John C. Ford

Metatextual evidence of a relationship between the Anglo-Norman version of Amys e Amilliyoun in ms Karlsruhe 345 andthe Middle English text of Amis and Amiloun in ms AuchinleckW. 4. 1

Introduction

It has long been recognised that the Middle Englishversion of Amis and Amiloun has much in common with its Anglo-Norman predecessors in terms of content and style. Althoughversions of the story occur in almost every language of Europe,the parallels between the English and Anglo-Norman versions areso striking that they have often been linked together as asingle group. As MacEdward Leach once stated : « The proof isthere that the English is a translation or redaction of aversion very close to the KLC group, and that consequently theEnglish and the KLC group must be considered as a unit.1» Whilethis paper supports Leach’s general view, its specific aim isto draw attention to the particularly close relationshipbetween the English version of the story in ms Auchinleck (A)and the Anglo-Norman version of the story in ms Karlsruhe (C).The evidence provided here relies not so much on textualanalysis (though such evidence does exist and will be touched

1 MacE. LEACH, ed. & intro., Amis and Amiloun, Early English Text Society, o.s., 203,1937, p. xcvii. The KLC group refers to the Anglo-Norman (AN) manuscriptsCambridge, London and Karlsruhe respectively, described more fully below. Notethe rather confusing traditional labelling of Cambridge as ms K and Karlsruheas ms C.

upon) as it does on the wealth of metatextual evidence providedin the manuscripts.

The metatext can be defined as the aggregate of thoseelements held to be « behind » or « outside » of the text,either because they have traditionally been consideredincidental, secondary or merely decorative in nature2. Medievalpunctuation, illumination, the mise-en-page, and rubrication ordecoration of letters fall under the heading. However, giventhe individual nature of manuscripts, it is surprising that themetatext has not been the focus of more study. The layout ofthe page, the use or omission of line breaks and stanzas, thedecorations accompanying a text and the signalling of sectionsby use of punctuation or decoration certainly tell us muchabout what the author or scribe thought of his work. Suchconsiderations appear all the more important when one considersthat, like the scribal hand or accompanying marginalia, themetatext can and does vary from manuscript to manuscript. Withsuch considerations in mind, it would seem that the metatextshould be equal in value to palaeography, which can help todate or localise a text, or marginalia, which might giveinsight to the impressions of the author, scribe or readers.Its importance might even eclipse other supra-textualconsiderations when one identifies instances of the metatextbeing transmitted along with the text from witness to witness.

Nevertheless, despite longstanding recognition of thevalue of palaeo-graphy, codicology, and marginalia, themetatext has largely been neglected in manuscript studies. Inmodern editions, medatextual evidence tends to be consideredindependently of the text (e.g. illumination) or often ignoredentirely (punctuation). Only recently have scholars seen thevalue in systema-tically noting rubrication or decoration inmodern editions, and even then such elements are often omittedin the apparatus showing variants in critical editions. Indeed,lack of an edition indicating Karlsruhe’s decorated letters

2 I would like to credit Professor Daniel O’Donnell for coming up with such aconcise definition of the metatext.

2

meant that the present study would have been impossible withoutdirectly consulting the manuscript. However, such aconsultation reveals that the degree of correlation betweenAuchinleck’s rubricated letters and Karlsruhe’s decoratedcapitals surpasses the bounds of mere coincidence, especiallywhen compared with the lack of correlation in other Anglo-Norman versions. This conclusion seems particularly apt whenone considers the known history of the manuscripts concernedand their established relationship to each other, as explainedbriefly below.

The manuscripts concerned

§ The Middle English versions

Four Middle English versions of the legend survive :

A) Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, ms AuchinleckW.4.1. (Advocates’ 19.2.1), ff. 48vb-61va.S) London, British Library, ms Egerton 2862, ff. 135ra-147vb.D) Oxford, Bodleian Library, ms Douce 326 (Bodleian 21900), ff.1ra-13vb.H) London, British Library, ms Harley 2386, ff. 131ra-137vb and138r.

Of these, the Auchinleck version is generally consideredto be the best of the Middle English (ME) versions, despite thecomplete or partial loss of 209 lines through mutilation3. The3 The object of these cuttings was apparently to plunder the illuminations. Asa result, all of 48rb and 48va are lost as is the first half of 48vb. Similarcutting has likewise rendered only the first to third letters in column 61ralegible, while all of 61rb and 61va are lost, as is the first half of the lineson 61vb. As 49ra begins with stanza 9 (line 97), and the text is generallyarranged in parallel columns of 44 lines per page, one can surmise that thefirst nine lines of the poem were on 48vb, the rest of the column being taken

3

text is written in a neat, uniform hand with no notable scribalpeculiarities. It was obviously copied quite carefully, theonly notable error being the omission of stanza 177 (lines2113–2124). Based on palaeographic evidence, it is alsoconsidered the earliest of the extant Middle English versions,dating from the second quarter of the fourteenth century4.

Loomis further demonstrates that Auchinleck isundoubtedly the closest to the original translation. She drawsattention to Möller’s 1917 thesis in which some 595 lines ofAmis and Amiloun are shown to parallel the phraseology of thestanzaic Guy of Warwick found in the same manuscript. The factthat so many of these lines are reproduced in subsequentversions of Amis and Amiloun suggests that they must have been inthe original. Since this version of Guy was producedspecifically for Auchinleck5, she argues that the originaltranslation of Amis and Amiloun must have been produced at aboutthe same time, and the existing Auchinleck version copieddirectly from it. As Loomis notes :

No other text is consistently so close to the stanzaic Guy,and this is precisely what we should expect if Amis, A, was thefirst, and so, presumably, the closest copy of the originalEnglish version. In the nature of things it can hardly have beenanything else, for the original cannot have been composed untilthe stanzaic Guy was complete, and the stanzaic Guy ... wasspecifically made for the Auchinleck6.

Thus, Loomis establishes that the original translationwas something of a « rough draft » produced in the sameup by illumination. Thus, lines 1-53 and 2441 - 2508 are lost completely, whilelines 54-97, and 2397 - 2440 are partially lost.4 LEACH, p. xc; The Auchinleck Manuscript – National Library of Scotland Advocates’ ms 19.2.1, edand intro. Derek PEARSALL and I. C. CUNNINGHAM, London, Scholars’ Press, 1977, p.vii.5 Laura H. LOOMIS, The Auchinleck Manuscript and a Possible London Bookshop of1330-1340, in PMLA, 57, no. 3, 1942, pp. 595-627 (p. 621); Wilhelm MÖLLER,Untersuchen über Dialect und Stil des me. ‘Guy of Warwick’ in der Auch. Handschrift u. über das Varhältnisdes strophischen Teiles des ‘Guy’ zu der me. ‘Amis and Amiloun’, Königsberg, 1917, p. 87.6 LOOMIS, p. 621.

4

bookshop as Auchinleck, and, apart from a few scribal errors,was very nearly identical in content to Amis and Amiloun. Since «these Auchinleck romances were copied from texts of trans-lators,of workers with texts, not with tradition or invention7», thereseems no reason to dismiss her claim or to believe that thescribe of the Auchinleck manuscript did any significantrewriting. It therefore appears that Auchinleck is the versionmost nearly mirroring the original translation, and given theevidence mentioned above concerning the care of the Auchinleckscribe, ms A is undoubtedly the closest existing manuscript tothe English original. For such reasons it is the naturalchoice for anyone wishing to examine the probabletranslation/redaction methods originally employed.

§ The Anglo-Norman versions

For its part, the Anglo-Norman (AN) version of the storyexists in three manuscripts :

K) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 50, ff. 94vb-102ra.L) London, British Library Royal 12. C. XII, ff. 69ra-76rb.C) Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek 345 (olim Durlac 38),ff. 52ra-61vb.

By all accounts, the Cambridge account is believed to bethe oldest of the three AN versions. Kölbing believes it couldnot have been written much after 12008, but based on more recentevidence, Fukui and Leach (among others) date it more towardsthe second half of the century9. Chronologically, ms London isthe second of the three AN versions to emerge. Based on the7 Ibid., p. 607.8 ’Amis and Amiloun’ : zugleich mit der altfranzösischen Quelle, ed. and intro. Eugene KÖLBING,Altenglisch Bibliothek, 2, Heilbron, 1884, p. lxxv.9 Amys e Amillyoun, ed. H. FUKUI, ANTS 7, 1990, p. 1; LEACH, p. xc. Their assessmenttends to be generally accepted.

5

script, a neat textura hand written in double columns, Fukuijudges it to have been written around the turn of the 14thcentury, shortly before the assembly of the volume between 1320and 133010. It does not deviate significantly from the Cambridgeversion, and due to its availability through the Plain TextSeries of the Anglo-Norman Text Society, it is usually thepreferred of the two synoptic versions for academic study.

The Karlsruhe Manuscript is the most recent AN version ofthe story, dating from the end of the thirteenth century11. Ithas generally been considered as inferior to the other twoversions in terms of literary quality, demonstrating manycorrupted readings, and at some points scholars have evenquestioned the scribe’s competence in French. It is alsoseverely damaged, the central battle scene and the ending ofthe poem being com-pletely lost. It is significantly differentfrom the earlier versions, having « not only a considerableamount of rewriting, but also numerous and sometimes lengthyinterpolations.12» For these reasons, very little attention hastraditionally been paid to Karlsruhe, and no published editionof the poem exists outside of Kölbing’s apparatus in his 1884edition. These deviations are, however, significant in thatthey show an evident parallel with the later English versionsnot only in terms of content, but – as this paper willdemonstrate – also in terms of the visual clues used by theKarlsruhe and Auchinleck scribes in subdividing and sequencingthe narrative’s episodic divisions.

Manuscript evidence of a relationship between mss Auchinleckand Karlsruhe

10 FUKUI, p. 1.11 Ibid., p. 1.12 Ibid., p. 1.

6

In addition to the textual evidence examined elsewhere13,some of the most compelling evidence for the close relationshipbetween Auchinleck and Karlsruhe comes from a simple comparisonof the placement of rubrication in the former with theornamented letters marking the beginning of a laisse in thelatter. The importance of such a comparison stems directly froma change in the way in which the laisse was employed. In OldFrench literature, a laisse consisted of an undetermined numberof lines which assonated together, as in the Chanson de Roland, orindeed the continental Old French version of Ami et Amile. Thebeginning of a new laisse was often indicated by the use of adecorated letter or rubrication at the beginning of the firstline of the new section. By the time the Anglo-Norman versionswere produced, however, assonance had been replaced by rhymingcouplets, and the laisse form itself was simply retained as aconvention. Rather than indicating any change in verse pattern,the laisse divisions came to mark turns in the development ofthe narrative. Not surprisingly, various redactors frequentlydivided their own version of the same story differently. Forexample, of the eighty-one decorated letters in Karlsruhe, onlythree correspond to decorations in both London and Cambridge interms of narrative placement14. These are also the only placeswere Cambridge and London accord together, each manuscriptcontaining three more decorated letters later in thenarrative15.

In the Middle English twelve-line tail-rhyme stanza, theverse structu-re used in Amis and Amiloun, a visual break normally

13 An exhaustive examination of the textual evidence supporting the relationshipof Auchinleck’s version of Amis and Amiloun to the traditions of all three extantAN versions as well as the continental French version can be found in J. Ford’sunpublished thesis: From Poésie to Poetry: Remaniement and Medieval Techniques of French-to-English Translation of Verse Romance, Glasgow, 2000.14 These are : C 19 – L 1/K 1; C 229 – L 153/K 151; C 321 – L181/K 179. 15 London has decorated letters at the beginning of these lines : 1, 153, 181,207, 547, 777; Cambridge, on the other hand, has decorated letters at thebeginning of these lines : 1, 151, 179, 187, 797, 1043. As noted above, thefirst three examples from each occur in the same place in terms of narrativedevelopment; the last three of each, however, do not.

7

occurred at the end of each twelfth line16. In many respects,each stanza could be considered as an encapsulation of aparticular development, much as a paragraph in a modern prosenarrative. In this situation, rubrication or letter decorationcould be used to separate an undetermined series of stanzasfrom another (much like a chapter division), each group beingdedicated to the full development of a complete episode. Again,various authors might decide to divide the same narrativedifferently. It is therefore interesting to note theconsistency with which the rubricated letters in Auchinleckcorrespond to the placement of decorated letters in Karlsruhe.Of the twenty-five instances of identifiable rubrication inAuchinleck17, fifteen of them fall at the same place in thenarrative where a decorated letter is found in Karlsruhe 18. Thatis to say, Auchinleck’s rubricated letters occur at thebeginning of the same episodic divisions or subdivisions whereKarlsruhe has a decorated letter indicating the beginning of alaisse19.

Until recently, such a comparison has not been possibledue to Kölbing’s omission of such details in his apparatus and

16 In Auchinleck this is indicated by a symbol reminiscent of a modern paragraphmark to the left of the first line of each new stanza.17 These occur at ll. 133, 337, 409, 517,613, 673, 721, 901, 973, 1009, 1105,1141, 1189, 1249, 1297, 1453, 1501, 1525, 1573, 1633, 1197, 2053, 2101, 2197,2365. Leach’s edition also notes a 26th rubricated letter at the beginning ofline 2425, but as this line is supplied from the Sutherland manuscript, it ishere excluded.18 For the sake of easy reference, these occur at Auchinleck ll. 133, 337, 517,613, 901, 973, 1009, 1105, 1249, 1453, 1501, 1573, 1633, 1197, 2053,corresponding to Karlsruhe ll. 53, 263, 393, 445, 689, 767, 785, 843, 947,1222, 877, 1280, 1318, 1594, 1730 respectively.19 This number rises to sixteen if one assumes that ms A 1 was both rubricatedand corresponds to ms S 1, the text which Leach used to supply Auchinleck’smissing or damaged lines in his edition. This is most likely the case, as thefew letters still existing on the cut pages of Auchinleck correspond with thefirst few letters on the Sutherland lines which replace them. In such asituation, a hypothesised rubricated « F» of ms A 1 would correlate with thedecorated « Q» of ms C 19.

8

a lack of any edition of Karlsruhe20. However, a carefulexamination of the version of Amis and Amiloun in ms Karlsruhereveals that there are 81 decorated letters marking thebeginning of each of the 81 laisses21. By using this informationwith Leach’s indication of rubrication in his edition ofAuchinleck, such an exami-nation is now possible.

Methodology

As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this paperis not to provide a textual or literary analysis of the variousversions of Amis and Amiloun, but only to demonstrate therelationship between the Middle English version and the Anglo-Norman version in ms Karlsruhe as evidenced by the correlationof decorated capitals and rubrication. Such an examination willcertainly pave the way for further research addressing therelative narrative importance of scenes so linked, and serve asa steppingstone for researchers interested in the methods usedby the translator in producing the ME version. The « hows andwhys » of such procedures, however, are outwith the scope ofthis examination. To address such points here would unduly drawattention away from the metatextual evidence, already soovershadowed by purely literary analyses that it haseffectively been ignored completely. Nevertheless, this

20 Kölbing does indicate the decorated letters of the Cambridge manuscript,which served as his base text, but omitted such indications in respect toLondon or Karlsruhe. The London laisse breaks, however, are indicated inFukui’s edition. 21 The eighty-one decorated letters marking the beginning of a new laisse inKarlsruhe occur at the beginning of the following lines : 1, 19, 53, 67, 91,127, 155, 187, 211, 263, 273, 291, 299, 313, 321, 329, 351, 393, 433, 445, 469,529, 553, 565, 583, 629, 645, 689, 711, 741, 757, 767, 785, 811, 827, 843, 877,913, 947, 977, 987, 1013, 1032, 1048, 1068, 1094, 1130, 1166, 1204, 1222, 1248,1260, 1280, 1292, 1306, 1318, 1328, 1342, 1356, 1384, 1387, 1414, 1456, 1474,1490, 1504, 1510, 1524, 1542, 1556, 1566, 1578, 1594, 1622, 1636, 1656, 1672,1684, 1698, 1730, 1744.

9

metatextual evidence will certainly be of value to theresearchers interested in the hows and whys, but in order forthat to be possible, it must first be examined in its ownright.

Given the empirical nature of this examination, it isobviously best to proceed in as straightforward a manner aspossible. For that reason, the evidence provided below ispresented in what is essentially an outline form. Followingtheir order of appearance in the narrative, each point ofcorrelation is examined in its turn. As briefly as possible,these examples are set in context, especially where there seemsto be some slight deviation in the narrative due toreinterpretation by the translator. Overall, however, theexamples should speak for themselves; for this reason, enoughof the lines following the correlations are included so thatthe entire context of the passages can be gathered. Given thedifferences in the verse styles described in Section III(above) and the translator’s rather free treatment of material,this does occasionally produce some rather lengthy citations asthe versions do not line up in neat columns of parallel textswith line-to-line correspon-dences. Such lengthy quotations aretherefore absolutely necessary to establish that thecorrelations cited do indeed introduce the same episodicdevelopments in the two renderings of the narrative.

Examination of the evidence: fifteen correlations ofrubrication with decorated capitals

The first of these occurrences prefaces a portion of thenarrative which describes how close Amis and Amiloun becomewhile boys at their lord’s court:

Ms A 133 (-44):

10

Þus war þo hende childer, ywis,Child Amiloun & child Amis,In court frely to fed,To ride an hunting vnder riis;Ouer al þe lond þan were þai priis& worþiest in wede.So wele þo children loued hem þo,Nas neuer children loued hem so,Noiþer in word no in dede;Bitvix hem tvai, of blod & bon,Trewer loue nas neuer non,In gest as so we rede.

Ms C 53 (-60):Cil dui vallet, dont voil parler,Taunt ce pristrent entreamer,A si forte fraternitéQue de quanque furunt unques né.Ne fu trové si leal amour,Ne pur leauté si grand dolour,De tote maneris de encumbrers,Cum avent a cé chivalers.

These examples, incidentally, also recount a developmentin the narrative that appears only in Karlsruhe and the MiddleEnglish versions, but which is absent in the other Anglo-Normantexts.

The second takes place after Amiloun leaves their lord’scourt to return to his own land. Amis has ridden part of theway out with his «brother», and shortly after he returns, he isapproached by the steward who offers to become his companionnow that Amiloun is away:

Ms A 337 (-60):Lete we sir Amiloun stille beWiþ his wiif in his cuntre --God leue hem wele to fare --

11

& of sir Amis telle we;When he com hom to court o3e,Ful bliþe of him þai ware;For þat he was so hende & gode,Men blisced him, boþe bon & blod,þat euer him gat & bare,Saue þe steward of þat lond,Euer he proued wiþ niþe & ondTo bring him in-to care.

Þan on a day bifel it soWiþ þe steward he met þo,Ful fair he gret þat fre.« Sir Amis », he seyd, « þe is ful woFor þat þi broþer is went þe fro,&, certes, so is me.Ac of his wendeing haue þou no care,3if þou wilt leue opon mi lare,& lete þi morning be,& þou wil be to me kende,Y schal þe be a better frendeÞan euer 3ete was he.

Ms C 263 (-71):« Sire Amys », fet il, «ben veinant!De vus sui ore aler pensant,E de moun sire Amylloun,Qe tant fut vus leal compaygnoun.Unqes nul autre ne vollez amer,Ne nul semblant de amur mustrer,Mes pus qe ore se est departi,Requer ke seiez moun amy,Moun dru, e moun ben voillant!»

There is a slight difference here in that Karlsruhe, muchless given to the characteristic sign-posting of the ME version(as mentioned above), has no transitional stanza break to

12

introduce the new episode; the steward’s approach is immediate,not after a few days. However, the laisse break itself wouldeasily signal such a transition – a division not as readilydiscernable in the ME, where stanza breaks occur after everytwelfth line – and there is no doubt that these lines do indeedintroduce the same development in the narrative. Although thispassage also occurs in mss K-L (119)22, in those texts thepassage is not set off by a decorated letter, thus furthersupporting the belief that the exemplar of the ME version wasmuch closer to the Karlsruhe tradition than to either Cambridgeor London.

The third such example occurs when the duke’s daughterfalls in love with Amis after he is seen at the banquet table.In both version she suffers love-sickness, and is subsequentlydirected into the garden by her mother:

Ms A 517 (-28):Now, hende, herkeneþ, & 3e may herehou þat þe doukes douhter dereSike in hir bed lay.Hir moder come wiþ diolful chere& al þe leuedis þat þer were,For to solas þat may:« Arise vp », sche seyd, « douhter min,& go play þe in to þe gardinÞis semly somers day;Þer may þou here þe foules songWiþ ioie & miche blis among,Þi care schal wende oway. »

Ms C 393 (-425):Nomer vus porra la pucele:

22 Due to the presence of a couplet at line 75-6 of London which is not presentin Cambridge, this passage actually begins at line 117 in ms K. Unlessotherwise noted, subsequent references to lines in the K-L group will refer toLondon’s line numbers specifically, which (in the examples provided in thispaper) always differ from Cambridge by the same margin of two lines.

13

Les uns l’apelent MirabeleMes Flurie estoit noméAu muster ou fut baptisé.Flurie estreit sa purpensaCudait de amur ke la tochaA si treforte e longe grevaunceQe si plus tost ne ust allegaunceEn pard fut e en aventure.« E! » fet ele, « si ad trop demure,Si ne me face memes e ayder. »A teles se prent maytyn leverE vent tut dreit a sa mereA contenaunce de triste chere.Asez se plein e ce desmente,« E dame! » ele di, « su dolenteDe un ague ke en chef m’est mountéDount au quer su maumené,E a couste, e a flancs,Ke tut me tremble char e saunks.Dount tut sui, dame, en desperance!E si, dame, ne le preysez agrevaunce,Le congé veir demandaseSi ke en desport m’en alaseOur prendre le eyr de matynTut soule ci en gardyn,Si croy ke le meuz me avendra! »La reyne la regardaE de doel gette un suspyr,Car nature ne put mentyr.« Hee, fylle! » fet ele, « Flurye,Ja mar pensez de maladye,Mes alez la, ou vus plerra. »

Though it is true that the versions differ inasmuch asthe ME Belisaunt is ordered into the garden whereas theKarlsruhe Florie begs leave to go there, in both cases she isnevertheless expected by her mother to make her way outside. In

14

each version, this leave-taking leads to her first encounterwith Amis. The reason that Florie’s name is introduced here inKarlsruhe and not in the ME is due to the fact that the MEredactor was careful to incorpo-rate this information whenfirst mentioning the character, while the AN versions generallyomit such details until they become important to the plotdevelopment23. Nevertheless, the similarities between theversions is evident, and -- despite certain adaptations in theME narrative that differ from the AN versions -- the followingepisodic development recounts the same story.

As a final point, the claim that the ME version is moreclosely aligned with Karlsruhe than with the other ANmanuscripts is supported by lack of decoration in London. Inthis version, line 246, «Nomer vous dey la pucele», correspondsalmost exactly to Karlsruhe 393, but is neither coloured norenlarged. Furthermore, in the K-L version, only the daughter’sname is given, the rest of the development being omitted afterfour lines. There is no mention of love-sickness, thedaughter’s conversation with her mother, or the garden; theseevent occur only in the ME and Karlsruhe. The K-L versions lack36 lines, only falling back into agreement with Karlsruhe atline 253 (correspon-ding to Karlsruhe 433), when the daughteractually goes to Amis’s chamber.

The next correlation occurs after Belisaunt/Florie hasadmitted her love to Amis, requests his reciprocity, andbecomes infuriated when he gently refuses her advances out ofloyalty to her father. In both versions, the daughter reactswith verbal abuse and threats:

Ms A 613 (-24):Þat mirie maiden of gret renounAswered, « Sir kni3t, þou nast no croun;For god þat bou3t þe dere,Wheþer artow prest oþer persoun,23 This often leads to wrenched plots in the AN, while the foregrounding andforeshadowing in the ME makes that narrative much more believable. See FORD, opcit, particularly chapter four.

15

Oþer þou art monk oþer canoun,Þat prechest me þus here?Þou no schust haue ben no kni3t,To gon among maidens bri3t,Þou schust haue ben a frere!He þat lerd þe þus to preche,Þe deuel of helle ichim biteche,Mi broþer þei he were! »

« Ac », sche seyd, « bi him þat ous wrou3t,Al þi precheing helpeþ nou3t,No stond þou neuer so long.Bot 3if þou wilt graunt me mi þou3t,Mi loue schal be ful dere abou3t Wiþ pines hard & strong;Mi kerchef & mi cloþes anonY schal torende doun ichon& say wiþ michel wrong,Wiþ strengþe þou hast me todrawe;Ytake þou schalt be þurch londes lawe& dempt hei3e to hong! »

Ms C 445 (-68):Amys, quant le ad escoté,Quidoit ele fust desvéDe ben respoundre se purpensoitCum celui ke talent ne avoitTant mesprendre vers sun seignur.Este vus Flurie a grand irrour!Le ramponoit e dyst, « ComentMe avez ja fait teu marrementQe pus qe a vus ay doné m’amur?Ja moun vivant aprés ce jourNe serray de quer haitee,Si joe ne sei de vus vengee!Certes, ore su ben honyeQuant ne mei deignez aver amye;

16

Tant princes, tanz dux me vut deygné,E touz ay pur vus refusez!Certes ne estes pas chivaler,Recreaunz estis e laner.Un play feloun vus bastiray,E a moun pere le dirayCum vers lui estes de moy forfait,Si serrez a cheuaus destrait,Ensi serray de vus vengez! »

After belittling the knight, Belisaunt/Florie thenthreatens to accuse him of rape if he does not agree to becomeher lover, which he eventually (albeit reluctantly) agrees todo. As in some other cases, the Karlsruhe passage closelymirrors that of the K-L group (265-89), but as elsewhere, thereis no rubrication in these manuscript versions to mark a laissedivision. Ultimately, therefore, despite a certain amount ofrewriting, the parallel construction between the ME and all ANtexts is evident, but only the ME and Karlsruhe use enlargeddecorated capitals or rubrication to set the passage apart.

The fifth example occurs shortly before Amis’s trial bycombat against the steward who has openly revealed the lovers’liaison. Both the maiden and her mother agree to stand assurety for Amis, and confidence in his success puts them in agood humour. Amis, however, recognising himself guilty of thecharges and therefore incapable of victory, falls into adepression:

Ms A 901 (-12):When þai had don, as y 3ou say,& borwes founde wiþ-outen delay,& graunted al þat þer ware,Sir Amis sorwed ni3t & day,Al his ioie was went oway,& comen was al his care,For þat þe steward was so strong& hadde þe ri3t & he þe wrong

17

Of þat he opon him bare.Of his liif 3af he nou3t,Bot of þe maiden so michel he þou3t,Mi3t noman morn mare.

Ms C 689 (-706):Ore est joyuse la reyne --Qe aynz de anguise fyne --Ne seet ke fere ne ke parler;Ov ly prent le chivalerE sa fylle Flurie ausi,Ke assez de mauz a eu pur lui.Amys en sa chambre ala,Assez de doel e de yre en a,Ses mauz comence a regrater …Atant reprent il a plorerE de mener si grand dolour,Unqes ne oystes de greignour.

When the mother becomes aware of his sorrow, sheinitially tries to console him by giving assurances that hewill be well equipped for the ensuing battle. Amis responds byrevealing that their only hope is to seek out Amiloun who canundertake the battle in his stead. The lady grants him congé,and he leaves to seek out his friend. The details of thisepisode exist only in the ME and the Karlsruhe version; theother AN versions omit both Amis’s profound grief and thelady’s reassurances. Such similarities in plot development areenough to demonstrate a relation between Karlsruhe and the ME,but the fact that both versions highlight the beginning of theepisode with a decorated capital or rubrication furtherevidences the close connection between the versions.

The sixth correlation occurs as Amis rides out of courtin order to seek Amiloun’s aid:

Ms A 973 (-75):A morowe sir Amis made him 3are

18

& toke his leue for to fare& went in his iurnay.

Ms C 767 (-68):Amys, quant le congé ad prys,Tantost s’est en chemyn mys.

The parallel here is so apparent that there is littleneed to provide further lines to put the passages in context.They recount the same event in essentially the same manner.Furthermore, the close relationship shared by Karlsruhe andAuchinleck is further evidenced by the complete lack of equi-valent lines in the K-L group of AN manuscripts.

The next correspondence is similarly striking. Amis,exhausted by his journey, beds down for the night under a treein the forest. As he falls asleep, Amiloun is wakened in hisbed by dreams of his companion being attacked by animals in thewoods:

Ms A 1009 (-17):As sir Amiloun, þat hendi kni3t,In his slepe he lay þat ni3t,In sweuen he mett anonÞat he sei3e sir Amis bi si3t,His broþer, þat was treweþe-pli3t,Bilapped among his fon;Þurch a bere wilde & wode& oþer bestes, þat bi him stode Bisett he was to slon.

Ms C 785 (-92):Ore seignurs, plest vus entendre!Haute mervaylle poez vus atendre;Amylloun en sun lyt gysoytDe leez sa femme se dormeit;Si lui vynt en avysiunKe sire Amys, sun compaignoun,

19

De un lyoun fu asailly,Ke lui fu morteus enemy.

The only remarkable deviation in the dream vision is thatthe lone lion of Karlsruhe becomes a bear accompanied by otheranimals in Auchinleck. In both cases, however, Amilounrecognises the portent of such vicious beasts attacking hiscompanion and leaps from bed in an anxious state. With theexception of one couplet (ms C 785-6/ms L 783-4), the passageis repeated in the K-L manuscripts, however there is no initialcapital there to signal a laisse break. Furthermore, the linesomitted in K-L clearly indicate a break in the action and ashift in scene, something which is emphasised only in Karlsruheand the ME version.

Amiloun immediately rides out to find his companion anddiscovers him still sleeping in the woods. Upon being wakened,Amis recounts his grave situation and requests his friend’scounsel. At this point Karlsruhe and Auchinleck again accord byintroducing Amiloun’s reaction with a decorated initial capitalor rubricated letter:

Ms A 1105 (-12):When þat sir Amis had al told,Hou þat þe fals steward woldBring him doun wiþ mode,Sir Amiloun wiþ wordes boldSwore, « Bi him þat Judas sold& died opon þe rode,Of his hope he schal now faile,& y schal for þe take bataile. »

Ms C 843 (-52): Ore le respond AmillounParole de vive resun:« Beau frere, pus ke avez forfait,E vuus le serment ussez fet,Joe moy doute ke par peché

20

Du serment fussez encumbré.Mes la bataylle pur vus fray,Car sauf serement i mettray,De joe unqes ne forfys,E si quideront qe seit Amys. »

There is a parallel in the K-L group, but, as in otherplaces, the relevant lines are not set off by a decoratedletter to indicate a laisse break. Thus, Auchinleck again seemsto be following the example set by the Karls-ruhe traditionrather than that of any other text in providing a rubricatedletter at the beginning of the stanza.

The ninth correlation between Auchinleck’s rubricatedletters and Karlsruhe’s decorated capitals occurs when Amilounreceives an angelic warning just before taking false vows inthe name of Amis:

Ms A 1249 (-72):As he com prikand out of toun,Com a voice fram heuen adoun,Þat noman herd bot he,& sayd, « Þou kni3t, sir Amiloun,God, þat suffred passioun,Sent þe bode bi me;3if þou þis bataile vnderfong,Þou schalt haue an euentour strongWiþ-in þis 3eres þre;& or þis þre 3ere ben al gon,Fouler mesel nas neuer nonIn þe world, þan þou schal be!

Ac for þou art so hende & fre,Ihesu sent þe bode bi me,To warn þe anon;So foule a wreche þou schalt be,Wiþ sorwe & care & pouerteNas neuer non wers bigon.

21

Ouer al þis world, fer & hende,Þo þat be þine best frendeSchal be þi most fon,& þi wiif & alle þi kinneSchul fle þe stede þatow art inne,& forsake þe ichon. »

Ms C 947 (-71):Seignurs qe de amur juger savez,Si aute amur hoyer poezKe pus ke Deus suffri passioun,Greignur amur ne oyst nul hom,Greignur meschef, greyngnur poverte,De meseyse a de tote parte,Qe ne avynt a sire Amylloun Pur l’amur sun compaignoun;Car cum fust a l’us de mouster,Nuncie lui est un encumbrerPar une voys ke lui est venue,Dount nul alme est aparceue,Qe lui dyt suef en l’oraylle:« Sire Amylloun ceste esposalye,Qe vus avez ci enprys,De une chose vus garnyz;Joe vus aporte une novele:Qe si vus prenez la damoysele,Ainz qe .ii. aunz seient passes,Si vyl leprus certis serrez,Ke vus ne troverez homme vivant,Ke vere vus voil tant ne quant;E si vus teyndra la maladieDe si treforte leprosieAutre .ii. aunz entiers. »

It is noteworthy that the stated reasons for this warninghave changed. In Karlsruhe, the angelic voice cautions Amilounagainst marrying Florie in Amis’s name, and the same situation

22

exists in the K-L manuscripts and the continental Frenchversion. In the ME version, however, Amiloun will be punishedfor not declaring his true identity before swearing hisinnocence of the steward’s charges. The reasons for thisalteration have been variously explained. Leach says that «this warning in the English comes before the fight andconsequently the leprosy is punishment for false swearing – amuch more logical and artistic motivation.24» Whatever thereason for the change (and it is important to recognise thatthe ME redactor makes several throughout the course of thenarrative – presumably to lend the tale more salience to histarget audience), the presentation of the angelic warningitself is treated similarly in Auchinleck and Karlsruhe; thisagain includes an episodic intro-duction signalled by either adecorated or rubricated letter, something which is not presentin the other AN versions.

Eventually Amiloun manages to make his way back to hisown lands where he and Amis resume their proper identities.They exchange information concerning what has happened in eachother’s domain, then part. This parting signifies anotherepisodic division and is marked as such in Auchin-leck andKarlsruhe by a decorated or rubricated letter:

Ms A 1453:Asonder þan þai gun wende.

24 LEACH, l. 125. Leach’s conclusion certainly appears the most logical one to amodern reader, but the idea of a « tricked ordeal » has long precedence inmedieval literature. In similar scenes where the oath-taker tells a literaltruth which deceives everyone present (i.e., Tristan and Yseult, Launcelot del Lac, or Lifeof Virgilius), the speaker does so with impunity. The idea is that the audience istricked, and thereby earthly justice thwarted, but that there is not attempt totrick God or thwart divine justice, and therefore no consequences to besuffered. See also Susan DANNENBAUM, Insular Tradition in the Story of “Amis andAmiloun”, in Neophilologus, 67, 1983, pp. 611-22 (p. 620); Ojar KRATINS, The MiddleEnglish “Amis and Amiloun”: Chivalric Romance or Secular Hagiography?, in PMLA,81, 1966, pp. 347-54 (p. 351). In taking an oath of marriage, however, Amilounwould indeed foreswear himself in the eyes of God, and in that respect the OldFrench and Anglo-Norman versions could be claimed to be more logical.

23

Ms C 1222 (-23):Amylloun e sun frere AmysA teles se sunt departyz.

Following the separation, the narrative in both versionsfocuses on Amiloun’s return to his wife and her mistreatment ofhim. The particulars of her abuse differ somewhat between thetexts, but it is still evident that – despite whatevervariations the English redactor incorporates – the use ofrubrication visually indicates the division in the same way asKarlsruhe’s decorated letter. No such cue exists in the otherAN manuscripts, again indicating a link between ms A and ms C.

The next parallel is curious because, although the sameepisode is introduced in the same familiar way, its placementis shifted about in the ME narrative. It concerns the duke’sdesignation of Amis as his heir and his bestowal upon theknight of his daughter’s hand in marriage. Much as the reasonfor the angelic warning was changed, it seems the ME redactoralso saw fit to change the placing of this episode, postponingit until the real Amis has returned to court25. Nevertheless,the parallels are evident:

Ms A 1501 (-1524):Al þus in gest as we sain,Sir Amis was ful glad & fain,To court he gan to wende;& when he come to court o3ainWiþ erl, baroun, kni3t & swain,Honoured he was, þat hende.Þat riche douke tok him bi hond& sesed him in alle his lond,To held wiþ-outen ende;& seþþen wiþ ioie opon a day

25 In the AN versions, the marriage actually takes place between Amiloun – stillpretending to be Amis – and the lord’s daughter. In the ME versions, Belisauntand Amiloun (in the guise of Amis) are only betrothed before he leaves to re-exchange identities with his friend.

24

He spoused Belisent, þat may,Þat was so trewe & kende.

Miche was þat semly folk in sale,Þat was samned at þat bridaleWhen he hadde spoused þat flour,Of erls, barouns, mani & fale,& oþer lordinges gret & smale,& leuedis bri3t in bour.A real feast þai gan to holdOf erls & of barouns boldWiþ ioie & michel honour;Ouer al þat lond est & westÞan was sir Amis helden þe best& chosen for priis in tour.

Ms C 877 (-903):Quant le barnage i est venu,Lui roys ad parlement tenu: « Seignurs, barouns», se dyt Charloun,« Ja avez cy l’enchesunE la force du maundement:Cist chivaler ci enpresentDe un teu debat estoyt susprisKe, si le meus ne ust eschevys,Ja ne ust le hounte recoverie;Mes ore le ay promys e plevieHonurable garison,E pur ce le vus dy en comounQe ma fylle en durray,E de grand tere eir le frayDe .vii. countés veir e demyAu jour de oy serra seisyEn temoinaunce de vus barouns;Pur ceo vus fys ce somouns. »E cil respounent en un assent:

25

« Sei se le vostre bandement!Endreit de vus ben le grantoms,Ja mar la chose se traversoms! »Charles le ad par le meyn prisE franchementes le ad seysys,E pus ove tretote se gensAu muster vait des innocens;La ert aferme les espoysaylle.

In both versions, a rubricated or decorated letter marks

the beginning of this episode in which Amis is named his lord’sheir, the lord’s daughter become his wife, and the assemblednobles give their consent and celebrate the arrangement.Despite the redactor’s transferral of the scene to a laterpoint in the narrative, the similarities between the versionsare too striking to be simply coincidental; not only are theyboth introduced by a rubricated or decorated letter, whichvisually indicated an episodic development, it is also only inKarlsruhe and the ME version that all these particulars occur26.

As the angelic voice predicted, Amiloun eventuallybecomes a leper. Both Karlsruhe and the ME version recount howhis esteem decreases the more afflicted he becomes, especiallyin the eyes of his wife. He eventually becomes so intolerableto her that she first has him banished from their maritalchambers and then sees to it that he is isolated from thecourtiers:

Ms A 1573 (-84):Allas, allas! þat gentil kni3t

26 It is true that there is a marriage scene in K-L as well (ll. 689-708).There, however, the lord simply asks his daughter if she want to marry Amis,and when she consents he leads her to the church. The nobility are summoned,but there is no mention of whether or not they are satisfied by thearrangement. At that point, the narrative shifts to discuss Amiloun’s dilemmaconcerning the false wedding vow he must make and the angelic warning.Furthermore, this passage occurs in the middle of a rather long laisse, andthere is no decorated or rubricated letter to mark a turning of the action asin Karlsruhe and the ME version.

26

Þat whilom was so wise & wi3t,Þat þan was wrou3t so wo,Þat fram his leuedi, fair & bri3t,Out of his owhen chaumber a-ni3tHe was yhote to go,& in his owhen halle o-dayFram þe hei3e bord oweyHe was ycharged al-soTo eten at þe tables ende;Wald þer no man sit him hende,Wel careful was he þo.

Ms C 1280 (-87): La dame ke tant fu vilayneE des maus tretote playne,Sun mari ad a teu despystKe mes ne le suffra, ce dyt,Si prés de sez oyls mover,Mes une chambre lui fait leverEins un gardyn si povrementPur prendre solaz de la gent.

The lady is similarly wroth in the K-L versions, andalthough the description is much abbreviated, she acts inessentially the same manner. However, in those versions thereis no decorated or rubricated letter to herald the introductionof a new development; the episode occurs imbedded within a muchlonger laisse and is given much less prominence than inKarlsruhe or the ME.

As Amiloun descends in status, he is abandoned not onlyby his wife but also by all of his former retainers save one:a young boy named Owaine. This youth, described as hissister’s son in the English versions and as the son of a baronin Karlsruhe, remains loyal and is eventually the only personto care for Amiloun. He is only mentioned in passing until bothversions pause to provide a general description of him:

27

Ms A 1633 (-41):Þat child, þat was so fair & bold,Owaines was his name ytold,Wel fair he was of blode.When he was of tvelue 3ere old,Amoraunt þan was he cald,Wel curteys, hend & gode.Bi his lord ich ni3t he lay& feched her liuere euer dayTo her liues fode.When ich man made gle & song,Euer for his lord amongHe made dreri mode.

Ms C 1318 (-25):Cist enfes qu vus dy, Owayns,Fu si leaus e si certayns,Si natureus ad sun seyngnurQe unqes ne volleyt, nuit ne jour,De sire Amilloun departyr,Ja tant meschefs le veyt suffryr;Ains se tient tut sun vivantSi tretut fyt sun comand.

Although the K-L versions do include Owaine as Amiloun’sson, in those versions he is not the sole caregiver, and thereis no reflective hiatus dedicated specifically to him. Assuch, it is not surprising that those versions also lack anysign of rubrication or decorated letters to visually mark alaisse break or change in narrative direction. Such signallingis exclusive to Auchin-leck and Karlsruhe.

Amiloun’s wife soon grows so intolerant of her husbandthat he and Owaine are driven from the land. After a longperiod of wandering, they come, somewhat by chance, to thecourt where Amis has succeeded his former lord and now rules inhis own right. One of his guards (or in the case of Karlsruhe,several guards) notices the pair among the beggars at the

28

castle door, and is so impressed by Owaine’s bearing that heoffers the boy a place as one of Amis’s retainers. When Owainerefuses, preferring to stay with the leprous beggar thatAmiloun has become, the dumbstruck guard wanders back insidewhere he recounts the bizarre tale to Amis:

Ms A 1957 (-80):Þe riche douke badde him anonTo telle bi-forn hem euerichonWiþ-outen more duelling.« Now sir », he seyd, « bi Seyn Jon,Ich was out atte gate ygonRi3t now on mi playing;Pouer men y sei3e mani þare,Litel & michel, lasse & mare,Boþe old & 3ing,& a lazer þer y fond;Herdestow neuer in no londTelle of so foule a þing. »

Ms C 1594 (-1611):Qe se fust lui unt demaundez,Mes si tost cum lui unt avisez,Celui, ke il cleyme seignur,Saches, ke tretut lui plusurL’unt tenu a pur sotye,E lui auquant de la meynyeUnt grand pité de l’enfant,Si s’en unt muld entredoyllantEn la sale ca e la,Tant ke lui quens Amys l’escota;Si les demaundoyt demeintenantQe co e dunt il doyllent tant.« Ha sire!» coe dit un chivaler,« Merveylles orrez vus parler;Si a la porte ad un enfaunt -- Plus bel ne vi en moun vivaunt --

29

Si sert a un plus vyl leprousQe unqes vi joe de mes oyls. »

Again, a similar scene occurs in K-L, and, as before, itis much abbreviated and lacks any rubrication or decoratedletters. The episode, which runs to only six lines in K-L (944-9), is entirely embedded within another laisse division inthose versions and is in no way marked off or emphasised.

When Amis hears of Owaine’s loyalty, he decides to rewardthe boy. He has food and wine sent out to the pair, and whenthe servant offers them the wine, Amiloun produces a beautifulgolden goblet in which to receive it. The goblet is identicalto one owned by Amis, having served as a parting token betweenthe companions when Amiloun first left the court to reclaim hisinheritance. Amis flies into a rage when he discovers thebeggar possesses such a cup, assuming the leper to be a thiefrather than his friend. He jumps from the table in anuncontrollable fury and rushes out to attack the beggar:

Ms A 2053 (-76):« Now, certes», seyd sir Amis þo,« In al þis world were coupes nomoSo liche in al þing,Saue min & mi broþers al-so,Þat was sett bitvix ous to,Token of our parting;& 3if it be so, wiþ tresounMine hende broþer, sir Amiloun,Is slain, wiþ-outen lesing.& 3if he haue stollen his coupe oway,Y schal him sle me self þis day,Bi Ihesu, heuen king! »

Fram þe bord he resed þan& hent his swerd as a wode man& drou3 it out wiþ wrake,& to þe castel gat he ran;

30

In al þe court was þer no manÞat him mi3t atake.To þe lazer he stirt in þe wain& hent him in his honden tvain& sleynt him in þe lake,& layd on, as he were wode,& al þat euer about him stodeGret diol gan make.

Ms C 1730 (-43): Ces chiualers eurent adés,Qe lui sivunt mult de peesE ke retenyr le voleynt;Mes pur chose ke unke saveyent,Ne le porreyent asuager,Qu il ne le voleit ilues tuer.E quant batu l’ad e defelé,Tant ke lui memes est allasé,Danke command ke hom le lyastE en presun le gettast;Car a sun frere ceo dyt maunderoyt,E la verité en queroytCum sun hanap ust perduE cum a lui fust avenu.

Much as in other situations, the same scene occurs in theK-L group, and there it is almost identical to Karlsruhe; onceagain, however, there is no rubrication or decorated letter tomark an episodic division. Among the AN manuscripts, suchvisual sign-posting occurs only in Karlsruhe at this point, andit appears that the redactor of Auchinleck was influenced bythis tradition.

Conclusion

31

Thus, it appears that in the course of the narrativefifteen of Auchin-leck’s twenty-five rubricated letters (60%)occur in the same place as one of Karlsruhe’s decoratedletters. It is also worth mentioning that, of the remainingrubricated letters in Auchinleck with no correlation in any ofthe Anglo-Norman manuscripts, four occur in passages of thenarrative which would be found on the missing leaves ofKarlsruhe27. When one considers that the missing first line ofAuchinleck probably had a rubrication that corresponded toKarlsruhe’s decorated letter at line 1928, the possibility thatoriginally as many as twenty of a possible twenty-sixrubrications in Auchinleck (77%) shared a correspondence withone of Karlsruhe’s decorated letters.

Furthermore, there is also a rather significantcorrelation between the remaining sixty-six decorated lettersin Karlsruhe and simple stanza breaks in Auchinleck. Excludingthe correlations investigated above, there are thirty-twoadditional instances where Auchinleck begins a new stanza atthe same place in the narrative where Karlsruhe marks thebeginning of a new laisse with a decorated letter29. Thus, a27 These are ms A 1297, which occurs in the missing central battle scene, and2101, 2197 and 2365 all of which are found towards the end of the narrativeafter Karlsruhe’s imperfect ending.28 Ms C 19 – 23 reads: « Qui veut oyr romaunz de amur, / De leauté e de granddouzour, / En pes se teigne pur escoter! / Car de truflis ne voil parler, / Mesde .ii. juvenceus vus diray.» This corresponds roughly to ms S 1 - 5: « Forgoddess loue in trinyte / Al þat ben hend herkeniþ to me, / I pray 3ou paramoure, / What some-tyme fel be3ond þe see / [Of] two barons of grete bounte.»See footnote 50 above.29 These are : 1) C 67 - A 169: the mutual affection between the companions andtheir lord; 2) C 91 - A 217 : Amiloun hears of his parents’ death; 3) C 155 -A 229 : the duke gives Amiloun leave and pledges friendship; 4) C 211 - A 397:Amiloun warns Amis to beware of the steward; 5) C 291 - A 397 : Amis’s undoingpredicted; 6) C 321 - A 337 : narrator turns from Amiloun to Amis; 7) C 329 -A 421: introduction of duke’s daughter; 8) C 433 - A 529: Belisaunt goes intothe garden; 9) C 469 - A 589 : Amis dissembles his rebuff to Belisaunt; 10) C529 - A 805 : duke enraged over liaison; 11) C 583 - A 853 : Amis acceptssteward’s formal challenge; 12) C 629 - A 913: Amis distressed over hisdilemma; 13) C 645 - A 925 : mother and daughter wonder at Amis’s depression;14) C 711 - A 949 : Amis tells the lady of his concern; 15) C 757 - A 961:

32

total of forty-seven of Karlsruhe’s eighty-one decoratedletters (58%) correspond to some sort of division inAuchinleck. Furthermore, of the remaining thirty-fourdecorated letters in Karlsruhe with no corresponding divisionin Auchinleck, twelve occur in long passages recounting eventsin the narrative which the English redactor apparently omitsintentionally30, and another one probably corresponded with thehypo-thesised rubrication in the missing first line ofAuchinleck31. Thus, only twenty-one of Karlsruhe’s eighty-onedecorated letters (26%) are inexplicably un-relatable to someportion of Auchinleck.

Conversely, there is very little such correspondencebetween Auchin-leck and the other Anglo-Norman versions. Inonly two cases does an Auchinleck rubrication correspondexclusively to a London decoration32, and in both cases the

lady gives Amis leave; 16) C 811 - A 1057 : Amis and Amiloun rejoined; 17) C827 - A 1069: Amis tells of his sorrow; 18) C 977 - A 1273 : Amiloun’s reactionto the angelic warning; 19) C 1166 - A 1405 : the duke gives Amiloun(disguised as Amis) leave; 20) C 1204 - A 1417 : Amiloun rides out and meetsAmis; 21) C 1292 - A 1609 : the leprous Amiloun’s wife confines him to a hut;22) C 1306 - A 1621 : a child is Amiloun’s only loyal servant; 23) C 1414 - A1657 : the wife forbids feeding Amiloun; 24) C 1474 - A 1753 : Amiloun sendsboy to beg an ass from his wife; 25) C 1490 - A 1765 : the child delivers themessage; 26) C 1510 - A 1777 : lady consents if the pair will leave the land;27) C 1524 - A 1801 : the pair resort to selling ass for food; 28) C 1542 - A1861: the pair arrive at Amis’s court; 29) C 1578 - A 1909 : the child observedwith Amiloun before the gate; 30) C 1656 - A 2005 : Amis sends a cup of wine tothe pair; 31) C 1672 - A 2017 : Amiloun receives wine in his cup; 32) C 1684- A 2029 : knight astonished that the cup is identical to Amis’s. 30 There are two such passages. The first concerns the seven decorated lettersfrom C 987-1130 inclusive. In this portion of the Karlsruhe narrative, Amilounis being forced to marry the duke’s daughter, an event that occurs in all ANtexts, but which never takes place in the ME version. The second concerns thefive rubricated letters from C 1328 to 1387 inclusive. This portion of theKarlsruhe narrative recounts the story of Amiloun’s son, Florentin, who ismerged with Owaine in the ME. For the probability that the redactorintentionally omitted these developments, see FORD, pp. 195-99 and pp. 218-19 31 See footnotes 50 and 58.32 Auchinleck 409 and 1525, corresponding to London 207and 777 respectively.(The first correlation relates to a feast; the second relates to Amis’ssuccession to his lord’s possessions and authority.) This omits, of course, the

33

Karlsruhe narrative has a very near correspondence33. BetweenAuchinleck and Cambridge, only one such parallel exists34, andit occurs in a section of the poem that has been lost in theKarlsruhe manuscript35. Although these few correspondencesbetween Auchinleck and London-Cambridge are enough to indicatethat Karlsruhe was not the actual exemplar of the Englishversion, it cannot be denied that the much higher percentage ofcorrelations between Auchinleck and Karlsruhe suggests that,based on purely metatextual evidence, the two manuscripts aremuch more closely related than Auchinleck is to any other ANmanuscript.

Such evidence will be of great use to scholarsinvestigating medieval translation and textual transmission.Literary investigation has already established that the MEversion is particularly close to Karlsruhe in terms of contentand style. Now it is evident that the very division of thenarrative into episodes, signalled visually on the page byrubrication or decorated letters, also enters into theequation. It is beyond a doubt that the ME transla-tor/redactormust have been influenced by such signposting in the exemplar,for it is inconceivable that such regular correspondence ofKarlsruhe’s decorated capitals with Auchinleck’s rubricationand stanza divisions could result from simple coincidence. Suchcorrelation clearly indicates that the original ME version ofAmis and Amiloun was most definitely adapted from a manuscripttext very closely related to Karlsruhe. Such knowledge willcertainly permit scholars to investigate more minutely theprecise methods of translation and adaptation and employed bythe ME author by using the visual cues in Karlsruhe andthree points of correlation where Auchinleck, Karlsruhe and London-Cambridgeare all in accord.33 One at C 351 and the other at C 1248, each occurring in the same episode asAuchinleck’s rubrication.34 Auchinleck 2101 corresponding to Cambridge 1043. (This correlation concernsOwaine’s reve-lation to Amis of Amiloun’s true identity when Amiloun attacksthe leper whom he does not recognise as his companion.)35 This portion of the text occurs after Karlsruhe’s imperfect ending in thenarrative.

34

Auchinleck to hone in on individual episodes and developments.Thus, the oft-overlooked medatextual evidence present in themanuscripts demonstrates its value to literary research.

Dr. John C. FordUniversité de Toulouse II – Le Mirail

Département d’Etudes du Monde Anglophone5, allée Antonio-MachadoF-31058 Toulouse Cedex 9

France

e-mail: jhnford@aol.com

Résumé

Cet article illustre, à partir d’évidences contenues dans le« métatexte », l’existence d’une relation entre la version du roman envers « Amis and Amiloun » en moyen anglais et celle du ms Karlsruhe345 écrite en dialecte anglo-normand. Le métatexte est constitué deces éléments qui sont souvent considérés à part du texte, soit parcequ’ils sont regardés comme facultatifs ou accessoires soit parcequ’ils sont vus comme simplement décoratifs. De tels éléments incluentla ponctuation médiévale, la mise en page, l’enluminure ainsi que larubrication ou la décoration de lettres et de lettrines. Bien qu’ilsoit fréquemment ignoré, le métatexte offre aux chercheurs denombreuses informations de valeur sur l’attitude de l’auteur ou ducopiste envers son texte grâce à la nature individuelle desmanuscrits. Cette valeur est augmentée quand la transmission deséléments du métatexte démontre qu’ils ont été regardés comme faisantpartie intégrale du texte même. C’est le cas pour les versions sus-citées : le taux de corrélations entre la décoration de plusieurslettrines dans la version anglo-normande et la rubrication deslettrines correspondantes dans le texte anglais est trop élevé pourêtre le résultat du hasard. En examinant chaque corrélation, l’articledémontre que le copiste de la version anglaise a incorporé plusieurséléments du métatexte existants dans le texte du manuscrit Karlsruhe.

35

De plus, ces éléments ne sont pas trouvés dans les autres versionsanglo-normandes. Par conséquent, on peut déduire que ces deux textesmanuscrits sont beaucoup plus liés l’un à l’autre qu’il ne le sont auxautres versions manuscrites existantes.

36