Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 10.djvu/170

 162

NOTES AND QUERIES.

. x. AUG. 30, 1902.

Arthur against Lucius Iberius deliberately set aside Geoffrey's version of the battle, and substituted a description showing manifest and absolute indications that the prototype followed was the battle of Crecy. This point, affirmed in chap. ix. of my book, was so overwhelmingly certain that later study has enabled me, in an article appearing in the August Antiquary, to supplement it by cita- tion of numerous further passages on the same lines, including what is virtually a literal description of the site of Crecy by the forest of that name on the tidal river Somme :

Faste to a foreste over a fell watyr That fillez fro the falow see fyfty myle large. ' Morte Arthure,' 11. 1401-2.

A second poetic equation arose from the discovery, also set forth in chap. ix. of my book, that the powerful rendering of a sea fight between the fleet of Arthur on the one hand and that of the allies of Mordred on the other (described in ' Morte Arthure,' 11. 3600- 3705) an episode not existing in Geoffrey of Monmouth's narrative at all was founded upon, and derived its most thrilling incidents from, the great victory gained over the Spaniards off Winchelsea by Edward III. in 1350. Inadvertently the poet himself clinched the proof of his source, for although the fleet of Mordred was repeatedly represented as consisting of Danes, yet at the final stage of the battle, when the crews were tragically spoken of as hurling themselves overboard, the alliterative bard forgot himself moment- arily, and wrote that the

Spanyolis spedily sprentyde over burdez.

'M. A., '1.3700.

"Spanyolis" had no business in Mordred's galleys, and the slip betrayed that the poet had sought his inspiration in a battle at sea wherein, truly enough, the "Spanyolis" did leap overboard rather than yield or face the English steel when their decks were carried by storm.

A third curiously systematic and exact adaptation of history for romance ends was the subtle interweaving into the traditional story of the betrayer Mordred of the actual story of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, paramour of the dowager queen Isabella. The Parliamentary articles on which Mortimer was put to death in 1330 are practically rendered in the complaint preferred by Oradok against Mordred in ' Morte Arthure,' 11. 3523-56. Nor is this all; there is a cryptic allusion to a Friday, which by its context identifies the terrible night when Edward III. seized Mortimer with his alleged mistress the queen. For express

parallels and proofs reference may again be made to the Antiquary for August.

Now to be set in its historical light is the sense of a series of references (not all con- secutive, yet plain enough notwithstanding), to a countess who is a duchess and to a duke who is her enemy. This countess-duchess is rescued by Arthur, and the duke is taken prisoner. Geoffrey of Monmouth has neither countess, nor duchess, nor rescue, nor duke : the episode is, like .Crecy and Winchelsea, an intrusion. My intention is to submit evidences that the episode owes its entire suggestion to the Anglo-French war in Brittany, that the countess - duchess was Jeanne de Montfort, and that the duke was Charles of Blois.

Where the object of the adapter of history as a romance motive is not to present his matter in the manner of the historical chanson de geste, but to bring in his material, as it were, sideways into the theme, so that those who know will understand, and those who do not know will go on with the story, it is natural to expect considerable freedom in the treatment. Our alliterative poet was following the main outline prescribed for him by Geoffrey of Monmouth. He never deviated very far from the ground plan so defined. But here and there he fitted to the stage scenery of Arthur the historical pro- perties of Edward III. No one would expect to find this accomplished with any strict regard to chronology ; one would look, as a matter of course, for inconsistencies and for poetic licence ; so we shall find enough of these when we examine the use to which the poet turned the episode of the Duchess of Brittany. The earliest -intimations of the presence of this source are a little indefinite and contradictory, but a comparison of 'Morte Arthure' with Geoffrey's text early reveals certain peculiar suppressions and additions. Some of these appear in the treatment of the baron of Brittany, amongst them fall- ing to be reckoned the fact of his imprison- ment :

Sir Howell that es in herde bandez.

'M. A.,'l. 1180.

Of more concern for present objects is the process of modification adopted towards the victim of the giant of St. Michael's Mount. In Geoffrey she is the niece of Hoel of Brittany. In our poem she is the Duchess of Brittany, she is captured " beside Reynes," she is the cousin of Arthur's wife, and there is no mention of her relation to Hoel. The giant, it will be noticed from the message addressed to King Arthur, has done great havoc in Cotentin :