, despite Hector's arguments (8160-8198).

The Laud poet increases the number of truces by almost

twice that found in the other narratives, and the narrator

shows that granting at least one of these truces is a

significant factor in the fall of Troy:

A, Priamus! that ftow was made,
When thow the trees so ly3tly granted!
For haddes thow thenne that batayle haunted
Thei schulde haue died with gret vilte,
With swerd at that gret mortalite! (9844-9848)

Thus, the narrator again emphasizes a wrong decision, one

which will ultimately bring about the fall of the city.







Some lamentations enumerate the tragic results of an

individual's action. When Paris finally brings Helen to

Troy and marries her, the narrator comments on the action:

Alas, Paris, what hastow do,
When thow leddest away Eleyne!
So many gode knyghtes for hir schul be sclayne,
And alle thi kyn to dethe was brought.
Alas, Ector! he rewys my thought,
That he schulde dye for his disert!
So strong he was In armes apert,
Ne neuere wrong he wolde do.
Alas, that thi god Appollo
Ne hadde throwe the In the salt-flom,
Er thow haddist brought hir hom!
By Ihesu Crist of Nazareth!
I wolde, thow haddist taken the dethe,
When thow wentist to Tytharie,
To here and se that melodye!
Alas, me rewes of Priamus,
Off Hectuba, and gode Troylus,
Off Pollexene, and Andromede!
That Paris made brend In a glede,
When thow leddest away Eleyne
Out of the temple of dame Vyane!
A noble Troye, that was rial
A-doun is thrown with ston arn wal;
That made Paris and his euel wit.
And elles hit scholde haue stonde 3it
As long as lerusalem,
Ne hadde Paris ben and his fals drem.
Now artow doun, and thi toures bye,
For Paris ffals a-voutrye! (3352-3380)

The passage is primarily a catalog of events which are all

the results of Paris' action. Here again a character's

failure to realize the ramifications of his action causes

the fall of Troy.

Hector also makes a mistake which affects others. He

decides to go to battle even though Andromache has had

a prophetic dream that he will be killed. This decision

prompts a one-hundred and fifteen line lamentation, by far

the longest the narrator ever delivers (9877-9992). It







consists of a catalog of events which will result from

Hector's foolish decision (9905-9908): Priam will lose his

nobility; Hecuba and Pollexena, their lives; Troilus, the

lands he might have ruled; Andromache, her husband and her

royal position; the knights, their happiness; and the

citizenry, their treasure and greatness. Here again the

narrator emphasizes the relationship between Hector's

action and the lives of all the people in Troy. According

to Willard Farnham, recognizing the individual and the

relationship of his specific action to the larger situation

is an important element in the growth of Renaissance

tragedy.1 Consequently, the narrator's analysis of

individual actions in relation to the outcome of the war

constitutes one factor which makes the Laud a transitional

poem.

The narrator's lamentations all have a similarity of

content and construction which link all the erroneous

actions of the Trojans, making them the cause of the fall.

The narrator thus serves a kind of analytic function in that

he points out the errors. Neither the Gest nor Lydgate's

Troy Book interpret the fall as the result of a number of

individual actions.

The Gest poet indicates that he is a serious translator,

rendering into English Guido's history:2

But A e truth for to telle & Aoe text euyn
Of at fight how it felle in a few yeres,
eat was clanly compiled with a clerk wise,.
On Gydo, a gome, 4at graidly bade soght,
And wist all e werks by weghes he hade,






That bothe were in batell while the batell last
And euber sawte & assembly see with Bere een.

In this shall faithfully be founden to the fer ende,
All be dedes by dene as Jai done were. (51-79)

The poet, following his source, blames lust in women for the

fall, specifically in Helenq who could not refrain from

going to the temple when she heard Paris was there.

According to the poem, her lust ultimately brings about

treason, war, and ruin (2920-2982). The poet also condemns

corruption and covetousness in priests, specifically in

that priest who sold the Palladium to Antenor (11768-11781),

and a long passage is devoted to the folly of idolatry,

which, of course, has no power to save (4295-4458). The

Gest, paralleling Guido's work, uses the tale for purposes

of moral edification.

Lydgate indicates that he, too, is translating, but

he feels free to fill his work with all kinds of scholarly

elaboration. Sometimes a sentence or even a name will

be enough to suggest a history or a fable to him. Consequently,

before Aeneas betrays Troy, Lydgate, who obviously knows the

Aeneid and wishes to excuse the hero of that work for his

inappropriate action in this poem, explains that the

unfavorable conjunction of the stars brought about the

treason (IV, 4440-4532). In this way the poet is able to

preserve the image that he has previously created, Aeneas

as the glorious founder of the Roman Empire. The implicit

suggestion here is that the fall of Troy was Providential.

These comparisons indicate that the Laud poet offers a






different explanation of the fall than most other versions

do, and this explanation looks forward to the Renaissance,

which also emphasizes the individual and his actions as

the cause of events.

In the Laud, however, the characters cannot clearly

see the end result of their actions. For this reason

Priam (1941-1943), Hector (2337-2342), Agamemnon (11418-

11422), Aeneas (7150-7160), and Achilles (12291-12292) all

indicate that men ought to be cautious in their behavior.

This, then, is their tragic flaw; they have not the power.

to know thefuture. On the other hand, Dephebus pragmati-

cally states their position:

...lordynges, if it were so,
Off eche a thyng that men schulde do,
If thei caste that noght be-falle,
Nis no man of vs nowhere, bonde ne thralle,
That any-thyng scholde be-gynne, fro drede
That he scholde fayle or euel spede. (2505-2510)

Thus, what the Trojans must do, when contrasted with what

they ought to do, clearly shows their tragic position in

the universe. They have limited knowledge, being unable to

recognize those prophecies and reasoning which, if followed,

would lead to their ultimate well-being, and yet they must

act.

In an analysis of the lliterative Morte Arthure, Larry

Benson explains medieval tragedy as a kind of tension:

The tension is between two goods, between
the Christian detachment that is necessary
for ultimate happiness even on this earth
and the complete engagement with an earthly
ideal that is necessary for heroism.3

The Laud, then, has half the material for medieval tragedy;






the characters are forced to engage in the earthly ideals of

honor and obligation to a lord. But rather than presenting

the ideals of Christian detachment to create a tension, the

Laud poet emphasizes the idea of limited knowledge which

prevents the characters from both preserving their own well

being and doing the earthly things they must. According to

Frederick Artz, "The Renaissance, as it is commonly described,

is not the Middle Ages plus man, but the Middle Ages minus

God.... In comparison to Guido's history, the Gest, and

Lydgate's Troy Book, the Laud is unique because it does not

contain didactic passages praising or defending Christianity.

Neither does it present Boethian philosophy or scholastic

debate as do other medieval works. Despite passing refer-

ences to Christianity and the standard opening and closing,

the poem is free of direct Christian interpolation. By

focusing on individuals and their actions rather than on

Christian or Boethian philosophies, the Laud again fore-

shadows the Renaissance, which also focuses on men rather

than didactic messages.

Roy Battenhouse, in discussing the Shakespearean

conception of tragedy, underscores the idea of the tragic

flaw:

In several [f the tragic characters, there
are faults he [Sakespear] has not named
or faults at a level deeper than he has
named, which contribute at least indirectly
to the disasters which ensue. An initial
self-righteousness in Cordelia, a mad
wilfulness in Lear, a superstitiousness in
Gloucester, and a weather--vane deviousness
in Polonius might be mentioned for instance.5






Thus, in Shakespeare's work, the tragedy grows not only

out of situation and action, but also out of the character's

inherent nature. H.R. Patch finds a similar trend in

medieval heroes:

If the suffering of the chief figure in
the scenes comes accidentally, then we
may indeed consider this a weak and
sentimental kind of tragedy. No doubt
that is how the term Fortune was under-
stood in the Middle Ages....But mediaeval
authors wrote better stories than those
of pure chance. We find many allusions
to the wanton pride of the hero before
his fall, a circumstance that makes the
action of Fortune more rational.0

This touch of pride can be found in Troilus' scorn of

lovers (I, 194-203) and again in the alliterative Morte

Arthure in Arthur's desire for conquests beyond Rome (3211).7

The Laud also presents a tragic flaw, but it is not

a flaw peculiar to one man; it is the nature of the species.

No one can know the future. According to Battenhouse, the

flaws portrayed in Shakespeare's characters are unique to

the particular personality. That is, not everyone suffers

from superstition or self-righteousness, but a number of

people do. Consequently, the portraits are pleasing because

they are true to life. But the flaw as found in the Laud

retains the medieval quality of Everyman. In fact,

characterization in general lacks detailed development in

the Laud. As George Kane says, "The charming intimacy of

romances like Beues of Hamptoun or Hauelok, where we

attach our sympathies to the fortunes of a single character,

is wanting here." Since it lacks an intimate account of






the central character with whom the reader can identify,

the poem is not as moving as the Morte Arthure or Troilus and

Criseyde; consequently, the tragic effect of the fall is

lessened. Since the flaw is inherent in the species and

is not a quality a man might presumably control if he

tried, the Laud, then, stands somewhere between the earlier

medieval tragedy in which the fall is due primarily to

uncontrollable cosmic factors and the great Renaissance

portraits of individuals who, through their own actions,

bring about destruction.


The Laud is a transitional work, too, in terms of its

Fortune motif. A few minor references to the goddess are

sprinkled throughout the work, but the only major passage

is spoken by the narrator following Hector's decision to

withdraw his troops in the first formal battle:

But Ector was that day vnblessed,
Off grace certes that day he myssed,
He myght that day the batayl haue ent
And alle the Gregeis clene haue schent,
That thei schulde neuere haue passed the see
With lyff ne lym to here centre;
But destene, that fortune ledes,
When he beholdis that men best spedis
With sicur traist of wel spedyng,
He makes hem leue somtyme a thyng
That he may haue at his will,
That he schal neuere come ther-tille.

For I haue herd. offte say,
That he that wil not whan he may,
When he wolde, he getis it noght,
Then hit were ful faire be-sought,
Som tyme, as good hap nere,
That comes not ones In seuene 3ere. (5883-5906)
A description of Fortune and a catalog of those she has







undone--Alexander, Caesar, Arthur, and Hector--complete the

lengthy passage.

These references to Fortune and Destiny suggest that

the poet may be offering a Providential explanation for the

fall, rather than an explanation based primarily on indiv-

idual behavior; but such is not actually the case because

Fortune never assumes an active role in the poem. She is

termed "fficul" (5909), "frele" (5909), "variable" (5915),

and unstable (5916). She "be-trayes" (5912), "be-swykes"

(5918), and "aruses" (5959). She is motivated by hate (8563)
and desire (9851); and she is often a "foo mortel" (9849),

an image of battle which fits nicely with the plot action,

but is not developed. She also turneds and trendeles as

doth a bal" (5953), a stance related to the graphic

depictions of her standing on a ball.9 But none of these

descriptions are developed to form any recurrent theme.

Similarly, the image of the wheel is absent. There are

oblique references to it, as when Fortune desires Priam's

"blysse doun" (9851), but there are no explicit references.

If the poet was familiar, as he undoubtedly was, with the

four positions on the wheel as rising, reigning, falling,

and being cast off, he may have been reluctant to use this

image of the life of a prince for material depicting the

fall of a city.

Destiny, whom Fortune leads (5889), is barely described
at all. His principle role seems to be to lead men away

from things they might easily attain, as he leads Hector







from victory in the first formal battle (5889-5894).

Destiny also prompts one of the few truisms in the Laud:

often a man will not do what he may, and later cannot do

what he would (5091-5096). The idea is essentially

Boethian; but like other poets of the period, the author.

of the Laud does not attempt to make any explanation of

the precise connection between destiny and free will.

He does indicate, however, that Destiny can be over-

come by men's free will: the narrator assures the reader

twice that Hector could have had the victory in thefirst

formal battle had he chosen to take the opportunity (5894-

5899, 5955-5959). Again, before Hector's final battle, the
narrator indicates that if the hero had not gone this day,

he would subsequently have led the Trojans to victory

(10006-10008). Priam, too, says before this final battle

that it is possible for Hector to beat his destiny if he

remains at home (10146-10150 but after he rides off

despite Priam's command, the narrator says it is now

impossible to avoid the tragedy (10549-10550). This

series of comments implies a relationship between destiny

and free will, but nowhere does the poet explicitly

investigate the problems involved in relating the two as

Chaucer does in Troilus' famous speech on predestination

and free will (IV, 958-1079). In fact, the poem in

comparison to Troilus and Criseyde is quite devoid of

philosophical import. Unlike Chaucer's work, the references
to Fortune and Destiny in the Laud form no significant and






well-developed nucleus for the poem. They seem rather to

provide a traditional framework which links the poem, not

to the catalog of romances presented in.the introduction

(15-24), but to the catalog of tragedies presented by the

narrator in the gnomic interpolation of Fortune. Because

Fortune and Destiny never become active or causal agents in

the poem, then, they are primarily of artistic importance,

providing a tradition for understanding the poem, rather

than a philosophical or theological explanation for the

misfortunes that come even to the virtuous.

In his thorough explication of the medieval ideas on

Fortune, H.R. Patch writes:

Of course the greatest injuries one can
receive from Fortune nearly all consist
in the fall from a state of honor.....Since
this change in man's fortune is what
really constitutes the medieval idea of
tragedy, we may call this the "tragic
theme." ...The literary type of the
tragedy caused by Fortune was firmly
established and well recognized in the
Middle Ages.10

Chaucer's translation of Boethius' De consolation

contains a famous passage showing the link between the

medieval concepts of fortune and tragedy: "What other

thyng bywaylen the cryinges of tragedyes but only the

deedes of Fortune, that with unwar strook overturneth

the realmes of great nobleye?" (ii, pr. 2). Lydgate's

Troy Book contains a similar linkage:

But tragidie, who so list to know,
It begynneth in prosperity,
And endeth euer in aduersite;






And it also doth +e conquest trete
Of riche kynges and of lordys grete,
Of my3ty men and olde conquerouTs,
Which by fraude of Fortunys schowris
Ben ouercast & whelmed from her glorie.
(ii, 852-859)

If the medieval poets did indeed recognize a group of tales

related through their emphasis on Fortune and through a

plot structure moving from happiness to woe, then the Laud

poet undoubtedly associated his poem with that group of

tales. Thus, the Fortune motif in the poem indicates that

the poet probably conceived of his work as a tragedy. But

because Fortune is primarily an artistic device denoting

genre and is not the focal point of the narrative, the

Laud can be described as moving away from earlier medieval

poems which attempt to explain the working of Fortune

toward the later tragedies which often curse or lament

Fortune but seldom focus on explaining her behavior.

Other aspects of a Providential fall are also missing.

In Chaucer's poem Fortune and Destiny are linked to God,

but the Laud poet attempts no such linkage. The narrator

does, however, mention several times that the Trojans are

without grace:

Alas Troye! what is thi grace?
To the fel neuere gode trace,
To the fel neuere gode chance,
Ne non of alle thi retenaunce!
Thoow thow be gay & glorious,
Thow were euere on-gracious!
Off thow hede of Cites were,
Blysful hap to the fel neuere! (14687-14694)

Allas! that day he[Hector]hadde no grace
To be at home, as hin radde wace. (10547-10548)






Kyng Priamus, where was thi grace?
Thi happe was take fro the, alas! (8547-8548)

But the references to grace, like the personifications of

Fortune and Destiny, are never explicitly related to God,

and the standard explanation,that man without God's grace

cannot always make those choices that will create a favor-

able destiny for him, is also missing, despite the obvious

opportunity to introduce it. No lengthy condemnation of

paganism is presented as is the case in both the Gest (4256-

4458) and Lydgate's Troy Book (IV, 6921-7034). Although

the medieval reader, through connotation, may have compared

his own opportunity to attain grace to the pagan's

graceless state, the poem itself contains no such comparison.

Apparently the poet deliberately avoids making theological

or philosophical concerns the focus of his work.

Since he never specifically links Fortune, Destiny,

or grace to God, the Laud poet is never forced to explain

God's rationale for destroying Troy, and he never discusses

necessity or God's unlimited knowledge. He even omits

episodes and explanations that would lead the reader to

see how the fall was necessary to the subsequent pattern

of history. For example, he never identifies Aeneas as

the central figure in Virgil's poem or the founder of the

Roman republic, as Guido, the Gest poet, and Lydgate do;

and he never gives a chronology of the subsequent settlement

of the European world by the survivors of Troy as Lydgate

does (I, 805-917). By ignoring even these standard






implications of Providential history, the poet focuses his

work on men's actions in the strict context of the fall of

Troy.


This analysis of the narrator's lamentations and

gnomic interpolations indicates that the poet probably

designed his work in terms of medieval tragedy of Fortune,

despite his statements about romance, and that the poem

focuses on individual actions as the primary cause of the

fall of Troy. Hinton, in his discussion of the Laud, fails

to recognize that the poem is a tragedy of Fortune, depicting

the fall of a city, not the fall of a prince. He indicates

that the poem is not unified because the hero enters late

and dies early,ll a charge which is true enough if the

poem is analyzed only in terms of a Hector romance. In the

introduction to the poem, the author himself encourages

such a reading:

Many speken of men that romaunces rede
That were sumtyme doughti in dede,
The while that god hem lyff lente,
That now ben ded and hennes wente:

But of the worthiest wyght in wede
That euere by-strod any stede,
Spekes no man, ne in romance redes
Off his batayle ne of his dedis. (11-30)

This passage, of course, is the prelude to the announcement

of Hector as the hero of the poem. But the poet indicates,

too, that glorifying Hector is only a part of his intended

purpose; he also plans to tell all the deeds of the Trojan

war:






Herkenes now, and 3e may here
The were sothe alle plenere:
What was the forme enchesoun,
The forest skyl and resoun,
That alle the kynges of Grecis formast Inued
And the Troyens so long pursued;
And how the batayle was first be-gunnen,
And how Troye was sithen y-wonnen;
And--as the store here beris recorde--
Alle the dedis of euery lorde,
And alle the dayes that thei caught there,
And alle the dedis as thei were
Of alle the lordes that their caught,
And which of hem here dethe 4er laught;
And how fele terms and treweb
Where take be-twene Troyens and Gruwes,
And how long euery trewe last,
And how thai spedde when thei were paste;
And alle here wo and al here breste;
And how many tymes that thei reste
With-Inne ten 5ere that thei were thore,
Er that the toun destroyed wore. (65-86)

This passage is a realistic statement of the scope of the

Laud; the poet gives a detailed account of the war: the

battles, the truces, the men, and the deeds. The second

half of the author's purpose, though not so interesting

critically as his statement about creating a Hector romance,

nonetheless, receives an equal amount of attention from the

poet both in the above passage and also in a subsequent

passage which again states his purpose (3272-3296). Hinton's

analysis, then, is less than satisfactory because it fails

to consider the poet's larger purpose which aims at vividly

depicting bhe tragic fall of Troy.

Gordon Wood indicates that the Laud was written for a

general audience, not for a specific patron, and that under

these circumstances the Laud poet's treatment of the legend

could afford to be freer than either the Gest or Lydgate's






Troy Book.12 If in fact written for no specific patron,

the Laud would have to rely, at least to some extent, on an

appeal to contemporary literary interests. The catalog

of other romance heroes is certainly meant to stimulate the

audience's interest in this particular work by associating

it with other well-known works. In view of the author's

situation, if he was indeed not writing for a specific

individual, it is perhaps best to understand the opening

remarks on Hector and romance as an attempt to revitalize

familiar material by giving it a fashionable form. The

Laud's reputation as a Hector romance, then, is probably a

modern exaggeration based on the author's own eagerness to

make his story appealing. A re-evaluation ought to be

based on the poet's total statement of purpose--that is,

on both the idea of a Hector romance and the narration of

all the events of the war--and on the framework he creates

through his emphasis on Fortune. The Laud, like Chaucer's

romance Troilus and Criseyde, ought to be discussed in

terms of tragedy;13 and the critical charges of disunity

ought to be reassessed, again in terms of the author's.

total statement of purpose and the framework he creates.

Any assessment of the poem, however, would have to

conclude that the poet fails to create a real feeling of

tragedy because he does not sufficiently develop a

character or a set of characters with whom the reader can

identify. The poem also lacks a building plot line so that

the Aristotelian principle of unity and the subordination






of all the parts to one objective is not immediately

apparent. The role of the narrator lends a dramatic

atmosphere to the poem, but unfortunately this atmosphere

is offset and obscured by the length of the poem and the

tedious repetition of the battles. The Laud does make a

distinct innovation in the Troy story, however, by developing

a persona who focuses on the tragic nature of the fall.

Both the Gest and Lydgate's Troy Book are narrated by the

poet-translators themselves, who aim at moral and scholastic

edification. But the Laud poet does not rely on Guido's

extensive proverbs.to give his work a moral tenor. Instead

he focuses on the action itself, using the narrator as a

device to highlight those actions which he wishes to empha-

size. Admittedly then, the poem is not a highly success-

ful tragedy, but in the development of the tale itself

the Laud turns away from the older didactic traditions

and moves into the realm of the story for the sake of

entertainment, leaving the reader to draw his own moral

conclusions from the action itself and the narrator's

interpolations.













NOTES


1Willard Farnham, The Medieval Heritage of Eliza-
bethan Tragedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1936), p. 124.

A discussion of the Gest poet's purpose in
translating and the major deviations from his source is
presented in Gordon R. Wood's "The Middle English Allit-
erative Destruction of Troy: A Critical Study," Diss.
Princeton, 1952.

Larry A. Benson, "The Alliterative Morte Arthure
and Medieval Tragedy," TSL, XI (1965), 80-81.

Frederick B. Artz, Les idees et les lettres, trans.
by C.W. Hollister (Paris, 1932), p. 192, quoted in The
Twelfth Century Renaissance, ed. by C.W. Hollister (New
York, 1969), p. 85.

5Roy Battenhouse, Shakespeare's Tragedy: Its Art
and Its Christian Premises (Bloomington, 1969), p. 138.

6Howard R. Patch, The Goddess Fortuna in Medieval
Literature (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), p. 69.

7Edmund Brock (ed.), Morte Arthure; or, the Death
of Arthur, Early English Text Society, 8 (London, 1871).

8George Kane, Middle English Literature (London,
1951), p. 27.

9Patch, pp. 45, 61, 148.

lOPatch, pp. 67-72.

11D.N. Hinton, "A Study of the Middle English Poems
Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of
Wisconsin, 1957, p. 194.





40

12Gordon R. Wood, "The Middle English Alliterative
Destruction of Troy: A Critical Study," Diss. Princeton,
1952, pp. 22-25.

13D.W. Robertson, Jr., "Chaucerian Tragedy,".ELH,
XIX (1952), 1-57.













III. STRUCTURE AND THEME


The theme of revenge is usually associated with the

Renaissance, primarily because the revenge tragedy became

fashionable at that time. But the middle ages was also

interested in revenge. Fredson Bowers shows that social

concerns go back even to the Old English period. Mary

Mroz finds that medieval theologians and poets were inter-
2
ested in the subject. William Matthews discusses revenge

in the alliterative Morte Arthure, and many episodes of

the Canterbury Tales involve revenge. Despite the avail-

able material, however, revenge is seldom associated with

the middle ages in the same way that it is with the Renais-

sance. The association with the Renaissance is due in part

to the striking form of the revenge tragedy, which usually

involves sensational horrors, a scheming villain, insanity,

and intrigue--characteristics making it easy to identify and

discuss. Such a striking form does not usually accompany

the motif in the medieval period; consequently, the idea

receives little scholarly attention. The following

chapter tries to show that the Laud, though not a drama,

contains most of the characteristics of the Renaissance

revenge tragedy and is, thus, a transitional piece between

the earlier period, which was interested in the theme,

41







and the later period, which adopted a striking form for

the theme. A comparison of similar episodes in the Laud

and the Gest indicates that the Laud poet consistently

emphasizes revenge, making it the dominant theme of the

poem. Madness, treachery, brutality, and love are all

complementary or contrasting themes. The presence ofeach

idea is first demonstrated and then related to the

Renaissance revenge plays.

The greater part of the Laud, that is, the recitation

of the second destruction of Troy, is episodic, focusing

for the most part on each day's battle. The poet usually

tells first of the preparation, then of the general battle

scene, then of the personal encounters, and finally of the

night's activities. These day-to-day accounts of the

war are relieved with episodes of truce. Truces most

often involve councils, burials, and recoveries, but are

always closely linked with the preceding or following

war activities. Since the battle scenes form the heart of

the narrative, they will be investigated first, and the

truces will be related to them.

Generally, the battles contain an interior continuity;

that is, the individual encounters within the larger battle

are related to each other. For example, in the Gest

Penthesilea's first encounter with the Greeks begins

"Pantasilia so presit proud Menelaus,/at he gird hym to

ground with a grym dynt" (10873-10874). The Laud, however,

records the action this way:






Menelaus hadde grete envy
Off that quene Pantasaly,
That sche the Gregais so defouled;
On hir that tyme ful foule he schouled
And seyde: "that he wolde to hir ride ....
To se whether sche wolde him abyde."
He rode to hir with mochel Ire. (16155-16161)

Here Penthesilea does not press Menelaus; rather, he

approaches her through the specific motivation of envy for

her success in killing his compatriots. In the Gest

Penthesilea's attack is not related to any preceding event,

but in the Laud her previous action prompts Menelaus'

action. This is only one of many instances in which the

Laud poet alters the usual narrative to provide motivation

for a character's action.

In the Gest, the next encounter is recorded this way:

Dyomede the derfe drofe to )e qwene,
With a course of his caple, and a kene speire.
at mighty hym met with a mayn stroke,
at he bend in the back to fe bare sadell,
Vnneth held hym on horse for harme pat he olet.
(10877-10881)

The Laud, however, gives this version:

Diomedes, that dou3ti kyng,
By-held that tyme that lustyng,
He saw the kyng falle a-doun,
Vp the fete & doun the croun;
His hors was lorn, & he on fote,
He seyde: "ther-on he scholde do bote,
That sturdy strok scholde sche abye."
He rode thanne to Pantasalye
With al the myght that euere he hadde. (16169-16177)

Here Diomedes' action is prompted by a desire to make

Penthesilea abyee," "pay for," her treatment of a fellow

warrior. Thus, the Laud poet shows that the two actions,

Menelaus' attack on Penthesilea and Diomedes' vengeance,







are clearly connected, one being motivated by the other

through revenge. The Gest poet, however, leaves the two

encounters essentially unconnected because he never overtly

says that Diomedes wants to revenge Menelaus.

This is not to say that the Gest poet never uses one

encounter to motivate another. Occasionally a character

in the Gest does act on vengeful motives. For example,

Thelamon turns to Penthesilea "To venge of hir velany" (10885)

in besting Diomedes. This phrase is the only indication of

vengeance in the episode; no elaboration is made. But the

Laud presents a more emphatic version:

Kyng Thelaman stode euere alone
And saw the dedis that sche had done,

Gret envy hadde he ther-ate,
Opon bys hors their he sate;
He wex for tene blak as Cole,
That schame myght he no lengur thole
That sche hadde done the kynges two,
He wolde assaye what he myght do:
He toke a spere of stalworthe tre,--
For he on hir wolde venged be. (16191-16208)

The Laud paints more than the vengeance; it makes clear the

motivations to vengeance--envy, anger, and shame. By

simply expanding the description of a character's attitude,

the poet focuses on revenge.

The Laud poet also alters the narrative to show the

all-encompassing nature of revenge. The Gest indicates that

Diomedes acts out of concern for Thelamcn, who is taken

prisoner by Penthesilea:

Diomede, at Duke was duly beside,
Negh wode of his wit for be wale kyng;
So he fore tere in fight with his fell strokes,
pat the lede fro the ladis laws away past.
I (10894-10897)






The Laud poet, however, extends the personal revenge so that

it affects the total battlefield:

But Diomedes, when he was resen,
Saw Thelaman was taken to prison,
Toward the toun he saw him go,--
Lord god, that him was wo!
He blewe his horn & samed his men,
Ther come about him thousand ten

He seyde: 'felawes, may 3e not se
How Thelaman, that doghti kny3t,
With hem of Troye is discomfy3t?
Lo! where thei lede him toward toun
Ouer dale and ouer doun!
But sicurly, if I may spede,
Thei schal him not to Troye lede.
I 3ow be-seke, falawes myne alle,
For any-thing that may be-falle:
In this gret nede fayle me not,
Til I haue him fro hem y-brou3t!' (16225-162l4)

Here the Laud poet stresses Diomedes' emotional reaction and

dramatizes his desire for revenge. By involving all

Diomedes' men, the poet also shows that everyone in a

situation of war is prone to revenge.

In the Gest, this series of encounters finally prompts

Penthesilea to win victory on the battlefield:

an Pantasilia the pert with a pure steuyn,
riet on hir company with a cant will;
Assemblit hir sorte on a sad hepe,
And so fuersly Ji faght with the felle grekes,
Thurgh helpe of pat hynd, and hir hed maidons,
Alat all fell to fe flight, & the feld leuyt.
(10898-10903)

But in the Laud, Penthesilea definitely acts out of vengeance

and communicates motivations of revenge to her followers:

When the quene herde it say
How he from hem was led away,
For wratthe sche wax ner wode,--
So sterne sche was In hir mode.
That ladi thanne, Pantasalye,
To hir Maydenes by-gan to crye






And gadered hem vpon a route;
When thei were comen hir about,

Sche seyde: 'are 3e not ashamed
That this kyng is take fro 3ow?
Felawes myn, I pray 3ow now:
For so haue I euere gode chance,
Thei schal bye his Thelamon's lyueraunce.'
(16255-16276)

Again the poet stresses the character's emotional reaction

and dramatizes her desire for revenge. He also shows how

one vengeful action leads to another until whole groups of

people are involved.

These comparisons show that the Laud poet alters the

tale, even in minor episodes, to emphasize the idea of

revenge. The structural difference between the two versions

of this episode is that the Laud makes clear the connections

between encounters, whether single or massive, showing them

to be related by a personal desire for revenge which

springs from envy, anger, or shame; while the Gest makes

clear the connections between encounters, whether single

or massive, showing them to be related by a personal

desire for revenge which springs from envy, anger, or

shame; while the Gest makes no such connection. The Laud

poet provides motivation, an essential part of drama, and

through conversation, dramatizes the action.

Although every encounter in the Laud is not prompted

by revenge, it is usually the principle underlying the

progression of each day's events, a progression which ends

with an encounter between two major characters, be it

Hector and Achilles, Achilles and Memnon, or Penthesilea






and Diomedes. By using such a structure, the poet achieves

a building plot action within each battle. For example, in

the battle beginning with line 12473, the following

encounters occur: Dephebus kills Croesus; the Greeks take

general revenge in which Thelamon kills Sisene, Priam's

son; Dephebus wounds Thelamon; Palamydes fatally wounds

Dephebus and kills Sarpedon; Paris kills Palamydes and

retreats; the Greeks retreat with their dead leader

Palamydes; the Trojans turn and overrun the Greek camp;

and Nestor and Thelamon, now well enough to fight, stave

off the attack until night. In this battle the action

all leads to the encounter between Palamydes and Paris;

the rest of the action is largely resultant. This episode

and the one previously examined typify the structure of

the battles because nearly all of them depend on the

revenge motif for continuity.

Since the Laud lacks a building plot line over all,

the rising action of each battle helps to maintain the

reader's interest. Unfortunately, the battles are repe-

titious because they all center on revenge and because so

many battles are recited. The success of the tragedy in

the alliterative Morte Arthure depends partially on the

growing victory in battle as opposed to Arthur's declining

morality. Similarly, the building action of the love

affair in Troilus and Criseyde intensifies the final

separation and thus underscores the tragedy: the lovers

move gradually together, but are suddenly wrenched apart.




.48

The Laud contains no building plot action to engross the

reader. Instead, each episode moves deeper and deeper into

the revenge motif, and the nature of the characters grows

successively worse so that finally Pirrus, the avenger

who also desecrates the bodies of his victims, and Antenor

and Aeneas, the betrayers of Troy, are the focus of the

reader's attention. The steady decline is almost more

overwhelming than tragic, and the suspense within each

battle is lost in the morass of battles. Consequently,

the Laud is structurally deficient; but it does have a

theme which unifies theepisodes, and it clearly defines

the emotions of envy, anger, and shame as factors moti-

vating revenge.


Incidents which provoke revenge are also clearly

delineated by the Laud poet. In the battle relating

Palamydes' death (12473ff outlined above), the individual

encounters all spring from the desire to avenge friends or

relatives, and the melodramatic scenes during and after the

battle in which the wounded Dephebus spurs Paris to revenge

further elaborate the theme. Although other versions of

the Troy story link some conflicts to revenge for injury to

friends or relatives, the Laud poet exaggerates the theme

by making it the motivating factor in most encounters. In

fact, avenging the death or injury of a loved one becomes

so important an explanation for action on the battlefield

that the narrator summarizes the action of one battle







solely in terms of encounters prompted by concern for

friends:

Euerychon wolde his friend rescowe,
Than comes he & he'also
And girdes his bak euen a-two.
And thus ferd thei fro that thei met,
Til the sonne was doun set. (9684-9688)

The vengeance need not always be taken to right a

wrong done a friend or relative, as Paris avenges Dephebus,

or to satisfy one's own envy of another's prowess, as

Menelaus attempts to avenge himself on Penthesilea;

vengeance may be taken as the result of a verbal insult.

For example, in the Gest, Episcropus and Cedius set upon

Hector:

Ephistafus hym Hector]presit with his proude words,
As a ribold with reueray in his Roide speche,
Sythen spurnit hym dispitously with aspeire felle;
But he hurt not 4at hynd, ne hade hym to ground;
Ne the deire of his dynt dasit hym but litle...
Ector, wrathed at his words, waynit at the kyng,
at he gird to .e ground and the gost yald;
en warpid he ps words in his wild hate:--
'ffor -fou of flytyng was fuerse with frekes vppon lyue
Go dre se pe to dedmen, & dyn pere a while." (7650-7659)

The Laud poet expands the insult, making it both an

emphatic motivation for the battle and an opportunity to

praise Hector:

Episcropus, that ape and owle,
Spak to Ector words foule,
He called him "fitz-a-.putayn,"
And seyth: "he was a cherl velayn."
Than seide Ector: 'as I am knypt,
Thow schalt of me haue a foul dispit,
Of me, thow kyng Episcropus,--
Thow hast defouled me thus!' (7445-7452)

When Episcropus defies him again, Hector launches into

a twenty-four line defense of himself and his lineage,






ending with personal invective against his attacker:

Whi scholde I now fle a glotoun,
Suche a caytyff, such a wrecche!
I holde the not worth a fecche! (7476-7478)

Then the actual encounter begins which in turn sets off

a chain of events that involves both armies and much

bloodshed.

The Laud poet expands this scene by adding vitu-

perative dialogue. While quarrels in the Gest seldom

take the form of direct discourse, in the Laud they are

often recounted directly and at great length. Through

these elaborations the poet underscores insult as one

cause of revenge. Renaissance drama, too, is full of

insults and invective which lead to revenge; the opening

scene of Romeo and Juliet is a familiar example. There

the dialogue is more sophisticated than the threats and

name-calling in the Laud; but the tradition is the same.

Both works show insult as one cause of revenge.

Vengeance may also be prompted by personal injury, as

when Hector takes revenge after Achilles unhorses him:

Ector slees and Ector felles;
His hors takyng dere he selles;
He riues helmes and cleues hedes;
Ther is no Gregeis that him (ne) dredes.
Ther died for him on that sound
Sixti that neuere layde on him hond. (7863-7868)

Sometimes the injury is only attempted as when an unnamed

Greek duke presses Hector fiercely:

Ector was with-al anoyed:
'Now is my my3t strongly destroyed,'
Ector sayde, 'whan I schal thole
Off on that is not worth a cole
Suche vilony and such repruse.





51
I may wel say, I am refuse
Off alle the kynges sones of Troye,
When that I suffre of such a boye
Suche vilonye to me be done,--
Ne se I neuere sonne ne mone!
But thow schalt dere thi strokes a-bye,
Thi hardines and thi folye!
I schal kembe thi 3elowe lokke!'
He 3aff the duk such a knokke,
That helm and coyfe In-sunder 3ede;
He cleue him doun vnto his stede,
That he fel doun on that other side.
'Now wil thow 'iff me leue for to ride,
Where that I loue & thow not me lette!
Now hastow that I the be-hette!" (7671-7690)

This encounter, including Hector's speech, is not contained

in the Gest or Lydgate's Troy Book. The Laud poet appar-

ently expanded his material to include still another

episode dramatizing the idea of revenge.

George Hofstrand indicates that the Laud poet's

version of the Troy story as compared to the Gest and

Lydgate's Troy Book is the result of a more imaginative

mind.5 Imagination is undoubtedly a distinguishing

characteristic of the poem when compared to the other

two versions, but the Laud poet goes beyond translation.

He restructures and expands the tale so that the entire

work focuses on the idea of revenge. In the poem the

situations of war, including insult, injury, and death,

provoke retaliation; consequently, nearly every event of

the war is the result of someone's personal revenge. The

poet explains the massive destruction in terms of individual

actions, but these actions spring from similar types of

provocation. The Laud does not present a full-blown

concept of individualism in terms of the causes of revenge,

but it does alter the standard narrative to stress individual




52

acts of revenge.


Revenge in the Laud is either planned or it arises

spontaneously from the situation. As the poet represents

it, revenge occurring on the battlefield is usually not

premeditated. It develops naturally out of a character's

reactions to the immediate circumstances. Usually these

reactions consist of an excessive emotion, often described

in terms of madness or animalism. Thus, Hector at the

death of Margariton completely changes:

His colour changed, his herte ros,
For tene Ector he wode gos:
He rolled his eyen as best ramage,
As he hadde fallen In a rage. (10511-10514)
Achilles, forgetting Pollexena and rushing to battle, is

described as follows:

Achilles rides as a man mad,
For his men was he not glad;
He myght that tene no longer thole,
He brende In yre as any cole;
When he herde hem so grysly grone,
For hem he made moche mone:
As lyoun rampyng forth he went. (14191-14197)
Although these reactions are somewhat stylized, they

represent a distinctive interpretation of the Troy material.

For example, the Egerton MS. of the Seege makes only three

references to "wodness" and those all consist of the

simile as a "wood" lion (1137, 1403, 1476). Lydgate uses

it often, but for a variety of purposes. Sometimes it

means something like "lunatic": a person would have to be
"wood" to trust women (I, 1845), to believe he could know

Fortune's course (II, 3036), or to do observances to the gods







(IV, 6992). Sometimes, however, the word is used to

indicate animal irrationality: Priam enters battle like a

"wood" lion (I, 4118); Pelleus, on the battlefield, is

"wood, as he wer falle in rage" (I, 4133); and Hercules is

like a "lyoun, wood and dispitous" (I, 4283). Sometimes

the usage is closer to anger than lunacy or excessive

emotionalism: the bulls Jason must tame are "wood and

irous" (I, 284) and Achilles has a "wood" visage when the

Greek leaders fail to agree to a peace (IV, 1154). In

other words, Lydgate uses the term in its full range of

lexical meanings. He does not, as the Laud poet does,

confine his usage to descriptions of the emotional excess

accompanying grief or anger, nor does he use it in any

singular set of circumstances, as the Laud poet does.

On the other hand, the Gest and the Laud are alike in

that "wode" or "wodness" occurs often and primarily in

connection with battle scenes. Usually, however, the

alliterative line in the Gest determines the usage.

Consequently, three formulaic patterns account for most of

the occurrences of the term. When the phrase "wod of

(or in) his wit" falls in the second half-line, the word

"wex" most often occurs in the first half. If the phrase

falls in the first half-line, any of a number of words

appear--"wan," "wild," "wale," "wo," "walt"--but most

often "wild" as in "as wode in his wit as a wild bore"

(6813). "Wode" is often used to modify nouns--"wode ire,"

longerr," "hate," "anger," "stoure"--and it is sometimes






found in the phrase "walte (or welt) into wodnes." The

Gest contains only two instances which amplify the idea of

madness. One occurs before Achilles goes to battle to

save his Myrmidons from Troilus' fury:

je] Welt into wodnes, wan to his armys,
Strode on a stith horse, stroke into batell.
He fore with his fos in his felle angur,
As a wolfe in his wodenes with wethurs in fold.
(10204-10207)

The repetition of "wodnes" and the introduction of a non-

formulaic simile emphasize Achilles' irrationality. The

passage is a good introduction to an action which ends

ultimately in dragging Troilus' corpse around the battle-

field. The other amplification of madness describes

Hecuba's reaction to the murder of Pollexena:

Scho welt into wodnes, & hir wit leuyt,
And ran further rauis ruthe to beholde.
Scho bete hom bitturly with hir bare teth,
And with stonys in 4e strete strok hom to ground.
(12148-12151)

The restatement of madness in terms of raging and the

immediate action of madness emphasize the phrase "welt

into wodnes."

The Laud poet, too, uses madness sometimes in an

almost formulaic way, completing the second half of one

line in a couplet with the phrase "as he (or thei) were

wode." But he usually elaborates the motif, describing

specific actions that show the extent of the madness. For

example, when Hector is unhorsed, he is described as follows:

He looked about as he were wode,
And swor I-tened and he sporles,
The blod ran out at his nase-throlles;




55

When he fro him his hors saw lede,
Mouthe & nase began to blede,
For tene & wo his hew changed. (7834-7839)

When Achilles learns that Troilus is slaying the Myrmidons,

he reacts emotionally:

Achilles changed al his mode,
He looked about as he were wode
When he herde this tydynges:
He clapped his hondes, and alle his rynges
Sicurly In-sonder brast;
To and fro his armes he cast,
As he hadde ben a wod man;
Wel harde to swete he be-gan. (14157-14164)

The responses here are certainly melodramatic exaggerations,

but they vividly detail the character's emotional intensity.

The Laud poet uses madness almost exclusively to

describe men's reactions to battle situations, and generally

it precedes a specific slaying or encounter. Thus, Hector,

as he rides to Patroclus, is described as pricking his

steed "as he were wode, /That alle his sides ran on blode"

(4965-4966), and just before the slaying, "he wex thenne

wood and wroth I-now" (4981). Achilles, describing the

death of Patroclus, emphasizes the quality of madness

about Hector:

I hate the mochel, for my friend
That thow sclow the formast day
In thi wodenes and thi deray. (8318-8320)

Madness obstructs any reasoning process that might

normally be involved in making a decision. Hector is

shown as wise and reasonable in the first council scene

when he tells his father why the Trojans should not risk

a war with the Greeks (2319-2372), and the narrator later







tells us Priam should have listened to his son (3600-5606).

Yet Hector's emotional response to Margariton's death drowns

out the more cautious voices of Andromache, Hecuba, and

Priam. In fact, events of the war and of this battle in

particular have led him to shun his own advice. He says

to Troilus before the first formal battle:

By-fore these kynges)& kny3tes here,
That thow be wyse and not sauage;
5if the not to outrage!
I drede me sore, thi hastines,
Thi noble herte, and thi sardines
Schal make the bold and vs schent;
But thow take gode avisement,
Vnto thi-self to-day take hede! (4758-4765)

In haste and outrage, Hector goes to battle, though ordered

not to, so that he can avenge the death of his brother,

Margariton, and is ultimately killed. Through his madness

Hector fulfills a destiny he might otherwise have overcome

had he chosen to stay home (9906-9908).

This particular amplification in the Laud accounts for

Hector's behavior and thus is different from other English

versions. The Gest says briefly:

Ector, wode of his wit for woo of his brother,
Haspit on his helme, & his horse toke;
Went out wightly, vnwetyng his fader. (8592-8594)

Lydgate describes Hector as furious: "Of verray Ire his

herte gan to colde, /And seide, platly, with-oute more delay,

/He wolde avenge his Margariton's] death pe same day" (III,

5238-5240). But the Laud, by using the phrases "as best
ramage," "fallen In a rage," and "rolled his eyen" in

addition to the bald statement that "he wode gos,"







emphasizes Hector's irrationality.

Some revenge actions, then, are the result of madness

stemming from emotional responses to events on the battlefield.

They are not the result of reasoned action and are some-

times quite contrary to the actor's normal character. The

major characters are not the only ones subject to madness;

the Greeks and Trojans are often described as running against

one another madly:

Eche slo other, as thei were wode. (9677)

Euerychon of hem on other renne,
Thei ferde as it had ben wod menne. (11721)

Thei ran togeder as wode things. (13683)

Echon of hem on other schet--
As thei hadde ben wode & mad. (13926-13927)

Yet in times of truce the two peoples are described as

singing, dancing, hunting, and visiting together:

Then were the Troiens mury & glad,
When thei leue of Ector had,
That thei scholde reste so long;
Many man for Ioye songe.
Hit was gret murthe & Ioye
'bhem of Grece and eke of Troye,
That trewe is tane and last so long;
That thei myght bothe ride & gonge
To take her murthe and her solace,
Eche man is glad In that place. (8199-8208)

And al the while the trewes held,
The(i) speke to-geder In toune & ffeld. (8227-8228)

The while the festes thus endured,
And eueryche were to other ensured,
Thei of Troye hadde here coming
To hem of Grece & here spekyng;
And Gregeis com In-to the toun
And where thei wolde vp & doun,
Saue & sound where so hem liked;
Thei fond no man that hem be-swiked. (11941-11948)






The constrasts here show the effects of war on human

behavior. As Hector's actions on the battlefield are

different from those in the council scenes, so are a__

people's actions different in battle than in peace. The

mad behavior of men in wartime results in the slaughter

of the same men who shared the happier experiences of

peacetime.

The activities of both the Trojans and the Greeks

during peace also contrast with the extreme suffering

caused by the war. Rather than breaking the narrative

into books as Guido, the Gest poet, and Lydgate do, the

Laud poet inserts descriptions of the night's activities

and of preparations for battle. These descriptions stress

the effects of war in terms of the suffering and sorrow

that has occurred or that will occur. For example,

the approaching battles are often preceded by descriptions

of general apprehension among the people:

Now eche man to fyght him 3ares,
Now euery wiff ffor hir lord cares
A-3eyn that nexte semble,
For no man wot how it schal be,--
When thei gon out at morwen-tyde,
Who schal dye, and who schal abyde?
Alle curses that ilke man,
On hem the were furst by-gan,
Fader and Moder and alle his kyn
For sorwe and wo that thei ben In. (8607-8616)

The night's activities often show the weariness of the

fighters and the general atmosphere of sorrow for the day's

events:
Thei 3ede euen home to her house,
Thei fond their many a sori spous,
That sori were for here husbondis;






Some lay dede on the sondes:
The wyues of Troye made gret morning;
Amonges the Gregeis was gret roryng,
Thei blew and cried--as wilde bere brayes--
For her frendes that died tho dayes. (8007-8014)

At the end of a truce, mirth is often juxtaposed to the

coming sorrow:

Thei wente alle hom to here ostel,
Thei daunsed & sang & made revel.
The terme is went & passed a-way,
The more next schal be her day
That thei schal fyght to-gedur In feld,
Ther schal be reuen many a scheld,
Many a bryght basenet
Schal be with blod foule y-wet. (13315-13322)

These passages describing life apart from the battlefield,

then, tend to emphasize the opposite effects which the

situations of war and peace have on the people; and the

mad behavior, an outgrowth of the warring situation, is

the direct cause of the ultimate sorrow.

Madness, of course, is a major and often disputed

aspect of Renaissance revenge tragedy. In Hamlet and the

Spanish Tragedy madness grows out of sorrow for the death

of a loved one and out of the frustrated urge to vengeance.

Hieronimo's revenge is accomplished while he is in one of

these states of frenzy; biting off his tongue is certainly

an indication of the emotional level he has reached. Yet,

like the characters in the Laud who ride off madly seeking

revenge in battle, Hieronimo has enough sanity to carry

out his plan. His urge to revenge, like Hector's, is a

form of temporary madness obliterating other alternatives

that may be more reasonable than the actual course of






action taken. The exact nature of Hamlet's madness has

plagued critics for some time. Whether it is real, as his

distraught behavior in Ophelia's chamber seems to indicate,

or whether it is only feigned, as he implies to Horatio and

Marcellus it will be, Hamlet's madness is not the pathetic

variety Ophelia's is. If he is mad, then his madness is

akin to Hieronimo's, arising out of anxiety and frustration

and yet allowing him to plan revenge, though not to carry

it out. The preceding analysis of madness in the Laud

indicates that there is probably a literary tradition in

which madness, a natural outgrowth of grief or anger, often

precedes or accompanies revenge, but does not render the

wenger incapable of carrying out his plan.


In the individual conflicts, especially the ones

involving madness, revenge is usually unpremeditated,

arising from responses to immediate situations; but two

major episodes in the Troy story involve planned retali-

ation--Achilles and the Greeks plan revenge on Hector, and

Hecuba plots against Achilles. The Laud poet generally

gives a much fuller account of these episodes than the

Gest poet or Lydgate. For example, after the second

formal battle of the war, Agamemnon calls a council to

decide what strategy the Greeks should pursue. The Gest

poet reports the meeting in eighteen lines; there is no

dramatization. In the Laud, the council is preceded by the

Greek army lamenting Hector's strength and their own






inadequacy. Because he is aware of this feeling of unrest

among the people, Agamemnon decides Hector must be killed.

He calls a council specifically for discussing that matter.

Including such dramatic material builds the character of

Hector, provides motivation for calling the council, and

in general adds plausibility to the episode.

Through exchange of dialogue in the council, the

Laud poet continues the dramatization and underscores the

idea of trickery. The Gest records only one reference to

"soteltie" (7359). In the Laud, however, Agamemnon's

first speech introduces the idea of "quayntise" in the

killing of Hector. A general response is made by those

present, but Agamemnon interrupts their list of reasons for

killing Hector by appealing to their manhood and again

urges trickery: "Whi ne scle 3e him, and make him die

/With som tresoun and ffelonye?" (6449-6450). When members

of the council appeal to Achilles to carry out the plan, they

indicate that he is not to do it by strength:

Opon thi strength trustee thow nought,
But on thi wit and on thi scleyght,
And holde the euere fro him on heyght;
Whan thow him sees in a myscheef,
Than schaltow him dedly greef
By thi strength and thi wit;
So schal we of him be qwit. (6480-6486)

The Laud poet's interpretation of the scene emphasizes

Hector's awesome strength and the Greeks' determination to

use subtlety.

In the ensuing battle Achilles attempts to carry

out his assignment. The Gest briefly records the encounter:






1en Achilles cherfull, & his choise cosyn
Toax, at other, a tore mon of strenght,
Ayren vnto Ector angardly sore!
With the strenght of hor stroke, & hor store fare,
The helme of his hed pai hurlit to peces; ._ .
Woundit hym wickedly with weapon aboue,
+at -e Rinels of red blode ran doun his chekes.
(7500-7506)
Hector then retaliates by cutting off half Thoas' nose, and

the encounter ends when Hector's brothers come to aid him.

The sequence of events within the encounter is the same in

the Laud, but again showsdramatization. Achilles calls

Thoas to him and delivers a speech. He first pictures

Hector's slaughter of the Greeks and then suggests that

because Hector is tired the two of them should attack and

overpower him. Achilles' final words are "And so schal

we on him be broken!" (6873), introducing the specific

idea of revenge as his motivation. The Laud poet's

interpretation of the encounter suggests that he is

trying to link it overtly with the previous council scene.

Rather than simply motivating his characters to attack

Hector out of anger (Gest, 7503), the Laud poet indicates

their behavior is a revenge trick: Hector is now tired

and the two Greeks can easily overpower him.

The revenge motif between Achilles and Hector is

again elaborated during the ensuing truce when Hector

goes to the Greek camp and is invited to Achilles' tent.

The Laud and the Gest handle the account comparably,

up to the point of Hector's reply. This speech is

significant because it supplies plausible motivation for

Hector's challenge to Achilles:






Ther was neuere theff In no hostage,
That wayted better his a-vauntage,
To do his stelthe and his robrye,
Than thow waytest me In skolkerye;
But thow hast ben glad al-wey, to ride
With broken hede and blody syde. (8357-8362)

By challenging Achilles to fight openly, Hector undercuts

the Greek scheme to kill him by sleight. Achilles' reply,

a speech contained in no other English version, indicates

that the Greek hero interprets the challenge as a counter-

move by Hector to stop the Greek plot:

I se ri3t wel thi couetise:
Thow settes on me In alle wyse,
To fight with me In feld alone. (8443-8445)

Hector suggests that individual combat is the honorable

way to end the war since it involves only two people and

not both armies:

And 3it may thow almes the wynne,--
For we do euel and mychel synne,
Off mannes blod that we don spille,--
Iff that thow wol holde ther-tille. (8411-8414)

By emphasizing treachery in this scene, the Laud

poet successfully links it to the two previous passages

involving treachery, thus establishing a kind of narrative

motif which recurs periodically and ends with Achilles'

murder of the unarmed Hector. By contrasting Hector's

openness to Achilles' covert intentions, the poet stresses

the unchivalric nature of Achilles' revenge through treachery;

and because this method of revenge was determined by the

Greek council, the entire Greek leadership is presented

as unheroic.

In this whole series of encounters between Hector and






Achilles, the Laud poet expands the standard narrative to

emphasize treachery. This same principle is involved in

Hecuba's revenge on Achilles. Her motivation for revenge

is rooted in the shame she feels when Priam reprimands

her for condoning the Pollexena-Achilles match:

Hectuba was sore aschamed
Off here lord that sche was blamed,
Hir Angred sore that euere spak sche
Ther-of words two or there;
Sche cursed offte his wickednesse,
His gylrie and his falsnesse. (14339-14344)

In the Gest and Lydgate's Troy Book Hecuba is prompted to

revenge by the death of Troilus. But the Laud poet

motivates her to vengeance as he has motivated his other

characters, through the emotions of shame and anger.

The actual murder of Achilles in the temple is brutal

enough, but the horror is intensified by Achilles' high

spirits at.the prospect of the marriage ceremony. Two

passages describe Achilles' joy and anticipation (15325-15331;

15355-15360). The contrast makes Hecuba's revenge just as
dastardly as Achilles' revenge on the unarmed Hector. After

the murder, the narrator delivers the only antifeminist

passage in the whole of the Laud. Significantly enough,

the woman is condemned not for her lust, as Helen and Medea

are in the Gest and Lydgate's Troy Book, or for her

faithlessness, as Criseyde sometimes is, but for her

treachery:

And thus was Achilles done to ded
Thorow a wicked woman red,
Thorow her sleght & consayl
Died the knyght with-oute fayl.






And so hath many a-nother man
Died thorow red of a woman:
That neuere were so gode knyghtes
Off ffairnes, of connyng, ne of myghtes,
The beste body that euere ete bred
Thorow fals wymmen haue ben ded. (15439-15448)

The narrator indicates that this premeditated revenge,

which can only be accomplished through deceit, is, in both

cases, dishonorable. Yet the narrator makes no commentary

on individual acts of spontaneous revenge. He laments the

numbers killed and disparages the awful slaughter that

revenge causes, but he never calls Hector or any of the

other characters "false" or "wicked" for running madly out

to slaughter the enemy. Of the two types of revenge, the

one that occurs immediately out of the circumstances and

emotional excesses is somehow more justifiable than the

revenge that is rationally planned and carried out.

The.Renaissance revenge plays also depict these two

types of revenge. Hamlet can not murder the praying

Claudius and still be heroic. He can, however, respond

spontaneously to the King's clear treachery in the final

scene and still be worthy of the reader's admiration. In

the Spanish Tragedy, Hieronimo is vindicated because he is

possessed with a madness, originating in grief, that will

finally bring about justice. In Titus Andronicus, however,

there is no motif of madness, although the perfect

opportunity for such a motif is developed. Tamora pleads

with Titus to save her son Alarbus; but instead of falling

into madness when Alarbus is killed, she immediately swears






revenge on Titus and his progeny. She is then motivated

throughout the rest of the play by a hatred that condones

deception, torture, and murder. In the examples of

Hieronimo and Hamlet, the poets have created a situation

in which the avenger seeks justice, but can find no means

outside his own efficacy to accomplish that justice. In

the case of Tamora, all principles of justice are eradi-

cated; the innocent Lavinia suffers for a crime she had no

part in.

Both types of revenge are contained in the Laud;

and although the narrator laments the effects of both

kinds, his sympathy lies with Hector's spontaneous revenge

rather than with Hecuba's relentless plot. In the same way,

the readers' sympathies lie with Hamlet when he spontaneously

avenges himself as they probably would not, had he murdered

Claudius while the latter was in prayer.

The important revenge plots in the Laud center about

Achilles and Hector, Achilles and Memnon, Achilles and

Troilus, Hecuba and Achilles, Pirrus and Penthesilea, and

Aeneas and Priam. When one of these characters success-

fully bests the other, a new character steps in to avenge

the dead member. Because of this structure, revenge is

represented as a kind of on-going process which ends in

the total destruction of one line.

Total destruction of those characters who claimed

the reader's sympathy and of many characters who did not

is another characteristic of the revenge tragedy. Few of






the most prominent characters are left alive and often the

stage is littered with bodies at the close of the play.

Of course no stage or actors are involved in the Laud,

but the narrative does end in the slaughter of all the

Trojans except the priest Helenus, the traitors, and two

women--Andromache and Helen. Thus, the best of the Trojan

line is annihilated, and only the unchivalric Greeks are

left, much reduced in number with nothing to show for

their victory except the spoils of a once great people.

Thus, the poem and the plays both recognize the massive

effects of revenge.

By expanding the standard narrative in both major and

minor episodes, the Laud poet achieves an overwhelming

thematic effect. He shows the varied nature of revenge,

both premeditated and spontaneous, the emotions that

precede it, and the circumstances that cause it. Since

one revenge encounter naturally motivates another, the

poet is able to use the theme as a structural device to

establish a narrative continuity. The poem shows that in

wartime all the characters, heroic and unheroic alike,

are motivated by revenge.


One love story breaks the preoccupation with revenge.

Achilles sees Pollexena in the temple during a truce, falls

in love with her, asks for her hand in marriage on the

condition that he persuade the Greeks to leave, and then

refuses to go to battle to accomplish his promise. He

ultimately does go, however, when his concern for the







Myrmidons changes to overwhelming rage.

The elaboration of this love story in comparison to

the near exclusion of the Troilus-Criseyde story has led

some critics to the conclusion that the poem was written

before Chaucer's famous Troy romance; otherwise, the

Laud poet would probably have capitalized on the reputation

of the Troilus story by including it in his own work.6

A poet so well-read in romance as the author of the Laud

declares himself to be (15-24) would surely have read

Chaucer's work and used the name Criseyde, rather Breseida.

Since Lydgate's versions of the Troy tale includes a

lengthy reference to Chaucer's work, the Laud poet would

probably have done the same had he written after Chaucer.

Lumiansky, not wishing to sDeculate on what the Laud

poet would or would not have done, attempts to explain

the exclusion of the Troilus-Criseyde romance on thematic

grounds.7 He assumes that the poet's sole purpose is to

create a Hector romance. Therefore, the introduction of

the Troilus story when it normally appears in the tale

would have undercut the interest in the heroism of Hector

which the poet was attempting to create. An examination

of the battle preceding the exchange of Antenor for Thoas

reveals that the Laud poet has added several passages which

presumably are his own since they do not appear in any other

extant version, and they are important in emphasizing the

deeds of Hector. But after examining the author's

statements about his purpose, which includes equally the







deeds of Hector and an account of the war; and after

investigating the dominant theme of the work, other

conclusions about the Troilus-Criseyde story may be reached.

For example, the poet is highly concerned about

motivating the individual encounters on the battlefield.

He is, in fact, so concerned that, at times when there is

no explanation to offer for an attack, Hector asks, "What

eyles the? /Whi hastow thus smetyn me?" (7383-7384).

This is not to say every attack in the poem is sufficiently

motivated; but when a major character is involved, the

poet attempts to offer explanations for the enmity, either

in terms of emotions--envy, anger, or shame--or in terms

of previous events--injuries, insults, or killings. When

Achilles refuses to go to battle, the poet must develop

sufficient enmity between two other characters so that the

battle scenes can still be organized around vengeance.

Instead of using the Troilus story to break the war

encounters, the Laud poet inserts it into a battle scene

to explain the motivation for the Troilus-Diomedes revenge

motif. Whether the Laud poet knew Chaucer's work or not -

is irrelevant, especially considering that the Gest poet

indicates that even at the time of his composition there

was a well-known version of the Troilus story (8053-8054);

thus, the Laud poet might have capitalized on that version

had he been intent on examining the nature of love or

relieving the war accounts with romance interludes. The

story, as he actually handles it, effectively supports his







theme of revenge, conforms to his other explanations of

motivation, and preserves his major focus on war.

The Achilles-Pollexena episode does not offer the

same possibilities for relieving the monotony of the battle

scenes that the Troilus story offers. Given the existing

situation, no intimate romance scenes are possible between

Achilles and Pollexena. Consequently, no romantic love

interests comparable to those in the Troilus story are

developed or even attempted. Furthermore, the ideals of

courtly love are not introduced in the Laud: Jason marries

Medea; Paris marries Helen; and Achilles asks for Pollexena

in marriage. The point of interest for the Laud poet is not

the nature of the love relationship itself, but the effect

of love on man's actions in a situation of war.

Most of the elaborations that make the Laud distinct

from other versions are not contained in the preliminary

episodes of the Achilles-Pollexena affair; that is, aside

from dramatizing, the poet follows closely the standard

accounts of Achilles' feelings for Pollexena and of the

message to Hecuba. Significant differences in content begin

to appear when Achilles addresses the Greek leaders. His

ideas echo those of the narrator. For example, his attempt

to stop the war is in keeping with the narrator's sentiments:

I holde: he hadde gret synne
That furst the were of hem by-gan,
For he was bane of many a man. (12948-12950)

Later, Achilles pictures the agonies the Greeks have

suffered in coming to Troy and concludes that a man is






foolish to trust his strength: "He is a fole that him

ensures /In his strength & In his myght" (12296-12297).

The narrator has earlier commented on the ineffectiveness

of strength against death:

Wo is him that with the death wrasteles!
For sicurly he goth the with,
Or thow him brekes lym or lyth,
That he may not a- eyn vp-rise
For my3t ne strength In no wyse;
For he schal dye In this world,--
So did this kny3t Hecto3, that 3e haue herd.
Be he neuere so strong ne bold,
He is for-seten & nou3t of told,
When he is ded & hennes past;
In erthe is none that euere may last.
(11006-11016)

Achilles also argues that the Greeks can go home

without shame because they have killed Hector (12331-12344),

but the Greek leaders feel that raising the siege would

be an act of cowardice (12355-12358). Through irony the

narrator conveys similar ideas about cowardice:

Amonges hem alle was no coward,
Echon other to sle coueytes,
And alle men to sle waytes:
Many a man to ground was feld;
But their was non that euere him 3eld,
While thei myght hold swerd In honde,
Or on her feet while thei my3t stonde.
(12970-12976)
The passage indicates that the factors contributing to the

continuation of the war are misconceived views of manhood

and the fear of being charged with cowardice.

In a subsequent speech to Agamemnon's ambassadors,

Achilles says it is "more honour /At Priamus to aske the

pes, /Then be to-hewen as other wes" (15180-13182). The
ambassadors return to Agamemnon and repeat the idea. The






narrator's many comments on the folly of the war and the

senseless killing are obviously similar. Through repetition,

the poet emphasizes the point that peace is the honorable

and sensible way.

Achilles' change in character is the result of the

power of love. During one of the battles Achilles asks a

sergeant how the Greeks fare, and the sergeant's reply,

an elaboration found only in the Laud, is that if Achilles

will go to battle now, he will win lasting fame (12772-

12776). But Achilles reasons to himself that it is better

to lose fame than love (12815-12816). Here the poet

attributes Achilles' new values to his desire to attain

success in love (12815-12814). It is not strange then to

find Achilles, who unheroically killed Hector, suddenly the

champion of idealistic and virtuous goals. In his abstin-

ence from battle and his interactions with his colleagues

he has shown the change love is capable of working. In his

speeches he acknowledges that shame, cowardice, honor, and

fame are unworthy motivations to war, ideas all consonant

with the narrator's ideas.

In war, however, numerous allegiance pull at a man.

Many of the elaborations occurring late in the episode show

Achilles being torn between his love for Pollexena and his

love for the Myrmi.dons. The first of these elaborations

occurs when he sends his men into battle alone. He calls

the Myrmidons to him, charges them to fight for Agamemnon,

and gives them a new ensign. The narrator describes






Achilles at their departure: "Achilles weped an hundred

teres /At her wendyng vpon his leres" (13651-13652). After

the Myrmidons return from battle and Achilles has counted

them, the Laud poet inserts a passage stressing Achilles'

divided loyalties:

He seyde: 'alas, that I was bounden
In womannes loue & womannes bounde!'
I'han so many were ded found,
He siked sore for hem & drouped.
Ful litel mete that nyght he souped,
To his bed Achilles went -
With carful herte & gret torment:
He wolde him-self hadde ben ded,
He wist neuere what was his red,
Whether he myght to batayle wende
To venge his men or eke his frende,
Or he scholde 3it abyde
To wete wat grace my3t be-tyde. (13868-13880)
The passage continues for thirty more lines, indicating

Achilles' sleeplessness and his decisions now to "venge"

his men and now to keep his promise. The elaboration

focuses on Achilles' anguish and indecision, and the two

forces pulling at him are clearly drawn as love and vengeance.

His decision to go to battle, of course, comes only
when Troilus, leading the Trojans, is about to overrun the

Greek camp. The Laud poet modifies the situation by

focusing on Achilles' reaction. He is described as "wod"

(14191), "a man mad" (14191), "a lyoun ramping forth" (14197),

and "a deuel of helle" (14223). He grows so angry that he

forgets Pollexena:

He was so ful of tene & ire
That he bad fecche his atire;
He for-sate their Polexene
And al that he be-het the owene. (14183-14186)







Thus, no rational decision to return to battle is ever

made; Achilles simply rushes off in a fit of anger.

Vengeance, prompted by his anger, ultimately overcomes

his love. In the Laud the Achilles-Pollexena love affair-.

disparages ideas of honor, manhood, and fame as motivations

to war, shows the relative power of love and vengeance in

a war situation, and introduces a new revenge motif--

Achilles vs. Hecuba.

The story of Achilles and Pollexena is a tale of love

ruined by the circumstances of war. The only other love

episode of any length in the Laud is the story of Jason and

Medea, which occurs at the opening of the narrative

before the war ever begins. Hinton finds this episode

extraneous, included only because the poet wanted to render
8
a full translation of his source. But a close analysis

of the episode and its relationship to the larger structure

reveals that it is an intregal part of the overall theme.

The Laud poet's treatment of Medea differs from that

in most versions. In the Gest she is presented as a

necromancer famed for powers over heaven and earth, a

fame the poet decries because these powers belong only to

God (403-430). Before the lovers pass into Medea's

chamber, the Gest poet moralizes on the outcome of this

relationship: Jason is false and all Medea's feigned

powers of foresight are worthless (714-747). Thus, the

reader.is specifically reminded of the unhappy outcome of

the love affair and of the falsened-' of both paties.






In Lydgate, Medea is again characterized as a

sorceress, and a lengthy antifeminist passage follows her

introduction into the tale; women are changeable, untrust-

worthy, inconstant, lustful, and false (1593-1800, 1823-

1948). Two passages also portray Jason's deceitfulness and

the outcome of the relationship (2072-2108, 2868-2935).

Both the Gest poet and Lydgate agree on the fated nature of

this romance and the lovers involved. They specifically

relate the beginning of the love affair as somewhat

unsavory, a fit prelude to the outcome.

The Laud poet explains Medea's powers, but makes no

judgment on them as false or evil; in fact, they are

presented in much the same vein that he presents other

exotic elements in the Troy story: the Archer who is half

man, half horse, the embalming of Hector, the background

of the Amazons, and the eagle removing the sacrifice from

the temple to the Greek ships. No mention is made of

Jason's guile or of the ultimate outcome of the relationship.

Since the lovers return safely to Jason's home and are

never mentioned again, the poet presents a love story entire

in its recitation. The story becomes, then, a contrast to

the Achilles-Pollexena story. With Jason and Medea the

affair takes place in peacetime; no atrocities have been

committed by one member against the other's family; the

lovers can arrange to see each other; promises are kept

by both parties; and a satisfactory relationship is estab-

lished.







Contrast is a method used often by the Laud poet:

Hector's opennesswith Achilles' covertness; Achilles'

behavior in love with his behavior in war; and the attitudes

and actions of men during the truces with their attitudes

and actions during battle. If the only reason for including

Jason's quest for the golden fleece is to show how Lamedon

offended the Greeks, then there is no apparent necessity

for including the particulars of the Jason-Medea romance.

Yet the Laud poet includes this material in a fairly

lengthy form, when he excludes other similar material:

the Troilus-Criseyde story and the romantic exchanges

between Helen and Paris. In addition, the Laud poet

handles the love story in a markedly different manner from

other poets, making it a complete episode and giving no

hint of its connections with evil. These facts suggest

that the poet was consciously attempting to reshape the

episode to make it consistent with his aims for the overall

structure. A comparison of the two love episodes shows

that each is concerned with the power of love in overcoming

the obstacles of a specific situation. The comparison

intensifies the revenge theme by showing how the wartime

impulse to revenge eclipses the normally powerful impulse

to romantic love. Romeo and Juliet is, of course, the

most important Renaissance play juxtaposing love and

revenge. Like the Laud poet, Shakespeare portrays

vengeance as a force strong enough to obliterate the better

intentions of man.







As the preceding discussion indicates, the Laud is

structured so that every episode either elaborates or

serves as a contrast to the idea of revenge. In the light

of these findings, Dorothy Kempe's statement that the poet

made all his changes "unconsciously and without definite

artistic purpose"9 is now questionable. The poet covers

many aspects of revenge: the two kinds, the motivations

causing it, the circumstances from which it arises, the

element of madness, and the power it has as compared to

other forces driving men. Nearly all of these aspects

are also present in the Renaissance revenge tragedies.

The similarities spring not, of course, from the Laud's

impact as a source of the plays, but simply from the

nucleus of ideas which surrounded the subject of revenge,

a nucleus which was evidently present in the middle ages

as well as in the Renaissance. The Laud brings many of

these ideas together in a narrative form that stresses

motivation and direct discourse; thus it can be seen as

a transitional piece which moves the theme of revenge

toward its familiar Renaissance form.














NOTES


IFredson Bowers Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy, 1587-
1642 (Princeton, 19403.

2
Mary Bonaventure Mroz, Divine Vengeance: Philosoph-
ical Backgrounds of the Revenge Motif in Shakespeare's
Chronicle History Plays (Washington, D.C., 1941).

3William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur (Berkeley
and Los Angeles, 1960).

4Larry A. Benson, "The Alliterative Morte Arthure and
Medieval Tragedy," TSL, XI (1965), 81.

5G. Hofstrand, The Seege of Troye: A Study in the
Intertextual Relations of the Middle English Romance the
Seege or Batayle of Troye (Lund, 1936), 186-187.

Dorothy Kempe, "A Middle English Tale of Troy,"
Englische Studien, XXIX (1901), 5.

7R.M. Lumiansky, "The Story of Troilus and Briseida
in the Laud Troy Book," MLO, XVII (1956), 238-239.

8N.D. Hinton, "A Study of the Middle English Poems
Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of
Wisconsin, 1957, p. 194.

9Kempe, p. 22.


`78














IV. CHARACTERIZATION AND THEME


Three characters--Hector, Achilles, and Pirrus--

become more significant in the Laud than in the other

English versions. Material is added concerning Hector's

character, making him primarily a virtuous pagan; Achilles'

character, making him a sighing lover who at last sees the

war as inane; and Pirrus' character, making him the ulti-

mate avenger. The three are successively the strong men

in the poem, but their characterizations range from virtue

in Hector to vengeance in Pirrus. Such a degenerative

movement reflects the narrator's view of time: the world

is moving away from the golden age to degeneracy and

destruction. Revenge plays a significant role in this

movement because it is through the unprincipled methods of

revenge that the virtuous characters are slain. The

revenge tragedies also carry a note of pessimism about the

future, particularly since the protagonists like Hieronimo,

Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet die in the process of

overcoming the antagonists. In both the plays and the poem

the effect of revenge on the future is the same.

The Laud is usually described as a Hector romance

and the poetic elaborations indicate that Hector is the






central figure early in the war. An individual character-

ization is developed which focuses on the hero's prowess in

battle and his virtue. The central passage on Hector is

a simple declaration by the narrator attesting to both

qualities:

Glorious kyng lord Ihesu!
Who-so hadde sen Ector vertu,
How he the Gregeis their reuerced,
Helmes and hauberk how he persed,
How he hem sclow by two and on,--
He wolde haue sworn by Peter and Ion,
By Marie bry3t and persons there:
That god that is In vnite
Made neuere man that was so goode,
Ne so many schedde of mannes blode,
Ne non so strong as Ector was.
By him mygt no man pas,
That he my3t take or hent,
That the lyff a-way ne went. (7413-7426)
Although the passage does not Christianize Hector, it

indicates that from a Christian point of view--that is,

from the point of view of one who swears by Peter, John,

Mary, and the Trinity--Hector was one of the best and

strongest men who ever lived.

The narrator reiterates this idea in another place,

but expresses it in terms of comparison:

I trowe, god made neuere such a kny3t,
Ne 3af neuere man such a my3t,
That euere was borne In toun or port,
But it were only to Sampsoun fort,
For he (was) seker with-oute pere
Off alle the men that euere were.
Off Sampson hadde ben their that tyde
And al that day hadde reden him be-syde,
He ne my3t haue don no more then he
For al his my3t and his pouste.
Red I neuere of kny3t ne man,
That born was of woman,
That dede the dedis that Ector did;
Alas, that euere him mys-be-tid! (6721-6734)




81

Sampson, the virtuous Old Testament strong man, is compared

to Hector, the virtuous pagan strong man. At another time

the narrator indulges in exaggeration to show Hector's

supernatural strength:

bTho may with-stonde such An enemy?
It was neuere man 3aff such strokes;
Off a man were made of okes,
Off Marbil gray and grete stones,
And yren and stele were alle his bones,
He wolde hem al to-cleue--
By him that made Adam and Eue! (6384-6390)

The key passages on Hector's character, then, are

spoken by the narrator, and the recitation of the action

supports the narrator's declarations. A short catalog

is often employed to demonstrate Hector's skill in battle:

Ector was be-fore al-weyes,
He belan neuere to scle the Gregeis,
He cleues hem, and thorow strikes,
And throws hem In clyf and dikes,
He makes here hedes naked and bare,
The bodyes cleue In-to the share,
He drow here scheldes fro here nekkes,
Ther aketons ferd as toren sekkes;
Off his scheld made he present
To alle that wolde 3eue strok or bent;
His sword was wel with alle a-kuoynt
With kyng, and duke, and prince anoynt. (6511-6522)

Other passages employ hyperbole, simile, and the

attitude of the people about him to establish character-

istics of skill and courage. Often these passages end

with statements of his unearthly or superhuman power:

Ector rides & raykes a-boute,
Off no man hadde he no doute,
Off no mannes pride he ne thou3te,
Off no mannes leuyng told he nou3t,

He fau3t euere-more In one,
He leues stondyng be-fore him none,
He is to hem an euel gest,






He fighters euere with-outen rest:
He sclow two thousand, er he be-lan;
Thei seyde he was non erthely man. (10885-10896)

But in other situations, like his fight with Episcropus

and Cedius, Hector asserts his own nobility:

Saide Ector, 'I was neuere thral,
I am fre, and my kynde al;
In al my kyn is no throle,
But kyng and duk, kny3t & erle;
My ffader is a gentil kyng,
Suche is non In thyn ospreyng:
Fyfftene kynges, genteler than thow,
Doth him omage and fewte now;
And I, his sone, kny3t, and Air,
Vndir me is man and mair,
Duke and Prince, and kny3tes strong,
And alle that euere to him long.
My moder is a gentil quene,
A trewe lady, and euere hath bene;
Sche did her lord neuere falshede,
But euere was tree In word and dede.
It semes wel thanne, that I am fre,
I may be skyl no cherl be! (7455-7472)
This passage is almost in the tradition of the epic hero's

boast, appearing somewhat out of place in the speech of

a good knight, but presumably Hector meant to defend his

family rather than prove his own superiority. On the point

of modesty, however, Hector can hardly be compared to Gawain.

Perhaps the most artistic of all the elaborations

concerning Hector's strength and skill is the speech given

to Agamemnon after the hero's death:

It is to vs wel more a-vauntage
That he is ded & loken In cage,
Then we hadde sclayn In fight felle
Halff the men that with him dwelle.
For he sclow mo him-selff alone
Then alle that other did euerychone,
And we be now--I vnderstande--
Mo then sixti hundred thousand
Off Mennes bodies gode and able,
That ben a-pert and defendable. (11555-11364)






The next forty lines constitute an impressive catalog,

naming the most prominent men Hector killed. By giving

this testimony of Hector's strength to the leader of the

Greeks, the poet creates the illusion that everyone involved

in the war--Trojan and Greek alike--agreesthat Hector was

the strongest man there.

The poet establishes Hector's prowess through the

narrator's assertions, through Hector's deeds on the

battlefield and his own assertions about himself, and

through Agamemnon's eulogy. On the other hand, the poet

establishes the hero's goodness largely through descriptive

techniques. As the two central passages indicate, the

author associates Christian characteristics with Hector. He

supports this association through the use of Christian

terminology. When Hector is wounded, he does his "penuance"

(9445), and before he rides to battle, his father blesses
him (4877-4884; 9781).

The author also associates Hector with Christianity

through descriptions of the hero's environment. The hall

of Ilion, where Hector recovers from his wounds, has a

marvelous, supernatural quality. All the parts are

covered with gold, and the walls are set with precious

stone, particularly with carbuncle stones that shine as

bright as day even at midnight (9465-9430), The hall is'

supported by twelve magnificent alabaster columns:

On stones twelue was hit al set
Off Alabaster that wele were wrou3t,






It was gret meruayle how thei were bou3t
Vnto that werk to rayse that ground,
It was meruayle where men thei found. (9484-9488)

The floor is made of crystal, and in the corners are images

so life-like they are often mistaken for living people

(9491-9503). The towers reach above the clouds (9511-

9518), and outside the door is a golden tree whose gold and
silver branches bear every kind of fruit in the world, but

the fruit, too, is made of gold and silver (9529-9540).

The hall itself contains a great gold image of Jupiter

that anyone might come and worship when he pleases (9545-

9568). The poet relies on Dares as his authority for the
existence of these marvels (9504-9506), but at the same

time stresses the incredibility of the hall:

If thow wolt that hall discryue,
Sicurly 3e wolde not leue
The wonder werk of the Pyleres;
Man wolde holde hem grete lyeres,
Man wolde wene that men did lye,
And holde it alle for fairie.
But man wolde wene In his thought,
That such werk myght neuere be wroght.
(9453-9460)
Far from being evil, however, Ilion is associated with a

virtue and glory that no longer exist :

For now is non so glorious,
Ne non In this world so vertuous,
As Ilion was the while it stode. (9461-9463)

These descriptions do not Christianize Hector, as the image
of Jupiter indicates. The poet attempts only to make the

hero virtuous by associating him with virtue: the
"vertuous" and marvelous hall of Ilion, the virtuous

Sampson, and various Christian figures--Mary, John, and

Peter.




85

After Hector's death, Priam attempts to sanctify the

body. He frees it temporarily from odor and decay, pre-

serving it with all its life-like qualities in a cage in

the temple of Apollo, where the citizenry might view it

(11208-11290). The tabernacle is set before the altar and

the four golden pillars which support it have images that

resemble angels. The walls, roof, and steps of the

tabernacle are nearly as sumptuous as those of the hall

of Ilion. Four mortars that can be quenched by no substance

on earth burn day and night around the tomb. This treat-

ment of the corpse represents a kind of consecration, but

definitely not a Christian consecration since the taber-

nacle is set before the altar of Apollo. Nevertheless, the

body is treated with more reverence and honor than that

of any other Trojan or Greek including Troilus, Paris,

and Achilles.

Virtue, marvelousness, and sanctification are

elements often connected with saints' legends. While the

poet does not make Hector a saint, he apparently borrows

techniques from those legends to build the characterization.

Dorothy Everett indicates that saints' lives and romances

have distinctly different ends, but that they often use

the same motifs.1 Ojars Kratins also finds parallels

between Amis and Amiloun and the saints' lives: leprosy,

poverty, child sacrifice, and revitalization are motifs

borrowed from the saints' lives and applied to the heroes

of the romance, Amis and Amiloun, to make them pious,






2
though not saints. This technique for building character-

ization is evidently not unusual in medieval literature.

The preceding comparisons with the Gest indicate that

the Laud poet expands both the description of Ilion and

the embalming of Hector. The marvelous and exotic is a

standard element of romance, but the other English versions

of Troy, following Guido's history, condemn the marvellous.

For example, Lydgate says, "Yit God forbede we schulde 3if

credence" to Medea's powers (I, 1711), and the Gest poet

devotes 299 lines to explaining how the sun and moon did

not spring from the soil of Delos island (4264-4464).

The Laud poet, however, specifically relates the marvellous

nature of Ilion to virtue and glory. This relationship,

since it differs from other versions of Troy, may indicate

that the poet is using techniques of comparison similar to

those found by Everett and Kratins. Since he makes

explicit use of comparisons in other places to build

character, it is possible he borrowed elements from relig-

ious literature to give his hero a virtuous, though non-

Christian, characterization. The poet thus establishes

both virtue and prowess in one character.


The character of Achilles shows a three part develop-

ment. Before the death of Hector, the poet's elaborations

in Achilles' characterization are aimed at creating a

foil to the Trojan hero. From the time he sees Pollexena

(11987) until he returns to battle (14157), Achilles the






lover is emphasized. From the time he returns to battle

(14157) until just before his death (15408), he becomes

again the treacherous strong man, foil this time to

Troilus and Mennon. As the progression suggests, the

characterization fluctuates: Achilles is at one time the

treacherous and vengeful enemy and, at another, the

distraught, but well-intentioned lover. Both roles are

functionally important to the revenge motif. The one

indicates how war may breed unchivalric behavior, and the

other demonstrates the relationship between romantic love

and revenge. The following discussion attempts to show

the differences in development, and something of the overall

effect of this dichotomous, though perhaps not inconsistent,

characterization.

For most of the first 1,100 lines, Achilles is

simply the strong, but treacherous Greek adversary for

Hector. The poet's early elaborations emphasize his

strength in battle:

The furst batayle sir Achilles
To lede that day for-sothe ches;
Out of his tent he is now yssed,
To kyng Hupoun was he wel wyssed,
A dou3ti kny3t of gret a-fere;
But him thought euel that he come there:
Hupoun was michel and long,
Hey and brod, mechel & strong,
He was mechel as a geaunt;
But him hadde ben better to haue ben at Gaunt
Or haue leyn seke in his bed,
Then he that day batayle hadde led.
Achilles smot him with a spere,
That al his Armes gan to-tere,
He smot him thorow bothe flesch & bone
And thorow his armes euerychone;
Thoow he were mechel and long,
Out of his sadel he him sclong. (7359-7376)







Hupon is a fearful adversary here, the word "michel"

being used three times for him, and yet the contest was

ridiculous since Achilles won easily.

The Greek hero's strength, however, is clearly second

to Hector's:

Achilles then, that lordly sire,
Wolde not abide him[Hector]In his Ire,
But euere (held) fro him alone,
Euere til Ector were gone.
Hadde he a-biden him In his wratthe,
He scholde haue had an euel battle,
He scholde haue bathed In his blode. (10573-10579)

At no time is Achilles' strength ever related to virtue or

compared to that of Sampson's. In fact, quite opposite

descriptions are given of Achilles:

Achilles come thenne ffast ridande
As a deuel with foule semblande,
With alle the kny3tes that he ledde. (8795-8797)

Thus, the poet through short descriptions creates a strong

man and formidable enemy, yet the antithesis of Hector.

Achilles' treachery and cowardice are emphasized in

his many attempts to kill Hector through guile:

Achilles holdes him euere asyde,
He maketh him redi to wayte his tyde;
As ffische is dreven to the bayte,
So waytes he him at som defaute;
T(h)er-vpon he euere duelles,
For he atentis to no-thyng elles,
For whan he may his tyme se
Opon Ector venged to be. (6527-6534)

This passage is intensified by its position in the text.

It occurs in the middle of a long account of Hector's

heroic actions in battle.

Achilles' treacherous and vengeful nature is






emphasized in later episodes, especially those against

Troilus:

For tene his herte wex grete,
That Troyle did him the vilony;
He hadde to him gret envy,
He swore by god that dwelled In heuene
He scholde him scle for odde or euene.
(14620-14624)
When the Myrmidons surround Troilus, Achilles is glad:

"Achilles--lord! that he was glad! /Off alle the world

no more he bad!" (14859-14860). During one of his

recuperations, the Greek hero spends his time thinking

how he will slay Trojans:

Achilles thinks day & nyghtis,
How he may sle dou3ti kny3tis;
He nolde it lette for non au3t
That any man him 3eue mau3t. (14641-14644)

The poet adequately shows Achilles' villainy, but

through the entire portrait he is little more than evil

foil to the virtuous Hector and subsequently to Troilus

and Mennon. For this particular aspect of Achilles'

character, the poet makes only sporadic expansion of

traits already suggested by other medieval versions of

the story, while with the character of Hector, he expands

at nearly every opportunity and develops some lengthy

passages which are completely independent of other versions.

Because the poet relies on simile and plot action rather

than didacticisms to establish Achilles' characterization,

the Laud is perhaps slightly superior to versions like the

Gest, which makes a blatant statement of Achilles'unchivalric

behavior and berates Homer for praising him (10312-10362).






Because the poet attempts to keep Achilles, the

formidable enemy, before the reader, he must give a running

account of Achilles' activities. Consequently, many short

passages on the Greek hero appear in the Laud which are

not contained in the Gest. He thinks in battle (6617-

6620; 10779-10810); he keeps out of Hector's way (6527-

6530; 10573-10579); he plots with others to kill Hector

(6391-6396; 10764-10770); and he reacts to a death

(10841-10842). When he is wounded, short commentaries on

his condition are inserted (11291-11306; 14605-14619), and

transition passages such as "Now of Ector lete we be, /And

of Achilles speke we" (11291-11292) are not uncommon.

Frequently the Greeks entertain their wounded hero and

bring him expert physicians:

Lord, the Ioye that Gregeis made!
Thei ete & drank & made him glade
With pipes & daunces & Iolyffte;
Gret Ioye it was her murthe to se.
Achilles thei dede alle glade,
Mechel murthe thei him made,
And dight him gode fisiciens,
With leche-crafft thes surgiens;
Alle the helpe that thei myght
Thei it dede by day & nyght.
And thonked here godis In that place
That hadde sent hem som grace,
To scle him that hadde hem most anoyed
And her Gregeis so foule distroied.
(10973-10986)
These elaborations expand Achilles' role, but sometimes

do little to further his characterization. They serve

primarily to draw attention to the character so that,

although he is not the central figure in the poem, he is

still before the reader as a representation of Greek







power and the Trojans' chief enemy.

All these passages on Achilles show no unique

method of character development. There are no central

passages spoken by the narrator indicating the precise-

nature of Achilles' character. In fact, Priam's speech

when he finds that Achilles has broken his oath to make

the Greeks withdraw is one of the few explicit judgments

of Achilles in the Laud:

But he is fals & euel thynkand
And doth alle thyng with gylerye,
With no manhed ne chyualrie. (14336-14338)

There are no catalogs of his deeds in battle, no recurrent

exaggerations, and no elaborate associations comparable

to the associations of Hector with saintliness and virtue.

The passages simply describe his actions, have no unique

development, and are, therefore, largely undifferentiated

from other descriptions in the poem.

Achilles' role as distraught lover, however, shows

definite development through dramatization. The point of

the characterization is to show how the situation produces

an inner conflict by forcing the character to choose

between two allegiance. The Laud poet presents the

conflict through Achilles' interactions with those around

him and through soliloquies which describe his inner

condition.

Achilles' conflicting encounters with others begin

in the councils he calls to persuade the Greeks to go home.

Additions to these council scenes were discussed in the







preceding chapter. Their.importance for Achilles'

characterization lies in the fact that his views on war

become consonant with the narrator's, a fact which stimu-

lates the reader's sympathy for him.

The Laud poet demonstrates Achilles' determination to

abstain from the war through a melodramatic scene with Heber.

Achilles, of course, refuses to fight because he has

promised Hecuba he will get the Greeks to raise the siege.

IIeber, mortally wounded, rushes to Achilles' tent to

berate him for not assisting the Greeks. The Gest reports

the content of the speech:

He chalinget Achilles with a chere fell,
Reproued hym prudly of his proud will,
-'at lurket in his loge, list not to help,
And segh his folke so fallyn, & in fight end,
pat with his monhede so mykell, & with his mayn strenght,
Might soucour his Soudiours, & saue hom alyue.
(9544-9549)
The Laud poet dramatizes the encounter by presenting direct

discourse:

And thow myght saue hem [Greeka fro this wo
Iff thow wolde to fight go,
With thi strength & thi myght,
Iff thow hadde ben to-day at fight.
Hit comes the of euel wil,
That thow schalt holde the thus still
And wol not helpe thi contre-men,
Thow hast lorn of hem M ten.

How myght tbow--he sayde--In herte fynde
To thi people be so vn--kynde,
And wolde not haue of hem mercy?
It is so sothe thi vilony!
Men wol say opon the tresoun,
Sithen throw leuest with-oute resoun. (12711-12726)

The Gest then indicates that the "trunchyn" was pulled

out and "the buerne deghet" (9550-9551). The Laud poet




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E7J2RKMQX_W3V55F INGEST_TIME 2017-07-14T23:08:32Z PACKAGE UF00097691_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

An Introduction to the Laud Troy Book By SHARON LYUN STEVENSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE mi VERS IT Y OR FLORIDA IN PARTIAL PUL?ILLI*IEI'7T OF THE REOUffiLI^IEI'ITS FOR THE DEGREE OP DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1971

PAGE 2

Copyright by Sharon L. Stevenson 1971

PAGE 3

For Blaine and Zack

PAGE 4

ACKrTO\v'LEDGMENTS I v;ould like to acknowledge my debt to Dr. Richard A. Dv/yer for helping me plan and \\a?ite this study and for his guidance throughout my program. I v;ould like to thank Drs, John Algeo and Claude Abraham for patiently reading ray work and offering invaluable advice. The Department of English, particularly Drs. James Hodges and Alton Morris, should be thanked for the appointments and fellov/ship v/hich made ray training possible. IV

PAGE 5

VI TABLE OP CONTEITTS ABSTRACT I. INTRODUCTION ' 1 II. NARRATOR AITD GETTRE 20 III. • STRUCTURE AKD THEME /H IV. CHARACTERIZATION AKD THEWE 79 V. DESCRIPTIVE TECHNIQUES 109 VI. CONCLUSIONS II9 APPENDIX I. SUI^!ARY OF THE LAUD TROY BOOK BY LINE NU!ffiER I3I APPENDIX II. THE TV/O STORIES OF TROY 141 APPENDIX III. AimOTkTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1^7 BIBLIOGRAPHY I52

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAUD TROY BOOK By Sharon Lynn Stevenson August, 1971 Chairman: Richard A, Dwyer Major Department: English Scholars of the Italian Renaissance generally agree that the rebirth was not a sudden phenomenon, but the continuation of pre-existing interests. Most scholars of English literature, too, belie^e there is a continuity between the medieval and Renaissance periods, but few studies have been done to point out precise areas of continuity. . This study attempts to shov/ that the Laud Troy Book , a fifteenth century I"^ in the Bodleian Library, contains ideas and techniques related to the Renaissance revenge tragedies. The structure of the poem is investigated, and coBiparisons to other versions of the fall of Troy, particularly to the Gest Hystcriale of the Destruction of Troy , are made to delineate the predominant characteristics of the poem. These characteristics are then related to revenge tragedies. Comparisons to the other versions indicate that the vi

PAGE 7

poet altered the story to emphasize revenge. This theme is accoLapanied by motifs of madness, treachery, intrigue, love, insult, and blood responsibility — motifs also present in the revenge tragedies. The characterizations of the strong men move from Hector, the most virtuous knight ever, to Achilles, a sighing lover v;ho sees the war as senseless folly, to Pirrus, Achilles' son who not only kills innocent women and old men, but also desecrates their bodies. This characterization of Pirrus as the extreme model of revenge is also found in Kamlet . but no direct influence is evident. Because the characters become more and more vengeful, the poem ends in total social destruction; only the traitors, the v/eak, and the unheroic Greeks are left. Most revenge tragedies also end v;ith the death of the protagonists and many of the antagonists. Although the v;ork is not a play, the poet dramatizes his narrative by using motivation, conversation, soliloquy, and realistic description to make the tale vivid. The sensational passages describing brutality and death are also related to the sensational horrors in plays like Titus Andronicus . An examination of the passages spoken by the narrator shov/s that the poet conceived of his v;ork as a tragedy caused by the actions of specific individuals. The recognition of the individual as causal agent lies at the heart of the great Renaissance portraits, and thus moves the poem away from earlier e:-cplanations of Fate, Fortune, or Providence as the cause of the fall. vii

PAGE 8

The study indicates that medieval poets v/ere interested in the theme of revenge and that the theme carried with it some techniques and subordinate motifs v/hich are also present in the Renaissance revenge tragedies. The similarities spring not from a direct influence, but from a nucleus of ideas which surrounded the theme in both periods. Thus, the study establishes one area of continuity. The continental sources of the revenge tragedy should be seen, to some extent, as amplifying and psychologizing an interest already present in native v/orks. Vila

PAGE 9

I. INTRODUCTION The fifteenth century Italian Renaissance is often spoken of as a rebirth, a flowering, or an av.'akening as if it were an unprecedented phenomenon in that nation's literature. Yet some historians argue that this Renaissance owed much to a twelfth century Latin Renaissance. Friederich Keer v/rites: The poets and natural philosophers of the Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had their predecessors in the humanists, Platonists, natural philosophers, poets and theoretical exponents of the ars amand i. . « of the tv.'elfth century. ^ Similarly, Frederick Artz says: \-rhat the 'Renaissance of the Tv/elfth Century' had been on the verge of accomplishing v;as achieved by Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Italian humanists came to be the heirs and successors of the mediaeval rhetoricians. 3 Herbert Muller also writes: "The more exuberant humanism of the Renaissance was a continuation of the medieval trend, not a sudden rebellion." There is debate and qualification concerning the theory of a tv;elfth century Renaissance,-' but few historians deny its existence and influence. In view of the relationshiu between the two

PAGE 10

2 periods, the later Renaissance becomes not so much a sudden flowering as the culmination of a movement that began two or three centuries earlier. Despite these revisions in the theory of the Italian Renaissance, students of medieval and Renaissance English literature are only beginning to explore the continuity between the two periods. The inaccessibility of manuscripts, a situation now being alleviated by technology, and the large body of literature which was apparently destroyed encourage scholars to look to Italy and the continent for the precursors of the English Renaissance rather than to native sources. Yet the studies that have been done on native sources indicate that a continuity between the two periods does exist. For example, Walter Schirmer successfully demonstrates a relationship between Lydgate's Fall of Princes , the Mirror for Magistrates , and Shakespeare's history plays. Ranging over the v;hole of the middle ages, Willard Farnham focuses on numerous ideas that were 7 ultimately fused in the production of Renaissance tragedies.' Mary Mroz indicates some medieval origins, both theological and literary, for the ideas of divine vengeance contained g in Renaissance revenge tragedies. Marguerite Hearsey links specific passages in The Complaint of Henry , Duke of 9 Buckingham ^ with similar passages in Lydgate and Gov/er, "^ Raymond Chapman traces the idea of Fortune in Shakespeare's 10 plays to the medieval traditions of Fortune. Even D.S. Brewer admits that, despite his failure to distinguish

PAGE 11

3 adequately between the terms "middle ages" and "Renaissance," Alain Renoir's emphasis on Lydgate as a transitional figure 11 is a "welcome" piece of scholarship. Brev/er's staitement indicates the growing awareness of the need for studies in the continuity between the two periods. This dissertation investigates one small area of continuity. It focuses on the Laud Troy Book (IIS. 595 in the Bodleian Library), a fifteenth century version of the fall of Troy, in an attempt to show that the ideas and some of the techniques existing in the poem are related to the Renaissance revenge tragedy. The analysis utilizes point of view, organization, contrast, and repetition — devices often associated with structuralism. Contemporary structuralistic theory, playing on Eliot's idea of literature as an entire existing order which alters with each new work, welcomes studies which relate a specific work to the larger body of literature: To be transitively understood, to be understood in such a way that it can play its role in society, the work must be placed among other works, and finally among that ideal order of existing monuments which Eliot mentioned,'^ 2 However, it is not possible to relate the poem to the larger body of literature without first understanding clearly what the nature of the work is and something about what it meant to the medieval audience,^ The story of Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas who founded Britain, was first introduced into English liter-

PAGE 12

4 ature by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudo-history of England, Sebastian Evans, editor of Monmouth's history, believes that the final form of the work was instigated by the Norman ruling class, who wished to give the English 14 and the Normans a common heritage. If the Normans in fact wanted the tale disseminated as history, then no literary contrivance could have been more successful. Various chronicles from Geoffrey of Monmouth to Milton 15 indicate the popularity of the legend, -^ Its v/idespread acceptance marks a change in the English perspective which v;as essential for any renaissance to occur: the British began looking to Rome, Greece, and Troy for their ancestry, not to Germany, Denmark, and Scandinavia. The advantage of this new perspective is evident; it brought both national and international prestige. At a time when most of the other countries of Europe had already claimed descent from the Trojans, England could ill afford not to associate itself v;ith the splendor of the Mediterranean past. The v;onders of the East — the subtle compounds for preserving a body after death, the golden trees which bore gold and silver fruit, the marvelous architectural craftsmanship, and sumptuous surroundings — v;ere all a part of the Englishman's background. He was no barbarian. And the church, of course, raised no objection to Geoffrey of Monmouth's fabrication since it was consistent with the Providential history of the v/orld, Brutus could be traced to Aeneas;

PAGE 13

5 and Aeneas, to Noah. Consequently, the story of Trojan descent became the fashionable explanation for the mysteries of the British past and its link, both secular and divine, to the larger v;orld. But more importantly, the essential direction of the English Renaissance was shaped. An attitude to the culture that produced the classics and the models for the Renaissance v;as decided. If the medieval man saw the splendor of the past, he also saw the moral lesson contained in its destruction. The earthly world is mutable; the sinful and the virtuous alike are subject to misfortune. It matters little whether the Trojans fell by Fortune, the machinations of Providence, the influence of the stars, treason, false priests, the nature of v;omen, the worship of pagan gods, or the general human desire for revenge. The people fell, and their destruction effectively underscores the instability of the world. This conception of the world as unstable lies at the heart of the contemptus mundi idea: '^ if this world is mutable, then scorn it and trust in a world that is unchanging. According to V/illard Farnham, the conception of the world as unstable, mutable, fickle, and unpredictable is essential to Renaissance tragedy since that form deals v/ith a character's changing fortune. Similarly, the conflict in the revenge play grows out of a character's desire to stablize virtues in a mutable v;orld. Hamlet and Hieronimo try to establish justice; Romeo and Juliet, a lasting love.

PAGE 14

6 As Farnham adequately shov;s, the medieval conteraptus mundi thene is closely related to the Renaissance tragedy. In terms of history and morality, then, the Troy legend v;as a part of the medieval man's understanding of the v/orld about him. Consequently, it is not surprising to find a number of versions of the story still extant. Most of them are based, not on Homer, but on the Latin reconstructions of Dictys Cretensis' Ephemeria d e Historia Belli T ro.jani of about the fourth century and Dares Phrygius' De Excidio Trojae Historia of about the sixth century. N. E, Griffin indicates that Homer's use of the gods, his removal in time from the actual events of the war as compared to Dictys and Dares' claim to eyewitness authority, and the medieval preference for Latin over Greek are major reasons for the medieval choice of the Latin writers over 19 Homer, Although these two versions v/ere often found together in medieval manuscripts, they were sometimes not the direct source for later works. During the second half of the twelfth century, Beno'it de Ste.-Maure, a Norman-French poet, composed Le Roman de Troie, a vernacular versification of the Troy story in over 20 30,000 verses. Although some authorities posit an expanded Dares from which Beno"^ drew much of his information, that work is not extant; thus Benolt's poem must be assessed as a highly creative elaboration of the story. In 128? Guide de Columnis apparently condensed Beno^t's verse into a Latin prose version which omitted much of his model's

PAGE 15

7 dramatization and ornamentation, generally leaving plot episodes v/itbout descriptions, "but sometimes inserting 21 his ovm interpretations and didactic passages. Guido and Benol^t are most often the sources for medieval English versions of the Trojan war. The Excidium Troiae, a Latin account preserved in a manuscript from the ninth century, apparently influenced 22 one English version, The Seege or Batayle of Troy . As a source, however, the Excidium Troiae is relatively insignificant; its importance lies instead in its form — a school exercise — and its content — Homeric or classical material rather than that of Dictys and Dares, Carol C. Esler in her v;ork on Joseph of Exeter discusses other 25 school exercises based on classical materials. In comparison to the Excidium « however, these poems are short and obviously the v/ork of students, not the text students were to emulate. The first lengthy v/ork produced in England and devoted in its entirety to the fall of Troy is the six-book, Latin epic by Joseph of Exeter entitled De Bello Trojano. It was composed around 118^ and uses Dares as its primary source. Although popular in its ovm time and again in the Renaissance, this Latin work did not serve as a source for later English versions probably because its form and epic conventions interested later writers less than the 24 conventions of the romance. Several fourteenth and fifteenth century English

PAGE 16

8 versions of the Troy material are extant. The Seege or Batayle of Troy , dating from the beginning of the fourteenth century, is evidently of minstrel composition, relying primarily on Dares and occasionally on Benolt and the Excidium Troiae , -^ It is a highly compact work, emphasizing plot action rather than description, didacticism, or theme. The Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy , done in long-line alliterative verse, dates from the end of the fourteenth century and is a fairly close translation of le V 27 26 Guide. Chaucer's treatment of the Troilus episode was also composed at the end of the fourteenth century. The Laud Troy Book , composed around 1400 or slightly before, claims to be a Hector romance and is neither a close 28 translation nor a free rendering of any other extant work, Lydgate's Troy Book , begun around 1412, at the request of Prince Henry, is a creative translation of Guido containing numerous insertions of learned material from the author's 29 own reading. ^ The Prose Siege of Troy , dating from the second quarter of the fifteenth century, is a condensation 50 of Lydgate's Troy Sook .^ In addition to these fulllength works, there are tv/o Scottish Troy fragments probably dating from the fifteenth century, although they 51 are sometimes attributed to John Barbour. Eased primarily on Guido, these English versions testify to the widespread interest in the story. Around 1474 Caxton translated and printed a prose romance entitled The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye

PAGE 17

9 based on a French work by Raoul Lef^vre.^^ It represents a turning avay from the Dictys-Dares tradition to a restoration of classical accounts. The translation enjoyed a number of editions and served as the basis for Thomas Hey^vood's Great Britain's Troy , a long poem in ottava rima, and The Four Ages, a series of plays; both works date from the first quarter of the seventeenth century. ^^ Although Shakespeare evidently put together a number of sources for his Troilus and Cressida . the inspiration for his account is primarily classical. ^^ This historical resume indicates that the legend underwent some significant changes in the later middle 55 ages. The end of the twelfth century fostered interest in new sources of the legend, which in turn gave way to classical sources again in the Renaissance; and the form changed from episodic to full-length accounts. This period between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries thus represents a unique interlude in the English history of the legend and opens the way for explorations of the relationship between the legend and historical and sociological factors which might have influenced the literary mode. Such a study is obviously outside the scope of this dissertation, but an understanding of the history of the legend is important here because the Dictys-Dares tradition is significantly different from the more familiar Homeric tradition. The standard elements of the former should not be mistaken for creative innovations by the Laud poet.

PAGE 18

10 For the reader's convenience, a table of the major differences is presented in Appendix II. The nunerous versions attest to the story's popularity and also indicate that it represents a significant grouping v/ithin the total body of medieval literature. Despite its importance, the English Troy material has been the subject of little scholarship. One reason for this inattention may be that the works are of a lesser artistic caliber than most of Chaucer's work. The Pearl , Sir Gav/ain and the Green Knight , Piers Plowman , and the other cycles, especially the Arthurian stories. The Laud Troy Book , in particular, seems to lack artistic merit. It has neither the stately alliterative movement of the Gest Hystorial e of the Destruction of Troy nor the rhythmic, minstrel brevity of the Seege or Batayle of Troy to commend it. In fact, R. K. Root in a review of J. Ernst V/ulfing's edition of the Laud, for the Early English Text Society writes: Though quite untouched by any breath of true poesy, and extended to the v;eary length of 18,654 verses of halting octosyllabic couplets, the Laud Troy Book is, nevertheless, so important a document for the E"nglish development of the great Troy cycle that students of Middle English ivill gladly v/elcome this edition of the poem, ...36 Here, then, is the medieval scholar's dilemma: should a poem lacking in artistry be the subject of analysis? In the case of the La ud , the answer is clearly affirmative because the v/ork is a precursor of the Renaissance revenge

PAGE 19

11 tragedy and as such brings into question the whole theory of the Renaissance as a kind of package suddenly imported from Italy and then modified. Troilus and Criseyde can be called the first psychological novel if psychological means minutely portraying the frustrations of one man. But Chaucer is extraordinary, a genius compared to the other artists of his time; consequently, he is expected to be a forerunner of later, more subtle developments. But the Laud poet's powers are less extraordinary; and consequently, his subject-matter and techniques are probably a better indication of the popular literature of the time than are Chaucer's. For these reasons, then, the 57 work of intermediate quality needs to be explored, ' Some preliminary investigations have been done, two of thera article-length studies. The first, by Dorothy Kempe, takes the form of a brief introduction,-^ She presents a description of the manuscript, then hypothesizes that the poem, because it fails to make elaborate use of the Troilus-Criaeyde material, was written before Chaucer's romance. She also attempts to establish Guido, rather than Benolt, as the immediate source. She considers the illustrations of contemporary life the most interesting element of the poem. Among these illustrations are the naive mixture of paganism and Christianity not found in Guido, Benc^t, or Lydgate, and the descriptions of the civic state, dress, armour, v/eapons, and architecture.

PAGE 20

12 She concludes with an evaluation of the style, which she finds almost devoid of literary skill. Any innovations in the story are accomplished "without definite artistic. _., purpose" and the versification is "rough, often deficient 59 m grammar.""^ According to Kempe, the poet's strong. points seem to he innovations in dialogue, narrative expansions of the Pirrus story, and descriptions of storms, battles, and military life. She notes as "curious" the frequent use of similes and indicates that "the author keeps completely out of sight." Her article shows a number of insights into the poem, but is most important in that it stimulated •* V/ulfing to complete his edition of the manuscript for the . Early English Text Society, M V/ulfing has also written an article which, in the absence of a formal introduction to his edition, must serve 41 as a guide to his thoughts on the poem. This article makes two major points. The first section supplements, confirms, or corrects Dorothy Kempe 's article; the second deals with the problems of sources, and place and date of composition. He presents several arguments indicating that Guide's work v;as probably not the only material used by the Laud poet for his composition. He indicates that the Laud, the Gest and the Scottish Troy fragments are based to some rxtont on another common source, probably French. He believes that Beno^t and Statius could have been additional sources for the Laud . The date and place of composition he assigns to the northwest Midlands between

PAGE 21

13 the last quarter of the fourteenth century and the first ten years of the fifteenth century. Although he favors Dorothy Kempe's conclusion that. the poem was-written before Chaucer's romance, he finds it impossible' to prove. The article contains no interpretation of the poem, and IVulfing himself considers it a preliminary, not a definitive study. Two dissertations include passing discussions of the Laud v;hile investigating other, more comprehensive topics dealing with the cycle as a whole. D. N. Hinton treats the Laud in terms of a popular romance. He finds that the v/ords "curtays," "noblay," and "chivalrous" occur only infrequently in the Gest , but are used regularly in the Laud . He notices that marvelous qualities are stressed throughout the Laud; for example, the description of the fleece is lengthy and Medea's powers as sorceress are not disclaimed. Banquets, music, dancing, dress, and formal behavior, in short, attributes of courtly life, are stressed. Warfare, including descriptions of armour and battles, is emphasized, and Hector behaves according to' the chivalric ideals of fourteenth century knighthood. Because he considers the work to be a Hector romance, Hinton finds the structure deficient: the hero enters late and dies early. Strangely enough, he believes that ' most of the material follov;ing Hector's death is a straight translation of Guido; but such a view fails to consider the poet's treatment of the Achilles' episode

PAGE 22

14 and the addition of the story of Pirrus which Dorothy Kempe had previously noted as an apparently original elaboration. Gordon R, Wood sees the Laud as a translation of Guido, but in the "new manner." -^ This new manner is signaled by the use of certain phrases to acknowledge the poet's debt to his source — "of this matter I will not tell," "these are the words of him whom I translate," "as the trety says" — or by the use of direct references to the author being translated. Since V.^ood has chosen to interpret the Laud as a translation of Guido, he must account for its marked divergence from the other two translations, the Gest and the Troy Book . His explanation of the "new manner" is one attempted account, and another is based on the purpose for translating: If one can judge from the poet's silence, he did not make the translation because some patron ordered him to. From internal evidence such as the poet's colloouial style of writing (432-44, 484-500, 765-92), one may conclude that he intended the poem for a more general audience. If this is so, we have, perhaps, an explanation of the difference in content between the Laud. translation and those contemporary with it: a translation designed to please a general audience need not follow the source closely. Its author, in order to keep the attention of the audience, may reject everything which stops the progress of the story, and he may greatly elaborate those things v/hich he thinks will add to it.^ Such e>:planations of the differences between the Laud and other versions of the Troy story are not exhaustive and are certainly biased by the initial assumption that the Laud is

PAGE 23

15 a translation of Guido, Wood does, hov/ever, recognize a number of important differences betv;een the Laud and the two other versions: the Laud poet "discards all elements not relating to the Trojan war"; he adds "Hector's o\v'n words," "detailed accounts of armour and fighting," and "an analysis of the emotions of the contestants"; and he leaves out the Greeks' return. -^ These last two approaches to the Laud are less than satisfactory because, of course, they do not focus primarily on the Laud and thus are only partial and sometimes inaccurate explanations. The first tv.'o approaches represent exploratory studies which, for the most part, are concerned with the circumstances of the manuscript and its composition rather than v/ith the contents. This study differs from the previous studies in that it focuses solely on the Laud and attempts to delineate its distinguishing characteristics, relating it ultimately to the Renaissance revenge tragedies. The division of the following work is based on various aspects of the poem. One chapter focuses on the narrator, another on theme, another on characterization, and still another on descriptive techniques. An outline of the contents of the Laud is presented in Appendix I, and an annotated bibliography of relevant v;orks is included in Appendix III,

PAGE 24

NOTES Charles Homer Haskins, T he Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1927). 2 Friedrich Heer, The Medieval V/orld; Europe 11001330 (New York, 1952), p. 19. ^Frederick B. Artz, The Mind of the Middle Ap:es , 3rd ed. rev. (New York, 1958^ pp. 434-435. Herbert Muller, The Uses of the Past (New York, 1952), p. 252. -^C. V/arren Hoi lister. The Twe lfth C&ntury Renaissance (Nev; York, 1969), note particularly the bibliographic essay, pp. 165-167. c. Walter F, Scbimer^ "The Importance of the Fifteenth Century for the Study of the English Renaissance v/ith Special Reference to Lydgate," Eng^lish Studies Today , ed. by C.L. Wrenn and G. Bullough (London, 1951)* PP. 104-110. 7 '^V/illard Farnham, The Medieval Heritap:e of Elizabethan Tragedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1936}"^^ D Mary Bonaventure Kroz, Divine Vengeance: Philosophical Backgnrounds of the Revenge Hotif in S h akespeare's Chs'onicle History Plays (Washington, P.O., 1941). Marguerite Hearsey (ed. ), T he Complaint of Henry, Duke of Buckingham (New Haven, 193^)"^ Raymond Chapcan, "The Wheel of Fortune in Shakespeare's History Plays," Reviev/ of English Studies , new series I (1950), 1-7. D.S. Brewer, rev. of The Poe try of John L-rc-'te , by Alain Renoir, SDecultr^, XLTrTI%9), 317-31^3. 12 Geoffrey Hartrran, "Structuralism: The AngloAr.erican adventure," Strirsturalis;^ , ed. by Jacaues Fnmann (Gai'den City, Nev/ York" 1970, p. 143. 13 ^Dorothy Everett writes: "Hov;ever the scholar cay 16

PAGE 25

17 sympathize v;ith the natural reactions of his contemporaries to any work of art, it is part of his business to make clear its significance for the tirae in v;hich it v;as created..." "A Characterization of the English Medieval Romances," E&S, }rv (1929), 98-99. Sebastian Evans (trans, and ed.), Histories of the Kings of Britain, by Geoffrey o f Monmouth (Kev; York, 1911), p. XV. -'Laura Keeler, Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Late Latin Chroniclers 1300-1^00 (Los Angeles and Berkeley, 19^6), pp. 1-2. ^^George Gordon, "The Trojans in Britain," E&S, IX (1924), 28, and J.J. Jusserand, The English Novel in the Time of Shakespeare , trans, by Elizabeth Lee (London, 1890), wrw. ''^Farnham, p. 79. -] Q A.J. Valpy (ed.), Dictys Cretensis et Dares Phrygius De bello Tro.iano . II (London, 1825). All citations are from this edition. 19 ^N.E. Griffin, Dictys and Dares: An Introduction to the Study of the Medieval S tory of Troy (Baltimore , 1907) and "The Un-Homeric Elements in the Medieval Story of Troy," JEGP, VII (1908), 32-52. 20 Leopold Constans (ed.), Le Roman de T roie, par Benott de Sai nte-Maure , Society des Anciens Textes Francais, 6 vols., (Paris, 1904-1912). All citations are from this edition. N.E. Griffin (ed.), Guido de Golumnis. H istoria destructionis Troiae , (Cambridge, Mass. , 1936;. All citations are from this edition, 22 E. Bagby Atwood and Virgil K. V/hitaker (eds.), Excidium T r oiae (Cam.bridge, Mass., 1944). 23 -^Carol C. Esler, "Joseph of Exeter's Bellum Troianum ; A Literary Study and English Translation," Diss, Bryn Mawr College, 1966. 24^ Geoffrey B. Riddehough, "A Forgotteu Poet: Joseph of Exeter," JEGP, XLVI (1947), 254, 25 -^Mary E. Barnicle (ed.). The Seege or Batayl e of Troye , Early Er.glish Text Society, 172 (London, 192^). George A. Panton and David Donaldson (eds.). The

PAGE 26

18 Gost H.ystori-gle of the Destruction of Troy , Early English Text Society, 3>', 56 (London, 1869-1874). All citations are from this edition. '^Geoffrey Chaucer, The Complete V/orks of Geoffrey Ch aucer , ed, by Fred N. Robinson, 2nd ed. (Boston, 1957). All citations are from this edition. J. Ernst Wulfing (ed.). The Laud Troy Book , Early English Text Society, 121, 122 (London, 1902-l90$TAll citations are from this edition, pq ^John Lydgate, Lyd^ate's Troy Book , ed, by Henry Bergen, Early English Te:ct Society, extra series 97, 103, 106, 126 (London, 1906-1955). All citations are from this edition. ^°N.E. Griff dLn, "The Sege of Troy," FMLA , XXII (1907), 157-200. •51 -^ Carl Horstmann, Barbour's, des schottischen Kationaldichters, Legendensairrlung nebst den Fra"r:ienten seines Tro.janerkreiges , II (Heilbronn, 1681), 255ff. ^2 s ^ Raoul Lefevre, The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye , trans, by V/illiam Caxton, ed. by K.O. Sommer, 2 vols. (London, 189^). 7.7. '^^Thomas Heywood, "The Iron Age, Parts I and II," The Dranatic Works of Thomas Keyv;ood , III (London, 187^); Troia Britannica; Or, Great Britaines Troy (London, 1609). G.B. Harrison (ed. ), Shakespeare: The Complete V/orks (New York, 19^!-8), p. ^7^» All citations are from this edition. 7.tZ ^^E. Bagby Atv/ood and Virgil Vfnitaker discuss various foreign versions of the tale in their introduction to Excidium Troiae . ^ R,K, Root, rev. of The Laud Troy Book , ed. by J. Etost Wiilfins, JEGP, V (19031905), 367-p68. 57 •'^George Kane assesses the Lra-d as "first ar.ong tne works of intermediate ouality. " Middle Engrlish Literature (London, 1951), p. 26. ' ^T)orothy Kempe, "A Middle English Tale of Troy," Ensrlische Studien , XXIX (1901), 1-26. 59 '^^Ketnpe, pp. 22-23. Kempe, p. 25.

PAGE 27

19 41 J. Ernst '.7ulf mg, ' Tag Laud Troy-Eook «'' Enerlische Studien, ICilX (1901), 37^-398. ' ^^D.N. Einton, "A Study of the Middle English Poems Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin, 1957. ^^Gordon R. Wood, "The Middle English Alliterative Destruction of Troy : A Critical Study," Diss. Princeton, 1952, p. 29. ^V/ood, pp. 22-23. ^^Wood, p. 27.

PAGE 28

II. NARRATOR AND GENRE The following chapter attempts to show that the Laud Troy Book is narrated by a speaker who believes the Trojans fell because they made a number of wrong decisions and wbo also links his tale to other medieval tragedies of Fortune, but does not offer Providential explanations of the fall. This emphasis on the individual rather than on Foirfcune or Providence helps to make the Laud a transitional piece, standing somewhere between medieval and Renaissance tragedy. First of all, the poem is narrated by a speaker who is sympathetic to the Trojans and laments their fall. The passages spoken by this narrator can be easily identified because they all begin with similar phrases: "So weylav/ay that it was so" (2705), "A, Priamus, if that thow wistes" (3600), "Alas, Paris, what hastow do" (3352), "Alas, Ector! he rev;ys my thoght" (3356), "Alas, me rev;es of Priamus" (3367), "A noble Troye, that was rial" (3373). Each passage laments the action of some indiviudal and foretells disaster; and each one also emphasizes the element of tragedy by underscoring the difference between v/hat might have been and what will actually come to pass. 20

PAGE 29

21 The lamentations occur at strategic points in the story. The first follows the proposal that Paris should go to revenge his father on the Greeks. Cassandra prophesies destruction if he does, but Priam refuses to listen. At this point, the narrator interrupts to indicate that if Paris had not gone to Greece, the destruction could have been avoided: So v/eylav;ay that it v/as so. That he nolde afftir hir [CassandraJ do! For hadde he don afftir hir rede, Hadde he not so sone ben dede, Ne the Cite not be brent, Ne alle hir kyn so foule be schent. In al the v/orld suche a Cite Neuere v/as ne neuere schal be. (2705-2712) Here Priam, by refusing to believe Cassandra's prophecy, " brings about total destruction of his lineage and city. This pattern occurs at least two other times in the Laud ; during an early council Helenus warns of destruction (251925^0), but is mocked by Troilus ; and, again, Partheus, during an open council, repeats his father's prophecy (2635-2662), but the general citizenry cry out against him (2663-2672). Thus, Priam hears three prophecies against sending Paris on the mission to the Greeks, and he chooses to disregard all three. His decision itself does not constitute a tragic situation, but the narrator's lamentation, which recalls the final effect of the decision, forces the reader to see that this action will cause ultimate destruction. From the narrator's point of view," then, failing to act on true prophecy is a significant element in the final tragedy.

PAGE 30

22 Late in the council which finally sends Paris to Greece, Hector offers a number of reasons why the Trojans should not engage in a war against the Greeks (2319-2572), but Priam also disregards this advice. The narrator then laments : A, Priamus, if that thow wistes The sor^ve that comes to the and thine Off noble Troye the gret ruyne! Haddest thow don be Ectores rede. Then haddest thow not be dede. Now comes thi sorwe and thi wo, Alas, thi loye schal ouer-go! (3600-3606) In the eyes of the narrator, Priam's failure to take Hector's advice, like his failure to act on Cassandra's prophecy, is directly related to the tragic outcome. Priam also grants too many truces. The Greeks have heavy losses; the weather sometimes works against them; and they often need time to get supplies. Therefore, they ask for truces under the guise of honoring the dead. Because the Trojans are anxious for peace, they willingly grant the truces, despite Hector's arguments (8160-8198), The Laud poet increases the number of truces by almost twice that found in the other narratives, and the narrator shov/s that granting at least one of these truces is a significant factor in the fall of Troy: A, Priamus! that 1how v/as madde, V/hen thow the trev;es so ly5tly graunted! For haddes thow thenne that tats^yle haunted Thei schulde haue died with gret vilte, V/ith swerd at that gret mortalite! (9844-98^) Thus, the narrator again emphasizes a wrong decision, one which will ultimately bring about the fall of the city.

PAGE 31

23 Some lamentations enumerate the tragic results of an individual's action, V/hen Paris finally brings Helen to Troy and marries her, the narrator comments on the action: Alas, Paris, v;hat hastov/ do, \Vhen thow leddest away Eleyne! So many gode knyghtes for hir schul be sclayne. And alle thi kyn to dethe v/as brought. Alas, Ector! he rev;ys my thoght, That he schulde dye for his disert! So strong he was In armes apert, Ne neuere wrong he wolde do, Alas, that thi god Appollo Ne hadde throwe the In the salt-flom, Er thow haddist broght hir hom! By Ihesu Crist of Nazareth! I wolde, thow haddist taken the dethe, V/hen thow v/entist to Tytharie, To here and se that melodye! Alas, me rewes of Priamus, Off Hectuba, and gode Troylus, Off Pollexene, and Andromede! That Paris made brend In a glede, vn^en thow leddest av;ay Eleyne Out of the temple of dame Vyane! A noble Troye, that was rial, A-doun is throwen with ston an^] wal; That made Paris and his euel wit. And elles hit scholde haue stonde zit As longe as lerusalem, Ne hadde Paris ben and his fals drem. Now artov; doun, and thi t cures hye. For Paris ffals a-voutrye! (3352-5380) The passage is primarily a catalog of events which are all the results of Paris' action. Here again a character's failure to realize the ramifications of his action causes the fall of Troy. Hector also makes a mistake which affects others. He decides to go to battle even though Andromache has had a prophetic dream that he will be killed. This decision prompts a one-hundred and fifteen line lamentation, by far the longest the narrator ever delivers (9877-9992). It

PAGE 32

24 consists of a catalog of events which will result from Hector's foolish decision (9905-9908): Priam will lose his nobility; Hecuba and Pollexena, their lives; Troilus, the lands he might have ruled; Andromache, her husband and her royal position; the knights, their happiness; and the citizenry, their treasure and greatness. Here again the narrator emphasizes the relationship between Hector's action and the lives of all the people in Troy. According to V/illard Famham, recognizing the individual and the relationship of his specific action to the larger situation is an important element in the growth of Renaissance tragedy. Consequently, the narrator's analysis of individual actions in relation to the outcome of the war constitutes one factor which makes the Laud a transitional poem. The narrator's lamentations all have a similarity of content and construction which link all the erroneous actions of the Trojans, making them the cause of the fall. The narrator thus serves a kind of analytic function in that he points out the errors. Neither the Gest nor Lydgate's Troy Book interpret the fall as the result of a number of individual actions. The Gest poet indicates that he is a serious translator, rendering into English Guide's history: But ^e truth for to telle & -be text eu3ni Of )^t fight how it felle in a few yeres, •fJat v/as clanly compilet v;ith a clerk v/ise,On Gydo, a gome, /jsat graidly hade soght. And wist all he werks by v/eghes he hade.

PAGE 33

25 That bothe were in batell while the batell last .And eui>er sawte & assenely see with J^ere een. In this shall faithfully be founden to the fer ende, All he dedes by dene as i^ai done were. (51-79) The poet, following his source, blames lust in women for the fall, specifically in Helen, who could not refrain from going to the temple when she heard Paris was there. According to the poem, her lust ultimately brings about treason, war, and ruin (2920-2982). The poet also condemns corruption and covetousness in priests, specifically in that priest who sold the Palladium to Antenor (11768-11781), and a long passage is devoted to the folly of idolatry, which, of course, has no power to save (4295-^58). The Gest , paralleling Guide's work, uses the tale for purposes of moral edification. Lydgate indicates that he, too, is translating, but he feels free to fill his v/ork with all kinds of scholarly elaboration. Sometimes a sentence or even a name will be enough to suggest a history or a fable to him. Consequently, before Aeneas betrays Troy, Lydgate, who obviously knov/s the Aenei d and wishes to excuse the hero of that work for bis inappropriate action in this poem, explains that the unfavorable conjunction of the stars brought about the treason (IV, ^l4A0-4532). In this way the poet is able to preserve the image that he has previously created, Aeneas as the glorious founder of the Roman Empire. The implicit suggestion here is that the fall of Troy was Providential. These comparisons indicate that the Laud poet offers a

PAGE 34

26 different explanation of the fall than most other versions do, and this explanation looks for.^fard to the Renaissance, v/hich also emphasizes the individual and his actions as the cause of events. In the Laud , however, the characters cannot clearly see the end result of their actions. For this reason Priam (19^1-19^3), Hector (2337-2342), Agamemnon (1141811422), Aeneas (7150-7160), and Achilles (12291-12292) all indicate that men ought to be cautious in their behavior. This, then, is their tragic flav;; they have not the power. . to know the future. On the other hand, Dephebus pragmatically states their position: .. .lordynges, if it were so. Off eche a thyng that men schulde do. If thei caste that noght be-falle, Nis no man of vs nowher, bonde ne thralle, That any-thyng scholde be-gynne, fro drede That he scholde fayle or euel spede. (2505-2510) Thus, what the Trojans must do, when contrasted with what they ought to do, clearly shows their tragic position in the universe. They have limited knov;ledge, being unable to recognize those prophecies and reasonings v;hich, if followed, would lead to their ultimate well-being, and yet they must act. In an analysis of the alliterative Morte Arthur e, Larry Benson explains medieval tragedy as a kind of tension: The tension is betv;een tv/o goods, betv/een the Christian detachment that is necessary for ultimate happiness even on this earth and the complete engagement with an earthly ideal that is necessary for heroism. 3 The Laud, then, has half the material for medieval tragedy;

PAGE 35

27 the characters are forced to engage in the earthly ideals of honor and obligation to a lord. But rather than presenting the ideals of Christian detachment to create a tension, the Laud poet emphasizes the idea of limited knowledge v;hich prevents the characters from both preserving their ovm well "being and doing the earthly things they must. According to Frederick Artz, "The Renaissance, as it is commonly described, is not the Middle Ages plus man, but the Middle Ages minus God.,.." In comparison to Guido's history, the Gest, and Lydgate's Troy Book , the Laud is unique because it does not contain didactic passages praising or defending Christianity, Neither does it present Boethian philosophy or scholastic debate as do other medieval works. Despite passing references to Christianity and the standard opening and closing, the poem is free of direct Christian interpolation. By focusing on individuals and their actions rather than on Christian or Boethian philosophies, the Laud again foreshadows the Renaissance, which also focuses on men rather than didactic messages. Roy Battenhouse, in discussing the Shakespearean conception of tragedy, underscores the idea of the tragic flaw: In several [of the tragic characters^J, there are faults he [Shakespeare] has not named or faults at a level deeper than he has named, v;hich contribute at least indirectly to the disasters which ensue. An initial self-righteousness in Cordelia, a mad wilfulness in Lear, a superstitiousness in Gloucester, and a weather-vane deviousness in Polonius might be mentioned for instance, 5

PAGE 36

28 Thus, in Shakespeare's work, the tragedy grows not only out of situation and action, but also out of the character's inherent nature. H.R, Patch finds a similar trend in medieval heroes: If the suffering of the chief figure in the scenes comes accidentally, then we may indeed consider this a weak and sentimental kind of tragedy. No doubt that is how the term Fortune was understood in the Middle Ages.... But mediaeval authors wrote better stories than those of pure chance. V/e find many allusions to the wanton pride of the hero before his fall, a circumstance that makes the action of Fortune more rational. ° This touch of pride can be found in Troilus ' scorn of lovers (I, 19^-203) and again in the alliterative Morte Arthure in Arthur's desire for conquests beyond Rome (3211). ' The Laud also presents a tragic flaw, but it is not a flaw peculiar to one man; it is the nature of the species. No one can know the future. According to Battenhouse, the flaws portrayed in Shakespeare's characters are unique to the particular personality. That is, not everyone suffers from superstition or self -righteousness, but a number of people do. Consequently, the portraits are pleasing because they are true to life. But the flaw as found in the Laud retains the medieval quality of Everyman. In fact, characterization in general lacks detailed development in the Laud . As George Kane says, "The charming intimacy of romances like Beues of Hamptoun or Hauelok, where we attach our sympathies to the fortunes of a single character, is wanting here." Since it lacks an intimate account of

PAGE 37

29 the central character with whom the reader can identify, the poem is not as moving as the Morte Arthure or Troilus and Criseyde ; consequently, the tragic effect of the fall is lessened. Since the flaw is inherent in the species and is not a quality a man might presumably control if he tried, the Laud, then, stands somewhere between the earlier medieval tragedy in which the fall is due primarily to uncontrollable cosmic factors and the great Renaissance portraits of individuals who, through their own actions, bring about destruction. The Laud is a transitional work, too, in terms of its Fortune motif. A few minor references to the goddess are sprinkled throughout the work, but the only major passage is spoken by the narrator following Hector's decision to withdraw his troops in the first formal battle: But Ector was that day vnblessed. Off grace certes that day he myssed. He myght that day the batayl haue ent And alle the Gregeis clene haue schent. That thei schulde neuere haue passed the see With lyff ne lyra to here centre; But destene, that fortune ledes, V/hen he beholdis that men best spedis V/ith sicur traist of wel spedyng. He makes hem leue somtyme a thyng That be may haue at his wille. That he schal neuere come ther-tille. • • • For I haue herd offte say. That he that wil not whan he mav, '.Vhen he wolde, he getis it noght. Then hit v;ere ful faire be-sought, Som tyme, as good hap nere. That comes not ones In seuene 5ere. (5883-5906) A description of Fortune and a catalog of those she has

PAGE 38

30 undone — Alexander, Caesar, Arthur, and Hector — complete the lengthy passage. These references to Fortune and Destiny suggest that the poet may be offering a Providential explanation for the fall, rather than an explanation based primarily on individual behavior; but such is not actually the case because Fortune never assumes an active role in the poem. She is termed "fficul" (5909), "frele" (5909), "variable" (5915), and unstable (5916). She "be-trayes" (5912), "be-swykes" (5918), and "aruses" (5959). She is motivated by hate (8563) and desire (9851); and she is often a "foo mortel" (9849), an image of battle which fits nicely with the plot action, but is not developed. She also "turnes and trendeles as doth a bal" (5953), a stance related to the graphic q depictions of her standing on a ball. But none of these descriptions are developed to form any recurrent theme. Similarly, the image of the wheel is absent. There are oblique references to it, as when Fortune desires Priam's "blysse doun" (9851), but there are no explicit references. If the poet was familiar, as he undoubtedly v/as , with the four positions on the wheel as rising, reigning, falling, and being cast off, he may have been reluctant to use this image of the life of a prince for material depicting the fall of a city. Destiny, whom Fortune leads (5889), is barely described at all. His principle role seems to be to lead men away from things they might easily attain, as he leads Hector

PAGE 39

31 from victory in the first fornal battle (5889-589^). Destiny also prompts one of the few truisms in the Laud ; often a man v;ill not do what he may, and later cannot do . what he would (5091-5096). The idea is essentially Boethian; but like other poets of the period, the author, of the Laud does not attempt to make any explanation of the precise connection between destiny and free will. He does indicate, however, that Destiny can be overcome by men's free will: the narrator assures the reader twice that Hector could have had the victory in the first formal battle had he chosen to take the opportunity (589^5899, 5955-5959). Again, before Hector's final battle, the narrator indicates that if the hero had not gone this day, he would subsequently have led the Trojans to victory (10006-10008). Priam, too, says before this final battle that it is possible for Hector to beat his destiny if he remains at home (10146-10150])^ but after he rides off despite Priam's command, the narrator says it is now impossible to avoid the tragedy (105^9-10550). This series of comments implies a relationship betv/een destiny and free will, but nov;here does the poet explicitly investigate the problems involved in relating the two as Chaucer does in Troilus ' famous speech on predestination and free will (IV, 958-1079). In fact, the poem in comparison to Troilus and Criseyde is quite devoid of philosophical import. Unlike Chaucer's v;ork, the references to Fortune and Destiny in the Laud form no significant and

PAGE 40

32 well-developed nucleus for the poem. They seem rather to provide a traditional franev.-ork v/hich links the poen, not to the catalog of romances presented in. the introduction (15-24), but to the catalog of tragedies presented by the narrator in the gnomic interpolation of Fortune. Because Fortune and Destiny never become active or causal agents in the poem, then, they are primarily of artistic importance, providing a tradition for understanding the poem, rather than a philosopical or theological explanation for the misfortunes that come even to the virtuous. . .-. In his thorough explication of the medieval ideas on Fortune, H.R. Patch writes: Of course the greatest injuries one can receive from Fortune nearly all consist in the fall from a state of honor. .. .Since this change in man's fortune is what really constitutes the medieval idea of tragedy, we may call this the "tragic theme." ...The literary type of the tragedy caused by Fortune was firmly established and v;ell recognized in the Middle Ages. 10 Chaucer's translation of Boethius' De consolatione contains a famous passage showing the link between the medieval concepts of fortune and tragedy: "V/hat other thyng by>;aylen the cryinges of tragedyes but oonly the deedes of Fortune, that with unwar strook overturneth the realmes of great nobleye?" (ii, pr. 2). Lydgate's Troy Book contains a similar linkage: But tragidie, v;ho so list to knowe, It begynneth in prosperite, And endeth euer in aduersite;

PAGE 41

53 And it also doth ^e conquest trete or riche kynges and of lordys grete. Of myjty men and olde conouerou^I^, V.tiiche by fraude of Fortunys schowris Ben ouercast &. v;helmed from ber glorie. • (ii, 852-859) If the medieval poets did indeed recognize a group of tales related through their emphasis on Fortune and through a plot structure moving from happiness to woe, then the Laud poet undoubtedly associated his poem with that group of tales. Thus, the Fortune motif in the poem indicates that the poet probably conceived of his v;ork as a tragedy. But because Fortune is primarily an artistic device denoting genre and is not the focal point of the narrative, the Laud can be described as moving av;ay from earlier medieval poems v/hich attempt to explain the v;orking of Fortune toward the later tragedies v;hich often curse or lament Fortune but seldom focus on explaining her behavior. Other aspects of a Providential fall are also missing. In Chaucer's poem Fortune and Destiny are linked to God, but the Laud poet attempts no such linkage. The narrator does, hov/ever, mention several times that the Trojans are without grace: Alas Troye! what is thi grace? To the fel neuere gode trace. To the fel neuere gode chaunce, Ne non of alio thi retonaunce! Thoow thow be gay & glorious, Thow were euere on-gracious! Off thov/ hede of Cites were, Blysful hap to the fel neuere! (1^687-1^69^) Alias! that day he ^Hector] hadde no grace To be at home, as bin radde v;ace. (105^7-10548)

PAGE 42

3^ Kyng Priamus, v/here v/as thi grace? Thi happe was take fro the, alas! (85^7-8548) But the references to grace, like the personifications of Fortune and Destiny, are never explicitly related to God, and the standard explanation, that man without God's grace cannot alv;ays make those choices that will create a favorable destiny for him, is also missing, despite the obvious opportunity to introduce it. No lengthy condemnation of paganism is presented as is the case in both the Gest (4256— 44-58) and Lydgate's Tro^ Book (IV, 6921-7054). Although the medieval reader, through connotation, may have compared his own opportunity to attain grace to the pagan's graceless state, the poem itself contains no such comparison. Apparently the poet deliberately avoids making theological or philosophical concerns the focus of his work. Since he never specifically links Fortune, Destiny, or grace to God, the Laud poet is never forced to explain God's rationale for destroying Troy, and he never discusses necessity or God's unlimited knowledge. He even omits episodes and explanations that v;ould lead the reader to see how the fall was necessary to the subsequent pattern of history. For example, he never identifies Aeneas as the central figure in Virgil's poem or the founder of the Roman republic, as Guido, the Gest poet, and Lydgate do; and he never gives a chronology of the subsequent settlement of the European world by the survivors of Troy as Lydgate does (I, 805-917)» By ignoring even these standard

PAGE 43

35 implications of Providential history, the poet focuses his v.'ork on men's actions in the strict context of the fall of Troy. This analysis of the narrator's lamentations and gnomic interpolations indicates that the poet probably designed his v.'ork in terms of medieval tragedy of Fortune, despite his statements about romance, and that the poem focuses on individual actions as the primary cause of the ' • fall of Troy. Hinton, in his discussion of the Laud , fails to recognize that the poem is a tragedy of Fortune, depicting the fall of a city, not the fall of a prince. He indicates that the poem is not unified because the hero enters late and dies early, a charge which is true enough if the poem is analyzed only in terras of a Hector romance. In the introduction to the poem, the author himself encourages such a reading: Many speken of men that romaunces rede That were sumtyrae doughti in dede. The while that god hem lyff lente. That now ben ded and hennes v;ente: • • • But of the v/orthiest \iryght in v/ede That euere by-strod any stede, Spekes no man, ne in romaunce redes Off his batayle ne of his dedis, (11-30) This passage, of course, is the prelude to the announcement of Hector as the hero of the poem. But the poet indicates, too, that glorifying Hector is only a part of his intended purpose; he also plans to toll all the deeds of the Trojan war:

PAGE 44

36 Herkenes now, and 39 may here The v/erre sothe alle plenere: V/hat v/as the forae enchesoun. The fornest skyl and resoun. That alle the kynges of Grecis formast Inued And the Troyens so longe pursued; And how the batayle was first be-gunnen, And how Troye was sithen y-wonnen; And — as the storie here beris records — Alle the dedis of euery lorde, And alle the dayes that thei f aught there. And alle the dedis as thei were Of alle the lordes that ther faught. And v;hiche of hem here dethe ^er laught; And how fele termes and trewes V/here take be-tv/ene Troyens and Gruwes, And how longe euery trev/e laste, And how thai spedde when thei v;ere paste; And alle here wo and al here breste; And how many tymes that thei reste With-Inne ten ^ere that thei were thore, Er that the toun distroyed v/ore. (65-86) This passage is a realistic statement of the scope of the Laud ; the poet gives a detailed account of the v/ar: the battles, the truces, the men, and the deeds. The second half of the author's purpose, though not so interesting critically as his statement about creating a Hector romance, nonetheless, receives an equal amount of attention from the poet both in the above passage and also in a subsequent passage which again states his purpose ($272-3296). Hinton's analysis, then, is less than satisfactory because it fails to consider the poet's larger purpose which aims at vividly depicting bhe tragic fall of Troy. Go2?don V/ood indicates that the Laud v/as written for a general audience, not for a specific patron, and that under these circumstances the Laud poet's treatment of the legend could afford to be freer than either the Gest or Lydgate's

PAGE 45

37 12 . . Troy Book . If in fact written for no specific patron, the Lau d v.'ould have to rely, at least to some extent, on an appeal to contemporary literary interests. The catalog of other romance heroes is certainly meant to stimulate the audience's interest in this particular work by associating it with other v;ell-knovm v;orks. In view of the author's situation, if he was indeed not writing for a specific individual, it is perhaps best to understand the opening remarks on Hector and romance as an attempt to revitalize familiar material by giving it a fashionable form. The Laud's reputation as a Hector romance, then, is probably a modem exaggeration based on the author's ovm eagerness to make his story appealing. A re-evaluation ought to be based on the poet's total statement of purpose — that is, on both the idea of a Hector romance and the narration of all the events of the war — and on the framev/ork he creates through his emphasis on Fortune. The Laud , like Chaucer's romance Troilus and Criseyde , ought to be discussed in terms of tragedy; ^ and the critical charges of disunity ought to be reassessed, again in terms of the author's . total statement of purpose and the framework he creates. Any assessment of the poem, hov;ever, would have to conclude that the poet fails to create a real feeling of tragedy because he does not sufficiently develop a character or a set of characters with whom the reader can identify. The poem also lacks a building plot line so that the Aristotelian principle of unity and the subordination

PAGE 46

38 of all the parts to one objective is not immediately apparent. The role of the narrator lends a dramatic atmosphere to the poem, but unfortunately this atmosphere is offset and obscured by the length of the poem and the tedious repetition of the battles. The Laud does make a distinct innovation in the Troy story, however, by developing a persona who focuses on the tragic nature of the fall. Both the Gest and Lydgate's Troy Book are narrated by the poet-translators themselves, v/ho aim at moral and scholastic edification. But the Laud poet does not rely on Guide's extensive proverbs to give his work a moral tenor. Instead he focuses on the action itself, using the narrator as a device to highlight those actions which he wishes to emphasize. Admittedly then, the poem is not a highly successful tragedy, but in the development of the tale itself the Laud turns away from the older didactic traditions and moves into the realm of the story for the sake of entertainment, leaving the reader to draw his own moral conclusions from the action itself and the narrator's interpolations.

PAGE 47

NOTES Willard Farnham, The Medieval Heritage of Eliza bethan Tragedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1936), p. 124, 2 A discussion of the Gest poet's purpose m translating and the major deviations from his source is presented in Gordon R. V/ood's "The Middle English Alliterative Destruction of Troy : A Critical Study," Diss, Princeton, 1952. Larry A. Benson, "The Alliterative Morte Arthure and Medieval Tragedy," TSL, XI (1965), 80-81. h Frederick B. Artz, Les idees et les lettres , trans, by C.iV. Hollister (Paris, 1932), p. 192, quoted in The Twelfth Cen tury Renaissance , ed. by C.V/, Kollister (Ne'w York, 196^, p. 85. -'Roy Battenhouse, Shakespeare's Traged y: Its Art and Its Christian Premises" (Blooraington, 1969) , p. 138. ^ov;ard R, Patch, The Goddess Fortuna in Medieval Literature (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), p. 69. '^Edmund Brock (ed.), Morte Arthure; or, the Death of Arthur , Early English Text Society, 8 (London, 1871). George Kane, Middle English Literature (London, 1951), p. 27. ^Patch, pp. 45, 61, 148. '^Patch, pp. 67-72. -••^D.N. Hinton, "A Study of the Middle English Poems Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin, 1957, p. 194, 39

PAGE 48

^0 '^Gordon R. Wood, "The Middle English Alliterative Destruction of Troy : A Critical Study," Diss. Princeton, 1952, pp. 22-23. ^D.W. Robertson, Jr., "Chaucerian Tragedy, " EM, XIX (1952), 1-37.

PAGE 49

III. STRUCTURE AND THEME The theme of revenge is usually associated v;ith the Renaissance, primarily because the revenge tragedy became fashionable at that time. But the middle ages was also interested in revenge. Fredson Bowers shows that social concerns go back even to the Old English period.^ Mary Mroz finds that medieval theologians and poets were interested in the subject.^ William Matthews discusses revenge in the alliterative Morte Arthure .^ and many episodes of the .Canterbury Tales involve revenge. Despite the available material, however, revenge is seldom associated with the middle ages in the same way that it is with the Renaissance. The association with the Renaissance is due in part to the striking form of the revenge tragedy, which usually involves sensational horrors, a scheming villain, insanity,and intrigue— characteristics making it easy to identify and discuss. Such a striking form does not usually accompany the motif in the medieval period; consequently, the idea receives little scholarly attention. The following chapter tries to show that the Laud, though not a drama, ' contains most of the characteristics of the Renaissance revenge tragedy and is, thus, a transitional piece between the earlier period, which was interested in the theme, 41

PAGE 50

42 and the later period, v/hich adopted a striking form for the theme. A comparison of similar episodes in the Laud and the Gest indicates that the Laud poet consistently emphasizes revenge, making it the dominant theme of the poem. Madness, treachery, brutality, and love are all complementary or contrasting themes. The presence of each idea is first demonstrated and then related to the Renaissance revenge plays. The greater part of the Laud , that is, the recitation of the second destruction of Troy, is episodic, focusing for the most part on each day's battle. The poet usually tells first of the preparation, then of the general battle scene, then of the personal encounters, and finally of the night's activities. These day-to-day accounts of the war are relieved with episodes of truce. Truces most often involve councils, burials, and recoveries, but are always closely linked with the preceding or following war activities. Since the battle scenes form the heart of the narrative, they v/ill be investigated first, and the truces will be related to them. Generally, the battles contain an interior continuity; that is, the individual encounters within the larger battle are related to each other. For example, in the Gest Penthesilea's first encounter with the Greeks begins "Pantasilia so presit proud Menelaus,/pat he gird hym to ground with a grym dynt" (10873-10874). The Laud, however, records the action this way:

PAGE 51

^3 Menelaus hadde grete envy Off that ouene Pantasaly, That sche the Gregais so defouled; On hir that tyme ful foule he schouled And seyde: "that he v;olde to hir ride ., . _ To se whether sche v;olde him abyde." He rode to hir with mochel Ire. (16155-16161) Here Penthesilea does not press Menelaus; rather, he approaches her through the specafic motivation of envy for her success in killing his compatriots. In the Gest Penthesilea 's attack is not related to any preceding event, but in the Laud her previous action prompts Menelaus' action. This is only one of many instances in which the Laud poet alters the usual narrative to provide motivation for a character's action. In the Gest, the next encounter is recorded this v;ay: Dyomede the derfe drofe to ^e owene. With a course of his caple, and a kene speire, ^at mighty hym met with a mayn stroke, hat he bend in the backe to he bare sadell, Vnneth held hym on horse for harme "Pat heifcolet. (10877-10881) The Laud , however, gives this version: Diomedes, that dou3ti kyng. By-held that tyme that lustyng, He sav/ the kyng falle a-doun, Vp the fete & dcun the croun; His hors was lorn, & he on fote. He seyde: "ther-on he scholde do bote, That sturdy strok scholde sche abye." He rode thanne to Pantasalye With al the myght that euere he hadde. (16169-16177) Here Diomedes ' action is prompted by a desire to make Penthesilea "abye," "pay for," her treatment of a fellow warrior. Thus, the Laud poet shows that the two actions, Menelaus' attack on Penthesilea and Diomedes' vengeance,

PAGE 52

are clearly connected, one being motivated by the other through revenge. The Gest poet, however, leaves the two encounters essentially unconnected because he never overtly says that Dioraedes wants to revenge Menelaus. This is not to say that the Gest poet never uses one encounter to motivate another. Occasionally a character in the Gest does act on vengeful motives. For example, Thelamon turns to Penthesilea "To venge of hir velany" (10885) in besting Diomedes. This phrase is the only indication of vengeance in the episode; no elaboration is made. But the Laud presents a more emphatic version: Kyng Thelaman stode euere alone And saw the dedis that sche had done, • • • Gret envy hadde he ther-ate, Opon hys hors ther he sate; He wex for tene blak as Cole, That schame myght he no lengur thole • • That sche hadde done the kynges two. He v/olde assaye what he myght do: He toke a spere of stalworthe tre, — For he on hir v;olde venged be. (16191-16208) The Laud paints more than the vengeance; it makes clear the motivations to vengeance — envy, anger, and shame. By simply expanding the description of a character's attitude, the poet focuses on revenge. The Laud poet also alters the narrative to show the all-encompassing nature of revenge. The Gest indicates that Diomedes acts out of concern for Thelamcn, who is taken prisoner by Penthesilea: Liomede, ^t Duke was duly beside, Negh wode of his v;it for hn v;ale kyng; So he fore ^ere in fight with his fell strokes, 4pat the lede fro the ladis lav/se away past. ' (10894-10897)

PAGE 53

45 The Laud poet, hov;ever, extends the personal revenge so that it affects the total battlefield: But Diomedes, v;hen he was resen, Saw Thelaman was taken to prison. Toward the toun he saw him go, — Lord god, that him v/as wo! He blev/e his horn & samed his men, Ther come aboute him thousand ten • • • He seyde: 'felawes, may ^e not se How Thelaman, that doghti knyjt, V.'ith hem of Troye is discomfy3t? Lo! where thei lede him toward toun Ouer dale and ouer doun! But sicurly, if I may spede, Thei schal him not to Troye lede. I jow be-seke, falawes myne alle, For any-thing that may be-falle: In this gret nede fayle me not. Til I haue him fro hem y-brou^t ! ' (16225-162^^4) Here the Laud poet stresses Dioraedes' emotional reaction and dramatizes his desire for revenge. By involving all Diomedes' men, the poet also shows that everyone in a situation of war is prone to revenge. In the Gest , this series of encounters finally prompts Penthesilea to win victory on the battlefield: I an Pantasilia the pert v/ith a pure steuyn, riet on hir company with a cant wille; Assemblit hir sorte on a sad hepe, And so fuersly ^ai faght with the felle grekes, Thurgh helpe of -pat hynd, and hir hed maidons, >bat all fell to Jhe flight, & the feld leuyt. ' ^ (10898-10903) But in the Laud , Penthesilea definitely acts out of vengeance and communicates motivations of revenge to her followers: V/hen the quone herde it say How he from hem v;as led away, For v;ratthe sche v;ax ner v/ode, — So Sterne sche v;as In hir mode. That ladi thaniie, Pantasalye, To hir Maydenes by-gan to crye

PAGE 54

46 And gadered hem vpon a route; When thei v/ere comen hir aboute, • • • Sche seyde: 'are 36 not aschamed That this kyng is take fro 30W? Felawes myn, I pray 30W now: For so haue I euere gode chaunce, Thei schal bye his [Thelamon's] lyueraunce. ' -^ (16255-16276) Again the poet stresses the character's emotional reaction and dramatizes her desire for revenge. He also shows how one vengeful action leads to another until v;hole groups of people are involved. These comparisons show that the Laud poet alters the tale, even in minor episodes, to emphasize the idea of revenge. The structural difference between the two versions of this episode is that the Laud makes clear the connections between encounters, whether single or massive, showing them to be related by a personal desire for revenge which springs from envy, anger, or shame; while the Gest makes clear the connections between encounters, whether single or massive, showing them to be related by a personal desire for revenge which springs from envy, anger, or shame; while the Gest makes no such connection. The Laud poet provides motivation, an essential part of drama, and through conversation, dramatizes the action. Although every encounter in the Laud is not prompted by revenge, it is usually the principle underlying the progression of each day's events, a progression v/hich ends with an encounter between two major characters, be it Hector and Achilles, Achilles and Memnon, or Penthesilea

PAGE 55

^7 and Diomedes, By using such a structure, the poet achieves a building plot action within each battle. For example, in the battle beginning with line 12^73, the following encounters occur: Dephebus kills Croesus; the Greeks take general revenge in which Thelamon kills Sisene, Priam's son; Dephebus wounds Thelamon; Palamydes fatally v/ounds Dephebus and kills Sarpedon; Paris kills Palamydes and retreats; the Greeks retreat with their dead leader Palamydes; the Trojans turn and overrun the Greek camp; and Nestor and Thelamon, now well enough to fight, stave off the attack until night. In this battle the action all leads to the encounter between Palamydes and Paris; the rest of the action is largely resultant. This episode and the one previously examined typify the structure of the battles because nearly all of them depend on the revenge motif for continuity. Since the Laud lacks a building plot line over all, the rising action of each battle helps to maintain the reader's interest. Unfortunately, the battles are repetitious because they all center on revenge and because so many battles are recited. The success of the tragedy in the alliterative Morte Arthur e depends partially on the growing victory in battle as opposed to Arthur's declining morality. Similarly, the building action of the love affair in Troilus and Griseyde intensifies the final separation and thus underscores the tragedy: the lovers move gradually together, but are suddenly vn?enched apart.

PAGE 56

43 The Laud contains no building plot action to engross the reader. Instead, each episode moves deeper and deeper into the revenge notif, and the nature of the characters grows successively v/orse so that finally Pirrus, the avenger v;ho also desecrates the bodies of his victims, and Antenor and Aeneas, the betrayers of Troy, are the focus of the reader's attention. The steady decline is almost more overwhelming than tragic, and the suspense within each battle is lost in the morass of battles. Consequently, the Laud is structurally deficient; but it does have a theme which unifies the episodes, and it clearly defines the emotions of envy, anger, and shame as factors motivating revenge. Incidents which provoke revenge are also clearly delineated by the Laud poet. In the battle relating Palamydes' death (12473ff outlined above), the individual encounters all spring from the desire to avenge friends or relatives, and the melodramatic scenes during and after the battle in which the wounded Dephebus spurs Paris to revenge further elaborate the theme. Although other versions of the Troy story link some conflicts to revenge for injury to friends or relatives, the Laud poet exaggerates the theme by making it the motivating factor in most encounters. In fact, avenging the death or injury of a loved one becomes so important an explanation for action on the battlefield that the narrator summarizes the action of one battle

PAGE 57

^9 solely in terms of encounters prompted by concern for friends : Euerycnon wolde bis frend rescowe, Than comes be &. be also And girdes bis bak euen a-two. And tbus ferd tbei fro tbat tbei met. Til tbe Sonne was doun set. (9684-9688) The vengeance need not always be taken to rigbt a wrong done a friend or relative, as Paris avenges Depbebus, or to satisfy one's own envy of another's prowess, as Menelaus attempts to avenge bimself on Pentbesilea; vengeance may be taken as tbe result of a verbal insult. For example, in tbe Gest, Episcropus and Cedius set upon Hector: Epbistafus hym [Hectorj presit witb his proude wordes. As a ribold with reueray in bis Roide speche, Sytben spurnit hym dispitously with aspeire felle; But he hurt not ^^t bynd, ne bade hym to ground; Ne tbe deire of his dynt dasit hym but litle,,, Ector, wratbed at his v;ordis, v;aynit at the kyng, pat be gird to /{je ground and the gost yald; -ten v/arpid he j>33 v/ordis in bis wild hate: — ffor -fcou of flytyng was fuerse with frekes vppon lyue Go dresse he to dedraen, & dyn -fcere a while." (7650-7659) The Laud poet expands tbe insult, making it both an emphatic motivation for the battle and an opportunity to praise Hector: Episcropus, that ape and owle, Spak to Ector v/ordes foule. He called him "fitz-a--putayn," And seyth: "be \.'as a cherl velayn, " Than seide Ector: 'as I am knyzt, Thow schalt of me haue a foul dispit, Of me, thow kyng Episcropus, — Thow hast defouled me thus!* (7^1^5-7452) When Episcropus defies him again. Hector launches into a twenty-four line defense of himself and his lineage.

PAGE 58

50 ending v/ith personal invective against his attacker: V.lii scholde I now fie a glotoun, Suche a caytyff, such a wracche! I holde the not worth a fecche! (7^76-7^78) Then the actual encounter begins which in turn sets off a chain of events that involves both armies and much bloodshed. The Laud poet expands this scene by adding vituperative dialogue, \vhile quarrels in the Gest seldom take the form of direct discourse, in the Laud they are often recounted directly and at great length. Through these elaborations the poet underscores insult as one cause of revenge. Renaissance drama, too, is full of insults and invective v/hich lead to revenge; the opening scene of Romeo and Juliet is a familiar example. There the dialogue is more sophisticated than the threats and name-calling in the Laud ; but the tradition is the same. Both works show insult as one cause of revenge. Vengeance may also be prompted by personal injury, as v;hen Hector takes revenge after Achilles unhorses him: Ector slees and Ector felles; His hors takyng dere he selles; He riues helmes and cleues hedes; Ther is no Gregeis that him (ne) dredes. Ther died for him on that sond Sixti that neuere layde on him bond, (7863-7868) Sometimes the injury is only attempted as when an unnamed Greek duke presses Hector fiercely: Ector was with~al anoyed: 'Now is my myjt strongly distroyed,' Ector sayde, 'whan I schal thole Off on that is not worth a cole Suche vilony and suche repruse.

PAGE 59

51 I may wel say, I am refuyse Off alle the kynges sones of Troye, I'fhen that I suffre of suche a boye Suche vilonye to me be done, — Ne se I neuere sonne ne mone! But thow schalt dere thi strokes a-bye, Thi hardines and thi folye! I schal kembe thi ^elowe lokke!' He ^aff the duk suche a knokke, That helm and coyfe In-sunder jede; He cleue him doun vnto his stede, That he fel doun on that other side. 'Now v;il thow ^iff me leue for to ride, V/here that I loue & thow not me lette! Now hastow that I the be-hette!" (7671-7690) This encounter, including Hector's speech, is not contained in the Gest or Lydgate's Troy Book . The Laud poet apparently expanded his material to include still another episode dramatizing the idea of revenge, George Hof strand indicates that the Laud poet's version of the Troy story as compared to the Gest and Lydgate's Troy Book is the result of a more imaginative 5 mmd.-^ Imagination is undoubtedly a distinguishing characteristic of the poem when compared to the other two versions, but the Laud poet goes beyond translation. He restructures and expands the tale so that the entire work focuses on the idea of revenge. In the poem the situations of war, including insult, injury, and death, provoke retaliation; consequently, nearly every event of the v/ar is the result of someone's personal revenge. The poet explains the massive destruction in terms of individual actions, but these actions spring from similar types of provocation. The Laud does not present a full-blown concept of individualism in terms of the causes of revenge, but it does alter the standard narrative to stress individual

PAGE 60

52 acts of revenge. Revenge in the Laud is either planned or it arises spontaneously from the situation. As the poet represents it, revenge occurring on the battlefield is usually not premeditated. It develops naturally out of a character's reactions to the immediate circumstances. Usually these reactions consist of an excessive emotion, often described in terms of madness or animalism. Thus, Hector at the death of Margariton completely changes: His colour chaunged, his herte ros. For tene Ector he wode gos: He rolled his eyen as best ramage, As he hadde fallen In a rage, (10511-1051^) Achilles, forgetting Pollexena and rushing to battle, is described as follows; Achilles rides as a man mad. For his men was he not glad; He myght that tene no lenger thole, He brende In yre as any cole; V/hen he herde hem so grysly grone. For hem he raade moche none: As lyoun rampyng forth he went, (14191-1^197) Although these reactions are somev/hat stylized, they represent a distinctive interpretation of the Troy material. For example, the Egerton MS. of the Seege makes only three references to "v/odness" and those all consist of the simile as a "wood" lion (1137, 1^03, 1^76), Lydgate uses it often, but for a variety of purposes. Sometimes it means something like "lunatic": a person would have to be "wood" to trust women (I, 18^5), to believe he could know Fortune's course (II, 3036), or to do observances to the gods

PAGE 61

53 (IV, 6992), Sometimes, hov/ever, the word is used to indicate animal irrationality: Priam enters battle like a "wood" lion (I, 4118); Pelleus, on the battlefield, is "wood, as he wer falle in rage" (I, 4133); and Hercules is like a "lyoun, v/ood and dispitous" (I, 4283). Sometimes the usage is closer to anger than lunacy or excessive emotionalism: the bulls Jason must tame are "v;ood and irous" (I, 284) and Achilles has a "wood" visage when the Greek leaders fail to agree to a peace (IV, 1154). In other words, Lydgate uses the terra in its full range of lexical meanings. He does not, as the Laud poet does, confine his usage to descriptions of the emotional excess accompanying grief or anger, nor does he use it in any singular set of circumstances, as the Laud poet does. On the other hand, the Gest and the Laud are alike in that "wode" or "wodness" occurs often and primarily in connection with battle scenes. Usually, however, the alliterative line in the Gest determines the usage. Consequently, three formulaic patterns account for most of the occurrences of the term. V/hen the phrase "wod of (or in) his wit" falls in the second half-line, the word "wex" most often occurs in the first half. If the phrase falls in the first half-line, any of a number of words appear— "wan," "wild," "wale," "wo," "wait"— but most often "wild" as in "as wode in his wit as a wild bore" (6813). "V/ode" is often used to modify nouns— "wode ire," "honger," "hate," "anger," "stoure"— and it is sometimes

PAGE 62

5^ found in the phrase "walte (or welt) into wodnes," The Gest contains only two instances which amplify the idea of madness. One occurs before Achilles goes to battle to save his Myrmidons from Troilus' fury: Qlej Welt into wodnes, wan to his arrays, S-Erode on a stith horse, stroke into batell. He fore with his fos in his felle angur. As a wolfe in his wodenes with wethurs in fold. (102CW-10207) The repetition of "wodnes" and the introduction of a nonformulaic simile emphasize Achilles* irrationality. The passage is a good introduction to an action which ends ultimately in dragging Troilus* corpse around the battlefield. The other amplification of madness describes Hecuba's reaction to the murder of Pollexena: Scho welt into wodnes, & hir wit leuyt. And ran furthe rauis ruthe to beholde. Scho bete hom bitturly with hir bare teth. And with stonys in he strete strok hom to ground. " (12148-12151) The restabement of madness in terms of raging and the immediate action of madness emphasize the phrase "welt into wodnes." The Laud poet, too, uses madness sometimes in an almost formulaic way, completing the second half of one line in a couplet with the phrase "as he (or thei) were wode." But he usually elaborates the motif, describing specific actions that show the extent of the madness. For example, when Hector is unhorsed, he is described as follows: He loked about e as he were wode, And swor I-tened and he sporles, The blod ran out at his nase-throlles;

PAGE 63

55 V/hen he fro bim his hors saw lede, Kouthe & nase began to blede. For tene & v/o his hew chaunged. (783^-7839) When Achilles learns that Troilus is slaying the Myrmidons, he reacts emotionally: Achilles chaunged al his mode, He loked aboute as he were v/ode ViTnen he herde this tydynges: He clapped his hondes, and alle his rynges Sicurly In-sonder brast; To and fro his armes he cast, As he badde ben a v-'od man; V/el harde to sv/ete he be-gan. (14157-1^164) The responses here are certainly melodramatic exaggerations, but they vividly detail the character's emotional intensity. The Laud poet uses madness almost exclusively to describe men's reactions to battle situations, and generally it precedes a specific slaying or encounter. Thus, Hector, as he rides to Patroclus, is described as pricking his steed "as he were wode, /That alle his sides ran on blode" (4965-4965), and just before the slaying, "he wex thenne v;ood and v;roth I-now" (4981). Achilles, describing the death of Pacroclus, emphasizes the quality of madness about Hector: I hate the mochel, for my frend That thow sclow the formast day In thi wodenes and thi deray. (8318-8320) Madness obstructs any reasoning process that might normally be involved in making a decision. Hector is shovm as v/ise and reasonable in the first council scene v/hen he tells his father why the Trojans should not risk a war v;ith bhe Greeks (2319-2372), and the narrator later

PAGE 64

56 tells us Prian should have listened to his son (3600-3506). Yet Hector's emotional response to Kargariton's death drowns out the more cautious voices of Andromache, Hecuba, and Priam, In fact, events of the v/ar and of this battle in particular have led him to shun his ovm advice. He says to Troilus before the first formal battle: By-fore these kyngCes) & knyztes here. That thow be wyse and not sauage; 3if the not to outrage! I drede me sore, thi hastines, Thi noble herte, and thi hardines Schal make the bold and vs schent; But thow take gode avisement, Vnto thi-self to-day take hede! (^758-^765) • In haste and outrage, Hector goes to battle, though ordered not to, so that he can avenge the death of his brother, Margariton, and is ultimately killed. Through his madness Hector fulfills a destiny he might otherwise have overcome had he chosen to stay hone (9906-9908). This particular amplification in the Laud accounts for Hector's behavior and thus is different from other English versions. The Gest says briefly: Ector, wode of his v/it for v;oo of his brother, Haspit on his helme, & his horse toke; V/ent out v.'ightly, vnwetyng his fader. (8592-859^) Lydgate describes Hector as furious: "Of verray Ire his herte gan to colde, /And seide, platly, v/ith-oute more delay, /He v/olde avenge his iMargariton'sj deth he same day" (III, 5238-52^0). But the Laud , by using the phrases "as best ramage," "fallen In a rage," and "rolled his eyen" in addition to the bald statement that "he wode gos,"

PAGE 65

57 emphasizes Hector's irrationality. Some revenge actions, then, are the result of madness stemming from emotional responses to events on the battlefield, They are not the result of reasoned action and are sometimes quite contrary to the actor's normal character. The major characters are not the only ones subject to madness; the Greeks and Trojans are often described as running against one another madly: Eche slo other, as thei were wode. (9677) Euerychon of hem on other renne, Thei ferde as it had ben v;od raenne. (11721) Thei ran togeder as wode thinges, (13683) Echon of hem on other schet — As thei hadde ben wode & mad. (13926-13927) Yet in times of truce the two peoples are described as singing, dancing, hunting, and visiting together: Then were the Troiens mury & glad, V/hen thei leue of Ector had. That thei scholde reste so longe; Many man for loye songe. Hit v/as gret murthe &, loye lb hem of Grece and eke of Troye, That trewe is tane and last so longe; That thei myght bothe ride & gonge To take her murthe and her solace, Eche man is glad In that place. (8199-8208) And al the v/hile the trewes held, The(i) speke to-geder In toune & ffeld. (8227-8228) The while the festes thus endured, And eueryche were to other ensured. The?, of Troye hadde here corayng To hem of Grece & here spekyng; And Gregeis com In-to the toun And where thei v;olde vp & doun, Saue & sound where so hem liked; Thei fond no man that hem be-swiked. (119^1-119^)

PAGE 66

58 The constrasts here show the effects of v;ar on human behavior. As Hector's actions on the battlefield are different from those in the council scenes, so are all ._. people's actions different in battle than in peace. The mad behavior of men in wartime results in the slaughter of the same men v;ho shared the happier experiences of peacetime. The activities of both the Trojans and the Greeks during peace also contrast with the extreme suffering caused by the war. Rather than breaking the narrative into books as Guide, the Gest poet, and Lydgate do, the Laud poet inserts descriptions of the night's activities and of preparations for battle. These descriptions stress the effects of war in terms of the suffering and sorrow that has occurred or that will occur. For example, the approaching battles are often preceded by descriptions of general apprehension among the people: Now eche man to fyght him jares. Now euery v;iff ffor hir lord cares A-^eyn that nexte semble. For no man wot how it scbal be, — '.'fhen thei gon out at morwen-tyde, V/ho schal dye, and v;ho schal abyde? Alle curses that ilke man. On hem the v;erre furst by-gan. Fader and Moder and alle his kyn For sorwe and wo that thei ben In. (8607-8615) The night's activities often show the v/eariness of the fighters and the general atmosphere of sorrow for the day's events : Thei 3ede euen home to her hous, Thei fond ther many a sori spous, That sori v/ere for here husbondis;

PAGE 67

59 Sone lay dede on the sondes: The v.'yues of Troye made gret mornyng; Amonges the Gregeis v;as gret roryng, Thei blev; and cried — as wilde here brayes — For her frendes that died tho dayes. (8007-801^) At the end of a truce, mirth is often juxtaposed to the coming sorrow: Thei v;ente alle hom to here ostel, Thei daunsed & sang & made revel. The terme is vent 8c passed a-v;ay. The morv/e next schal be her day That thei schal fyght to-gedur In feld, Ther schal be reuen many a scheld, Kany a bryght basenet Schal be with blod foule y-wet. (13315-15322) These passages describing life apart from the battlefield, then, tend to emphasize the opposite effects which the situations of war and peace have on the people; and the mad behavior, an outgrov.'th of the warring situation, is the direct cause of the ultimate sorrow. Madness, of course, is a major and often disputed aspect of Renaissance revenge tragedy. In Hamlet and the Spanish Tragedy madness grows out of sorrow for the death of a loved one and out of the frustrated urge to vengeance. Hieronimo's revenge is accomplished v/hile he is in one of these states of frenzy; biting off his tongue is certainly an indication of the emotional level he has reached. Yet, like the characters in the Laud v/ho ride off madly seeking revenge in battle, Hieronimo has enough sanity to carry out his plan. His urge to revenge, like Hector's, is a form of temporary madness obliterating other alternatives that may be more reasonable than the actual course of

PAGE 68

60 action taken. The exact nature of Hamlet's madness has plagued critics for some time, U'hether it is real, as his distraught behavior in Ophelia's chamber seems to indicate, or whether it is only feigned, as he implies to Horatio and Marcellus it will be, Hamlet's madness is not the pathetic variety Ophelia's is. If he is mad, then his madness is akin to Hieronimo's, arising out of anxiety and frustration and yet allowing him to plan revenge, though not to carry it out. The preceding analysis of madness in the Laud indicates that there is probably a literary tradition in which madness, a natural outgrowth of grief or anger, often precedes or accompanies revenge, but does not render the syenger incapable of carrying out his plan. In the individual conflicts, especially the ones involving madness, revenge is usually unpremeditated, arising from responses to immediate situations; but tv/o major episodes in the Troy story involve planned retaliation — Achilles and the Greeks plan revenge on Hector, and Hecuba plots against Achilles, The Laud poet generally gives a much fuller account of these episodes than the Gest poet or Lydgate, For example, after the second formal battle of the v;ar, Agamemnon calls a council to decide what strategy the Greeks should pursue. The Gest poet reports the meeting in eighteen lines; there is no dramatization. In the Laud, the council is preceded by the Greek army lamenting Hector's strength and their own

PAGE 69

61 inadequacy. Because he is av/are of this feeling of unrest among the people, Agamemnon decides Hector must be killed. He calls a council specifically for discussing that matter. Including such dramatic material builds the character of Hector, provides motivation for calling the council, and in general adds plausibility to the episode. Through exchange of dialogue in the council, the Laud poet continues the dramatization and underscores the idea of trickery. The Gest records only one reference to "soteltie" (7359). In the Laud , hov/ever, Agamemnon's first speech introduces the idea of "quayntise" in the killing of Hector, A general response is made by those present, but Agamemnon interrupts their list of reasons for killing Hector by appealing to their manhood and again urges trickery: "\7hi ne sole ^e him, and make him die A/ith som tresoun and ffelonye?" (6^9-6450), V/hen members of the council appeal to Achilles to carry out the plan, they indicate that he is not to do it by strength: Opon thi strengthe truste thov; nought, But on thi v/it and on thi scleyght. And holde the euere fro him on heyght; liThan thow him sees in a myscheef , Than schaltov; him dedly greef By thi strengthe and thi wit; So schal we of him be qwit, (6^0-6485) The Laud poet's interpretation of the scene emphasizes Hector's awesome strength and the Greeks' determination to use subtlety. In the ensuing battle Achilles attempts to carry out his assignment. The Gest briefly records the encounter:

PAGE 70

62 •pen Achilles cberfull, & his choise cosjm Toax, ^at other, a tore raon of strenght, Ayren vnto Ector angardly sore! With the strenght of hor stroke, & hor store fare. The helme o_f his hed -pai hurl it to peces; V/oundit hym wickedly v-zith wepon aboue, 'ipat ^e Rinels of red blode ran doun his chekes, (7500-7506) Hector then retaliates by cutting off half Thoas' nose, and the encounter ends when Hector's brothers come to aid him. The sequence of events within the encounter is the same in the' Laud , but again shows dramatization. Achilles calls Thoas to him and delivers a speech. He first pictures Hector's slaughter of the Greeks and then suggests that because Hector is tired the tv;o of them should attack and overpower him, Achilles' final words are "And so schal we on him be \in:oken!" (6873), introducing the specific idea of revenge as his motivation. The Laud poet's interpretation of the encounter suggests that he is trying to link it overtly v/ith the previous council scene, Rather than simply motivating his characters to attack Hector out of anger (Gest, 7505), the Laud poet indicates their behavior is a revenge trick: Hector is now tired and the tv;o Greeks can easily overpower him. The revenge motif betv/een Achilles and Hector is again elaborated during the ensuing truce when Hector goes to the Greek camp and is invited to Achilles' tent. The Laud and the Gest handle the account comparably, up to the point of Hector's reply. This speech is significant because it supplies plausible motivation for Hector's challenge to Achilles:

PAGE 71

65 Ther was neuere theff In no hostage. That wayted better his a-vauntage, To do his stelthe and bis robrye. Than thow waytest me In skolkerye; But thow hast ben glad al-v;ey, to ride With broken hede and blody syde. (8357-8562) By challenging Achilles to fight openiy, Hector undercuts the Greek scheme to kill him by sleight. Achilles' reply, a speech contained in no other English version, indicates that the Greek hero interprets the challenge as a countermove by Hector to stop the Greek plot: I se ri3t wel thi couetise: Tho^^^ se'ctes on me In alle wyse. To fight with me In feld alone. (8445-8^5) Hector suggests that individual combat is the honorable v/ay to end the war since it involves only two people and not both armies : And jit may thow almes the xvynne, — For we do euel and mychel synne. Off mannes blod that v^e don spille, — Iff that thow wol holde ther-tille. (8411-8414) By emphasi25ing treachery in this scene, the Laud poet successfully links it to the two previous passages involving treachery, thus establishing a kind of narrative motif which recurs periodically and ends with Achilles' murder of the unarmed Hector, By contrasting Hector's openness to Achilles' covert intentions, the poet stresses the unchivalric nature of Achilles' revenge through treachery; and because this method of revenge was determined by the Greek coimcil, the entire Greek leadership is presented as unheroic; In this whole series of encounters betv;een Hector and

PAGE 72

64 Achilles, the Laud poet expands the standard narrative to emphasize treachery. This same principle is involved in Hecuba's revenge on Achilles, Her motivation for revenge is rooted in the shame she feels when Priam reprimands her for condoning the Pollexena-Achilles match: Hectuba v/as sore aschamed Off here lord that sche was blamed, Hir Angred sore that euere spak sche Ther-of wordes two or thre; Sche cursed offte his wickednesse, Flis gylrie and his falsnesse. (14339-1^3^) In the Gest and Lydgate's Troy Book Hecuba is prompted to revenge by the death of Troilus, But the Laud poet m.otivates her to vengeance as he has motivated his other characters, through the emotions of shame and anger. The actual murder of Achilles in the temple is brutal enough, but the horror is intensified by Achilles' high spirits at. the prospect of the marriage ceremony. Two passages describe Achilles' joy and anticipation (15325-15331; I5355-I536O), The contrast makes Hecuba's revenge just as dastardly as Achilles ' revenge on the unarmed Hector. After the murder, the narrator delivers the only antifeminist passage in the whole of the Laud . Significantly enough, the woman is condemned not for her lust, as Helen and Medea are in the Gest and Lydgate's Troy Book, or for her faithlessness, as Criseyde sometimes is, but for her treachery: And thus was Achilles done to ded Thorow a wicked v.'oman red, Thorow her sleght & consayl Died the knyght with-oute fayl.

PAGE 73

65 And so hath many a-nother man Died thorow red of a womman: That neuere v;ere so gode knyghtes Off ffairnes, of connyng, ne of myghtes, The beste body that euere ete bred Thorow fals v.'yramen haue ben ded. ( 15-^3 915^48) The narrator indicates that this premeditated revenge, v>rhich can only be accomplished through deceit, is, in both cases, dishonorable. Yet the narrator makes no commentary on individual acts of spontaneous revenge. He laments the numbers killed and disparages the av/ful slaughter that revenge causes, but he never calls Hector or any of the other characters "false" or "v;icked" for running madly out to slaughter the enemy. Of the tv;o types of revenge, the one that occurs immediately out of the circumstances and emotional excesses is somehow more justifiable than the revenge that is rationally planned and carried out. The Renaissance revenge plays also depict these two types of revenge. Hamlet can not murder the praying Claudius and still be heroic. He can, however, respond spontaneously to the King's clear treachery in the final scene and still be v/orthy of the reader's admiration. In the Spanish Tragedy , Hieronimo is vindicated because he is possessed v/ith a madness, originating in grief, that will finally bring about justice. In Titus Andronicus , hov;ever, there is no motif of madness, although the perfect opportunity for such a motif is developed. Tamora pleads with Titus to save her son Alarbus; but instead of falling into madness when Alarbus is killed, she immediately sv/ears

PAGE 74

66 revenge on Titus and his progeny. She is then motivated throughout the rest of the play by a hatred that condones deception, torture, and murder. In the examples of Hieronimo and Hamlet, the poets have created a situation in which the avenger seeks justice, but can find no means outside his o\vti efficacy to accomplish that justice. In the case of Tamora, all principles of justice are eradicated; the innocent Lavinia suffers for a crime she had no part in. Both types of revenge are contained in the Laud ; and although the narrator laments the effects of both kinds, his sympathy lies with Hector's spontaneous revenge rather than with Hecuba's relentless plot. In the same way, the readers' sympathies lie with Hamlet v;hen he spontaneously avenges himself as they probably would not, had he mur-dered Claudius while the latter was in prayer. The important revenge plots in the Laud center about Achilles and Hector, Achilles and Memnon, Achilles and Troilus, Hecuba and Achilles, Pirrus and Penthesilea, and Aeneas and Priam, \irhen one of these characters successfully bests the other, a new character steps in to avenge the dead member. Because of this structure, revenge is represented as a kind of on-going process which ends in the total destruction of one line. Total destruction of those characters who claimed the reader's sympathy and of many characters v/ho did not is another characteristic of the revenge tragedy. Few of

PAGE 75

67 the nost prominent characters are left alive and often the stage is littered v/ith bodies at the close of the play. Of course no stage or actors are involved in the Laud , but the narrative does end in the slaughter of all the Trojans except the priest Helenus, the traitors, and two women — Andromache and Helen. Thus, the best of the Trojan line is annihilated, and only the unchivalric Greeks are left, much reduced in number with nothing to show for their victory except the spoils of a once great people. Thus, the poem and the plays both recognize the massive effects of revenge. By expanding the standard narrative in both major and minor episodes, the Laud poet achieves an overwhelming thematic effect. He shows the varied nature of revenge, both premeditated and spontaneous, the emotions that precede it, and the circumstances that cause it. Since one revenge encounter naturally motivates another, the poet is able to use the theme as a structural device to establish a narrative continuity. The poem shows that in wartime all the characters, heroic and unheroic alike, are motivated by revenge. One love story breaks the preoccupation with revenge, Achilles sees Pollexena in the temple during a truce, falls in love with her, asks for her hand in marriage on the condition that he persuade the Greeks to leave, and then refuses to go to battle to accomplish his promise. He ultimately does go, however, v/hen his concern for the

PAGE 76

68 Myrmidons changes to over^-.'he lining rage. The elaboration of this love story in comparison to the near exclusion of the Troilus-Criseyde story has led some critics to the conclusion that the poem v;as written before Chaucer's famous Troy romance; otherwise, the Laud poet v;ould probably have capitalized on the reputation of the Troilus story by including it in his own work, A poet so v;ell-read in romance as the author of the Laud declares himself to be (15-2^) would surely have read Chaucer's work and used the name Criseyde, rather Breseida. Since Lydgate's versions of the Troy tale includes a lengthy reference to Chaucer's work, the Laud poet would probably have done the same had he v/ritten after Chaucer. Lumiansky, not wishing to speculate on v;hat the Laud poet would or v/ould not have done, attempts to explain the exclusion of the Troilus-Criseyde romance on thematic 7 grounds.' He assumes that the poet's sole purpose is to create a Hector romance. Therefore, the introduction of the Troilus story when it normally appears in the tale v/ould have undercut the interest in the heroism of Hector which the poet v;as attempting to create. An examination of the battle preceding the exchange of Antenor for Thoas reveals that the Laud poet has added several passages which presumably are his own since they do not appear in any other extant version, and they are important in emphasizing the deeds of Hector. But after examining the author's statements about his pui-pose, which includes equally the

PAGE 77

69 deeds of Hector and an account of the war; and after investigating the dominant theme of the v;ork, other conclusions about the Troilus-Criseyde story may be reached. For example, the poet is highly concerned about motivating the individual encounters on the battlefield. He is, in fact, so concerned that, at times when there is no explanation to offer for an attack. Hector asks, "What eyles the? A/hi hastow thus smetyn me?" (7383-7584), This is not to say every attack in the poem is sufficiently motivated; but when a major character is involved, the poet attempts to offer e>:planations for the enmity, either in terras of emotions — envy, anger, or shame — or in terms of previous events — injuries, insults, or killings. V/Tien Achilles refuses to go to battle, the poet must develop sufficient enmity betv/een tv;o other characters so that the battle scenes can still be organized around vengeance. Instead of using the Troilus story to break the war encounters, the Laud poet inserts it into a battle scene to explain the motivation for the Troilus-Dioraedes revenge motif. V/hether the Laud poet knev/ Chaucer's v;ork or not is irrelevant, especially considering that the Gest poet indicates that even at the time of his composition there was a v/ell-knov/n version of the Troilus story (8053-8054); thus, the Laud poet might have capitalized on that version had he been intent on examining the nature of love or relieving the war accounts with romance interludes. The story, as he actually handles it, effectively supports his

PAGE 78

70 theme of revenge, conforms to his other explanations of motivation, and preserves his major focus on war. The Achilles-Pollexena episode does not offer the same possibilities for relieving the monotony of the battle scenes that the Troilus story offers. Given the existing situation, no intimate romance scenes are possible between Achilles and Pollexena, Consequently, no romantic love interests comparable to those in the Troilus story are developed or even attempted. Furthermore, the ideals of courtly love are not introduced in the Laud ; Jason marries Medea; Paris marries Helen; and Achilles asks for Pollexena in marriage. The point of interest for the Laud poet is not the nature of the love relationship itself, but the effect of love on man's actions in a situation of war. Most of the elaborations that make the Laud distinct from other versions are not contained in the preliminary episodes of the Achilles-Pollexena affair; that is, aside from dramatizing, the poet follows closely the standard accounts of Achilles' feelings for Pollexena and of the message to Kecuba. Significant differences in content begin to appear when Achilles addresses the Greek leaders. His ideas echo those of the narrator. For example, his attempt to stop the v/ar is in keeping v/ith the narrator's sentiments: I holder he hadde gret synne That furst the v/ere of hem by-gan. For he v;as bane of many a man. (12948-12950) Later, Achilles pictures the agonies the Greeks have suffered in coming to Troy and concludes that a man is

PAGE 79

71 foolish to trust his strength: "He is a fole that him ensures /In his strengthe & In his myght" (12296-12297). The narrator has earlier commented on the ineffectiveness of strength against death: V/o is him that v/ith the [death] wrasteles! For sicurly he goth the v;ith, Or thov; him brekes lyra or lyth, That he may not a-xeyn vp-rise For myjt ne strengthe In no v/yse; For he schal dye In this world, — So did this knyjt [Hecto^, that je haue herd. Be he neuere so strong ne bold, He is for-^eten & nou^t of told, V.'hen he is ded & hennes past; In erthe is none that euere may last. (11006-11016) Achilles also argues that the Greeks can go home without shame because they have killed Hector (12331-123^), but the Greek leaders feel that raising the siege would be an act of cowardice (12355-12358). Through irony the narrator conveys similar ideas about cov/ardice: Amonges hem alle v/as no coward, Echon other to sle coueytes. And alle men to sle v/aytes: Many a man to grounde was feld; But ther was non that euere him xeld, V.Tnil thei myght hold sv/erd In honde, Or on her feet whil thei my3t stonde. (12970-12976) The passage indicates that the factors contributing to the continuation of the war are misconceived viev;s of manhood and the fear of being charged with cowardice. In a subsequent speech to Agamemnon's ambassadors, Achilles says it is "more honour /At Priaraus to aske the pes, /Then be to-hewen as other wes" (13180-13182). The ambassadors return to Agamemnon and repeat the idea. The

PAGE 80

72 narrator's many comments on the folly of the war and the senseless killing are obviously similar. Through repetition, the poet emphasizes the point that peace is the honorable and sensible way, Achilles' change in character is the result of the power of love. During one of the battles Achilles asks a sergeant how the Greeks fare, and the sergeant's reply, an elaboration found only in the Laud , is that if Achilles will go to battle now, he will win lasting fame (1277212776). But Achilles reasons to himself that it is better to lose fame than love (12815-12816). Here the poet attributes Achilles' new values to his desire to attain success in love (12813-1281^). It is not strange then to find Achilles, v;ho unheroically killed Hector, suddenly the champion of idealistic and virtuous goals. In his abstinence from battle and his interactions with his colleagues he has shown the change love is capable of working. In his speeches he acknowledges that shame, cowardice, honor, and fame are unworthy motivations to war, ideas all consonant with the narrator's ideas. In war, however, numerous allegiances pull at a man. Many of the elaborations occurring late in the episode show Achilles being torn between his love for Pollexena and his love for the Myrmidons. The first of these elaborations occurs when he sends his men into battle alone. He calls the Myrmidons to him, charges them to fight for Agamemnon, and gives them a ne;v ensign. The narrator describes

PAGE 81

73 Achilles at theip departure: "Achilles weped an hundred teres /At her wendyng vpon his leres" (13551-13652). After the Hyrmidons return from battle and Achilles has counted them, the Laud poet inserts a passage stressing Achilles' divided loyalties: He seyde: 'alas, that I was bounden m womannes loue & v/omannes bounde ! ' V/han so many v/ere ded founde, He siked sore for hem & drouped, Ful litel mete that nyght he souped. To his bed Achilles v^ent With earful herte & gret torment: He v;olde him-self hadde ben ded. He wist neuere v;hat v;as his red Whether he myght to batayle wende To yenge his men or eke his frende. Or he scholde 3it abyde To wete wat grace my3t be-tyde. (13868-13880) The passage continues for thirty more lines, indicating Achilles' sleeplessness and his decisions now to "venge" bis men and now to keep his promise. The elaboration focuses on Achilles' anguish and indecision, and the two forces pulling at him are clearly dravm as love and vengeance. His decision to go to battle, of course, comes only when Troilus, leading the Trojans, is about to overrun the Greek camp. The Laud poet modifies the situation by . focusing on Achilles' reaction. He is described as "wod" (1^191), "a man mad" (14191), "a lyoun ramping forth" (14197), and "a deuel of helle" (14223). He grows so angry that he. forgets Pollexena: He was so ful of tene & ire That he bad fecche his atire; He for-zate ther Polexene And al that he be-het the awene. (14183-14185)'

PAGE 82

7^ Thus, no rational decision to return to battle is ever made; Achilles simply rushes off in a fit of anger. Vengeance, prompted by his anger, ultimately overcomes his love. In the Laud the Achilles-Pollexena love affairsdisparages ideas of honor, manhood, and fame as motivations to war, shows the relative pov/er of love and vengeance in a war situation, and introduces a new revenge motif — Achilles vs. Hecuba, The stoi*y of Achilles and Pollexena is a tale of love ruined by the circumstances of war. The only other love episode of any length in the Laud is the story of Jason and Medea, v;hich occurs at the opening of the narrative before the war ever begins. Hinton finds this episode extraneous, included only because the poet wanted to render o a full translation of his source. But a close analysis of the episode and its relationship to the larger structure reveals that it is an intregal part of the overall theme. The Laud poet's treatment of Medea differs from that in most versions. In the Gest she is presented as a necromancer famed for powers over heaven and earth, a fame the poet decries because these powers belong only to God (405-430). Before the lovers pass into Medea's chamber, the Gest poet moralizes on the outcome of this relationship: Jason is false and all Medea's feigned powers of foresight are worthless (714-747), Thus, the reader. is specifically reminded of the unhappy outcome of the love affair and of the falseneij-a" of both paities.

PAGE 83

75 In Lydgate, Kedea is again characterized as a sorceress, and a lengthy antifeminist passage follov;s her introduction into the tale; women are changeable, untrustworthy, inconstant, lustful, and false (1593-1800, 182319^8). Two passages also portray Jason's deceitfulness and the outcome of the relationship (2072-2108, 2868-2935). Both the Gest poet and Lydgate agree on the fated nature of this romance and the lovers involved. They specifically relate the beginning of the love affair as somewhat unsavory, a fit prelude to the outcome. The Laud poet explains Medea's powers, but makes no judgment on them as false or evil; in fact, they are presented in much the same vein that he presents other exotic elements in the Troy story: the Archer who is half man, half horse, the embalming of Hector, the background of the Amazons, and the eagle removing the sacrifice from the temple to the Greek ships. No mention is made of Jason's guile or of the ultimate outcome of the relationship. Since the lovers return safely to Jason's home and are never mentioned again, the poet presents a love story entire in its recitation. The story becomes, then, a contrast to the Achilles-Pollexena story. With Jason and Medea the affair takes place in peacetime; no atrocities have been committed by one member against the other's family; the lovers can arrange to see each other; promises are kept by both parties; and a satisfactory relationship is established.

PAGE 84

76 Contrast is a method used often by the Laud poet: Hector's openness with Achilles' covertness; Achilles' behavior in love with his behavior in v/ar; and the attitudes and actions of men during the truces with their attitudes and actions during battle. If the only reason for including Jason's quest for the golden fleece is to show how Laraedon offended the Greeks, then there is no apparent necessity for including the particulars of the Jason-Medea romance. Yet the Laud poet includes this material in a fairly lengthy form, when he excludes other similar material: the Troilus-Criseyde story and the romantic exchanges between Helen and Paris. In addition, the Laud poet handles the love story in a markedly different manner from other poets, making it a complete episode and giving no hint of its connections with evil. These facts suggest that the poet v/as consciously attempting to reshape the episode to make it consistent with his aims for the overall structure. A comparison of the two love episodes shows that each is concerned with the power of love in overcoming the obstacles of a specific situation. The comparison intensifies the revenge theme by shov;ing how the v/artirae impulse to revenge eclipses the normally powerful impulse to romantic love. Romeo and Juliet is, of course, the most important Renaissance play juxtaposing love and revenge. Like the Laud poet, Shakespeare portrays vengeance as a force strong enough to obliterate the better intentions of man.

PAGE 85

77 As the preceding discussion indicates, the Laud is structured so that every episode either elaborates or serves as a contrast to the idea of revenge. In the light of these findings, Dorothy Kempe's statement that the poet made all his changes "unconsciously and without definite q artistic purpose" is now questionable. The poet covers many aspects of revenge: the two kinds, the motivations causing it, the circumstances from which it arises, the element of madness, and the power it has as compared to other forces driving men. Nearly all of these aspects are also present in the Renaissance revenge tragedies. The similarities spring not, of course, from the Laud 's impact as a source of the plays, but simply from the nucleus of ideas which surrounded the subject of revenge, a nucleus which v;as evidently present in the middle ages as v/ell as in the Renaissance, The Laud brings many of these ideas together in a narrative form that stresses motivation and direct discourse; thus it can be seen as a transitional piece which moves the theme of revenge toward its familiar Renaissance form.

PAGE 86

NOTES Predson Bov/ers, Elizabethan Revengre Tragedy, 13871642 (Princeton, 19^0). ' 2 Mary Bonaventure Mroz, Divine Vengeance: Philosophical Backp:rounds of the Revenge Motif in Shakespeare's Chronicle History Plays (V/ashington. D.C.f 194l)> -'William Matthev/s, The Tragedy of Arthur (Berkeley and Los Angeles, I960). Larry A. Benson, "The Alliterative Morte Arthure and Medieval Tragedy," TSL, XI (1965), 81. ^G. Hof strand. The Seeg:e of Troye: A Study in the Intertextual Relations of the Middle Eng:lish Romance the Seep^e or Batayle of Troye (Lund, 1936). 186-187. Dorothy Kempe, "A Middle English Tale of Troy," Engliscbe Studien , ZXIX (1901), 5. 7 'R.M. Lumiansky, "The Story of Troilus and Briseida in the Laud Troy Book ." l^LO , XVII (1956), 238-239. ^.O. Hinton, "A Study of the Middle English Poens Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin, 1957, p. 194. ^Kempe, p. 22. -78

PAGE 87

17, CHiaJLfi.CTERIZATION AND THEME Three characters — Hector, Achilles, and Pirrus — become more signiricant in the Laud than in the other English versions. Material is added concerning Hector's character, making him primarily a virtuous pagan; Achilles' character, making him a sighing lover who at last sees the v.'ar as inane; and Pirrus' character, making him the ultimate avenger. The three are successively the strong men in the poem, but their characterizations range from virtue in Hector to vengeance in Pirrus, Such a degenerative movement reflects the narrator's view of time: the v/orld is moving away from the golden age to degeneracy and destruction. Revenge plays a significant role in this movement because it is through the unprincipled methods of revenge that the virtuous characters are slain. The revenge tragedies also carry a note of pessimism about the future, particular]-y since the protagonists like Hieronimo, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet die in the process of overcoming the antagonists. In both the plays and the poem the effect of revexige on the future is the same. The Laud is usually described as a Hector romance and the poetic elaborations indicate that Hector is the 79

PAGE 88

80 central figure early in the war. An individual characterization is developed which focuses on the hero's prowess in battle and his virtue. The central passage on Hector is a simple declaration by the narrator attesting to both qualities: Glorious kyng lord Ihesu! l-Zho-so hadde sen Ector vertu, How he the Gregeis ther reuerced, Helnes and hauberk how he persed, Hov/ he hem sclow by tv;o and on, — He v;olde haue sv;orn by Peter and Ion, By Marie bry3t and persones thre: That god that is In vnite Made neuere man that v;as so goode, Ne so many schedde of mannes blode, Ne non so strong as Ector was. By him my^t no man pas, That he myjt take or hent. That the lyff a-way ne went. (7413-7426) Although the passage does not Christianize Hector, it indicates that from a Christian point of view — that is, from the point of view of one who swears by Peter, John, Mary, and the Trinity — Hector was one of the best and " strongest men who ever lived. The narrator reiterates this idea in another place, but expresses it in terras of comparison: I trowe, god made neuere suche a kny3t, . . Ne 3af neuere man suche a ray3t. That euere v/as borne In toun or port. But it were only to Sampsoun fort. For he (v/as) seker with-oute pere Off alle the men that euere were. Off Sampson hadde ben ther that tyde And al that day hadde reden him be-syde, He ne my3t haue don no more then he For al his my3t and his pouste. Red I neuere of kny3t ne man. That born was of womman. That dede the dedis that Ector did; Alas, that euere him mys-be-tid! (6721-6734)

PAGE 89

81 Sampson, the virtuous Old Testament strong man, is compared to Hector, the virtuous pagan strong man. At another time the narrator indulges in exaggeration to show Hector's supernatural strength: \Iho may with-stonde suche An enemy? It was neuere man 3aff suche strokes; Off a man were made of okes. Off Marbil gray and grete stones, And yren and stele were alle his bones, He wolde hem al to-cleue — By him that made Adam and Eue! (638^-6390) The key passages on Hector's character, then, are spoken by the narrator, and the recitation of the action supports the narrator's declarations, A short catalog is often employed to demonstrate Hector's skill in battle: Ector was be-fore al-weyes, • He belan neuere to sole the Gregeis, He cleues hem, and thorow strikes, And throwes hem In clyf and dikes. He makes here hedes naked and bare. The bodyes cleue In-to the schare. He drow here scheldes fro here nekkes, Ther aketons ferd as toren sekkes; Off his scheld made he present To alle that v:olde jeue strok or hent; His sword v;as wel with alle a-kuoynt With kyng, and duke, and prince anoynt. (6511-6522) Other passages employ hyperbole, simile, and the attitude of the people about him to establish characteristics of skill and courage. Often these passages end with statements of his unearthly or superhuman power: Ector rides & raykes a-boute. Off no man hadde he no doute. Off no mannes pride he ne thou3te. Off no mannes leuyng told he nou3t, • • • He fau3t euere-more In one, He leues stondyng be-fore him none, He is to hem an euel gest.

PAGE 90

82 He fightes euere with-outen rest: He sclow two thousand, er he be-lan; Thei seyde he was non erthely man. (10885-10896) But in other situations, like his fight with Episcropus and Cedius, Hector asserts his ovm nobility: Saide Ector, 'I was neuere thral, I am fre, and my kynde al; In al my kyn is no throle, But kyng and duk, kny3t & erle; My ffader is a gentil kyng, Suche is non In thyn ospreyngi Fyfftene kynges, genteler than thow. Doth him omage and fewte now; Andl, his sone, kny3t, and Air, Vndir me is man and mair, Duke and Prince, and kny3tes strong, And alle that euere to him long. My moder is a gentil ouene, A trewe lady, and euere hath bene; Sche did her lord neUere falshede. But euere was trewe In word and dede. It semes wel thanne, that I am fre, I may be skyl no cherl be! (7455-7^72) This pascage is almost in the tradition of the epic hero's boast, appearing somewhat out of place in the speech of a good knight, but presumably Hector meant to defend his family rather than prove his ov/n superiority. On the point of modesty, however. Hector can hardly be compared to Gav;ain. Perhaps the most artistic of all the elaborations concerning Hector's strength and skill is the speech given to Agamemnon after the hero's death: It is to vs v/el more a-vauntage That he is ded & loken In cage. Then we hadde sclayn In fight felle Halff the men that with him dwelle. For he sclow mo him-selff alone Then alle that other did euerychone, And v;e be nov; — I vnderstande-Mo then sixti hundred thousande Off Hennes bodies gode and able. That ben a-pert and defendable. (11355-1136^)

PAGE 91

83 The next forty lines constitute an impressive catalog, naming the most prominent men Hector killed. By giving this testimony of Hector's strength to the leader of the Greeks, the poet creates the illusion that everyone involved in the war— Trojan and Greek alike—agrees that Hector was the strongest man there. The poet establishes Hector's prowess through the narrator's assertions, through Hector's deeds on the battlefield and his o\m assertions about himself, and through Agamemnon's eulogy. On the other hand, the poet establishes the hero's goodness largely through descriptive techniques. As the tv/o central passages indicate, the author associates Christian characteristics with Hector. He supports this association through the use of Christian terminology. V/hen Hector is wounded, he does his "penuance" (9^5), and before he rides to battle, his father blesses him 0^77-'^884; 9781). The author also associates Hector v/ith Christianity through descriptions of the hero's environment. The hall of Ilion, where Hector recovers from his wounds, has a' marvelous, supernatural quality. All the parts are covered with gold, and the walls are set with precious stone, particularly with carbuncle stones that shine as bright as day even at midnight (9^65-9480), The hall is • supported by twelve magnificent alabaster columns: On stones twelue was hit al set Off Alabaster that v/ele v/ere wrou3t.

PAGE 92

84 It was gret menaayle how thei were bou^t Vnto that werk to rayse that ground, It was meruayle where men thei found. (9^84-9^88) The floor is made of crystal, and in the comers are images so life-like they are often mistaken for living people (9491-9503). The towers reach above the clouds (95119518)» and outside the door is a golden tree whose gold and silver branches bear every kind of fruit in the world, but the fruit, too, is made of gold and silver (9529-9540). The hall itself contains a great gold image of Jupiter that anyone might come and worship when he pleases (95^59568). The poet relies on Dares as his authority for the existence of these marvels (9504-9506), but at the same time stresses the incredibility of the hall: If thow wolt that hall discrjrue, Sicurly je wolde not leue The wonder werk of the Pyleres; Man wolde holde hem grete lyeres, Man wolde wene that men did lye. And holde it alle for fairie. But man wolde wene In his thoght. That sucbe werk myght neuere be wroght. (9455-9460) Far from being evil, however, Ilion is associated with a virtue and glory that no longer exist : For now is non so glorious, Ne non In this world so vertuous. As Ilion was the while it stode. (9461-9463) These descriptions do not Christianize Hector, as the image of Jupiter indicates. The poet attempts only to make the hero virtuous by associating him with virtue: the "vertuous" and marvelous hall of Ilion, the virtuous Sampson, and various Christian figures — Mary, John, and Peter.

PAGE 93

85 After Hector's death, Priam attempts to sanctify the body. He frees it temporarily from odor and decay, preserving it with all its life-like qualities in a cage in the temple of Apollo, v;here the citizenry might viev; it (II2OS-II29O). The tabernacle is set before the altar and the four golden pillars which support it have images that resemble angels. The v/alls, roof, and steps of the tabernacle are nearly as sumptuous as those of the hall of Ilion. Pour mortars that can be quenched by no substance on earth burn day and night around the tomb. This treatment of the corpse represents a kind of consecration, but definitely not a Christian consecration since the tabernacle is set before the altar of Apollo. Nevertheless, the body is treated with more reverence and honor than that of any other Trogan or Greek including Troilus, Paris, and Achilles, Virtue, marvelousness, and sanctification are elements often connected with saints' legends. V/hile the poet does not make Hector a saint, he apparently borrows techniques from those legends to build the characterization. Dorothy Everett indicates that saints' lives and romances have distinctly different ends, but that they often use the same motifs, Oj'ars Kratins also finds parallels between Amis and Amiloun and the saints' lives: leprosy, poverty, child sacrifice, and revitalization are motifs borrowed from the saints' lives and applied to the heroes of the romance, Amis and Amiloun, to make them pious.

PAGE 94

86 2 though not saints. This technique for building characterization is evidently not unusual in medieval literature. The preceding comparisons with the Gest indicate that the Laud poet e:cpands both the description of Ilion and the embalming of Hector. The marvelous and exotic is a standard element of romance, but the other English versions of Troy, following Guide's history, condemn the marvellous. For example, Lydgate says, "Yit God forbede we schulde 3if credence" to Medea's powers (I, 1711), and the Gest poet devotes 299 lines to explaining hov/ the sun and moon did not spring from the soil of Delos island (^4-26^— ^146^). The Laud poet, however, specifically relates the marvellous nature of Ilion to virtue and glory. This relationship, since it differs from other versions of Troy, may indicate that the poet is using techniques of comparison similar to those found by Everett and Kratins. Since he makes explicit use of comparisons in other places to build character, it is possible he borrov/ed elements from religious literature to give his hero a virtuous, though nonChristian, characterization. The poet thus establishes both virtue and prowess in one character. The character of Achilles shows a three part development. Before the death of Hector, the poet's elaborations in Achilles' characterization are aimed at creating a foil to the Trogan hero. From the time he sees Pollexena (11987) until he returns to battle (14157), Achilles the

PAGE 95

87 lover is emphasized. From the time he returns to battle (1^157) until just before his death (15^08), he becomes again the treacherous strong man, foil this time to Troilus and Mennon. As the progression suggests, the characterization fluctuates: Achilles is at one time the treacherous and vengeful enemy and, at another, the distraught, but v;ell-intentioned lover. Both roles are functionally important to the revenge motif. The one indicates how v;ar may breed unchivalric behavior, and the other demonstrates the relationship between romantic love and revenge. The following discussion attempts to show the differences in development, and something of the overall effect of this dichotomous, though perhaps not inconsistent, characterization. For most of the first 1,100 lines, Achilles is simply the strong, but treacherous Greek adversary for Hector. The poet's early elaborations emphasize his strength in battle: The furst batayle sir Achilles To lede that day for-sothe ches; Out of his tent he is now yssed. To kyng Hupoun v;as he wel wyssed, A dou^ti kny^t of grot a-fere; But him thognt euel that he come there: Hupoun was raichel and long. Hey and brod, mechel & strong. He was mechel as a geaunt; But him hadde ben better to haue ben at Gaunt Or haue leyn soke in his bed. Then he that day batayle hadde led. Achilles smot him v;ith a spere. That al his Armes gan to-tere, ^ • -. He smot him thorov; bothe flesch & bone And thorov/ his armes euerychone; Thoov; he were mechel and long. Out of his sadel he him sclong, (7559-7376)

PAGE 96

88 Hupon is a fearful adversary here, the v/ord "michel" being used three times for him, and yet the contest was ridiculous since Achilles won easily. The Greek hero's strength, however, is clearly second to Hector's: Achilles then, that lordly sire, Wolde not abide himQlector] In his Ire, But euere (held) fro him alone, Euere til Ector were gone. Hadde he a-biden him In his wratthe. He scholde haue had an euel batthe. He scholde haue bathed In his blode. (10573-10579) At no time is Achilles' strength ever related to virtue or compared to that of Sampson's, In fact, quite opposite descriptions are given of Achilles: Achilles come thenne ffast ridande As a deuel with foule semblande, V/ith alle the knyjtes that he ledde. (8795-8797) Thus, the poet through short descriptions creates a strong man and formidable enemy, yet the antithesis of Hector, Achilles' treachery and cov/ardice are emphasized in his many attempts to kill Hector through guile: Achilles holdes him euere asyde. He maketh him redi to v;ayte his tyde; As ffische is dreven to the bayte, So waytes he him at sora defaute; T(h)er-vpon he euere duelles. For he atentis to no-thyng elles, For whan he may his tyme se Opon Ector venged to be. (6527-653^) This passage is intensified by its position in the text. It occurs in the middle of a long account of Hector's heroic actions in battle, Achilles' treacherous and vengeful nature is

PAGE 97

89 emphasised in later episodes, especially those against Troilus : For tene his herte v;ex grete, That Troyle did him the vilony; He hadde to him gret envy. He swore by god that dv;eiled In heuene He scholde him sole for odde or euene. (1^620-1462^) V/hen the Myrmidons surround Troilus, Achilles is glad: "Achilles— lord! that he was glad! /Off alle the world no more he bad!" (1^59-1^60). During one of his recuperations, the Greek hero spends his time thinking how he will slay Trojans: " Achilles thinkes day 8c nyghtis. How he may sle dou3ti kny3tis; He nolde it lette for non au3t That any man him 3eue mau3t. (14641-1464^0 The poet adequately shows Achilles' villainy, but through the entire portrait he is little more than evil • foil to the virtuous Hector and subsequently to Troilus and Mennon. For this particular aspect of Achilles' character, the poet makes only sporadic expansion of traits already suggested by other medieval versions of the story, while with the character of Hector, he expands at nearly every opportunity and develops some lengthy passages which are completely independent of other versions. Because the poet relies on simile and plot action rather than didacticisms to establish Achilles' characterization, the Laud is perhaps slightly superior to versions like the Gest, which makes a blatant statement of Achilles' unchivalric behavior and berates Homer for praising him (10312-10362).

PAGE 98

90 Because the poet attempts to keep Achilles, the formidable enemy, before the reader, he must give a running account of Achilles' activities. Consequently, many short passages on the Greek hero appear in the Laud which are not contained in the Gest . He thinks in battle (66176620; 10779-10810); he keeps out of Hector's way (65276530; 10573-10579); he plots with others to kill Hector (6391-6396; 10764-10770); and he reacts to a death (10841-10842). When he is wounded, short commentaries on his condition are inserted (11291-11306; 14605-14619), and transition passages such as "Now of Ector lete v;e be, /And of Achilles speke we" (11291-11292) are not uncommon. Frequently the Greeks entertain their wounded hero and bring him expert physicians: Lord, the loye that Gregeis made! Thei ete & drank &. made him glade With pipes & daunces & lolyffte; Gret loye it was her murthe to se. Achilles thei dede alle glade, Mechel murthe thei him made. And dight him gode fisiciens. With leche-crafft thes surgiens; Alle the helpe that thei myght Thei it dede by day & nyght. And thonked here godis In that place That hadde sent hem som grace. To sole him that hadde hem most anoyed And her Gregeis so foule distroied. (10973-10986) These elaborations expand Achilles' role, but sometimes do little to further his characterization. They serve primarily to draw attention to the character so that, although he is not the central figure in the poem, he is still before the reader as a representation of Greek

PAGE 99

91 power and the Trojans' chief enemy. All these passages on Achilles show no unique method of character development. There are no central passages spoken by the narrator indicating the precise nature of Achilles' character. In fact, Priam's speech v.'hen he finds that Achilles has broken his oath to make the Greeks withdraw is one of the fev; explicit judgments of Achilles in the Laud ; But he is fals 8c euel thynkand And doth alle thyng with gylerye, V/ith no manhed ne chyualrie. (1^336-1^338) There are no catalogs of his deeds in battle, no recurrent exaggerations, and no elaborate associations comparable to the associations of Hector with saintliness and virtue. The passages simply describe his actions, have no unique development, and are, therefore, largely undifferentiated from other descriptions in the poem, Achilles' role as distraught lover, however, shows definite development through dramatization. The point of the characterization is to show how the situation produces an inner conflict by forcing the character to choose betv/een two allegiances. The Laud pcet presents the conflict through Achilles' interactions v;ith those around him and "Uhrough soliloquies which describe his inner condition, Achilles' conflicting encounters with others begin in the councils he calls to persuade the Greeks to go home. Additions to these council scenes v/ere discussed in the

PAGE 100

92 preceding chapter. Their importance for Achilles* characterization lies in the fact that his viev;s on war become consonant with the narrator's, a fact v/hich stimulates the reader's sympathy for him. The Laud poet demonstrates Achilles ' determination to abstain from the war through a melodramatic scene with Heber, Achilles, of course, refuses to fight because he has promised Hecuba he v/ill get the Greeks to raise the siege. Heber, mortally v/ounded, rushes to Achilles' tent to berate him for not assisting the Greeks. The Gest reports the content of the speech: He chalinget Achilles with a chere fell, Reproued hym prudly of his proud wille, ^t lurket in his loge, list not to helpe. And segh his folke so fallyn, & in fight end, ^at v;ith his raonhede so mykell, & v;ith his rzajn strenght, Hight soucour his Soudiours, 8c saue hom aljrue, (95^-95^9) The Laud poet dramatizes the encounter by presenting direct disccurse: And thow royght saue hem JGreek^ fro this wo Iff thow v.'olde to fight go, \7ith thi strcngthe & thi myght. Iff thow hadde ben to-day at fight. Hit couec the of ouel wil, That thow schalt holde the thus stil And wol not helpe thi contre-men, Thow hast lorn of hem M ten, • • • How myght thow — he sayde — In herts fynde To thi peple be so vTi-kyn.de, And wolde not haue of hem mercy? It is so sothe thi vilony! Hen v;ol say opon the tresoun, Sithen thow leuest with-oute resoun. (12711-12726) The Gest then indicates that the "trunchyn" v;as pulled out and "the buenie deghet" (9550-95!?l). The Laud poet

PAGE 101

95 also reports -that the spear v;as removed, but then adds: "Ke died by-fore Achilles eyene /V/ith mochel wo & mychel p\-ne" (12751-12732). The Gest records the encounter between Achilles and Heber as one more event in the tale of Troy, but in the L aud the encounter becomes a melodramatic test of Achilles ' determination to abstain. Again, to shov; that Achilles means to abstain, the Laud poet expands an encounter with a servant returning from battle. In a speech that, aside from some points of grammar and perhaps meter, might have come out of a Renaissance play, Achilles asks: ...what tydandes? Hov; done the Gregeis, by thi fayth? \-ihat v;as that noyse that was so layth? Is any lord of cures sclayn? Loke the sothe thow not layn! (127^2-127^5) The servant then reports the events of the battle — some ships have been burned; many men are dead; some have fled; and Palamydes v;as killed by Paris in revenge for Dephebus ' death. He humbly suggests that Achilles might return to battle, and even volunteers to show him the way. He concludes v.dth flattery and an appeal to the lasting fame Achilles v.'ould receive v;ere he to return to battle. The Ges t contains no question 'oj A.chillss, and the servant's speech is limited to only sixteen lines as compared to fiffcy-one in the Laud. Consequantly, raach of the dramatic and persuasive quality of the Laud is lacking in the G est . The episode in which Achilles counts the Myrmidons after their return to battle is nearly twice as long in

PAGE 102

94 the Laud (13851-13908) as it is in the Gest (IOO86-IOII5), and is aimed primarily at showing Achilles ' love for his men. The major elaboration lies in the narrator's description of the hero's frustration: first he thinks he will avenge his men; then he decides to keep his oath to Hecuba. Although direct discourse is at a minimum here — Achilles delivers only one short speech lamenting his condition (13867-13868) — the passage still gives the illusion of dramatization because it describes Achilles' fluctuating thoughts. Hamlet, of course, delivers several soliloquies v/hich show his ambivalent loyalties ; he should know definitely that Claudius murdered his father, yet he should act to fulfill his promise to his father's ghost. Like Hamlet, Hieronimo berates himself for v/aiting to knoi'/ who sent the mysterious letter before he acts, Juliet, too, is torn between loyalties to her kinsman, Tybalt, and her husband, Romeo, Revenge plays often show the frustration of characters who have divided loyalties and in this way the poem and the pla37s are alike. In a subsequent episode, the Gest poet reports that Achilles questions the Greeks v;ho are fleeing the battlefield about conditions there. They reply in a brief eight lines that the Greek camp is about to be cverrun (1011310200), In the Laud the fugitives rjde into camp crying that all is lost (14101-14106), Achilles asks, "How dos cure kynges, and cure Gregeis? Alow here thei hem a-3eyn

PAGE 103

95 the Frigais?" (1^113-1^11^). The fugitives then paint the horrors of the battle and Achilles' impending doom: And iff thai fynde the her~In In joure tent naked stondande, Thei leue the not on lyue lyuande; For al the gold of hethen Spajme Leue ^e not here •'/nsclayne, For tnei hate 30W ouer alle thyng. For Ector deth — by heuene kyng! — That were, lord, her herte wil. Might thei, lord, thi body spil. (lA-148-14156) The speech is again aimed at dramatizing the incident and at persuading Achilles to return to battle. In the Gest Achilles rides immediately to battle (10201-10205), but in the Laud a dialogue betv/een the fugitives and Achilles ensues: Achilles seyde on that v/olde.,. 'Is ou^t Troyle In that place, That makes oure men thus to chase?' He sayde: 'lord, ther he is, And alle oure men he dos amys; For his wodnesse & his deray Alle oure men ben fled a-way; For he is so strong In his myght, Ther may non a-byde him In fight, ' 'Alas!' he seyde, 'that euere Hoder me bar! Whi ne were I right nov; thar? Alas that euere me Moder bounde Or euere In cradel me be-wounde! That I scholde for a v/oraroanes sake Let my enemys suche murther make Off my Men and of my kyn, And do ther-of no medicyn! ' (1^165-14182) The Laud poet creates a drarrafcic situation v;hich ultimately conveys the character's frustration. The final expansion of Achilles' character as lover consists primarily of a dialogue betv;een the Greek hero and Archllogus, a friend v/ho will accompany him to Troy where he v;ill marry Pollexena. The Gest poet simply writes:

PAGE 104

96 Achilles with Archilagon chefe on Jpe v/ay, The noble sun and next heire of Nestor the Duke, Soghtyn to the citie somyn onon, And to Appollyns aune temple angardly yode. (10535-10538) In the Laud , the narrator describes Achilles' joy, and then Achilles himself describes his feelings in a lengthy speech to Archilogus (15337-15356). This examination of Achilles as distraught lover indicates that the poet worked primarily with dramatic devices to make the character's inner conflict overt, first delineating his determination to abstain and then portraying his love for his men. In the process of depicting Achilles' dilemma, hov;ever, the poet generates sympathy for the character who in the first 1,100 lines is treacherous and vengeful. Because of this sympathy the narrator's attack on Hecuba (154-39-15452) seems justified despite the fact that Achilles killed Hector through similarly unscrupulous methods. This dual characterization is not necessarily inconsistent because the plan to marry Pollexena involves treachery to the Greeks , but it still does not leave the audience with any clear-cut opinion of Achilles. On the one hand, ho is evil, and on the other, he is to be pitied for his dilemma. The ambiguity involved here is to some extent the product of the author's attempt to accomplish two different ends through one character; but a part of the ambiguity can alt'o be attributed to the author's attempt to create a character who is not nearly as good as Hector, but who is not complo':ely imdesirable either.

PAGE 105

97 The character of Pirrus shov/s still another thematic effect and another method of development. Dorothy Kempe notes that the v;hole episode of Firrus may be an attempt to create an independent tale. Compared to the Gest and Guide's v;ork, the Laud does contain a completely new narrative. It begins with Menelaus ' visit to Lycomedes. The G est simply reports: ...Kenelay the mene tyme hade the mere past To Lycomede, >be lell kyng, & the lede broght, — Neptolon the noble, next to Achilles. (1092^-10926) In the Lau d, hov/ever, Kenelaus sets sail, lands, and rides on to Lycomedes' hall (16453-16^73). The conversation betv/een the tv/o men is then recorded. lycomedes greets the visitors, but T-lenelaus unceremoniously attacks the host for not sending Pirrus to battle: Hit is, sir kyng, a vylonye To the, sir, and to him bothe, The kynges of Grece with the are v;rothe; And thow him holdis as brid In cage, That he v;ynnes him no vasselage, But leses his time Sc his loos, And helpis hem not ajeyn here foos. As him by skyl aujt for to do. (16500-16507) Lycomedes reacts angrily, vowing there was no way to send the boy before. He then addresses Pirrus: "Child Pirrus, I the be-teche /Thi fader deth to gete v/reche" (16519-16520). Thus, Pirrus is charged, before he even enters the v/ar, v/ith the duty of avenging his father's death. The ensuing episode recounts Menelaus' return with his charge and the 3abseque^''t Imighting of Pirrus, The

PAGE 106

98 Laud poet expands the knighting ceremony, emphasizing the riches of Achilles that nov; become his son's and including a speech by Ajax-Thelamon as he girds the sv;ord on Pirrus. This v/hole preliminary account of Pirrus ' entry into the v/ar is expanded through technioues of dramatization and is aimed at emphasizing the boy's heritage and his duty to avenge his father. Pirrus' role in the ensuing battle is expanded to establish his prov;ess, but even this skill is related to his father: Pirrus prikes aboute & praunses, Fro man to man aboute he launses Al his strengthe for to assay. He dud gret harm on hem that day; His fader Armes that day he bare. (16687-16691) His first battle not only proves his prowess, but also begins the enmity betv.-een him and Penthesilea, who declares all men of gentle blood ought to avenge Hector's death (16844-16845). Her speech is expanded to emphasize her desire for revenge and her insult to Achilles, an insult v;hich provides motivation for the bloody revenge Pirrus takes on her in a subsequent battle. The Laud poet also adds details to the slaying of Penthesilea v;hich emphasize the atrocity of the act. First of all, instead of the Myrmidons only breaking her helmet strap and baring her head ( Gest , 11101-11102), in the Laud they wound her so that Pirrus attacks an already v/ounded fighter. Then, in the actual murder, Pirrus is not content v;ith killing her by cutting off her arm ( Gest , 11111-11117),

PAGE 107

99 "he continues, even after killing her, to chop at the body: And Pirrus In his greuaunce Toke on hir a foule vengaunce. For he lefft not of hir a spot That he ne hit hev.'e as flesch to pot, . (17135-17158) By killing their leadership, Pirrus annihilates the Trojan defense and commits the first of the unchivalric murders designed to avenge his father. During the night of slaughter in Troy, Pirrus leads the attack on the castle: Alle that thei fond doun thei sclow With -out e mercy, v;ith sor/ze y-now; Kany a curtais ladi sv;ete In that Palais to dethe thai bete That coraen v;ere of hye lynage. Off kynges blod In mariage; . Thei lefft nother lov;e ne hye. (18283-18289) His mercilessness extends even to the king: Pirrus soght afftir the kyng, Fro hous to hous. In his byggyng; And afftir that to the temple he ran, And ther fond he that earful man: Pirrus tho v/as glad y-now. His sv;erd sone out he drov/ And al to-hev;e him euery bone, R3;ght be-fore the auter-stone. That al the Auter v;as al by-bled V/ith his blod that ther v/as sched. (18293-18302) Once again Pirrus is satisfied only after he has desecrated the enemy's corpse. The Gest mentions neither of the desecrations nor the sacking of the castle. In this case, the Laud poet's additions are designed to strengthen the abhorrent nature of Firi'-as ' revenp^-e. In his final appearance in the Laud, Pirrus slays Pollexena, chops up ^-he body, and 'vashes his father's

PAGE 108

100 monument with her blood. This episode is common to a number of medieval versions of Troy, but the Laud poet intensifies Pirrus ' malice by giving Pollexena a speech in which she declares her innocence and indicates that she never v;anted Achilles' death (185^7-18566). She concludes her speech heroically: . .. ,, For me is leuere In my centre Be sclayn In my virginite, That I falle not In 3oure handis, tan go with 30W In-to 'joure landis nd be ther defouled & for-layn With 50W that haue my fader sclayn. Lette come the deth when je v/ille, For I am redi now ther-tillef (18559-18566) The Gest poet includes a speech similar to this one, and he also indicates elsev/here that Pollexenai is probably iimocent; but the Laud poet intensifies the scene by including both points in one speech delivered by the lady herself. The e;q)anded material in Pirrus ' character represents a unique ir_novation because it introduces into the story a new tale: a son is charged with the duty of avenging his father's death, and he ends by cruelly slaughtering both the innocent and the gniilty. The expanded material also demonstrates the intensification of revenge as it is taken up by the succeeding generation, HTaile Achilles is at times treacherously vengeful, his love for Pollexena, to some exi;ent, redeems his characterization, Pirrus' character, hov;ever, has no brighter side. He is so thoroughly immersed in his duty to his father that even death does

PAGE 109

101 not satisfy him; he must also destroy the corpses, •This tradition of Pirrus as a figure of revenge comes dovm to the Renaissance and is used by Shakespeare in Hamlet as the model for Hamlet's revenge (II, ii, 471-541). In analyzing this passage in Hamlet , Harold Skulsky calls Pirrus the ''archetypal avenger," and indicates that the tradition comes from Virgil. But the Laud also depicts Pirrus wildly searching for the king, an action which does not occur in any of the other three English versions. The Gest indicates, however, that prose versions of Pirrus' revenge v;ere popular (10928). Thus, Shakespeare need not necessarily have recalled the Virgilian version. His association of Hamlet in the revenge tragedy with Pirrus in the Troy story indicates that by the time of the Renaissance the tale had become associated with revenge and that the figure of Pirrus was v;ell~knov/n as the extreme model of vengeance. The Laud, whether it was a direct influence or not, must be considered an early forerunner of that association. The preceding analysis of the characterization in the Laud indicates that the poet develops his characters by several devices: the creation of completely new episodes, commentaries by the narrator, comparisons, exaggerations, associations, and dramatization. Despite these techniques, however, the characters are not s.ingular or enigmatic as, for example, Chaucer's Griseyde is. In

PAGE 110

102 fact, Achilles is little more than the typical sighing medieval lover. It is in their respective relationships to the subject of revenge that the characters are significant. In the case of Hector, revenge destroys chivalry and virtue; in the case of Achilles, revenge successfully overcomes the fulfillment of romantic love; and in the case of Pirrus, the duty to revenge obliterates all humanitarian elements, primarily justice, respect for the human image, and mercy. Because the poet deals with the whole Trojan v;ar, not an isolated episode, the characterizations of necessity are not j.ndividually developed; but Pirrus and Hector do emerge as effective, though one-dimensional, portraits. As the characterizations of the strong men in the poem move from virtuous to thoroughly vengeful, so does th<£ general tenor of the v/ar. People become less and less merciful. A number of episodes early in the war indicate that both sides are v/illing to be merciful: Achilles spares King Theman because Thelaphus bets for the king's life (5983-^1-078). Hector grants Ajax-Thelamon's request to withdraw, though the Greeks could have been destroyed (5961-6002); the Trojan council saves Thoas from death (7054-7216); Hector saves Theseus because he gave the hero good advice (5^57-5^72); and Hector grants an unidentified Greek noble's request for life (10907-10908). Despite Hintou's statement that he can find nothing mag-nanimous in Hector's character,-^ the hero is generous enough to take this nobleman prisoner, but in doing so he is treacherously

PAGE 111

103 slain by Achilles. The nobleman's plea to be saved is not included in the Gest (8649-8556), and in Lydgate's version Hector is unarmed because he is despoiling the body of a splendidly armoured Greek noble (III, 5332-5399). The Laud poet's interpretation contrasts Hector's merciful chivalry with Achilles ' treachery. As the story progresses, there are fewer and fewer instances of mercy. On the other hand, atrocities seem to increase: Achilles drags Troilus' body around the battlefield; Hecuba takes her revenge on Achilles; and Pollexena is sacrificed to the gods, despite her innocence. The Laud poet intensifies this movement in his descriptions of the general attitude held by the two armies and in his elaboration of specific events. The general attitudes of both armies show more and more determination to win and less and less inclination to mercy. Late in the war, after Achilles unsuccessfully tries to stop the fighting, the narrator says: When thei were comen, thei 3ede & souped. And many on for his frend drouped And for hem-self f thei seide 'alas* Thei wende neuere to passe that plas; And ^it were thei so envious. So ful of Pride and meruelous. That hem was leuere echon to dye Than any of other mercy to crye. (12951-12958) A few lines later, the narrator describes the end of a truce: ...thei most nede leue her play And bygynne a3eyn the werre. For no man may ther-fro hem sterre; Vntil that on for ay & euere Be al for-done, thei blyn neuere. (14630-1463^)

PAGE 112

10^ again, at the beginning of Penthesilea's second battle, the narrator describes the general encounter: Thei ride to-gedir with gret randoun, Euery nan now hath of other envy; Ther was a earful company, V.T:5en thei were to-gedre met: Echon other al to-bet, Sclow, & v/ounded, & thorow-bare; Non of hem v;olde other spare. (164-26-16^52) Before the last battle the narrator again shows the determination of both armies to have the victory: [They] ros a-3eyn when thei nyght se. For thei wol not lete it so be, Vn-to that on were vndirlyng. And that other lord F< kyng. (16985-16988) Penthesilea's change in attitude is a reflection in miniature of the general movement in the Laud from action directed by chivalric mercy to unrelenting vengeance. In her first battle encounter, Penthesilea simply takes equipment or freedom from the Greeks she overcomes: Menelaus loses his horse; Diomedes, his shield; AjaxThelamon, his freedom. But after Diomedes leads 10,000 men against Philomene, who is returning to Troy with the captive Ajax-Thelamon, Penthesilea sv/ears an oath that "sche \volde sole that sche myght take" (16270). The abandonment of chivalric principles of mercy begins with Hector's death v;hich occurs v/hile he is granting an act of mercy, and moves ultimately to the sack of Troy, v;hich the narrator describes as totally devoid of mercy: Mochel blod that nyght thei schedde, It v/as no wondor of thei dredde, To crye mercy v;a3 hem no bote.

PAGE 113

105 Thoow thei fellen vnto here fote; The cry was gret S: fer herd Of hem that thus to dethe ferd. (18223-18228) If continued long enough, then, revenge_ leads to a relentless determination to v;in, even if all principles of knightly behavior and mercy must he sacrificed. The total structure of the second destruction moves from chivalric to unchivalric behavior, and the change is brought about by men's propensity for revenge during war. This movement supports the narrator's conception of the decay of the world. Of Hector, he says: ^ In Troie v;as neuere so gode kny3t born, As thei of Troie hadde than for-lorn! A better kny3t of chiualrie \7as neuere born In Asye! Ne neuere was, ne neuere schal be A better kny^t In armes than was he! (10993-10998) The same is true of the city of Troy: Alas! noble Troye, thow schalt be spilled, • • Alas! thi chambres Sc thi boures, Thi faire hall and thi toures, Thi seraely jates & thi faire walles. And alle thi crafftly corven balles! Fair Ilyon that stondes so hye. So lov;e as thov; schalt sone lye! Suche a Cite v/as neuere non wrou^t, Al schal sone turne to nou3t. (9878-989^) The battle in which 1,000 Myrmidons are slain is described as the greatest ever fought: In erthe v/as neuere suche a serable: And that may alle men here & se That Tomaunce may vndirstonde ?c rede. Other therto wol take hede. In alle the bokes that men haue sene Off doujti men that haue bene, V.Taen thei are thorow soght, Sicurly ne fjTide m.en noght That suche a fyght In erthe befel.

PAGE 114

106 Ne that so many men to dethe v/cnte As did ther, or the batayle ente; — Ne neuere of sege that so longe lay, Ne neuere schal to domysday; — Ne men that myght so longe endure To fight euery day In her Armure With-oute reste and v/ith-oute sese. That thei toke neuere trev/e ne pese. • • • For now lynes nother man ne kny^t That if thei v;ere put to that fy^t. That thei ne scholde be for-done. Long tyme or it v;ere none. (13657-13718) This motif occurs again and again in the narrator's speech. He is telling the story not only of the fall of Troy, but also of the fall of a golden age. The world is passing from a state of relative virtue at the time of creation to increasing degeneracy. The poem depicts the fall of the good, leaving only the traitors, the weak, and the vengeful to inhabit the v;orld. V/ar, because it encourages revenge, v;hich in time dominates nearly all aspects of man's behavior, is a significant cause of the world's movement away from goodness. The revenge tragedies do not appear, at first, to be quite so pessimistic about the future, Fortinbras will regain his father's kingdom; Capulets and Montagues promise to live in harmony; Lucius, Titus' son, v/ants to restore order to the kingdom; and the ghost of Andrea promises to add sweet pleasures to Kieronimo's afterlife. The protagonists in the plays seem to be agents of divine vengeance, establishing a hope for the future by righting injustice; but in the process of revenge they themselves become tainted and must die. Thus, the continuation of

PAGE 115

107 justice is not assured even v/hen the protagonists triumph. Portinbras is described by Horatio as "of unimproved mettle hot and full" (I, i, 96), and his actions show that he is not primarily a peace-loving man. Despite the harmony at the end of Romeo and Juliet , the Prince has lost a "brace of kinsmen" (V, iii, 29^-295) and the peace described is a "glooming" one (V, iii, 305). In Titus Andronicus Lucius' first two acts as king are to order Tamora's body thrown to the vultures and Aaron buried to his waist and left to starve. In the Spanish Traged?;only the King of Spain and the Viceroy of Portugal are left, and both these characters have sho'ATi their inability to administer justice properly. There are no successors to the throne, and justice is established only in the next world by Revenge himself. The prospects for the future are not extremely bright in the plays; conseauently, the plays, like the poem, show that revenge adversely affects the future because it ends in the death of those who had the most promise.

PAGE 116

NOTES Dorothy Everett, "A Characterization of the English Medieval Romances," E&S, XV (1929), 113. p 'Ojars Kratins, "The Middle English Amis and Amilo unr Chivalric Romance or Secular Hagiography?" PMLA, LXXXI (1966), 'Dorothy Kempe, "A Middle English Tale of Troy," Eng lische Studien , :CCIX (1901), 1-26. Harold Slculsky, "Revenee, Honor, and Conscience in Hamlet ," PMLA , IX^XY (1970), 78. ^N.D. Hinton, "A Study of the Middle English Poems Relating to the Destruction of Tro-^," Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin, 1957, p. 217. 108

PAGE 117

V. DESCRIPTIVE TECHNIQUES Composed during the 100 Tears* War, the Laud contains an anti-war sentiment which, if it does not apply to all wars, at least condemns the war of vengeance by failing to idealize the violence and its effects. The Laud poet is not unique in revealing these sentiments; they may be found in other medieval works as well. G.M. Trevelyan indicates that the Lollard creed objected to all war as unchristian and that this belief was probably fostered by "the devastating campaigns in France, crowned, when peace 2 seemed in sight, by the Papal Crusades." Bede Jarrett presents a historical summary of major theological positions on war which indicate that anti-war sentiment had both a theological position and an active following as early as the thirteenth century. In The Regement of Princes (518) Hoccleve decries the war of vengeance, as does Gower in Confessio Amantis (Pro. 12, 3^)» and William Matthews finds an anti-war sentiment in the alliterative Morte Arthure which he links to vengeance in the poem. The Laud poet, then, concerns himself with a topic meaningful to his contemporaries. Through contrasts, similes, humor, and descriptions of brutality, the poet creates a realistic picture of the detrimental aspects of war. As Margaret 109

PAGE 118

110 Gist points out, such realism is not new to the later 7 fourteenth century; it is, rather, the conjunction of the realistic mode with the theme of vengeance that makes the Laud a forerunner of the Renaissance revenge tragedy. One of the most noticeable characteristics of the Laud is its focus on the brutality of war. The poet often indulges in detailed gory descriptions of the slaughter. Some of these passages occur in general descriptions of the battles: Some were smeten thorow the eye. Some to the brayn vn-to the crawe. Some In-to the body, and some In-to the raawe, Some the schuldres, & son the mylte. Off bothe the parties were many on spilte. • • • Kany a legge lay on that sond. Many loste bothe arrae 8c bond. Many an bed was smeten of there; Thei cried and jelled ac boles rore, Men myght here the cry a myle Off hem that dyed ther that while. (6694-6705) Thei cutte In-tv/o bothe lyuer & raawes. Hand & hede, lunge & mylte; Many a gode man was ther spilte. (9312-9814) Many an bed was al to-squat. And many ded on his hors sat; Some loste nose, & some her tonges, Som her l3ruer, & som her longes. (I5155-I5158) Other passages occur in descriptions of specific killings: That duk v/as clouen In two parties, On eyther halff his hors he lyes; Hit was ruthe se how he honged, A-boute the sadel the hors him flonged. Til he hira ouer his sadel cast Vndir hors feet at the last. (10831-10836) Polidomas ful wroth vp-sterte. He pulled him (Cilydisj by the skirthe. He sette a strok vnder his choke.

PAGE 119

Ill That he rnygbt neuere afftir loke; For nen myght se his tethe al v;hite. Re lay ther ded as a kyte. (5269-527^) These are only a few of the nany passages in the Laud that depict sensational mutilation and death. Such horrors are related to the memento mori tradition, popular in the Renaissance, but originating in the middle ages. Willard Famham presents two expressions of the contemptus mundi theme as the forerunners of Elizabethan tragedy: one is the medieval tragical narrative related to the de casibus theme and the other is the memento mori tradition, the artistic representation of death "in all the gross horrors which the Q imagination could contrive," Descriptions of the war in the Laud , like the mutilation and death in the revenge tragedies, are expressions of such horrors, V/lien the battles in the I'aud are compared to those in the Gest , it is evident that the former poet composed his tale with a concern for depicting the crudity of killing. If, as Willard Farnham believes, horrors like these are an expression of the conto:nptus mundi theme, then the Laud poet sees war as a particularly earthly phenomenon, v;orthy of contempt rather than glorification. This idea is also demonstrated by the fact that some of the preceding passages from the L aud contain a quasihumorous tone which grows out of the conjunction of the gruesome content v/ith the short couplets, the incongruous diction, and the occasional internal rhyme. In the follov;ing passages the humor is unmistakable:

PAGE 120

112 He ^aff the kyng Episcropus Suche a recumbent ibus. He smot In-two bothe helne & aayle. (7^^9l-7^93) He 3aff him suche a benedicite, . That he fel dede opon the ble. (6793-679^) He snot hin so opon the snouto. That bothe his eyen v;enten oute. (5751-5752) Ayther 3aff other suche a kayl. That thei fflowen ouer the hors tayl. (6785-6786) By making violence in war the subject of humor, the poem shov/s that v;ar is not a never ending series of heroic encounters wherein the loser is carried off to his lady love to be nursed to health or to die gloriously, as sometimes happens in other romances of the period. Similarly, there are no individual decisive combats in the Laud which can be idealized through descriptions of the hero dressing, offering prayers before the encounter, and saluting his lady. Despite the fact that the poem contains many elements of g the chivalric tradition, it fails to idealize that tradition. Thus, the tone of these passages concerning the violence of war is more suitable to a realistic representation of war than to an idealistic one. The Laud also contains numerous similes, a characteristic of style pointed out by both Kempe and V/ulfing. Like the repulsive descriptions of slaughter, these similes, by referring to familiar objects, places, and events, create a realistic atmosphere. Achilles describes the Greek position: "V/e take here not but v/oundes /And ligge In dikes as dede houndes" (12289-12290). The number of

PAGE 121

113 men slain by Hector is rendered imaginable through a reference to market day: "Thei dyed thikkere then men dryues gece /To chepyng-toun for to sella" (7^4-28-7^29). Severed heads rolling about the battlefield, are actualized in terms of football: "Hedes reled aboute ouer-al, /As men playe at the fote-bal" (12671-12672). The breath of the dying is bodied forth as smoke and mist: Men myght here the cry a myle Off hem that dyed ther that v;bile. The brethe thei blew stode lyke a smoke. Hit rose over hen as the roke, Hit ferd a-boute hem as a myst, (6705-6709) Hector slays so many Greeks that the blood from their wounds stands about him "As wynter water doth in forow" (528^), The comparisons are all in terms of earthly and unattractive phenomena. Men are compared to dead hounds, geese, and footballs. The blood of the dying is comparable to chilly v/inter v;ater, and their breath hangs like a shroud over the battlefield. Such descriptions create little admiration for v/ar. In contrast to these passages are the many descriptions of fine clothing v;om during truces, Diomedes and Ulixes are richly apparelled for their missions to the Trojan camp (8C39~8064-), and even the common people must put away their beautiful robes when the truce is over (82378249). In peace men richly ornament their bodies, but in war living bodies are a mutable and nearly valueless commodity. The blood and gore of the battlefield also contrasts

PAGE 122

11^ to the numerous descriptions of the armies before they meet. For example, Hector sees the approaching Greek army: Many an ost saw he comyng, Rydande faste whil thei nay fflyng, With baneres brode and gold-be-gon; The Sonne on hem v;el faire schon. And many an armes v;as ther reuersed; Iff on bare sable hit v/as diuersed: He bar of gold and of goules. He bar bestes and he bare foules. He bare apes and he bar cheuronne. And he of siluer with a cloue chestone. He bare a bend and he an home. He bare his comeres gerone, He beres grene and he asure, Engreled v/ith a fair bordure. He beres an egle and he merelettis. And he a daunce and he pelettis. And he hath rose & he has molettis. And he hermyn and he croselettis, • And thus haue thei her armes schiffted, Ther baneres are wel hye lyffted; Buery a lord his baneroure Biddis him go be-fore the stoure. (8697-8718) This description implies Hector's professional interest in heraldry and is done in the courtly or high style, a mode worthy of Hector's position as a great laiight. More important, however, is the atmosphere of grandeur that the passage communicates. It is this magnificent setting that degenerates into a field of severed knuckles, livers, shoulders, and heads. The army as a whole radiates splendor, but the violent individual encounters described immediately afterv;ard are repulsive. Descriptions of the brutality on the battlefield are also o^uite opposite to the more attractive descriptions of the Hall of Ilion (9^29-9558) and Hector's tomb (111^1-9-

PAGE 123

115 11292). These latter passages focus on beauty, opulence, and stability, while the battlefield scenes have only br^xtal, transitory qualities. Since other works of the fourteenth century contain comparable passages, the Laud poet v;as apparently working with standard descriptive techniques which v;ould enhance one situation and disparage another. Had the poet chosen to idealize v/ar, there v;ould be little disparity between the battles and the periods of truce. But since the combatants do not fight v/ith bright swords and duel heroically, a polarity is created betv/een the truces, v/hich usually describe idealistic phenomena, and the passages on v/ar, which focus solely on brutality and destruction. The contrast between these tv;o descriptive styles shows once again that the poem disparages war. The Laud poet combines detailed accounts of death with an attitude of humor, compares the situations of war to familiar, though often disgusting or unattractive, objects, and contrasts the activities of war v/ith the more desirable periods of peace. In addition, he concentrates on massive battles rather than individual combats, on motivation through vengeance rather than honor, and on the destruction of the war, rather than the glorious success of one man. This means that the poet's representation of war is more realistic than that in many of the earlier romances. Consequently, the poem demonstrates a turning away from the idealistic representation of war

PAGE 124

116 in favor of a more realistic one. This tendency is typical of othar uorks :ji the late fourteenth century and so is not unique in the Laud . But the union of revenge and realism is important because it looks forward to the same union of matter and mode in the Renaissance revenge tragedies. Like the Laud , the revenge tragedies shov/ the brutality vengeance can cause. In Titus A ndronicu s Lucius reports the murder of Alarbus, son of Tamora: See, lord and Father, hov/ v/e have performed Our Roman rites. Alarbus' limbs are lopped. And entrails feed the sacrificing fire, Whose smoke, like incense, doth perfume the sky. (I, i, 1^2-145) In the same play, Lavinia's mutilation is described by Marcus, her uncle: ...Why dost not speak to me? Alas, a crimson river of warm blood, i/ike to a bubbling fountain stirred with v/ind. Doth rise and fall between thy ros^d lips Coming and going with thy honey breath. (II, iv, 21-25) Although these tv;o passages demonstrate a technical skill better than most of the descriptions of death and mutilation in the laud, the focus on the violence of revenge is the same. The plays do not comment on the war of vengeance, but they do disparage individual acts of revenge by showing in realistic fashion its brutal effects. In the Laud , hov/ever, the anti-v/ar sentiment is an important element of the poem, and in tr-ying to establish such an attitude the poet turns to descriptive techniques that portray the war

PAGE 125

117 realistically. As a result, the theme is fused with descriptions of war that are more realistic than those of earlier poems like the alliterative Morte Arthure, which also deals v/ith the war of vengeance. Consequently, the Laud stands as a kind of transition piece, demonstrating a rnovenient tov;ard a realistic representation of revenge.

PAGE 126

NOTES V/illiam Matthev;s in his chapter "Arms and the Man," The Tr aRe dy of Arthur (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1950), discusses both the religious and political doctrines on war in the middle ages, 2 G.M, Trevelyan, Enccland in the Age of V/ycliff e (New York, 1909), pp. 272-275': "^Bede Jarrett, Social Theories of the Middle Ages 1 200-1 300 (Westminster, Maryland, 19^2), pp. 181-212. Thomas Hoccleve, "III. The Regement of Princes," H occleve's Works , ed. by Frederick J. Fumivall, Early English Text Society, extra series 72 (London, 1897). ^John Gov/er, "Confessio Amantis," The Complete Works of John Gow er, ed, by George C. Mpcaulay~XOxford, 18991902). ^atth ews, p. 27. 7 'Margaret Gist, Love and War in the Middle English Romances (Philadelphia, 19''^7), p. 13^. Q Willard Farnham, The M edieval Heritag e of Elizab ethan Trage dy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1936), p. 41, ^D.N. Hinton, "A Study of the Middle English Poems Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin, 1957, p. 185, Charles Muscatine in C haucer and the F rench Tradition (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1957) distinguishes~5etween realistic and idealistic descriptive modes. The follov/ing chapter is based on this distinction. '••^Dorothy Keape, "A Middle English Tale of Troy," Englische Studien, IDCIX (1901), 25, and J. Ernst Wiilfing, "Das Bild und de Biidliche Verneinung Im Laud Troy-Book," ABSlia* n^w series, XV (190'+), 555-5GO and""XV!rTl9057r~ 29-80. 118

PAGE 127

VI. CONCLUSIONS The preceding analysis has investigated the major characteristics of the Laud and then related them to elements of the revenge tragedies. But there are aspects of the tragedies which this study does not touch on. Some of them, like the figures of the ghost, the female confidante, and the faithful servant, are not present in the Laud. Naturally, as we would not expect the poem to contain one-to-one relationships with the plays, those aspects of the revenge plays which are not present in the Laud v;ill not be discussed. But important aspects v;hich are included in the Laud only as minor elements should not be overlooked. This chapter is devoted to brief discussions of individualism, intrigue, the Machiavellian villain, and the ambivalent appeal of the protagonist v/ho is also the avenger. Concluding remarks on the overall study are contained In the final paragraphs. The most often cited characteristic of the Renaissance is, of course, an interest in individualism. While the Laud shov;s that individual actions caused the fall of Troy, it fails to develop detailed characterizations of the ansv;erable individuals. Consequently, no characters in the Laud are as memorable as Hamlet or Hieronimo. Yet the 119

PAGE 128

120 poem does recognize the individual as a significant cause in history. For example, v.'hile Hodred, traitor to the Arthurian society, is sorry that he is fated to kill Gawain, Aeneas, one of tv;o individuals responsible for the fall of Troy, makes no apologies, Likev;ise, the poet never excuses him by invoking Providential or astronomical causes for his action. On the other hand, the Arthurian society is flav/ed, and Modred is only the luckless agent chosen to bring about a demise that was fated to occur. The poet of the alliterative Morte Arthure clearly shows Modred as a victim of fate who begs Arthur not to leave him in charge of the kingdom and who is sincerely sorry that he should have to be the one to kill Gawain. Without the recognition of the individual as a significant cause of historical action, the great Renaissance tragedies of individuals would not have been possible. The Laud stands midv;ay between the tv;o theories of history: it shows the fall of a city as the alliterative Morte Arthu re shows the fall of a society, but it blames the fall on a series of individual actions v/hich could have brought about different results, had the actors made different choices. Two other 5.mportant aspects of the Renaissance revenge tragedy are intrigue and the Machiavellian villain. Aaron in Titus And ronicu s and Lorenzo in the Spanish ?.r^^^Z t^oth develop intricate plots involving notes, gold.

PAGE 129

121 lies, and death to work their ovm self-serving ends. Intrigue and villainy are present in the Laud in the characters of Antenor and Aeneas, who betray the city. There can be no doubt that the narrator sees the two characters as evil: God 3eue heiB his malesoun That the tresoun schope & v/roght And that hit so aboute broght! That was Antenor & Eueas — God ^eue hem an euel gras! Come thei neuere In heuene riche, That thei wolde so her lord be-sv/yke And al that gentil nacioun! Schal be put In-to dampnacioun! (17061-17069) Ke seldom mentions the characters v/ithout cursing them; God ^eue him sorwe and neuere loye! (1880) But her tresoun thei v:ol slely hele, Thei v/il not telle what thei thenke — The deuel hem not In helle senke! (17288-17290) Antenor and fals Eueas — Se thei neuere god In the fas! (17757-17758) Antenor and Eueas — In belle thei wone v/ith Sathanas! (18275-18276) By Antenor and Eueas; In helle mot be her wonyng-plas ! (18357-18358) A series of passages in the Laud v;hich are not contained in any other version of the story demonstrate the traitors' determination. These passages are primarily oaths or descriptions of oaths. For example, v/hen Aeneas hears of the plot to kill him, his reaction is described: Eneas thanne v;as v/roth y-now: To alle his goddis ha made a vow' That he v.'olde on him be v/reke. Iff that he my3t go or speke. (17481-17^8-^) He subsequently tells Antenor ''how he wolde sle hem bothe

PAGE 130

122 /So v;as he to hem v/rothe" (17^91-17'^92). Here is a foreshadov/ing of the pernonal revenge v;hich Aeneas will accomplish during the right of slaughter when he leads Pirrus to Priam's castle. Later, the tv/o traitors swear revenge together: ...thei scholde fight to-geder there, The toun to traye and tho ther-In, And do sle hem & alle her kyn; Thei schal not lette for leue ne lothe. (17494-17497) The last line here emphasizes the traitors' malevolence. Since they have met previously and agreed to betray Troy (17237-1724^0, this oath is superfluo'is. The repetition does, however, underscore the traitors extreme determination for revenge. The plan they develop is marked by intrigue. In Dares, Polimodas is secretly sent out to the Greeks to tell them of the plan to betray Troy and to obtain assurances (39-40). Benolt makes no mention of a contact v/ith the Greeks before the peace talks (IV, 24396-24824), but Guido indicates that assurances were obtained, although he doesn't indicate how (222). The Laud poet, like Lydgate and the Ge^t poet, omits any contact between the traitors and the Greeks. Unlike the other tv;o poets, though, the author of the Lau d indicates the reason the traitors' must secure peace talks: other\';ise, there ?s no possibility • for contacting the enemy: ...In the toun so bold none was, 'vith-oute the jates that durst pas. But sicurly ther myght men se

PAGE 131

123 That it nyjt not but tresoun be, Openly & discouert. And it v.-as tresoun rijt apert. But thai nij-ght speke of a pees, Thei Eyght not elles speke with Gregais. ' (I7273-I728O) In this situation, then, the ensuing councils are crucial episodes in the plan to betray the city. The Laud differs from other versions in that the traitors dominate the council. At the beginning of the first council Aeneas speaks sarcastically to Priam: Fals Eueas scornfulli be-gan Vn-to the kj'-ng speke than. He seyde: 'and thov; wol consayle take, I rede that thow oures not for-sake. If the hit like, the ne thar non other; Iff thow dost not, thow may take other,' (17309-1731^) In contrast, Priam answers with "wordes meke" (17315), The episode ends with a quarrel between Aeneas and the king: Eueas thanne was wonder wrothe. He ros vp 8c thenne gothe; He was Angred v/ith that sawe. Off his kyng stode him none av;e. V/ordes fele of gret outrage, — Herande alle the baronage, — Spake he thanne vn-to the kyng. That were veleyns wordes & vn-sittyng. He gos hamv;ard vnto his halle With-oute leue of hem alle. He vi;olde no leue at hem nym. But Antenor 3ede home with hyra; Thei are bothe horn to-gedur went, By him that made bothe Twede & Trent! (17-4-27.-17^0) . The passage indicates that Priam is now almost pov/erless and that Antenor and Aeneas have made a public break with him. The sane attitude is apparent in the second council when Aeneas addresses Priam:

PAGE 132

124 But Eueas In his wickednesse Seide to him In gret felnesse: 'W]:ierto, sir kyng, rcakestov; it so? V/enes thow cure v;ille for-do By thi Pov/ere & thi maystrie? V/il thow, nele thow — the pees schal be! ' (17555-17560) By dominating the councils, then, the traitors are able to send Antenor to the Greeks under the guise of proposing peace. The subsequent false peace arrangements, the theft of the Palladium, and the trick of persuading Priam to take the horse of brass within the city walls are all parts of the intrigue. Hecuba shov/s how heinous Aeneas ' crime is when she meets him in the streets during the night of violence: How myght thow, In thi fals herte fjrnde, Fals traytour, to be so vnkynde To do thi lord suche schenschip. That hadde done alle thi worschip? He ^aff the his doghter to \^ue Ee-ifore alle men that were on lyuo. He worschepid the ^ loued the ay, In the v.'as al his trust & ffay. And thow hast made him sclayn & hise For his godenesse & ffraunchise! (18317-18326) Priam is betrayed by his ovm son-in-law. Friendship and familial ties are of no consequence to the traitors. They are ruthlessly determined to betray the city in order to save themselves, and they accomplish their ends through intrigue and deception. Unlike Modred, they are not the hapless agents of fate, but neither are they completely diabolical since they, like Gavrain in his encounter v/ith the Green Knight, hope to save their lives. Because they are not motivated solely by greed or the desire for power.

PAGE 133

125 Antenor and Aeneas are not full-blown Renaissance villains, but neither are they victims of fate. Complex characterization is achieved in the plays when the hero is also the schemer. Both Hamlet and Hieronimo seek revenge and yet both claim the sympathies of the audience, Hamlet perhaps because his plans fail and he finally accomplishes the revenge through his own spontaneous reaction to Claudius' scheme, and Hieronimo because he is so thoroughly Justified in destroying 2 Lorenzo. In the Laud, Hecuba may be considered the scheming heroine, but the narrator's comments dispel any notions that her act was good. Aeneas, though he is presented in the poem as thoroughly evil, probably inspired ambivalent feelings in the medieval audience since they were certain to associate him not only with the betrayal of Troy, but with the subsequent founding of nearly all the countries in Western Europe. The opening lines of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight express this ambivalence: Si|jen j)e sege & -jbe assant watx sesed at Troye, 'be bor3 brittened & brent to Dronde3 & askej, -pe tulk .t>at pe trammes of treasoun f)er wro^t Watj tried for his tricherie, ^e trewest on erthe. Hit watj Ennias \)e athel & his highe kynde pat si^en depreced prouinces, & patrounes bicome Welnije of al j}e wele in pe west iles. (1-7)5 In his notes on this passage, the editor. Sir Israel Gollancz, indicates that the first four lines refer to the unnamed Antenor, that Aeneas was not the betrayer of

PAGE 134

126 Troy, but rather the heroic defender v.'ho left only when there v/as no chance of saving the city. Theodore Silverstein argues that all seven lines refer to Aeneas; and by citing Servius' comraentaries of Virgil, he proves that Aeneas had a dual character, being both founder of Rome h. and traitor to Troy. Silverstein and Gollancz both overlook the character of Aeneas as it is presented in the native English traditions. In interpreting the Laud , however, it may be just as great an error to overlook the popular conceptions of Aeneas' character that no doubt affected the medieval readers. They could scarcely have failed to notice that the person presented by the narrator as a heinous villain, v/orthy to be damned, is also the hero of the Western v;orld. Through Aeneas, then, the Laud poet hints at a complexity of appeal similar to that of Hamlet or Hieronimo, but fails to develop a detailed characterisation. In terms of individualism, intrigue, villainy, and a character who stimulates ambivalent feelings, the Laud stands in a positive, bub undeveloped relationship to the revenge tragedies. This study as a whole indicates that there v;as a literary interest in the theme of revenge prior to the Renaissance and that a number of subordinate motifs like madness, treachery, insult, blood responsibility, and total social destruction complemented the theme at that time as well as in the Renaissance, Although the Laud

PAGE 135

127 is not a play, the poet dracatizes his narrative by using motivation, conversation, soliloquy, and realistic description to cake the tale vivid. Re associates his poem with other tragedies, omits all of the didactic passages included in other versions of the tale, and shows that. Troy fell through a series of individual actions. Here, . then, are strong indications that the Renaissance revenge tragedy is, in some v;ays, a continuation of medieval _ interests and is not necessarily a new and bizarre theme imported from Italy, : R. W. Chambers ' v;ork On the Continuity of English Prose has been criticized for failing to point out the possible continental sources of English mysticism and for overzealously tracing some rather dubious areas of continuity.'' This study, of course, may fall victim to similar criticisms. In addition, it may be seen as a study which denigrates the medieval period by showing that the L aud anticipates the Renaissance, as if all the literary products of the latter period were good and all those of the former, inferior. It should be noted, then, that the poem does not herald a coming Renaissance, particularly since it is not a first-rate v;ork. Rather, it is one phase of a changing representation of revenge v;hich ranges from chivalric romance in the alliterative Morte A rthure to drama in the Renaissance, As this study shows, the Laud has characteristics of both. This does not mean that the poem v/as a source of Renaissance drama or that it was

PAGE 136

128 even an influence. Obviously, Italian sources are responible for many aspects of the revenge tragedies, but native traditions, which this analysis of the Laud shov/s did exist, are also important factors. Because there are literary v;orks v;hich focus on revenge prior to the sixteenth century, the continental sources must be seen in part as amplifying and psychologizing a theme that v;as already of interest to medieval audiences. As in the case of the fifteenth century Italian Renaissance, the sources of certain phenomena of the English Renaissance stretch back into the preceding eras; but these sources are obscured in English literature by their inaccessibility and sometimes by their mediocrity. Although the Laud is not as great as the alliterative Horte Arthure or many of the revenge tragedies, it is an important link in the gradual development of the Renaissance representation of revenge.

PAGE 137

NOTES Harold Skulsky, "Revenge, Honor, and Conscience in Hamlet, " PMLA, LXXXV (1970), 8?. "Philip Edwards (ed,). The Spanish Tragedy (Carabridge, 1959), pp. l>:-lxi. Sir Gav;ain and the G reen Knip:ht , ed, by Sir Israel Gollancz, Early English Text Society, 210 (London, 19^0), /|. Theodore Silverstein, " Sir Gav;ain , Dear Brutus, and Britain's Fortunate Founding: A Study in Comedy and Convention," HP, LXII (196^-1965), 189-206. "v/illiam Mstthev/s (ed.). Medieval Se c ular Literature (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1955), p. 3^ 129

PAGE 138

APPENDICES

PAGE 139

I. SUMMARY OF THE LAUD TROY BOOK BY LINE NUMBER. 1-10^ Poet's introduction and statement of content. 105-378 Pelleus tricks Jason into seeking the Golden Eleece. 379-528 Jason sails to coast of Troy and encounters unfriendly reception by Lamedon, 529-II32 At Colkos, Jason falls in love v/itb Medea, wins the Golden Fleece, and returns to Thessaly. 1133-175'^Hercules, prompted by Jason, who v;ants revenge for Lanedon's insult, sails with a force to Troy and destroys it, 1755-189S Priam rebuilds Troy. 1897-2166 Priam decides on revenge and sends Antenor to ask for Hesione's return. 2167-2712 Antenor returns with news of his failure to secure Hesione and a report of insulting treatment at the hands of the Greeks, Priam holds a council with the lords of Troy, then with his ovm sons, and again with the lords. They decide to send Paris to raid Greece or to bring back a v;oman to exchange for Kesione, 271^-3067 Paris goes to Thithar-ie, steals Helen, and sacks the city. He returns to Troy, and after a 131

PAGE 140

132 triumphal entry, is married to Helen. 3068-32^1-2 The Greeks prepare for revenge. 32^3-3296 New introduction. Here begins the destruction of Troy. 3297-373^
PAGE 141

133 6363-6^92 The Greeks complain of Hector's strength, Agamemnon calls a council in which it is decided that Achilles v;ill kill Hector by trickery. 6493-7028 3rd Battle. Many encounters take place. The Greeks are put to flight and night ends the battle. 7029-7221 Priam holds a council to decide the fate of the prisoner Thoas, v;ho killed Cassibalne, 7222-7322 A storm causes the Greeks to lament their fate. 7323-7915 4th Battle. Hany are killed and maimed, Antenor is captured at the end of the battle, Polimodas weeps all night for his father's fate. 7917-8020 5th Battle. No specific encounters are recorded. Hector alone saves the Trojans from defeat. Night ends the battle, and there is great mourning, 8021-8208 The Greeks send messengers to Troy, v/ho are able to secure a three months' truce despite Hector's objections, 8209-8617 Description of the truce. Hector visits Achilles. Both sides refuse to let the two men fight in individual combat. 8518-9326 5th Battle. The troops are aligned on both sides and the Greek banners are described, A fierce battle ensues and Hector is v;ounded, Ke refuses to leave the battle, Achilles is

PAGE 142

134 wounded by Hector, Troilus and Diomedes meet, Achilles is wounded again by Hector, and night ends the battle, 9327-9^04 7th Battle. It lasts thirty days, but no specific encounters are related. Six of Hector's brothers are slain, and Hector is badly wounded, 9^05-9618 Priam demands a six months' truce. Hector recovers in the hall of Ilion, which is carefully described. Both sides bury their dead, , 9619-9803 3th Battle, Winter is gone. A terrible battle ensues. The Greeks are driven back. No specific encounters are related. Night ends the battle. Priam and all the lords and ladies bless Hector, 9804-9828 9th Battle, It lasts twelve days. No encounters are reported. 9829-9992 The Greeks ask for thirty days' truce. The narrator laments that Priam ever granted the truce, 9993-10351 Andromache dreams Hector v;ill die and attempts to stop him from going to battle, 10352-10972 10th Battle. Troilus encounters Diomedes. Achilles slays Hargariton. Hector rushes to battle. Many individual encounters are recorded, Achilles kills Hector and in turn is v/ounded by Odemon. Both armies retire.

PAGE 143

135 10973-11290 The Greeks rejoice. The Trojans mourn Hector's death. A tomb is prepared, and the body is preserved. 11291-11^88 Physicians care for Achilles, Agamemnon calls a council to plan strategy. Greeks ask for and receive a tivo months' truce. 11^89-11578 A new Greek council is called. Palamydes challenges Agamemnon and finally is given Greek leadership. 11579-11898 11th Battle. Priam leads the Trojans. Many encounters are reported. The Greeks unsuccessfully attempt to cut the Trojans off from the city. 11899-1225^ Priam secures a truce to bury Hector's body. Achilles sees Pollexena in the temple, falls in love with her, and arranges with Hecuba to marry her. 12255-12^i-52 Achilles calls a Greek council and unsuccessfully tries to persuade then to return home. Famine strikes the Greek camp, but supplies are secured. 12453-12828 12th Battle. Many individual encounters are reported. Dephebus, icortally wounded by Palamydes, urges Paris to kill the Greek leader. The Greek ships are burned. Heber and a servant beg Achilles to join the battle. Achilles is distraught. Night ends the battle.

PAGE 144

136 12829-12886 Dephebus dies. Greeks mourn Palamydes and elect Agamemnon again. 12887-12962 13th Battle. Troilus slays many, but rain ends the battle. 12965-15024 14th Battle. No individual encounters reported. Fighting lasts seven days, and the Greeks ask for a tv;o months' truce. I3025-I33I6 Agamemnon sends messengers to Achilles to persuade him to return to battle. The Greeks hold a council to decide their course of action. Calchas persuades them to stay, 13317-13368 15th Battle. Troilus revenges Hector's death by killing many. Might ends the battle. 15369-13512 16th Battle. Greeks prepare to revenge themselves. Troilus beats Diomedes in combat, but is ultimately v;ounded by Thelamaneus, Menelaus and Agamemnon are severely v;ounded, I3513-I36I8 The Greeks ask for and receive a six months' truce. Brixaida visits Diomedes, The truce entertainments are narrated. Achilles promises to send the Myrmidons to battle. 13619-13678 17th Battle. Achilles sends his men to battle. No specific encounters are reported. Night ends the battle. 13679-1384-6 18th Battle. Many encounters are reported, Troilus is captured by the Myrmidons, but rescued by Paris,

PAGE 145

157 15919-15980 19th Battle. It lasts seven days. The Greeks ask for a long truce. The Trojans grant only time to bury the dead, 15981-14288 20th Battle. Many specific encounters are related. The Trojans overrun the Greek camp. After learning the fugitives' tale, Achilles rushes to battle, encounters Troilus, and is v/ounded. Night ends the battle. 14289-1^560 Troilus reports Gryme G\7ynel's death and Achilles' return to battle, Priam blames Hecuba for encouraging Follexena's match with Achilles. 14561-14568 21st Battle. It lasts seven days. Agamemnon asks for a six months' truce. 14569-14644 Achilles is nursed to health and sv/ears revenge on Troilus. 14645-14998 22nd Battle. Achilles instructs his soldiers to surround Troilus, v/hich they do, and Achilles slays him and drags the corpse around the battlefield. Mennon insults Achilles to give the Trojans time to recover the body. Night ends the battle. I4999-I505O The Trojans mourn for Troilus, while the Greeks rejoice. 15051-15250 25rd Battle. On the seventh day of this battle, Achilles is well enough to fight. He slays Mennon, The Trojans flee. There is

PAGE 146

138 general mourning in Troy, 15231-15053 Priam asks for a truce. A tomb for Troilus is built, Hecuba with Paris plans revenge on Achilles, and Paris slays him in the temple. The Greeks hold a council, deciding ultimately to continue the siege, Ajax suggests the Greeks send for Pirrus, 1565^-159^16 2^th Battle, Many specific encounters are related, Paris and Ajax kill each other. The Trojans flee. Paris' body is brought to Helen and then buried. Trojans remain within the city v/alls. 159^7-16064 Penthesilea arrives. Her background ia narrated^ I6C65-I6323 25th Battle. Penthesilea leads the Trojans, Many specific encounters are related, but she is heroine of the day. Night ends the battle, 1632/4—16406 Priam honors Penthesilea, 16407-16452 26th Battle, An extended battle ensues until finally both sides agree to stop and bury the dead. . , . 16453-16616 The Greeks send Menelaus for Pirrus, He ' comes to the camp, assuming the duty for avenging his father's death. 16617-16988 27th Battle. After several specific encounters, Penthesilea and Pirrus meet, Pirrus is bested. 16989-17039 28th Battle. It lasts four weeks. Ten thousand knights are slain.

PAGE 147

139 170^0-17070 During this truce before the last battle, the narrator foretells disaster. 17071-17228 29th Battle. Penthesilea v/ounds Pirrus, but is ultimately killed by him. The Trojans flee. The Greeks surround the city. Penthesilea 's body is thrcvni into a lake, 17229-17^^2 The traitors — Anchises, Aeneas, Antenor, Polidomas — plot the overthrow of Troy. They go to Priam with their false plan for peace. I7443-I75O8 Priam and Amphimacus plot to murder the traitors. Aeneas hears of the plot and successfully stops it. 17509-17584 The Trojan council decides to sue for peace. Antenor is lov/ered from the v;all. 17585-17680 Antenor negotiates with the Greeks his plan to betray the city. I768I-I7756 Priam holds a council to hear of Antenor' s arrangements v/ith the Greeks, Antenor falsely tells the council that the Greeks are willing to make peace. 17757-17898 Antenor and Aeneas go to the Greeks and bring back Ulixes and Diomedes to announce the terms of the peace, A terrible noise is heard, Antenor tells the Greeks Troy can't be taken until the Palladium is removed. He has plana for its removal. 17399-18022 Antenor tel.ls the council the terras of the

PAGE 148

140 false peace, and subsequently bribes a priest. There are foreboding signs on the altar when sacrifice is made. The Greeks make a horse of brass, and the allies of the Trojans depart. I8O23-I8I34 The Palladium is stolen. Greeks and Trojans swear to maintain a peace. The horse of brass is offered as a gift to the goddess Pallas, whose image the Greeks have stolen. 18135-18386 Greeks sail out of the harbor. Sinon and his knights climb out of the horse at night and signal the Greek fleet. Troy is sacked and burned. . 18387-186^9 The Greeks convene to divide the spoils. Pirrus sacrifices Pollexena, and Kecuba is stoned to death. 18&50-18664 The Poet asks for a blessing.

PAGE 149

o H o EH Oi o EH W EH H H

PAGE 150

142

PAGE 151

143 o 3 a o o H H o •H •P •H 13 CO &^ w 6) ^ CO R I 03 P o •H P o •H •H to EH O •H a> E3 O -P o o ai 'd o CQ •H P< O 01 •H .a p. o p 0} o p

PAGE 152

144

PAGE 153

1^5 g H •P a o o M H

PAGE 154

146 P!

PAGE 155

III. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Atv/ood, E, Bagby. "The Rav/linson Exc idium Troie ; A Study of Source Problems in Mediaeval Troy Literature," S peculu m, IX (193^), 379-^04. Indicates that the Troy story v/as primarily a literary tradition and that classical versions v;ere knovra to medieval writers. . , and Virgil K. \ifhitaker (eds.). Excidium Troiae. Cambridge, Mass., 19^. Introduction contains infoi-mation about non-English versions of the story, indicates the classical aspects of the E xcid ium, and links it to the Seege . Baugh, Albert G. "The Authorship of the Middle English Romances," The Modem fluraanities R es earch Asso ciation , XXII (1950), 13-28. The authorship of the Laud is probably clerical, Constans, Leopold (ed,). L e Roman de Troie » par Eenolt de Seinte-Maure, Societe des Anciens Textes Francais. 6 vols. Paris, 1904-1912. Introduction contains a discussion of differences betv/een Benolt, and Dictys and Dare. Gist, Margaret A. Love and War in the Middle English Romances. Philadelphia, 19^<-7. Thematic study designating the aspects of love and war in the romances. Uses many 147

PAGE 156

146 examples from the Laud as evidence of raore general statecents. Gordon, George. "The Trojans in Britain," E ssays & Studies , IX (1924), 9-30. Traces the legend from Nennius to the Polychronicon, No mention of the Laud . Important for an understanding of social effects of legend. Griffin, Nathaniel. Dictys and Dares; An Intro duc tion to the Study of the Medieval Story of Troy . Baltimore, 1907. Discusses composition and reputation of Dictys-Dares versions, .i, . "The Un-nomeric Elements in the Medieval Story of Troy," Journal of Eng:lish and Germanic Philology , VII (1908), 32-52. Indicates the major differences between the Dictys-Dares tradition and the Homeric. Clearly shows the anti-Homeric attitude in the former tradition, Hinton, N.D. "A Study of the Middle English Poems Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of Wisconsin, 1957. Interprets the Laud as a romance. Lists criteria of the romances and shows how these elements are present in the Laud . Indicates the dialect is probably that of the extreme northwest corner of the northv/est Midlands. Discussion of dialect is longer than any other, but still lacks careful analysis. Shows differences between medieval Eiiglish versions of the fourteenth century. Hof strand, George. The Seeg e of T roye: A Study in the Inte rtcxtual Re lations o.f the Middle E:i glish Romance the See^ie or Bata yle of Troye . Lund, 1935. Thinks the

PAGE 157

149 dialect is east Midlands, Norfolk or Suffolk, not far from the Wash, No systematized analysis offered. Thinks the primary difference between the Laud and the Gest is poetic imagination, Kane, George, Middle Eng:lish Literature . London, 1951. Short assessment based on opinion. Judges Laud the best of second rate romances, Kempe, Dorothy, "A Middle English Tale of Troy," Englis che Studien, XXIX (1901), 1-26. Good introductory study. Indicates the state of the FiS. Hypothesizes Guide as the primary source. Emphasizes the references to medieval life as the most important element in the poem. Luraiansky, R.M, "The Story of Troilus and Briseida in the Laud Tr oy Book ," Modem Laneiuape 'Quarterly , XVII (1956), 238-246. Tries to account for Laud poet's failure to use the Troilus story. Concludes that the story v/ould have detracted from Hector's character, which v/as the poet's central concern. Calls for a thorough linguistic study to establish the date of the poem, Matthews, William. The Tragedy of Ar thur. Berkeley and Los Angeles, I960. A study of the alliterative Morte Arthure . Shows the anti-war sentiment and the focus on revenge by comparing the poem to other Arthurian v;orks. Particularly relevant to this study is the chapter containing a sumnary of medieval attitudes to revenge in the areas of politics, theology, and law. Indicates the Morte Arthure is a tragedy of fortune.

PAGE 158

150 Parsons, A.E, "The Trojan Legend in England," Modern Languag^e Review , XXIV (1929), 255-264, 39^-^08. Delineates the relationship betv;een the legend and politics. Root, R.K. Review of The Laud Troy Book , edited by J. Ernst Wulfing, Journal of English and Germanic Philology , V (1903-1905), 367-368. Praises the edition. Disparages the Laud , Wood, Gordon R. "The Middle English Alliterative Destruction of Troy ; A Critical Study," Diss. Princeton, 1952. A comparison of the Gest , Lydgate's Troy Book , and the Laud in terms of their differences as translations of Guide. Assumption that the Laud is a translation obscures many differences between it and the other two works. Wulfing, J. Ernst. "Das Bild und de Bildliche Verneinung Im Laud Troy-Eook ," Anglia , new series, X\^ (190^), 555-580 and XVI (1905), 29-80. Thorough listing of the similes and metaphors in the poem. No interpretation of their relationship to the total v/ork, . " Das Laud Troy-Book ," Englische Studi en, XXIX (1901), 37^-396. A good introductory study evaluating Dorothy Kempe's article and commenting on the state of the MS, the dialect, and the source. Hypothesizes that the poet used a French version of the Troy legend and that he knev; Guido, Benott, and Statius. Indicates the dialect is northeast Midlands, _ (ed,). The. La ud Troy Book, Early English

PAGE 159

151 Text Society, 121, 122. London, 1902-1903. The only text of the poem available. Lacking introduction, notes, and glossary. Transcription is generally good. Punctuation, especially quotation marks, is misleading.

PAGE 160

BIBLIOGR-i^LPHY Artz, Frederick B, The Hind of the Middle Apes . 3rd edition revised. Hew York, 1958» Atv;ood, E. Bagby, and Virgil K. V/hitaker (eds,), Excidiura Troiae . Cambridge, Mass., 19^. Battenhouse, Roy. Shakespeare's Tragedy; Its Art and Its C hristian Premises . Bloomington, 1969. Bamicle, Mary E. (ed.). The See!3:e or Batayle of T roye , Early English Text Society, 172. London, 1^27. Benson, Larry A. "The Alliterative Morte Arthure and Medieval Tragedy," Tennessee Studies in Literature , XI (1965), 75-87. Bov;ers, Fredson. Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy, 1587-16^2 . Princeton, l^^W. ' Brewer, D.S. Review of The Poetr y of John Lvdgate , by Alain Renoir, Speculum, }JLrv C1969;, 317-318. Brock, Edmund (ed.). Hort e Arthure; or, the Death of Arthur, Early LYiglish Text Society, 8. London, 1871. Chapnan, Raymond, "The V.T^eel of Fortune in Shakespeare's History Plays," Review of English Studies , new series I (1950), 1-7. Chancer, vjeoffrey. T he Conplete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Edited by Fred N. Robinson^ 5nd edition. Boston, 1957. Constans, Leopold (ed,). Le Roman de Tr oie, par Benott d e Saint e-Ma ure , Soci^tfe' des Anciens Te^rbes Francais. 6 vols. "Paris, 190^'-1912. * Edwards, Philip (ed.). The S panish Tragedy . Cambridge, Mass., 1959. Esler, Carol C. "Joseph of Exeter's Bellum Troia num ; A Literary Study and English Translation," Diss, Eryn Mav;r College, 1966. 152

PAGE 161

153 Evans, Sebastian (trans, and ed.). Histories of the Kings o f Britain T by Geoffrey of Konm.ou tb. Nev/ York, 1911. Everett, Dorothy. "A Characterization of the English Medieval Romances," Essays & Studies^ XV (1929), 98-121. Farnham, Willard. The Medieval Heritage of Elizabethan Tragedy . Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1936. French, W.H. and C.B, Hale (eds.). Middle English Metrical Romances . Nev/ York, 1930. Gist, Margaret, Love and "Var in the Middle Englis h Ronances . Philadelphia, 19^7. Gollancz, Sir Israel (ed.). Sir Gav/ain and the Green Knight . Early English Text Society, 210. London, 19^. Gordon, George. "The Trojans in Britain," Essays & Studies « IX (192/+), 9-30. Gov;er, John. "Confessio Acantis," T he Comn l ete V/orks of John Go v;er. Edited by George C. Macaulay. Oxford, 1899-1902. Griffin, Nathaniel. Dictys and Dares : An Introduct ion t o the Study of the Medieval Story of Troy. Baltimore, 1907. ( e d , ) . Guido de Columni s, H isto ria destruct ionis Troi ae. Cambridge, Mass., 1936. (ed.). ''The Sege of Troy," Publications of the Modern Language Association , XXII (1907), 157200. . "The Un-Homeric Elements in the Medieval Story of Troy," Journal of English and Germanic Philology, VII (1908T, 32-52. Harrison, G.S. (ed.). Shake spear e : The Complete Works. New York, 19^. "~ Hartman, Geoffrey. "Structuralism: The Anglo-American adventure," Structuralism. Edited by Jacques Ehrmann. Garden City, New York, 1970. Haskins, Charles Homer. The Renaissance of the Tv/elftb Century. Cambridge, Mass., T§57, Hearsey, Marguerite (ed.). The Complaint of He nry, Du ke of B uckj.ngham . Nev; Haven, 1936.

PAGE 162

15^ Heer, Friedrich. The Medieval V/orld: Europe 1100-1330 . Hew York, 1962. Hey\-;ood, Thomas. "The Iron Age, Parts I and II," The Dramatic V/orks of Thomas He^nvood, III. London, 1874. Troia Britannica: _Pr, Great Brita ines Troy , London, 1609. Kinton, N.D. "A Study of the Middle English Poems Relating to the Destruction of Troy," Diss. Univ. of V/isconsin, 1957. Hoccleve, Thomas, "III. The Regement of Princes," Hoccleve's V/orks . Edited^'by Frederick J, Purnivall, Early English Text Society, extra series 72. London, 1897. Hof strand, G. The Se e gre of Troye: A Study in the Intertextual Relations of the Middle English Roman ce the Seege or Batayle of Troye . Lund, 1956. Hollister, C. V/arren (ed.). The Tv.-elfth Century Renaissance . New York, 1969. Horstmann, Carl. Barbour's des schottischen National dichters^ Legendensammlung nebst den Frae:nenten seines Tro.janerk reiges, II. Heilbronn, 1881. 255ff. Jarrett, Bede, Social Theories of the Middle Ages 12001300 . Westminster, Maryland, 1942, Jusserand, J.J. The English Novel in the T ime of Shakesp eare . Translated by Elizabeth Lee. London, 1890. Kane, George. Middle English Literature . London, 1951. Keeler, Laura. Geof frey of Monmouth and the Late La tin Chroniclers I3OO -I5O O. Los Angeles and Berkeley, 1946. Kempe, Dorothy. "A Middle English Tale of Trov," En glisc he Stud i en, XXIX (1901), 1-26. Kratins, Ojars, "The Middle English Amis and Amiloun ; Chivalric Romance or Secular Hagiography?" P ubli cations of the Modem Langu age As soc iation , LXXXI (1966), "547-354. Lefevre, Raoul. The Recuyell of the H ist cry es of Troye. Translated by V/illiam Gaxton. Edited by H.O. Sommer. 2 vols. London, 1894.

PAGE 163

155 Luraiansky, R.M. "The Story of Troilus and Briseida in ^he Laud Troy Book ," Modern Langu age Quarterly. XVII (1956), 258-2^6. ^ ^' Lydgate, John. Lydgate's Troy Book . Edited by Henry Bergen. Early English Text Society, extra series 97, 105, 106, 126. London, 1906-1935. Matthews, William. The Tragedy of Arthur . Berkeley and Los Angeles, I960. ' (ed.). Medieval Secular Literature . Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965. Mroz, Mary Bonaventure. Divine Vengeance: Philosophical Backgrounds of the Revenge Motif in Shakespeare's Chronicle History Plays . Washington, B.C., 1941. Muller, Herbert. The Uses of the Past . New York, 1952. Muscatine, Charles. Chaucer and the French Tradition . Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1957. ~ Panton, George A. and David Donaldson (eds.). The Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy . Early English Text Society, 39, 56. London, 1869-187^. Patch, Howard R. The Goddess Fortuna in Medieval Literature. Cambridge, Mass., 1927. Parsons, A.E. "The Trojan Legend in England," Mode m Language Review ^ XXIV (1929), 253-264, 394-408. Riddehough, Geoffrey B. "A Forgotten Poet: Joseph of 5?^*®^»" Journal of English and Germanic Philology. XLVi (1947), 254-259. ^^ Robertson, D.W., Jr., "Chaucerian Tragedy," Jour nal of English Literary History ^ XIX (1952), I-37. Root, R.K. Review of The Laud Troy Book , edited by J. Ernst Wiilfing, J ournal of English and G ermanic Philology . V ( 1903-1905), 367-368. Schirmer, Walter F. "The Importance of the Fifteenth Century for the Study of the English Renaissance with Special Reference to Lydgate," English Studies Todaj;. Edited by C.L. Wrenn and G. Bullough. London, 1951. 104-110. Severs, J. Burke (ed.). "The Troy Legend," A Manual of the Writings in Middle English. 1050-1 5UgT: — ITiw Haven, Conn., 1967. 114-118. ^

PAGE 164

156 Silverstsin, Theodore, "Sir G av7ain , Dear Brutus, and Britain's Fortunate Founding: A Study in Comedy and Convention," I^odern Philology , LXII (196^1965), 189-206. Skulsky, Harold. "Revenge, Honor, and Conscience in Hamlet , " Publications of the Modern Language Association , LXXXV, (1970). 78-87. Trevelyan, G.M. England in the Age of Wy cliffe. New York, 1909. Valpy, A.J. (ed.). Dictys Cretensis et Dares Phrygiua De bello Tro.jan o, II. London, 1825. Wood, Gordon R. "The Kiddle English Alliterative Destruc tion of Troy ; A Critical Study," Diss. Princeton, 1952. Wulfing, J. Ernst. "Das Bild und de Bildliche Verneinung Lm Laud Troy-Book ," Anglia , new series XV (190^), 555-580 and XVI (1905), 29-80. "Das L aud T roy-Book," Englische Studien , XXIX (190lTri7^i^^3^7 (ed.). The Laud Troy Book , Early English Text Society, 121, 122. London, 1902-1903.

PAGE 165

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sharon Lynn Stevenson vras bom August 28, 1941, at Malvern, Iowa. In June, 1959, she was graduated from Glenwood High School. In June, 1963, she received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with a major in English and Speech from Tarkio College. In August, 1965, she received the degree of Master of Arts with a major in English from the University of West Virginia, ^om 1965 to 1967 she worked in the Putnam County School system at the junior high and junior college levels. In 1967 she enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida. She worked as a teaching assistant in the Department of Comprehensive English from September, 1967, to April, 1970. From April, 1970, to August, 1970, she held an NDEA fellowship. Prom August, 1970, to the present time she has pursued her work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Sharon is married to Blaine W. Stevenson II. and is the mother of one child. She is a member the Mediaeval Academy and the Mo*«?n Language Association.

PAGE 166

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Richard A. Dwyer, Chaiijman Associate Professor of English I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforras to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, John ^, Algeo Y\ Professor of Englrish and Assistant Dean of the Graduate School I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Clsude PC. Abraham Professor of French I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, •^^ ^.•-_ .:/ /4c <:c', ri ' V/ard Hellstrom Associate Professor of English

PAGE 167

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ^ ^ p;>'?^^ Kevin M. McCarthy Assistant Professor of English This dissertation v;as submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 1971 Dean, College of Arts Sciences Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 168

\