some points on ME romances

‘mimetic fallacy’: the belief that actions, people and things can and should be closely imitated in words, whether this is an imitation of ordinary life or of the cause-and-effect patterns that make up real life. Romance as an escape from the mimetic fallacy. [Derek Brewer]

‘fluidity’ of romance: importance of reader response, original culture and historical biases built into the language- the text is shaped by the circumstances, and part of it, rather than external to it.

The centre and the periphery: the action of romance is about the relation between the centre and some peripheral element. There is no single ‘centre’. The court is a conceptual centre but much of the action takes place outside it (exile, forest, other courts, etc). The knight’s quest also becomes the centre in a sense, so we have a moving centre.

Concept of reality: traditional world view was that ultimate reality lay behind the surfaces of things (so, romance would be read as an allegory of something?), while from the late 17^th century, the material world has been taken as the ultimate and only real world. Romance must necessarily be contemporary even as it has its appeal in its formulaic nature.

Stereotype: romances are built on myths, folktales and fairytales, and dreams. They have improbable events, stereotypical characters, and the reader knows innately or from pre-literary experience what the outcome of the narrative will be. Derek Brewer writes of ‘the self-sufficient, self-enclosed, or self-reflexive elements in literary structures and in language itself which at best parallel but certainly never imitate non-verbal experience’. Auerbach emphasizes on the ‘fairytale’ element in romances and describes them as worlds which have no geographical and socio-economical foundations. Derek Pearsall calls the impression of homogeneity in ME romance with its formal and literary conventions, the “grammar” of romance. He argues that this stereotyping is found in the social context which was ‘overwhelmingly popular and non-courtly’ for the lower/middle class audience of the romances, because true courtly romance was French.

Social classes: These lower classes were ‘a class of social aspirants’ who wanted to feel ‘frenchish’ and ‘courtly’ by listening to/reading romances. Auerbach writes in Mimesis that romance is ‘the world of a single class’. Now clearly this is not true of the romances we have read, in the Matter of England, but can we say this for other romances? [ayoush you’d know this]I think romance is better defined as the world of the ‘hero’. Some of the romances are like a chronology of events of the main character (eg. Horn, Havelok). Also about class, ‘Havelok’ has often been read as a poem that is seen from the point of view of the lower classes, and Havelok’s virtues and achievements are ‘never those of chivalry’ (Robert Montagu), but this is not entirely true- would Havelok still have been the hero if he was not a king’s son by birth? There is definitely an increased emphasis on social class in ME, than in OE, probably due to increased social interaction between classes. OE poetry rather seems to describe a single ‘class’, that in a warrior society, while the romances take into account the existence of worlds different to them, and classes which function differently. This is why we have women coming into the picture with bigger or more influential roles than in OE poetry which doesn’t seem to know quite how to deal with them.

Looking back at an Anglo-Saxon past: On the other hand, these early romances are a mixture of oral and literary traditions, and also a transition between old Germanic/Christian and new French courtly modes. R.A. Rouse recently studied ‘the post-conquest representation of the pre-conquest English past’ and looked at the way in which the ME romances develop a sense of Englishness based on their Anglo Saxon identity. This relates to the purpose behind the alliterative revival and the use of literature to create a nationalist identity (romance as political propaganda, or is that pushing it?). The Matter of England romances develop a sense of Englishness, and there is great concern with the presentation of the Saracens as the ‘Other’, but they are religious others, threat to Christianity and not to the secular nation (are the two that separate at this time anyway?).

How much of Germanic tradition can we see in the romances?

- The hero’s desire to prove himself eg. Beowulf, Horn- closely related to this is the concept of the ‘exiled hero’ which we see in Horn and in the Wanderer, Seafarer poems. Another point about the hero is that he is the king in romance, but usually the retainer in OE heroic poetry.

- The retainer/vassalage eg. Byrhtnoth’s followers (Maldon), Godrich and Godard (Havelok), Havelok himself as he swears fealty to Godard and then runs away to save his life- he chooses his life over his “lord”, something only Godric#1 would do. Godard’s warning to his men who want to run away, that it will shame them if they do. In Havelok, the guardians of both kingdoms swear by the ‘messebook’ to be loyal. Vassalage is a permanent bond (comparable to legal bonds) whereas the þegnas of OE poetry seem to be more voluntary. Thus Godric will be looked down upon for running away, but his lord can’t do anything much about it. In the medieval chivalric code however, once you had a bond of fealty and homage with someone, you had to stick to it. The ME period also saw a change in the status of the knight who moves from a position of servitude to one of dominance. This again reflects OE retainers like Beowulf who are the central characters and the heroes, like Gawain is the hero of GAGK while Arthur is sidelined.

- The pagan/Christian conflict eg. again the battles where we have the pagan Vikings, and the Saracen invaders in Horn, Guy of Warwick.

- The romances look back at a primitive anglo saxon past, which is coloured by post-conquest cultural ideas. Anglo Saxon poetry looks back at a Germanic past which is coloured by Christian concepts.

What’s different from the Anglo-Saxon past:

- ‘refinement of the laws of combat, courteous social intercourse, service of women’[Auerbach]. I agree with the word ‘refinement’, it is a refinement of pre-existing cultural values rather than something new that was acquired overnight from France. The heroic code becomes the knightly code, they are not two separate things. The rise of the feudal society based on kinship from 11^th-13^th century led to a new emphasis on the community and on the code of honour. The English courtly code may have overtly developed from the French chivalric code but its values and concepts arise from the Germanic heroic culture.

- Romance is less ‘realistic’ than OE poetry, with more emphasis on marvels than before- its more of an entertainment than heroic poetry, which seems more directly exemplary.

Finally, just something I thought would be useful for A1, and applied to A2 as well: Frantzen and Niles’ definition of ‘Anglo-Saxonism’: it is the process through which a self conscious national and racial identity first came into being among the English people, and how over time that identity was transformed into an ordinary myth.