Table Of ContentTHE SOCIOLOGY OF MIDDLE ENGLISH ROMANCE:
THREE LATE MEDIEVAL COMPILERS
DISSERTATION
Prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Michael Robert Johnston, M.Litt.
The Ohio State University
2007
Dissertation Committee:
Richard Firth Green, Advisor
Frank Coulson
Lisa Kiser
Ethan Knapp
____________________________________
Advisor
English Graduate Program
ABSTRACT
My dissertation brings a new perspective to the study of Middle English romance
by demonstrating how manuscript evidence can both enrich and challenge critical
assumptions about the genre. The material form in which romances were encountered in
the Middle Ages gives us insight into how its original readers would have encountered
the genre. Such evidence should be central to our attempts to place romance within
cultural history. My dissertation synthesizes the concerns of cultural history and
codicology—disciplines within medieval studies that are not often considered together—
by examining four compilations of late medieval romance. In each chapter, I advance an
argument about the various textual interpretations suggested by the material form of a
single manuscript. In particular, I examine the thematic patterns emerging across the
romances within each manuscript. The main line of investigation centers on how the
romances in each manuscript are arranged, and how groupings of texts encourage readers
of the manuscript to attend to certain issues in the texts. I also take into account how the
other (“non-romance”) texts in each manuscript affect the interpretation of each
individual romance. Finally, I consider how the romances relate to, reflect and/or refract
i
the specific interests of their compilers and how the social position of each compiler (e.g.,
his class identity, his regional identity, his political affiliations) shaped the ways in which
he collected and preserved his texts. Each manuscript raises a unique set of questions
with regards to the romances it contains, ranging from the clash of traditional aristocratic
values with mercantile identity (as in Chapter One) to the relationship between largesse
and estate management (as in Chapter Four).
Chapter One addresses London, British Library MS Harley 2252, a commonplace
book compiled by John Colyns, a merchant in early sixteenth-century London. The
romances in this collection were the product of a team of professional book producers,
and Colyns purchased these texts and included them at the center of his collection. The
rest of the pieces in this manuscript are in Colyns’s hand. Both romances in this
collection, Ipomadon and the Stanzaic Morte Arthure, give voice to a traditional social
ethic, one which connects virtue with nobility of blood. The pieces Colyns himself
copied, by contrast, exhibit a “mercantile” social ethic, based on a model of social
mobility through competition. A bibliographical analysis also bears out this contrast
between the two romances and the texts written in Colyns’s own hand: Colyns’s own
texts are the product of an amateur book producer, the product of one collecting items for
personal consumption. The two romances, on the other hand, bear the typical signs of
professionally produced books from the fifteenth century. I show, then, that contrasting
material forms of these two groups of texts complement their ideological tension.
Chapter Two is a study of Lincoln, Cathedral Library MS 91, an anthology of
romances compiled by Robert Thornton, a middling member of the North Yorkshire
ii
gentry, over the period 1420-65. Thornton organizes his romances into two distinct units.
When read together, the texts in the first section (the Prose Life of Alexander and the
Alliterative Morte Arthure) pose challenging questions about the stability of monarchical
power. As I demonstrate through a codicological analysis, the placement of these texts at
the head of the manuscript was a conscious choice by Thornton with important thematic
consequences for his manuscript, for he lived in a world dominated not by the king but by
warring noble families in the run-up to the Wars of the Roses. Thus, these texts evincing
a “cool distance” from the crown make sense, given the pressures of Thornton’s political
situation. A second group of five romances is found in the next section of this
manuscript. These texts are less complicated, as they triumphantly celebrate two issues
at the heart of gentry life in late medieval England: father-son relationships (mediating
concerns over inheritance), coupled with the desire for social mobility (particularly of the
landed gentry into the ranks of the titled nobility).
Chapter Three takes up London, British Library MS Additional 31042, also
compiled by Robert Thornton. To date, scholars have claimed that the romances in this
manuscript intimate a form of affective piety. However, I urge a new direction in our
understanding of Thornton’s religiosity by demonstrating that he reserved Lincoln,
Cathedral Library MS 91 for more traditionally pious texts, while in the Additional
Manuscript he has gathered texts that effect a different religious ethic: in particular, these
texts figure forth an aggressive, militaristic Christianity that gains its strength from the
suffering of Jews and Moslems.
iii
Chapter Four investigates Princeton, University Library MS Taylor 9, compiled
by the Irelands of Hale, a gentry family in fifteenth-century Lancashire. This manuscript
contains only three romances, The Awntyrs off Arthure, Sir Amadace, and The Avowing of
Arthur. Taken together, these three texts attempt to define and test an aristocratic gift-
giving economy, wherein one does not need to reckon costs, and one can give liberally
without fear of the supplies drying up. Such attitudes were constitutive of aristocratic
ideology in the later Middle Ages; however, these three texts have received scant critical
attention, and no one has yet considered how they work in conjunction as a mouthpiece
for such an ideology. Furthermore, the records of the manorial court of Hale, which was
run by the Irelands, are bound up with these three romances. These court records show
the Irelands collecting and tabulating their annual feudal dues from each of their tenants.
In conjunction with the romances, which insist on an abundance that is provided by God
and does not need to be counted, a significant contrast emerges. In this manuscript, then,
ideology comes into contact with the real relations of production.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
One of my primary debts of gratitude goes to my advisor, Richard Firth Green,
whose consistent generosity has made the dissertation experience surprisingly enjoyable.
By my count, I have now applied for twenty-one grants or fellowships, and through all of
my requests for letters on my behalf, his support for my work has never waned. But
beyond his generosity in writing letters, I have truly appreciated and benefited from his
open office door. By this point in my academic career, I have spent countless hours in
his office talking over ideas in progress or discussing my work in its various stages. Such
conversations have been one of the highlights of my career as a graduate student.
I am also indebted to the other members of my committee. Frank Coulson first
introduced me to palaeography—I can only hope that the deliberate approach to
manuscripts that he urged in the classroom has rubbed off on me. He has patiently
checked my Latin and even took the time to give me a private lesson in codicology at
Ohio State’s Rare Books and Manuscripts Room. Lisa Kiser’s insightful comments have
contributed to my project immensely. In particular, her careful and detailed attention to
my prose has fostered a precision in my writing style that will benefit me greatly in the
v
future. Finally, Ethan Knapp has consistently challenged me to “unpack” my theoretical
assumptions, and several conversations with him have sent me scurrying off to read
Benjamin, Jameson, Lukács, Macherey, and Williams. I owe much of the theoretical
architecture of this project to these stimulating conversations.
I must also acknowledge those professors under whom I studied before beginning
this project. Their insights into literature and their patient guidance form a large part of
why I chose to pursue a graduate degree in English in the first place. In particular, I have
fond memories of the faculty at John Carroll University. Fr Francis Ryan, SJ, first
inspired my interest in Middle English literature by encouraging me to read Disney’s The
Sword in the Stone and Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave’s Camelot next to Geoffrey
of Monmouth and Thomas Malory. In addition, I received excellent instruction from
Sheila McGinn, who taught me how to write an essay longer than five pages, and Carin
Ruff, who helped shepherd me through the process of selecting and applying to graduate
school. I also spent a wonderful year at the University of St Andrews being introduced to
the canon of Middle English literature, and I am particularly grateful to Ian Johnson for
his support of my work and his infectious enthusiasm for Langland, and Rhiannon Purdie
for her diligent guidance on my M.Litt. thesis.
At The Ohio State University, two courses in particular—both outside the realm
of Middle English—were fundamental in shaping my dissertation. David Brewer’s
course on Historicisms provided the opportunity to begin formulating thoughts on how
one could bring archival work into conversation with literary criticism, and this question
has continued to drive my work. John N. King’s History of the Book course first
vi
introduced me to the theoretical works of Jerome McGann and D. F. McKenzie, and his
patient encouragement of my study of Robert Crowley’s editions of Piers Plowman
resulted in my first professional publication. In addition, courses and conversations with
Alastair Minnis and Drew Jones have provided me with scholarly and pedagogical
models that I will draw on for years to come.
For me, the greatest privilege of graduate school is being involved in a
community of scholars passionate about the Middle Ages. Conversations about our
work, whether over a few beers or in the halls of Denney, are one my greatest joys, so I
thank my fellow graduate students whose insights have stimulated my own thinking in
profound ways. In particular, I am indebted to Jim Bennett, Brian Chalk, Joshua
Easterling, Henry Griffy, Kathleen Kennedy, Damian Love, Dana Oswald, Joey Pigg,
Kim Thompson, and Michael VanDussen. I have also had conversations at several
conferences which have helped my project tremendously, and for this I wish to thank
Mark Arvanigian, Mary Dzon, Ralph Griffiths, Pamela King, Alex Mueller, and Tony
Pollard. Furthermore, Ohio State’s History of the Book group has provided an energizing
forum for discussions of theoretical issues that have been central to this dissertation. I am
particularly grateful to David Brewer, Cynthia Brokaw, Alan Farmer, Harvey Graff, and
Dan Hobbins for their participation in this group and for their comments on Chapter Four
of the dissertation. Finally, in the early stages of this project I shared a memorable lunch
with Andrew Taylor, whose Textual Situations first showed me what exciting and
invigorating things can be done with manuscripts.
vii
A number of grants and fellowships gave me the time to complete the dissertation,
as well as the funding to travel to the U.K. for research that was essential to the
completion of this project. External to Ohio State, I am indebted to the Medieval
Academy of America and the Richard III Society-American Branch for their Schallek
Award, and the Bibliographical Society for their Minor Grant. Within the University, I
must thank the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies for their Graduate Student
Travel Grant; the Graduate School for an Alumni Grant for Graduate Research and
Scholarship; the College of Humanities for a Graduate Research Small Grant; and the
Department of English for a Summer Fellowship, Robert Estrich Fellowship, Edward P.J.
Corbett Fellowship, Two-Chapter Dissertation Fellowship, and the Corbett Research
Award.
This project is largely dependent on work with original sources, and thus I am
grateful to a number of rare book rooms and archival collections for opening their doors
to me, and I wish to thank the following: the British Library; the Bodleian Library; the
Borthwick Institute; Cambridge University Library; Gonville and Caius College Library;
the Guildhall Library; Lancashire Record Office; the Lincoln Cathedral Library,
particularly Dr Nicholas Bennett; the London Metropolitan Archives; the Mercers’ Hall,
particularly Mr Gary Haines; the National Archives; Princeton University Library; the
Rare Books and Manuscripts Room at The Ohio State University; and the York Minster
Library, particularly Mr Peter Young.
Finally, my greatest debts are to my wife and to my parents. My parents patiently
supported me through this process by offering a home-cooked meal or treating me to a
viii
