fl^;t y^ ' ^^^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

^ Although it is with tremendous thanks and deep gratitude I acknowledge the

assistance of my advisors in this project, Dr. Ernest Sullivan II and Dr. James H. Morey,

whose help has indeed been invaluable, my deepest debt is to my wife Patricia, of whose

infinite patience and understanding it is better to say nothing at all than risk not saying

enough.

11 . ^\^^r.y.^2i. I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. WALTER SCOTT: SCHOLAR AND ANTIQUARY 3

III. THEAUCHINLECKMANUSCRIPT 8

IV. SIRTRISTREM 12 V. THE REDISCOVERY OF "SIR TRISTREM"AND THE BEGINNING OF THE EDITING PROCESS 19

VI. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 23

VII. THE "INTRODUCTION"--?ART 1 28

VIII. THE "INTRODUCTION-PART II 55

IX. THE "APPENDIX TO THE INTRODUCTION" 64 X. "DESCRIPTION AND ABSTRACT OF TWO ANCIENT FRAGMENTS OF FRENCH METRICAL ROMANCES ON THE SUBJECT OF SIR TRISTREM" 62 XI. "NOTES ON SIR TRISTREM' 64 XII. SCOTT'S USE OF "SIR TRISTREM" AFTER HIS 1804 EDITION 66 WORKS CITED 74

ni .jKlsgcTTi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

When Walter Scott published his edition of the medieval romance "Sir Tristrem" in 1804, he was not yet tided nor a novelist, but had already achieved literary notoriety both for his poetic translations and for his monumental achievement, Minstrelsy of the

Scottish Border.^ Indeed, in many ways, Scott's edition of Sir Tristrem is the culmination of his work in the Border Minstrelsey, and originally Scott had intended his edition of Sir

Tristrem, which was reputed to be the work of the medieval poet and seer Thomas of

Erceldoune, known as The Rhymer, to be a continuing volume of the series.^ With his edition of Sir Tristrem, Scott graduated from the annotative type of scholarship found among the ballads in the Border Minstrelsey to an analytical form of scholarship that probed controversial issues and provided new and important insights into the problems found in a particular literary work, an approach which was in many ways imique to his time. Scott's edition oiSir Tristrem stands as the first modem edition of a single medieval romance, and while he was not the first scholar to use the format, his practice of including copious notes and a lengthy introduction is in many ways still the norm today. This thesis will attempt to provide the following: information concerning Scott's edition, both personal to Scott and general to the period of time in which Scott produced his edition; an account of the poem of "Sir Tristrem" itself;^ and information concerning

^Minstrelsey of the Scottish Border was first published in two volumes in 1802, and was printed with additional volumes and material throughout Scott's life and beyond. %hnston 185. ^Throughout this thesis, I will denote the original medieval poem by using the 1 u=.<^?!?'»"»:'

the Auchinleck manuscript, the manuscript in which the romance is found. In addition, discussion of specific areas of the edition, such as appendices, notes, and the introduction, will be provided along with information concerning Scott's editorial practices and materials used to compile his edition. Information will be presented and discussed in the order in which the corresponding sections appear in Scott's edition of Sir

Tristrem.

form "Sir Tristrem." Any discussion of Scott's edition will use the form Sir Tristrem. 2 «',Sir'iB:i.i

CHAPTER II

WALTER SCOTT: SCHOLAR AND ANTIQUARY

Although Scott was trained as an advocate, and was admitted to the bar to practice law, his avocation was that of a man of letters. It is as a translator, poet, essayist, and, above all, novelist that he made his mark in history, and it is his literary studies that made him quaUfied to edit and publish the Middle English romance of "Sir

Tristrem." In establishing himself as an editor of medieval poetry, Scott's chief qualification to undertake such a task was his amazing capacity for knowledge and literature. That his genius lay in the direction of language and literature there can be no doubt: Scott was familiar with the major European languages of his day, such as French,

German, Spanish, Italian,"* as well as Latin, and his devotion to reading and his ceaseless industry amazed his friends. It must be remembered that in addition to his duties as an advocate, public office holder, and business man, Scott the author published poems, essays, reviews, and above all the Waverly novels, his greatest literary achievement.

This variety of experience quite naturally found its way into Scott's literary work, and it is indeed true that "there is every kind of interest and every variety of art in Scott" (Ker

11). As a child, he absorbed countiess volumes and tales of romance and chivalry, but his knowledge of Scottish literature and the ballads of the Lowlands and Border regions was second to none, as he demonstrated in his ground-breaking Minstrelsey of the

Scottish Border of 1802-3, published in three volumes and revised and republished many times. To be sure, Scott had more than a passing familiarity with Shakespeare, Milton,

"^Scott was familiar with Old Norse as well (Johnston 178). 3 f ;^l»jf?Jt5'V«, 1

and Pope, as well as the popular literature of his day, but the fire of his imagination and the impetus for his mind and pen lay in medieval literature, especially in Middle English romances. As Jerome Mitchell suggests, much of what Scott knew in the way of medieval literature is happily laid out for us by Scott himself (Mitchell 1).^ Reviews, introductions to both his own works and works he edited, his letters, essays, and explanatory annotations to poems and novels (again both his own poems and poems which he edited) all offer great insight into what Scott knew, and, importantly, what he did not know. When dealing with Scott's scholarship however, his letters offer us the most valuable insights as to what he is reading or has read. Indeed, it is largely through his correspondence that we can trace many of his literary and antiquarian theories, as well as the entire process of his editing of "Sir Tristrem."

Due to Scott's love for ballads and romances and his keen interest in antiquarian studies, it seems, as Johnston says, "almost inevitable that he should have edited the

Auchinleck 'Sir Tristrem'" (178). Scott had spent much of his childhood at his grandfather's house in Sandyknowe, in the heart of the border region very near Earlston^, and he died at Abbotsford in the same region.^ Just above the nearby tovm of Melrose,

^Mitchell points the reader to two very important works concerning Scott's reading, J. G. Cochrane's Catalogue of the Library at Abbotsford (Edinburgh 1838) and James C. Corson's article "Scott's Boyhood Collection of Chapbooks," Bibliotheck3 (1962): 202-18 (Mitchell 2). Both of these works at least offer us an idea as to what was available for Scott to read, if not proof that he read the works at hand. ^Earlston or Earlstoun is the modem version of ErJ)eldoun, ErJ)eldoun being the spelling in Sir Tristrem, which can also be found as Erceldoun, Ercheldun, Erceldoune, Ersyltoun, Ersseldoune etc. The variations on this name, as many other names that have come dovm to us in medieval literature, are legion, and must always be used with great care. ^For details of Scott's early life, which is surprisingly well documented, see Edgar Johnson's Sir Walter Scott: The Great Unknown. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 4 the peak of Eildon rises, which Johnston calls the traditional site of Thomas the Rhymer's

(Thomas of Erceldoune) meeting with the Queen of Faerie (178).^ Eildon Tree Stone, which marks the spot where the tree once stood, is reputed to be the spot where Thomas the Rhymer delivered his famous prophecies. The ruins of the tower that Thomas was said to have inhabited were shown to visitorsas late as the 1800s.^ For Scott, "Sir

Tristrem" was not merely an ancient romance, but a literary link to his childhood, and

Thomas the Rhymer was a spiritual connection to Scott the writer and antiquary, who as a youth called himself "Rymour" {Letters 1: 7).'^

Throughout his life, Scott turned to the legend of Thomas of Erceldoune for material, and although his use of works attributed to The Rhymer culminated vdth the

1804 edition of Sir Tristrem, Scott first found an outlet for his study of the reputed work of Thomas in the Border Minstrelsey. Here, Scott published the somewhat lengthy traditional romance of Thomas the Rhymer, in two parts, along with a third part of his own composition, which was to "commemorate the Rhymer's poetical fdJonQ'\Border

Minstrelsey 4: 27)." Scott gives a much more elaborate description of the ballad and of

1970. ^This tale is in the traditional ballad of "Thomas the Rhymer," which, of course, Scott edited in the Border Minstrelsey (4: 79-137). ^Border Minstrelsey (1806 ed.), 3: 166 f. (Johnston 179). The poem is 356 lines long, including the third part, which is Scott's own composition. '^Scott was sixteen years old at the time of this particular letter to a "Miss J." Perhaps even more interesting than Scott's nickname are the ft^agments of a few "good old ballads" which he reproduces, modified vAih Scott's own modernizations, the type of which are to be found throughout the Border Minstrelsey. Scott's passion for ballad collecting, which indeed culminated with the Border Minstrelsey, published when he was still a young man at the age of 29, can be easily seen to manifest itself even at the young age of sixteen. '^Scott reproduces the first fit from MS Cotton. The first major edition of the romance on Thomas is James A. H. Murray's The Romance and Prophecies of Thomas of Erceldoune. EETS, 0S61. London: N. Triibner, 1875. The most 5 t ntfi't

the supposed author Thomas of Erceldoune than is usual in the Border Minstrelsey, and this is because "it seemed to the Editor [Scott] unpardonable to dismiss a person so important in Border tradition as the Rhymer, without some further notice than a simple commentary upon the following ballad"(5or

Thomas's prophecies. Thus, the ballad and the supposed poet are important to Scott on a personal level, as indeed the Border Minstrelsey is in general.

Yet, to suggest that Scott is only editing medieval poetry out of a desire to celebrate his own tastes or origins would be missing the mark. Antiquarian studies and the study of medieval literature was tremendously popular in the mid to late eighteenth century, and was in no way limited to fiiU time scholars or professional academics. This revival in antiquarian studies was precipitated by Thomas Warton's History of English

Poetry in 1744, and Bishop Thomas Percy's Reliques in 1765; Scott fi-equentlyrefer s to both works in his published writings and in his letters. Two of Scott's closest acquaintances, Joseph Ritson and George Ellis, published several works, most importantiy Ancient Engleish Metrical Romancees and Specimens of Early English

Metrical Romances, respectively, and Scott relied on both men, especially Ellis, for

recent edition of this work is Stephen Margaritis's Thomas of Erceldoune. Diss. University of Virginia 1982. It is interesting that Scott composes a conclusion to the romance in modem English, whereas the ending which he composes for Sir Tristrem is in Middle EngHsh. Also, with the completion of the ending for "Sir Tristrem," Scott had supplied an ending for the two longest and most important works which were purportedly the work of Thomas the Rhymer. 6 assistance in his work on "Sir Tristtem." Other antiquaries and fiiends of Scott were

Robert Southey, Francis Douce, and John Hookham Frere. This taste for reviving the

literature of the remote past has in roots in the general concern for history that was

shared by most of the scholars of Scott's day, and Scott's interest in the tales of Scotland's

past finds its culmination in the great Waverly novels, which are widely held as being the

most important contributor to the national identity of Scotiand.'^

^^The most important work concerning the national identity of Scotland in Scott's day and Scott's role in shaping this identity is Kidd's Subverting Scotland's Past, which provides an exhaustive account of the various cultural and socioeconomic factors that produced Scotland's sense of culture and history followdng the Act of Union in 1707. For more general accounts of the rise of the study of history in the Romantic period see Bann's Romanticism and the Rise of History and Cranston's The Romantic Movement, both of which discuss Scott in the larger context of the age in which he lived. Sir Walter Scott: The Long-Forgotten Melody, Bold, ed., offers essays which deal specifically with Scott and his place in history and art. 7 CHAPTER III

THE AUCHINLECK MANUSCRIPT

The Auchinleck Manuscript, National Library of Scotiand Advocates' MS 19.2.1, is widely recognized as one of the most important surviving manuscripts of Middle

English poetry and other miscellaneous items. The volume is large, and contains representative samples of most types of English poetic writing of the period (Pearsall viii). With the exception of the Anglo-Norman used in item 20, "The Sayings of the

Four Philosophers," and the Latin insertions found in items 8, 10, and 36, "The

Harrowing of Hell," "Epistola Alcuini" (following the "Speculum Guy de Warewyke"),

"David the King" (a ttanslation of Psalm 50 of the Vulgate), respectively, the text is entirely in English, and predominantiy secular in nature. Paleographic evidence suggests that it was composed in the period of 1330-1340, and the date is further established by the presence, at the end of item 40, of a prayer for King Edward III, who succeeded his father Edward II in 1327. Laura Hibbard Loomis has hypothesized that the manuscript was a collaborative effort of six scribes, working under the auspices of what she calls a bookshop. Scribe I is responsible for three-fourths of the volume, including Sir

Tristrem," but Pearsall declines to name him an "editor," as Loomis does (Pearsall viii).

Loomis also suggests that the manuscript was once in the possession of or was at least known by Chaucer, a view that certainly enhances the importance of the manuscript, but one that is largely based on dating and the presence of the manuscript in London during

Chaucer's rexidence there (Pearsall xi and Loomis 1940). The manuscript, a quarto

'^Pearsall vii. 8 volume of 331 leaves and 14 partial stubs,^"* had contained fifty-seven items originally, but by Scott's time only forty-four remained (Pearsall vii). Among the contents are eighteen romances, and only four surviving manuscripts containing English romances are known to be older.'^ Eight of the romances are unique to the Auchinleck MS., including

"Sir Tristrem," and the others are in their eariiest copies, save item 19, Floris.^^

The manuscript was given to the Advocates' Library in 1744 by Alexander

Boswell of Auchinleck, later judge Lord Auchinleck, whose signature and the date 1740 appear on a flyleaf (Pearsall vii). In 1795, Scott was appointed curator of the Advocates'

Library,^^ and he borrowed the manuscript from 1789 to 1800, and again in 1801.'^ Scott thought, as did Joseph Ritson, an antiquarian and friend of Scott, the manuscript to date from around 1330, and seems to have believed that it was the work of one "compiler"

(Sir Tristrem Ixxxii). Also, in Appendix IV of Sir Tristrem, Scott describes the script as being in "a distinct and beautiful hand"; although he acknowledges variations in the hand, he does so merely to point out that such scribal variations do not in his opinion alter the dating of the manuscript (cviii). Scott says that there are 333 leaves and 42 items in the manuscript, numbers which do not correspond to the current figures of 331 leaves and 44 items. In the same paragraph that he announces that there are 42 items however, Scott mentions that the "Satire against Simonie" is number 43. Scott lists the items and gives an absttact of each one, and it appears at first glance that he describes 43

'"'Pearsall says that the manuscript has 334 leaves and "measures 8 1/4 inches by 9 7/8 inches and is 2 3/8 inches thick" (i-ii). '^Grierson's edition of Scott's Lef/er^ 3: 12 (Johnston 179, fh5). '^Pearsall viii. ''Ball 34. ^^Letters, xii 168, 174. 9 items. This is not the case, as Scott's numbering of the items is in error. Item number five, "Legend of Seynt Katerine," is followed in the description by "Owain Miles," which is correct in order, but is numbered "7" in Scott's appendix.'^ Curiously, Scott neglects to give an abstract of item 44 of the manuscript, "J)e Simonie," which in the introductory paragraph of the appendix he calls "the Satire against Simonie, No. 43" (cviii).

The item that Scott neglects to number or even to describe accurately is item 27,

"J)e wenche J)at [lou]ed [a k]ing," a short poem in couplets of 24 lines and fragments which shows some signs of attempted erasure (Pearsall xxii). Why Scott does not offer accurate information about this poem is impossible to determine. The items surrounding

"J)e wenche" are given full descriptions,^*^ yet about "J)e wenche" Scott says only that

" AftQT Arthour and Merlin, occurs the beginning of a romance, in a half column, but totally defaced" (Sir Tristrem cxix). Most likely, Scott simply could not read the partially obliterated text, but he should have been able to tell that the poem was certainly not a "romance," as it clearly only occupies a small part of the following leaf, now numbered leaf 256a. In addition, the following item, "How a Merchant did his Wife betray," seems to want only a few lines at the beginning,^' and therefore the rest of "J)e wenche" could occupy at most the entire recto and three-quarters of the verso of the leaf before "How a Merchant." That would make "{)e wenche" only about four columns long, roughly 160 lines, which seems a bit short to be considered a proper "romance" of which

'^Number 17 is used twace, but as the second instance is followed by number 19, the order and the descriptions of the items do not suffer any further errors. ^^"Of Arthour and of Merlin" and "How a Merchant did his Wife betray" are numbered 27 and 28, respectively, by Scott. ^'Pearsall suggests that it is possible that only two or four lines are missing from the beginning (xxii). 10 the "begiiming" remains in the manuscript. Since no other leaves have been cut out or have fallen out besides the larger portion of leaf 256a, of which the stub remains, one would suppose that Scott should have been able to make a more reasonable guess as to the nature of the item now known as "J)e wenche {)at [lou]ed [a k]ing." However, Scott uses the term "romance" in describing his version of Thomas the Rhymer in the Border

Minstrelsey, and the poem is only 360 lines long. It is possible then to conclude that

Scott's sense of terminology was not as rigorous as modem standards dictate, a point which holds true for all aspects of 18th and 19th century antiquarian studies.

11 CHAPTER IV

SIR TRISTREM

The romance of Sir Tristrem is the only known English mettical romance concerning the legend of the famous Tristan and Ysolt. In fact, Sir Tristrem is the only treattnent of the legend of Tristan and YsoU in Middle English besides the work of

Malory. Sir Tristrem exists in the Auchinleck MS as a nearly complete fragment of 304 eleven-line stanzas with a rhyme scheme that generally follows the pattern of ab ab ab ab cbc. Only nine out of the 304 stanzas do not follow this form: stanzas 1 and 14 are rhymed ab ab ab ab bab; stanzas 4, 7, 8, 23 and 108 follow the scheme ab ab ab ab cac; and ab ab ab ab aba appears in stanzas 27 and 299. Although the poem appears in the

MS as a series of continuous lines, unbroken into stanzaic form, McNeill divides each stanza into two parts, the first part consisting of eight short lines of seven or eight syllables rhymed ab ab ab ab, and the second part containing a bob-line of only two syllables followed by two short lines of again seven or eight syllables. Due to its limited number of rhymes and extensive system of alliteration, the intricacy of this form accounts for many of the problems with the poem itself.^^ Kelton says that "no earlier instance of this stanza is known to exist," and in this opinion he follows George

Saintsbury and Thomas Henderson (53).^^ Concerning dialect, Kelton argues

^^McNeill directs his readers to Kolbing's introduction , where Kolbing has a "painstaking analytical study of the rhyme and the verse of the poem" (McNeill xlvi). The work of Kelton supersedes all others, and his opinions should be heavily weighed. ^^This opinion is perhaps too rash however, as several items in the Auchinleck MS alone have forms similar to that of Sir Tristrem (see page xxxx for this discussion). 12 convincingly that the poem is of East Midlands origin, and he cites M. L. Samuels's conclusions that the Auchinleck MS is typical of other manuscripts which can be traced to the Greater London area (50).

W. R J. Barron says that the "narrative outiine is skeletal, uneven, and frequently inept, erratically summarizing episodes only to repeat them in some detail later, switching abruptly from scene to scene, omitting essential facts and reiterating others irrelevantly" (154). Of course, this obscurity of meaning is often due to the demanding nature of the rhyme scheme, which is difficult to produce and to read. This difficulty of rhyme scheme is shown in the poet's need to use, quite often, the same word to form a rhymed couplet in a single stanza, which is known as rime riche. In addition, the rigidity of the rhyme scheme also forces the poet to use homophones, consonance, and different endings or forms of the same words in order to follow the scheme. Indeed, Barron goes on to say that the "drawbacks of the medium are compounded by the frequency with which the poet falls back upon minstrel commonplaces or meaningless tags to achieve his rhyme" (155). Pickford calls the form of the poem "experimental," and suggests, contrary to the opinions of Barron or Kelton among others, that the writer of the romance handles the intricacies of form very well (228).

McNeill apologizes for the work somewhat, ascribing many of its difficulties, as does Barron, to the assumption that the poet was indeed a minsttel of some sort, and that the work was "written not primarily to be read, but to be spoken or recited by persons ttained to such tasks by instruction and experience" (xlvii). He cites the swiftness of narrative and the occasional elliptical obscurity as part of the minstrel's baggage, and also

13 cites remarks such as "Listen lordings dear"^"* as further proof that the poem was originally recited. McNeill concludes by saying that we, reading the manuscript instead of hearing the poem, miss much of the "gesture, facial expression, the vocal cadences and modulations of skilled reciter" (xlvii). Helaine Newstead offers a summation of the problems of the work saying that "the tt-eattnent of the narrative is perfunctory, the expression is undistinguished and clogged with rime tags, and the jerky meter must have been as distracting to the medieval Hstener as it is to the modem reader" (78-79).

Newstead also suggests, following the assertions of Kolbing, that "the poet was a minstrel who reproduced the romance from memory" (77). It is precisely that the poem was copied by a minstrel, Newstead concludes, "which accounts for the drastic condensations of the story," and thus diminishes greatly the art and importance of the poem (79). T. C. Rumble made the first detailed examination of the literary qualities of the poem in 1959, and he was followed by Charles Long in 1963, who mainly follows

Rumble in his more positive assessment. Both Rumble and Long hold the poem in somewhat higher opinion than other scholars, and thus they find themselves squarely in the minority opinion conceming the literary merit of the poem.

Kelton, whose work on "Sir Tristrem" is the most detailed and comprehensive of all of the editions of the poem, concludes that "the poet fails to turn stanza form, rhyme, meter or formula to literary advantage. These weaknesses alone should wam us that we are not dealing with the carefully-wrought creation of SL Pearl-poQt or of a Chaucer" (68).

Kelton's example of Chaucer as being a completely different type of poet than of the

^'^In the Introduction to Sir Tristrem, McNeill modemizes much of the Middle English, as this rendering of line 402, which appears in the MS as "Listneth lordings dere," is an example. 14 author of "Sir Tristt-em" is important, as Kelton goes on to suggest that "Sir Tristt-em"

was composed with a "non-courtly" audience in mind.^^ Kelton, Kolbing, Newstead, and

others, are of the opinion that Sir Tristrem is intended for oral delivery, and this

accounts, Kelton argues, for many of the "defects" of the poem. However, merely

because the poem has the tt-appingso f minstt-elsey, such as numerous instances of rime

riche, meaningless tag lines, and a hasty narrative flow, such trappings must not

necessarily be considered defects. What we consider jumps in narrative and glossing of

certain events may be in large part due to the fact that an audience would have been

already familiar with the story of Tristan. Kelton goes on to argue that the poem does

have stmctural and thematic unity, due to the poet's emphasis on love and battle as the

two main forces in 's life (70). Tme, the longest passages in the poem deal with battle,

whether Tristan is battling dragons, giants or beasts. In addition, the love of Tristan for

Ysolt, and vice-versa, is of course the overriding theme of the entire work. The passages

conceming these main themes are often very descriptive, and where we have only the

briefest treatments of episodes in much of the narrative, when dealing wath the main

themes, the poet is very complete in his discussion of what is important to Tristan, love

and battle. Ultimately, however, largely "in light of the poet's inept handling of mechanics," Kelton pronounces the poem as "mediocre," a conclusion which is indeed the general scholarly opininon (78).

^^Loomis suggests that the patton for whom the bookshop consttaicted the Auchinkeck MS was of the middle class, perhaps a merchant or trader, and therefore the intended audience for the poetry would be certainly non-courtly, and yet fairly well educated (Loomis, Laura Hibbard, 113). 15 The assumption that "Sir Tristrem" is the work of a minstrel is based on a famous passage from the chronicler Robert Mannyng, or Robert de Bmnne, who says that jongleurs and minstrels who employ such intricate and complex methods of poetry recitation are often set in opposition with the common man who wishes a simple tale told in simple speech, and that even the minstrels themselves cannot recite complicated poems like "Sir Tristrem" without making mistakes. De Bmnne's passage criticizes those who recite such complicated poetry, and he says that he will make his work accessible for the common man by using simple meter and phraseology.^^ It seems then that the general opinion of the poem is low, with the possible exception of McNeill, Rumble, and

Pickford, who all defend the poem. This general disdain for the poem derives largely from the difficulty of the rhyme and meter of the poem and the techniques of minsttelsy employed by the poet. Scott's opinion of the quality and nature of the poetry is best found in his letters, and of course in his edition of Sir Tristrem.

In the inttoduction to Sir Tristrem, Scott begins the discussion of the language of the poem by offering his views on the state of languages after the Norman conquest. He claims that it is "now generally admitted" that between the French of the aristocracy (the

Norman conquerors) and the "Saxon" of the conquered, the"lowest of the people," there existed a "lingua francd' that allowed the two groups to communicate with one another

(xlvii). He goes on to say that by the reign of Henry III, (1216 to 1272), the dialect had

"assumed a shape fit for the purposes of the poet," and he cites "Ellis' Specimens, vol i chap.iii" (xlvii). He continues, saying that "English poetty, if any such existed, was

^^The passage in which de Brunne relates this information is quoted and discussed below. 16 abandoned to the peasants and menials" (xlvii). Although Scott does not cite the authority of Robert de Bmnne, as he does elsewhere, de Bmnne's comments conceming

"lewed men" and their ability to comprehend poetry certainly do apply here. Despite de

Bmnne's assertion that the language of poems such as "Sir Tristt-em" is "quaint Inglis,"

Scott, whom McNeill will later follow in this assertion, characterizes the "brevity of the narrative" and the "occasional obscurity of the constmction" as the style of the age in which it was written (Ixxxvi). The statement that the poem of "Sir Tristtem" is in "the style of the age" is confusing, in that Scott does not offer any other examples of poems that correspond in form to "Sir Tristtem;" also, his statement that he knows of no other romances written in such an intricate stanzaic and rhyme form as "Sir Tristtem," follows close on the heels of his characterization of "Sir Tristtem" as being in the popular style of the day (Ixxxvii). It is difficult then to reconcile Scott's assertions, since his own conclusions in this matter seem to conttadict one another."^'

As for the complex character of the poem, Scott says that "a stanza so complicated, and requiring so many rhimes as that of the following poem, is perhaps no where employed in a long narrative, at least it has not been the fortune of the editor to meet any romance, written in any which nearly approaches it in difficulty" (Sir Tristrem

Ixxxvii).^* The French Douce fragments supplied by Ellis are also in eleven-line stanzas.

^'See below for a discussion of an item of similar stmcture to Sir Tristrem in the Auchinleck MS. ^^There seems to be a word missing in the part of the sentence reading "...any romance, written in any which nearly approaches it in difficulty". Does Scott mean "any langxiage which" or perhaps "any style which"? It is of coursed difficult to speculate as to what word has been left out, but fortunately the meaning of the sentence does not really suffer despite the missing word. Perhaps the word left out is "language", and Scott is therefore drawing a distinction conceming difficulty between Sir Tristrem and the French original. 17 however, but the rhyme and meter are different. Pearsall notes that item 42 of the

Auchinleck MS, "Alphabetical Praise of Women," is in eleven-line stanzas very similar to those in "Sir Tristtem," although again not similar in mettical sttxicttire (Pearsall viii).

In the "Alphabetical Praise of Women," the rhyme scheme is very similar to "Sir

Tristtem," for it mns abababab for the first eight lines, as does "Sir Tristtem," but differs from "Sir Tristtem" in the last three lines, where it reads cdc where "Sir Tristtem" usually reads cbc. In addition, in the "Praise of Women," item number 42 in the

Auchinleck MS, the ninth line of the eleven line stanza is a one accent line bob-line, exactiy like "Sir Tristtem." Thus, one must again question the extent of Scott's knowledge of the Auchinleck MS as a whole, as it seems that Scott frequently ignores the manuscript in favor of "Sir Tristtem" as a separate piece, and not part of a whole. Scott continues his discussion on the rhyme and form of "Sir Tristtem," and says that romances are commonly either in short rhyming couplets or in a verse style similar to Chaucer's Sir

Thopas, meaning that they are of a simple stmcture (Ixxxvii).^^ Conceming the stmcture of the poem, Scott concludes that "the rules which the poet has prescribed to himself are observed with strict accuracy, and his rhimes, though multiplied and complicated, correspond with rigid exactness" (Ixxxviii).

^^ As an example of stanzaic form common in romances, Scott's choice of Chaucer's Sir Thopas, which is widely recognized as a parody of the worst kinds of defects found in romances is at the very least interesting, if not amusing. 18 CHAPTER V

THE REDISCOVERY OF "SIR TRISTREM" AND THE BEGINNING

OF THE EDITING PROCESS

Scott was not the first of his contemporaries to take interest in the romance of

"Sir Tristtem," which was actually reinttoduced to modem times in 1792 by Joseph

Ritson, a lawyer whose overwhelming passion was antiquities. Ritson was also the first to study the romances ofOrfeo, Lai le Freine, and Floris in the Auchinleck MS (Johnston

132). Ritson must have ttanscribed at least parts of "Sir Tristtem," as he quotes from it in his edition of Minot in 1795 (Johnston 133). George ElHs claims that Ritson unveiled the romance of "Sir Tristtem," ^" but neither used the romance in their collections of medieval poetry. Thomas Percy, whose monumental Reliques of Ancient English Poetry appeared in 1765, had visited the Advocates' library on October 10 of that year, but had no time to examine the Auchinleck MS (Johnston 93). However, Percy later received details of the contents of the manuscript from Hugh Blair, but both Percy and Blair apparently overlooked "Sir Tristtem," as Percy added several of the other romances from the manuscript to the 1767 edition of Reliques, but did not add "Sir Tristtem"(93).^'

Thus, Percy added over half of the romances in the Auchinleck MS to his Reliques, so that while it would appear that he simply overlooked "Sir Tristtem," it is possible that he left it out for other reasons, such as the difficulty of the rhyme and meter or perhaps the

^""Specimens of the Early English Poets (1801), 3: 409 (Johnston 223). ^'Hugh Blair (1718-18()0) was a Scottish clergyman and professor of rhetoric at Edinburgh. Percy included, for the 1767 edition, Horn Childe, Guy, Rembrun, Bevis, Arthur and Merlin, Roland and Vernagu, Outel, and The King of Tars (Johnston 93, n. 3). 19 fragmentary nature of the romance, the former being the most likely suggestion since all

of the romances which he printed either begin or end imperfectiy, with the exception of

Arthur and Merlin and Bevis. Another eminent scholar of the day, Thomas Warton,

presumed that there was an English romance on Tristan based on Robert de Brunne's

reference to a Tristan poem in "sttange Inglis."^^ Warton did not know the Auchinleck

MS, however, and whoever later edited and published his work was apparently

unfamiliar with the MS as well, as the 1824 edition of Warton's History, twenty years

after Scott's Sir Tristrem of 1804, mentions an English Tristan story, but does not

mention "Sir Tristtem." Ellis had intended to work with the manuscript, but abandoned

the project to Scott, who was anxious that "Sir Tristtem" appear in Edinburgh as the

"earliest piece of'Scottish' poetry to be reprinted" (Johnston 161).^^

Dr. John Leyden began, in 1801, to prepare an edition of "Sir Tristtem"under

Scott's supervision, but Leyden abandoned the project after ttanscribing over a thousand

lines (Johnston 180). According to Johnston, Leyden was disttessed conceming a line

containing the word "queynt," and thus turned the project to Scott, who, along with Ellis

and Francis Douce, was convinced that the age of the work was sufficient to make any

indelicacies a non-issue (180). In the end however, Scott removed the conttoversial line,

apparentiy despite any misgivings he might have had conceming censorship. Twelve

copies, published for the benefit of his friends, kept the line intact (Johnston 180). In his

^^Johnston offers two references for this presumption, one in Warton's 1824 edition of History of English Poetry (iii. 126n.) and another at i. 181-98 of the same edition (115). ^^ Apparentiy, Johnston here means "reprinted" from a manuscript source. Prior to Scott, few romances had been printed in their entirety, and Sir Tristrem had not appeared in even a fragmentary form. 20 inttoduction to Sir Tristrem, Scott sheds little light on Leyden's work. He thanks Leyden profusely, and says that "During the commencement of this work, he gave his active and arduous assistance; and had he remained in Britain till circumstances enabled the editor

[Scott] to resume his task after a long discontinuance, it would have been now offered with more confidence to the public" (Scott, Sir Tristrem xciv). It seems then that Leyden may be responsible for much more of the ttanscription than Johnston believes. The offending word is in line 2254, which occurs in Scott's stanza 103 of the second fitt: Ouer temes sche schuld ride, I>at is an arm of {)e se: "To J)e schip side I>is man schal here me." Tristtem hir bar J)at tide And on {)e quen fel he Next her naked side, I>at mani man mizt y se San schewe. Hir queynt abouen hir kne Naked ^e kniztes knewe. (In. 2245-2255)

(She must sail over the Thames, That is an arm of the sea: "To the ship's side This man shall bear me." Tristtem carried her at that time And onto the queen he fell Next to her naked side. That many men might see Unintentionally. Her cunt, above her knees, Naked the knights saw.)^"*

If Leyden started at the beginning and ttanscribed the poem at least up to this point, he

would have therefore ttanscribed a frill thousand lines further than Johnston suggests he

was responsible for. At the very least, Leyden read up to the point where the word

^"*A11 ttanslations in this thesis are mine, except where noted. 21 "queynt" appears in the poem. The stanza is certainly the most risque of the poem, and

Scott, in the inttoduction of Sir Tristrem, says that "A line or two, in p. 224, are omitted, on account of their gross indelicacy" (xc). In fact, only one line was removed, line 2254, above. Scott believed that the antiquity of the language and the poem was sufficient to allow any "offending" words to be printed, but the printers and sponsors of the text won out, and the indecent word was omitted.^^ More importantly, Scott was given by Leyden a ttanscription of over two-thirds of the poem when he commenced the task, and thus was able to have the text printed, without his inttoduction and glossary, in October of

1802, a full year and 8 months before the publication of the complete volume. That

Scott's edition is riddled with minor errors is quite evident, and this is tmly the single most important and recurring flaw in Scott's edition: the presence of an inordinate and indeed unacceptable amount of textual errors in the poem itself As the rest of Scott's edition-the inttoduction, notes, and appendices- does not contain a fraction of the errors found in the poem, we may safely say that the textual errors of the romance in Sir

Tristrem are largely due to ttanscription, or perhaps errors of the typesetters of the printer."

^^As the omitted line occurs on page 124 rather than 224, we again see the type of minor error that frequentiy occurs in Scott's edition of Sir Tristrem. '^The omitted line appears as follows: "***** *" (Scott Sir Tristrem 124). Due to the context of the surrounding lines, the omission of line 2254 luckily does not cause any serious damage to the reading of the stanza. It is interesting to note that in her modem ttanslation of the poem in 1914, Jessie Weston plays the censor as well, ttanslating the line as "Her flesh above the knee" (Weston 167). ^'See footnote 57 conceming errors of ttanscription. 22 CHAPTER VI

INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP

The testimony of Robert de Brunne plays a centtal role in Scott's arguments conceming the Scottish origins of "Sir Tristtem" because evidence within the romance of

"Sir Tristtem" conceming authorship is nearly nonexistent, and highly conttoversial.

The internal evidence for the authorship of the poem rests entirely on four allusions to one "tomas" as the author or at the very least reciter of the poem.^^ At line 396, Fit I stanza XXXVII in Scott's version, we see an allusion to Thomas as the reciter of the events of the poem: I>o tomas asked ay Of tristtem, ttewe fere. To wite J)e rizt way I>e styes for to lere. Of a prince proude in play ListeneJ), lordinges dere. Who so better can say, His owhen he may here As hende. Of J)ing J)at is him dere Ich man preise at ende. (1. 396-406)

(Though Thomas always asked people "To know Tristtem, tme companion, To know the proper way to know the nuances of the story Of a prince, proud in play Listen, lordings dear. Whoever can recite better. His own work he may show later Courteously. ^^Followdng McNeill, I have reproduced all four stanzas in which the references occur. One can certainly get a good idea of the context of the allusions by seeing the surrounding text. I have added where the stanzas occur in Scott's edition, since Scott does not number the lines. 23 Of things that are to him dear. Each man may praise at the end [of my tale].)

In lines 407-417, Scott's Fit I stanza XXXVIII: In o robe tristtem was boun I>at he fram schip hadde brouzt. Was of ablihand broun, I>e richest {)at was wrouzt. As tomas telle]) in toun. He no wdst what he mouzt, Bot semly sett him doun And ete aye til him gode J)ouzt; Ful sone I>e forest for]) he souzt When he so hadde done. (1.407-417)

(Tristtem was shrouded in a robe That he had brought from the ship. It was brown. The very richest made. As Thomas tells in town. Tristtem did not know the land. So he wisely sat down And ate what he thought pmdent; Then soon The forest path he sought After he had eaten.)

Again in lines 2784-2794, Scott's Fit III stanza XLV, we have the briefest of references: Beliagog l)e bold. As afende he fauzt; Tristtem liif neize he sold, As tomas haj) ous tauzt; Tristtem smot, as god wold. His fot of at adrauzt; Adoun he fel y fold, I>at man of michel mauzt. And cride: "Tristtem, be we sauzt. And haue min londes wide." (I. 2784-2794)

(Beligog the bold Fought like a fiend; 24 He nearly killed Tristtem, As Thomas has told us; Tristtem, by God's will. Smote off the foot of his foe; And down he [Beliagog] fell, That mighty man. And cried: "Tristtem, let us mend our differences. And have all of my vast lands.")

Certainly the most important reference, as it points not merely to a nameless authority but a known, historical personage, occurs in the opening stanza of the poem: I was at ErJ)eldoune WiJ) tomas spak y {jare; I>er herd y rede in roune Who tristtem gat and bare. Who was king wif) croun. And who him forstered zare, And who was bold baroun. As l)air elders ware. Bi zere Tomas telles in toun I>is auentours as l)ai ware.

(I was at Erceldoune, With Thomas I spoke there; There I heard in a sttange language Who Tristtem begat and bore, Who was king with crown. And who fostered him there, And who was a bold baron. As their elders were. Every year Thomas tells in town These adventures as they were.)

These four references to a "tomas," and the one reference to Erceldoune, are the only pieces of evidence that can be gathered from the text of the poem itself The very first line of the poem is partially missing, almost certainly due to the manuscript being

25 defaced by the cutting out of the illumination which preceded or headed the poem.

Scott, in the notes to the first fit of Sir Tristrem, also says that the blank is "occasioned by cutting out the illumination" (Sir Tristrem 244). Throughout the entire Auchinleck

MS, illuminations at the beginning of most of the items have been cut out.^^ Certainly, other entire leaves have been cut out, in some cases leaving only stubs, and other pages are missing altogether. This is, of course, exttemely unfortunate, and in the case of "Sir

Tristtem," the result is the loss of part of the first line of the poem, and also lines

124-135, which occur in Scott's stanzas twelve and thirteen of Fit I. The last leaf of the poem, and thus the ending, is missing, having been cut out completely.'*'^ Quite fortunately, at the foot of the page of the item preceding "Sir Tristtem," the first line of the poem exists as a catchphrase, "Y was at ert)eldoune," and we are thus able to reconstmct the very beginning of the romance. The first two lines of the poem then, provide us wdth our first internal clue as to the authorship of the poem: "Y was a[t er])eldoun:]/ WiJ) tomas spak y {)are."'*' Our first reference to an authority then is in the third person, and the narrator is pretending to tell the tale as he heard Thomas of

Erceldoune relate it. McNeill holds, however, that the narrator is in fact Thomas of

Erceldoune, and that he only alludes to himself in the third person as a literary device to

'^Only seven illuminations survive, and where only the illumination and not the entire leaf of the manuscript was cut out, the manuscript has been patched (Kelton

'^'^Scott himself supplied an ending of his OWTI composition to the romance. See pagexxxxx '''Both Scott and McNeill begin the poem with the modem pronoun "I", while it seems clear that the first letter in the Auchinleck MS, although defaced and partially missing, is the character "Y". At no other point do Scott and McNeill use "I" for the pronoun "y", although Scott uses a capital "Y" for the manuscript's "y", "to distinguish it from \', the usual cormption ofge, the Saxon preposition (Sir Tristrem Ixxxix). Scott's other changes in his edition will be discussed later 26 record his name (McNeill xHii). Such was the opinion of Ritson, who suggested this idea to Scott before the edition of Sir Tristrem went to print (Sir Tristrem Ixxxii). Scott, however, disagreed, saying that "this finesse is not suitable to the period in which he

[Thomas of Erceldoune] lived (Ixxxii). It seems that Scott later modified his opinion however, as McNeill points to Scott as his source for the conclusion that Thomas of

Erceldoune is indeed referring to himself in he third person. McNeill states that "there is

at least one other instance in that age [Thomas of Erceldoune's] of an author's having

chosen this method of recording his name," and he then cites Scott's example of one

Alexandre de Bemay, in the 1855 edition of Sir Tristrem, p. 83, as another author who

refers to himself in the third person.''^

"•^The 1855 edition is a reprint of the second edition of 1806. The material added to the secon edtition is largely inconsequential, as it in no way alters Scott's assertions in the 1804 edition of Sir Tristrem. Such an opinion by Scott would not be out of character, and a discussion of Scott's tenacity conceming his opinions about the authorship of "Sir Tristtem" will be taken up later. 27 CHAPTER VII

THE "INTRODUCTION"--PART I

Scott begins the inttoduction to Sir Tristrem in a very scholarly, matter-of-fact tone, briefly stating where the romance of "Sir Tristtem" is to be found, who composed the romance, and what Scott proposes to accomplish in his edition:

The romance of Sir Tristrem was composed by THOMAS OF ERCELDOUNE, called the RHYMER, who flourished in the 13th century. The only copy, known to exist, is contained in a large and valuable collection of metrical romance, belonging to the library of the faculty of advocates, and called, from its donor, the Auchinleck MS. A correct edition of this ancient and curious poem is now submitted to the public. This prefatory memoir is designed to contain, I. Some account of Thomas of Erceldoune; II. History of the romance of *S'/r Tristrem; III. Observations on the copy now published, (iii)

Thus, Scott divides the inttoduction into three distinct parts, each of which attempts to

address the issues outiined above. Part one, which comprises pages iv-xxi of the

inttoduction, contains all of the information conceming the life of the celebrated poet and

seer Thomas of Erceldoune that Scott was able to compile. Here, Scott is able to rely on

several sources for factual information, a luxury which he lacks later in the inttoduction,

when dealing with the question of the authorship and ttansmission of the poem.

The primary concem of this portion of Scott's inttoduction is to try to prove the

existence of a Thomas of Erceldoune who was called the Rhymer, and to try to establish

28 some approximate dates for this person's birth and death. Through the use of neariy contemporary sources such as Robert de Bmnne, Barbour, Wintoun, and Harry the

Minsttel, Scott is able to establish that Thomas of Erceldoune, also known as Thomas

Learmont and Thomas the Rhymer, is indeed the same Thomas referred to by these various authors and sources."*^ To establish the dates of Thomas the Rhymer's life is more difficult, and here Scott rehes on a charter, granted by the son of Thomas of

Erceldoune (Thomas de Ercildoun filius et heres Thomae Rymour de Ercildoun) to the trinity house of Soltta (Solfre) which conveys Thomas the younger's inherited lands to the house.'" The charter is dated 1299, and Scott is Hkely correct in assuming that the elder Thomas would have had to have been dead by this date in order for his son to give away hereditary lands. By adding the poetic testimony of Barbour that Thomas the

Rhymer was alive in 1296, Scott supposes that The Rhymer died between 1296 and 1299

(Sir Tristrem ix)."*^ Scott then places the birth of Thomas the Rhymer at a point somewhere "betwixt 1229 and 1226," assuming that in order for the Rhymer to gain a reputation for prophecy and poetry he would have had to attain the age of at least seventy years (ix)."*^

'^^ Scott says that the name Learmont has been supposed by "all later writers, meaning later than Thomas of Erceldoune, to be the family name of Thomas of Erceldoune." Scott disagrees, and says that there is no real reason to suppose that it was not simply an adopted name, perhaps due to a predecessor's marriage to a Learmont (Sir Tristrem v-vi). '^''Scott includes a reproduction of this charter in Appendix No. I to the inttoduction, although he does not indicate to the reader that he wall do so. James A. H. Murray in his The Romance and Prophecies of Thomas of Erceldoune, EETS, no. 61, 1875, p. x, gives a complete copy and thorough discussion of the charter, as well as an account of Thomas of Erceldoune similar to that of Scott. "•^John Barbour (ca. 1320-1396) wrote his poem the Bruce in 1376. ''^Scott inverts the possible dates of Thomas of Erceldoune's birth, probably because he is working backwards to try to determine an approximate date for the 29 Many problems conceming fact and conjecttire arise from Scott's discussion and conclusions. James A. H. Murray, in his Romance and Prophecies of Thomas of

Erceldoune, offers a lengthy discussion of Thomas of Erceldoune and the events and dates which shaped and bound his life, a discussion which leads to more confusion conceming Thomas and his life. His conclusions on the name of Thomas of Erceldoune, that in fact he could have home the surname Rhymer, are at odds with Scott, who suggests that the place name Erceldoune was the sumame commonly used by Thomas.

Murray uses the hypothesis that Rhymer could have been a sumame to suggest that

Thomas was alive in 1294, and thus granted his land to the house at Soltta himself

Murray follows this hypothesis in order to satisfy Harry the Minsttel's claim that Thomas was ahve in 1296. The key difference between Murray's and Scott's discussions is the dating of the charter of Thomas's land to the house of Soltta.

Murray's reprint of the charter in his edition of Thomas's romance and prophecies clearly shows that the charter was drawn up in "Anno Domini millesimo nonogesimo quarto," that is, 1294. Murray notes that Scott, in the Border Minstrelsey^^ has printed

"nonogesimo nono," 1299, but does not fault Scott on this point (Murray x). What is important is that in the first appendix to the inttoduction of Sir Tristrem, Scott again prints "nonogesimo nono" (Sir Tristrem xcviii). This misprinting of the date is in many ways a curious error, since the charter is contained in the Advocate's Library (W. 4. 14.), and Scott should have been able to see the original and not merely a copy. One must

Rhymer's birth based upon the probable dates of his death. ^^Border Minstrelsey 79. Scott's discussion here of Thomas of Erceldoune, which prefaces his printing of the Romance of Thomas of Erceldoune, called by him "Thomas the Rhymer," is very similar to that of the inttoduction of Sir Tristrem 30 suppose that Scott either did not consult the original charter, which he indeed should have done, that the printers made the mistake, or that Scott deliberately misprinted the date in order to satisfy Harry the Minsttel's assertion that Thomas was alive in 1296. Of the three possibilities presented, the latter is obviously the most serious charge.

However, such a deliberate misrepresentation would be grossly out of character for Scott, despite his proclivity for error and ill-founded conjecture which we shall encounter later in Sir Tristrem. Here, it is sufficient to say that Scott's methods and conclusions may not be wholly accurate in Hght of subsequent research, but that his theories do provide a somewhat accurate basis for the life and chronology of Thomas of Erceldoune, theories which have since been elaborated upon and modified but not totally disproved or dismissed. In the final analysis, a difference one way or the other of five years is largely inconsequential, but since Scott goes to great lengths to establish the facts of the life and work of Thomas of Erceldoune as concretely as possible, any errors or miscalculations do indeed need to be taken into consideration.

The remainder of the first part of the inttoduction is given over to the various ttaditional and romantic anecdotes conceming Thomas of Erceldoune. These include references to Thomas by Fordun ("Thomas videlicet de Erseldon"), Barbour, in his Book of the Bruce ("Thomas' prophecy/ Off Hersildowne"), Wintoun ("Thomas of

Erceldoune"), and again Harry the Minsttel, who calls the bard "Thomas Rimour," the only source to do so.'*^ Scott also includes a short account of the various prophecies

''^Blind Harry the Minsttel wrote his poem Wallace about 1488. Andrew Wintoun was aScottish chronicler who died around 1420. Fordun was al4th century Scottish chronicler credited with the Scotichronicon. Murray uses the fact that Harry calls Thomas "Thomas Rimour" to lend credence to his theory that "Rhymer" may have been the sumame of Thomas and not merely an appellation 31 assigned to Thomas in the years following his death. This first part of the inttoduction concludes with a reference to Scott's own Border Minstrelsey and the "rhymes" conceming Thomas therein (Sir Tristrem xxi).

The larger, second part of the inttoduction, which is concerned with providing the "History of the romance of Sir Tristrem,"'^'^ occupies pages xxii -Ixxxi. It is here that

Scott, using all of his talents as an antiquary and scholar, elaborates and indeed establishes his claim that "Sir Tristtem" was written by Thomas of Erceldoune. It is also here that Scott, while again employing his skills as an antiquary as well as his wide and varied reading on various "ancient" subjects, falls into some of his most fanciful conjectures and far flung theories. Curiously then, Scott's lengthy and well-researched inttoduction makes his edition of Sir Tristrem what it is, the first modem edition of a romance; yet at the same time, it is in the inttoduction that most of Scott's errors conceming the poem of "Sir Tristtem" appear, errors which in some ways undermine many of the considerable merits of Scott's edition.

Scott begins the second part of the inttoduction with a brief account of the Tristan legend according to the "Welch authorities" (xxii). Scott thanks "the learned Mr Owen, author of a classical Welch Dictionary," for the short history that he relates, as well as a short dialogue between Tristan and Gawain which is from the Welsh Triads, which is

Appendix No. II (xxiii). This "Mr Owen" is WilHam Owen-Pughe (1759-1835), a Welsh antiquary. In December of 1802, Scott requested a copy of this short dialogue which passed between Tristan and Gawain (Trystan and Gwalzmai). Scott's first letter to Owen, in July of 1802 was a request for information concerning Tristan compiled by "Welch

^'^Sir Tristrem iii. 32 Bards," especially any material of obvious Celtic exttaction (Letters I. 148). Several items are of interest in this first letter. First, Scott tells Owen that he is working on a

"mettical Romance calld Sir Tristram," one of the few, if not the only, instances that he does not use "Sir Tristtem" as the form (148). It appears that only after Scott started working with the Auchinleck "Sir Tristtem" did he use the form of the name "Tristtem" rather than the common form "Tristtam." Second, Scott says that Thomas of Erceldoune

"flourished in the end of the 12th Centtiry," a date which he obviously modified soon after this first letter to Owen.^'^ Third, and of the most importance, Scott solicits Owen for information conceming the ttansmission of the tale of Tristan: Did the Minsttel of the Scottish Borders [Thomas of Erceldoune] borrow his subject from the Normans who might have picked it up in Armorica among other ttaditions of Wales? Or are we entitled to suppose that Thomas of Erceldoune residing very near to Silva Caledonia & other districts of Scotland long possessed by the Cumraig, collected his materials from the Celtic ttaditions which must have continued to float for a length of time through the countries which they had so long inhabited? (148)

Here then we can see Scott's original suppositions and questions which he later formulates into his centtal theory conceming the authorship, ttansmission, and date of

"Sir Tristtem."

After some additional discussion conceming the Celtic nature of the tales of

Tristan and indeed all of the tales linked with King Arthur and the Arthurian Cycle, Scott launches headlong into his most complicated and lengthy theory in the entire inttoduction: that "Sir Tristtem" was indeed written by Thomas of Erceldoune, that this event marks the beginning of Middle English literature in the British Isles, and that it is

^^In his letter to Owen in December of 1802, Scott says that Thomas "flourished about the middle & end of the 13th. Century," so Scott has obviously already modified his views conceming the dates of Thomas's life. 33 from Scotiand that the metrical romance of Tristan drifted south into France and the

Continent. When Scott first turns to this task, it seems to be at first a mere digression, but it soon becomes clear that Scott has in mind not merely to provide the reader with some history of the Tristan legend, as he states, but also pursue the grandiose idea that

Scotiand was the seat and fount of Middle English literature. Following his final pronouncement that there surely was a "British" (Celtic) hero named Tristan who existed very long ago, he says, "There occurs here an interesting point of discussion" (xxvi).

Here, Scott begins a short discussion conceming the curious way that first the Saxons, of whom Scott says Thomas of Erceldoune was probably one, and then the Normans, seemed to abandon their Saxon and Scandinavian ttaditions and immerse themselves in the tales of legendary Britain, notably Arthur and his knights (xxvii).^' What follows is a rambling discussion conceming Scott's ovm theories of French and English romance, the state and acceptance of ttoubadours and minsttels in French and English courts, and the use of Arthurian material by French authors such as Chretien de Troyes (fl. 1160-1190),

(whom Scott calls "Chrestien" (xxxi)). Scott is primarily using these examples of French literature, digressive and rambling though they are, to reach his goal for the second part of the inttoduction: to provide some sort of history of the Tristan legend. In addition to discussing Chretien's supposed, but non-extant story of Tristan, he cites two allusions to

^'This is very interesting, as Scott is at once suggesting that Thomas of Erceldoune was of Saxon origin, and yet the "heir" to the legends and tales of the Celts who had previously inhabited Scotland. Such an incongmity, which passes wdthout further comment from Scott is astounding, and this lapse in reasoning does little to bolster Scott's arguments conceming the state of poetry at the time of Thomas of Erceldoune. 34 Tristan by the king of Navarre(fl. ca. 1220), as well as one allusion by the celebrated

Marie de France (ca. 1140-ca. 1190), in her lai of Chevrefoil ("Chevrefeuille") (xxxiii).

The mention of Marie de France is well worth further examination. Scott uses her lai as part of his evidence to show that the early French romances were composed by

Norman rimeurs for the new Anglo-Norman royal court, a point which he finally makes, after much digression conceming, again, the state of the French and "Inglis" languages and the many works which relate to Scott's theories.^^ For Scott's purpose, the example of Marie turns out to be much more meaningful than he could have known. Recent scholarship suggests that Marie may have actually Hved in or at least ttaveled in England, as the group of lais containing Milun, Yonec, Lanval, Eliduc, and of course, Chevrefoil, have a wealth of detail that seems to be first hand information conceming the geography of England and Wales.^^ In his inttoduction to Sir Tristrem, Scott prints a short, ten-line excerpt of the begirming of the lai, which he says he has "not had an opportunity of examining" (xxxiii). However, Appendix III to the inttoduction is a ttanslation of the entire lai. Apparently, Scott means that he has not seen the lai in the original Old French, as he received the ttanslation from Ellis.^"* This particular ttanslation of Chevrefoil is of

"It is not until page Ixv of the inttoduction that Scott makes the pronouncement, "In one word, the early romances of England were written in French, those of Scotland were written in English." Scott received much support and many ideas from Ellis in this matter, and it is largely due to the ideas of Ellis that Scott was able to expound upon and enlarge the theory conceming French romance and its invention for Anglo-Norman courts ^^Marie de France. The Lais of Marie de France. Burgess, Glyn K. and Keith Busby, ttanslators. London: Penguin, 1986. The inttoduction to this ttanslation is exceptionally well done, and Burgess's The Lgis_of Marie de France: Text and Context (Athens, Georgia: U of Georgia P, 1987) is far and away the best volume of criticism on Marie and the Lais. ^"•Scott acknowledges that he received the "French fragments" of the Tristan material in the Douce manuscripts, which he appends to Sir Tristrem, from Ellis 35 much interest, since the lais of Marie were only printed in English separately and sporadically until Eugene Mason's prose edition of 1911 (Burgess and Busby 37).^^

Exactiy who ttanslated the lai for Scott is unclear. Common sense would suggest that

Ellis, who ttanslated the Douce fragments for Scott for the very same edition of Sir

Tristrem, simply ttanslated the lai himself and passed it along to Scott. One interesting possibility, however, concerns Ellis's wife, Anne, who, at the time of her engagement to

Ellis, seems to have immersed herself in the antiquarian labors of her husband. Johnston

says that in 1801, EUis was given a printed copy of the romance of Sir Eger, which had

previously been knowm only in manuscript form in the Percy Folio MS (160).^^ In

addition however, in a letter dated 9th October of 1801, Scott relates to Ellis that he will

soon be sending a copy of the Border Minstrelsey not to Ellis's hands but to the hands "of

the fair Transcriber of Sir Grime Sir Eger & Sir Graysteel" (Letters, XII 198)." Thus, it

seems that the copy of Chevrefoil which Scott inserted into Sir Tristrem could very well

be the work of Anne Ellis, and not her famous husband George, to whom some of her

work has been ascribed. More importantly, however, Scott's copy of this lai appears to

be the first English ttanslation of Chevrefoil to be printed.^^ Scott apparently includes the

but he neglects to say that the ttanslation of Chevrefoil came also from Ellis (Letters I, 214). ^^ Jesse Weston also published several editions of the Lais, but never a complete edition of all of the poems. Edith Rickert published English ttanslations of seven ofthe lais in 1901. ^^The correspondence between Scott and Ellis conceming Sir Eger, among other things of course, can be found in Letters XII, 190-197. "These copies may be found in the library at Abbotsford, and Grierson says that they are attributed to Ellis himsolf (Letters, XII 198). ^^This point wall require further research, but as of yet no bibliography which I have consulted even names Scott's work, much less any previous printing. Reiss gives credit to Edith Rickert, who published seven ofthe lais in 1901. 36 examples ofthe work of Chretien de Troyes and Marie de France to show that the story of Tristan was indeed quite popular before Thomas of Erceldoune wrote "Sir Tristtem. "^^

Scott then dismisses the work of Marie and Chretien as based upon popular legend, and not part of any written body of Tristan material, and he does not mention Thomas of

Brittany, saving his opinions that Thomas of Erceldoune's work predated that of Thomas of Britanny for his discussion ofthe fragments later in the inttoduction. This inclusion of Chevrefoil appears to have so much more importance than a mere anecdotal example, and this adds another facet to the importance of Scott's already impressive edition of Sir

Tristrem.

Thus, with the establishment of the above French allusions to Tristan before

Scott's date of Thomas of Erceldoune's supposed composition of "Sir Tristtem" (1250),

Scott moves on to what is his centtal inquiry in the inttoduction, and he restates his purpose in the form of questions to be answered: Did Thomas ttanslate his poem from some of those [French works] which were current in the Romance language? Or did he refer to the original British authorities from which his story had been versified by the French minsttels? (xxxix)

Scott then moves into a discussion of the state of Scotiand during Thomas's time in order to "throw some light on this curious point" (xxxix). For the next five pages,

Scott discusses the situation ofthe Celtic peoples after they were forced to retteat to the western reaches ofthe British Isles due to the encroachments ofthe Saxons. He says that the Celts were forced into four areas of Britain: Wales, Lancashire and Cumberland,

Comwal (sic), and Sttathclwyd (sic.) (xxxv). Scott concludes, since the Border

^^Scott says that "the story of Tristtem appears to have been popular in France, at least thirty years before the probable date of Thomas of Erceldoune's work" (Sir Tristrem xxxix). 37 regionsof Scotiand, in which lies the town of Erceldoune, lay very near the ancient kingdom of Sttathclwyd, that it was in these regions Thomas the Rhymer collected the material for his impressive tale of Sir Tristtem. The story, although it had already penettated into France, must have been preserved in a more authentic state by a people who, perhaps, had hardly ceased to speak the language ofthe hero [Tristan], (xxxix)

The focus of Scott's discussion then turns to proving these suppositions. First, he

attempts to prove that Thomas of Erceldoune's work was known to the French romance

composers as the authentic source ofthe Tristan legend. For this undertaking, Scott uses

the Douce fragments of the Tristan poem provided to him by Ellis, to whose absttacts on

page 203 of this edition he refers the reader (xl).^ Scott concludes that the "Thomas"

referred to in these fragments is indeed Thomas of Erceldoune, since the story in the

fragments corresponds to the story found in "Sir Tristtem" (xlv). He further establishes

his point by placing the date of the fragments later than the work of Thomas of

Erceldoune, a deduction founded merely upon Scott's assertion that the French of the

fragments is not sufficientiy "old" enough to predate Thomas of Erceldoune, but which is

simply an example ofthe "obsolete language" ofthe French poets (xlv). The faults of

logic in this argument are nearly immediately evident, and indeed almost all critics of

Scott's edition choose to deride him conceming this argument.^' By dismissing the

references to Tristan by Chretien de Troyes, the king of Navarre, and especially Marie de

^'^The Douce fragments were parts ofthe manuscript collection of Francis Douce (1757-1834), an author and antiquary and friend of Scott and Ellis. The fragments are parts ofthe Old French metrical version ofthe Tristan story by Thomas of Brittany, whose work (ca. 1170) actually predated Thomas of Erceldoune. ^^ Johnston, Margaritis, Newstead, Pickford, and Kelton among others all dismiss Scott's theories, McNeill being the sole scholar to adopt similar theories conceming the authorship and ttansmission ofthe poem. 38 France as merely allusions to the original Celtic legend lately ttansmitted to France, Scott is disregarding the Celtic heritage of Brittany, an area of discussion upon which Scott never touches in his inttoduction except in vague references to "Armorica." By refusing to allow that there could have been a French poem on Tristan predating Thomas of

Erceldoune, Scott is merely circumventing the issue altogether. Once Scott establishes these "tmths," however, the inttoduction naturally suffers from a series of defective and ill-conceived ideas, all of which are based upon the faulty logic conceming "Sir

Tristtem" and its place in the history ofthe Tristan legend. Scott deduces that it is only natural for Thomas of Erceldoune to be cited as the authority on the Celtic legends, as he had "immediate access to the Celtic ttaditions conceming with which the Anglo-Norman romancers were unacquainted" (xlvi). Scott ultimately qualifies then his own pronouncement that "It is the united opinion of Warton, Tyrwytt, and Ritson, that there exists no English Romance, prior to the days of Chaucer, which is not a ttanslation of some earlier French one" by suggesting that "Sir Tristtem" is perhaps the lone exception

(xlviii). Thus, through the use of carefully chosen examples designed to establish

Thomas of Erceldoune as the original romancer of the Tristan story, Scott succeeds in totally subverting the place ofthe French romances as being the first medieval vernacular examples ofthe genre, placing instead the poetry of Scotland and England at the forefront ofthe Middle Age romance ttadition. Scott's final summation in this part of the inttoduction gives credit to Thomas of Erceldoune for composing, in Scotiand, the "first classical English romance," a suggestion which we now know is not ttiie due to the fact that "Sir Tristtem" is but an abridgement of French romance material (xlvii).^^

^^See Johnston (Enchanted Ground 179) for his discussion of this problem. 39 Scott's focus then turns to a discussion ofthe state ofthe "Saxon," French, and

English languages, and he suggests that, between the noble Normans and the menial

Saxons, the English language was bom out of a necessity for the two parties to have some sort of "lingua franca," an amalgam ofthe two languages needed for communication in the recently conquered island (xlvii). Scott goes on to suggest that the

English language which exists in England and in Scotland at the present, was actually formed in Scotland before it was formed in England, partly due to the absence of a sttong

Norman presence in Scotiand immediately following the Norman conquest of England.

This is a very confusing argument, and one that Scott does not adequately explain.

Scott's suggestion that English was formed to its present state earlier in Scotland than in

England, due largely to continued Saxon influence in Scotland, is unfounded at best.

How continued Saxon influence in Scotiand and heavy Norman influence in England could produce a similar language is at best worthy of sttong skepticism, and Scott's theory is founded upon shaky ground from the beginning.

Scott does, however, comment upon one other theory that helps to explain how he arrives at the conclusion that the sttong Celtic and Saxon presence in Scotland helped to develop the English language in Scotiand rather than in England. Southern Scotiand, or rather the kingdom of Sttathclwyd, was inhabited at this time by the Picts, whom many scholars, Scott included, thought to be a Gothic rather than a Celtic ttibe (xlix). Scott goes on to say that they spoke "a dialect ofthe Teutonic, different from the

Anglo-Saxon," but close enough to that ofthe conquering Anglo-Saxons so that neither tribe was forced to change their language patterns significantiy (xlix). Scott concludes

40 by saying that "this blended speech contained, as it were, the original materials ofthe

English tongue" (xlix).

This theory that the Picts were Gothic had many adherents in Scotiand, especially in the Lowlands, and Kidd describes this theory as having its roots in the popular late eighteenth and early nineteenth century historiographical concem with race (Kidd 251).

Kidd describes this movement in terms very similar to those that Scott uses in his inttoduction to Sir Tristrem: Most of those literati prominent in the revival of the Scots tongue subscribed to the Theory that the Picts had been a Gothic rather than a Celtic people, that the modem Lowlanders were their descendants, and that the Scots tongue was native, having been directly ttansmitted by the Picts rather than inttoduced to Scotland by the Northumbrian Saxons. (251)

Major adherents to this theory were the Scottish scholars and antiquarians John Pinkerton

(1758-1826), James Sibbald (1745-1803), and the Rev. John Jamieson (1759-1838)

(Kidd 251). Scott was familiar with the work of Sibbald, had met Jamieson, and corresponded with Pinkerton.^^ In a letter to Ellis dated 21 August 1801, Scott discusses the problems of Pinkerton's theory that the Picts were Gothic, and the difficulties of the history ofthe "Scottish language" (Letters 12: 188). Later that month, Scott writes to

Ellis that "these vile picts [sic] still disturb my slumbers," but he seems convinced ofthe

"weight of Pinkerton's arguments" (191). Clearly, by the time of Scott's edition of Sir

Tristrem, his mind is made up, as he offers no hint of the conttoversy in his discussion of the state of language in Scotiand at the time of Thomas of Erceldoune.

^'See Scott's Letters vols. I and XII for correspondence both with and conceming Sibbald, Jamieson, and Pinkerton. 41 Scott's reason in pursuing this argument, to show that English poetry has its roots in Scotland, is brought forth on page Iv ofthe inttoduction. Since English was spoken and written earlier at the courts of Scottish kings, a body of English literature must have existed in the Scottish courts (Iv). It is here that Scott throws caution to the wind, and begins conjecture that is far-fetched. It must be borne in mind however, that these theories are being proposed on what is a least a semblance of scholarship. Tmly, Scott is to be faulted for the conclusions he reaches, but these conclusions are the logical culmination of illogical arguments, and what Scott lacks in scholarly and critical acumen, is partially shored up by a zealous and passionate regard for the medieval literature itself.

In addition, Scott's theories are worth studying simply because they are the theories of one ofthe leading scholars ofthe early 19th century, and the impact that Scott's theories had on the study of medieval literature is immeasurable.

To a list beginning wdth the already established Border poet Thomas of

Erceldoune, Scott adds Kendal ("whose name seems to infer a Cumbrian descent"),

Hutcheon ofthe Awle Royal,^ "and probably many other poets, whose names and works have now perished" and thus forms what is a tmly fanciful school of Lowland Scots poets (Iv). To the romance of "Sir Tristtem," Scott adds Gawan and Gologras and

Galoran ofGaloway, both of which he says can be shown to be of probable Scottish origin due to the comparative absence of French words. Scott then adds the History of

^The identity of Hutcheon of the Awle Royal is indeed as contested as that of Thomas of Erceldoune. He seems to have flourished around the mid fourteenth century, and the works ascribed to him are largely lost or impossible to discern from works with similar titles. For a complete, although somewhat dated, discussion of Hutcheon, see J. H. Millar, A Literary^ History of Scotland. London: T. Fisher Unwan, 1903. More recentiy, see Severs's Manual of Writings in Middle English, Vol. 2. 42 Sir Edgar and Sir Grime to the list, of which he says "the language is unquestionably

Scottish, and the scene is laid in Carrick, in Ayreshire" (Iv-lvi). Scott also suggests that

"the romance of Wade, twice alluded to by Chaucer, but now lost, was probably a border composition" (Ixi).^^ The reason for this assumption, Scott explains, is that the lost poem was said to mention a Roman wall, and it is "absurd to suppose that Norman Minsttels

came into these remote comers ofthe kingdom, to collect or celebrate the obscure ttaditions of their inhabitants" (Ixi). Scott's most unfounded conclusion in this area ofthe

inttoduction is the ascription ofthe romance Hornchild to Thomas of Erceldoune

himself. The poem contains two references to a "Thomas," and since the scene is

Northumberland and the poem is filled with Saxon names, Scott sees no reason that this

poem cannot be said to be a composition of Thomas the Rhymer.^ In a footnote, Scott

says that this theory of course is merely just that, a theory. He also states in the note that

his main reason for believing Hornchild to be the work of Thomas of Erceldoune is that

at least we know that there was a Thomas of Erceldoune, and we have no proof that a

Norman poet named Thomas actually existed, other than in poetic references (lix).^^

Thus, Scott, for all purposes, invents a school of Border Scots poets, based primarily on

vague poetic references, and ascribes to them several works of poetry which have no real,

provable connection to any particular poet or group of poets. In addition, the practice of

^^Chaucer mentions a "tale of Wade" in Troilus and Criseyde, Bk. 3, line 614, and in the Merchant's Tale, line 1424. ^In a letter to Ellis dated 19 March, 1804, Scott boldly asserts that he "is determined, not only that my Tomas shall be the author of Tristtem, but that he shall be the author of Hornchild also. I must, however, read over the romance, before I can make my arrangements" (Letters Vol. I, 215). As an example of scholarship, this is certainly one of Scott's most questionable episodes. ^^Since Scott's studies, much more evidence has come to light conceming Thomas of Britanny and his work than has for Thomas of Erceldoune. 43 placing poems in categories due to the setting ofthe poem, as Scott does wath the

nonexistent romance of Wade and the History of Sir Edgar and Sir Grime, is certainly

not valid and raises more questions than offers answers.

Scott's next focus concems the poetry of Thomas of Erceldoune as evidenced by

the mentions of him in the annals of Robert de Bmnne (Ixi). Like Warton, Ellis and

Ritson, Scott believed that Thomas of Erceldoune had written a romance conceming

Tristan,^^ and when Ritson discovered the romance in the Auchinleck MS, the only

known English romance of the Tristan legend, Scott assumed that this romance of "Sir

Tristtem" was Thomas of Erceldoune's work. It becomes very important then to

distinguish the various clues that Scott studied in his decision to assign the romance to

Thomas the Rhymer. Scott had already come to the conclusion that the celebrated seer

and poet Thomas of Erceldoune had penned a Tristan romance.^^ The discovery of a

romance purporting to be a ttanscription of Thomas of Erceldoune's romance then only

confirmed Scott's assumptions. The fact that Scott had a very sttong basis for his

conjectures conceming Thomas of Erceldoune as the author of "Sir Tristtem" is often

overlooked, and this is admittedly due to the increasingly speculative nature of Scott's

conjectures in his inttoduction to his edition of Sir TristremJ^ The basis for the

conclusion that Thomas wo-ote the poem lies primarily in a passage from Robert de

^^ Johnston 178. ^^ Apparentiy, Scott had studied the work of de Bmnne before he began working on "Sir Tristtem." ^^Virtually no one takes Scott's theory that the romance was written by Thomas as having much if any validity. Arthur Johnston, in his Enchanted Ground, points outs many of Scott's oversights. In his 1882 edition of 5"/^ Tristrem, Eugen Kolbing disputes Scott's claims as well. In the 1886 edition for the Scottish Text Society, George McNeill concurs with Scott, claiming that it is at least possible that Thomas wrote the poem. 44 Bmnne's, otherwise known as Robert Manning (Mannyng), English Chronicle, written about 1330. In the section of the Border Minstrelsey titied "Imitations ofthe Ancient

Ballad," Scott, in an editorial preface to the ballad on Thomas the Rhymer, quotes several lines from de Brunne, and he expands the quotation in the inttoduction to Sir Tristrem.

Scott uses the quotation, as did Warton, Ritson and Ellis, as proof for his conjecture that a romance conceming "Sir Tristtem" was written by Thomas of Erceldoune. Although the quote is long, it is worth quoting in full as it not only illuminates Scott's basis for authorship ofthe poem, but also establishes other "proof that Scott uses to establish

Thomas the Rhymer as author of the romance (the text is that of Scott's inttoduction to

Sir Tristrem, including the following modemizations: th for Ip, s for z, and y, when it is used for the pronoun I): Als thai haf wryten and sayd Haf I alle in myn Inglis layd. In symple speche as I couthe. That is lightest in manne's mouthe. I made noght for no disours, Ne for no seggours, no harpours, Bot for the luf of symple men, That sttange Inglis cannot ken; For many it ere that sttange Inglis, In ryme wate never what it is ; And bot thai wist what it mente, Ellis methought it were alle schente. I made it not for to be praysed, Bot at the lewed men were aysed. If it were made in ryme couwee. Or in sttangere or enterlace, That rede Inglis it ere inowe That couthe not have copied a kowe. That outher in cowee or in hasten. Sum suld haf ben fordon; So that fele men that it herde Suld not witte ho we that it ferde. / see in song, in sedgyng tale, 45 Of Erceldoune and ofKendale, Non tham sayis as thai thaim wroght And in ther saying it semes noght. That may thou here in Sir Tristrem, Over gestes it has the steem. Over all that is or was. If men it sayd as made Thomas, Bot I here it no man say. That of some copple som is away. So thare fayre saying here befome, Is thare ttavaile nere forlome; Thai sayd it for pride and nobleye, That were not sulkye as thei. And alle that thai willed overwhere, Alle that ilke will now forfare. Thai sayd it in so quaint Inglis, That many wate not what it is. Therefore heuyed wele the more In sttange ryme to ttavayle sore; And my wit was oure thynne So sttange speche to ttavayle in; And forsoth I couth noght So sttange Inglis as thai wroght, And men besoght me many a tyme To tume it bot in light ryme. Thai seyd if I in sttange ryme it turn. To here it many on suld skone; For in it ere names fiille selcouthe That ere not used now in mouthe. And therfore, for the commonalte. That blythely wdld listen to me. On light lange I it began, For luf of the lewed man.^' (Ixiii)

(As they have written and said ^'The italics are Scott's. In his edition, quoting the very same material, Kolbing adds the followang two lines: "To telle tham the chaunces bolde,/That here before was done and tolde." (Telling them of adventures bold,/ That in the past was done and told) (Kolbing xvii-xvii). The two lines that Kolbing adds do indeed seem to round out the passage a bit more nicely than Scott's stopping point. It is interesting to note that neither Murray nor McNeill capitalize the word "sir" in line 28 ofthe passage, and it is apparentiy not capitalized in de Bmnne's original. Scott's rendering of Sir Tristtem is intriguing, as one wonders if Scott in fact capitalized "sir" in order to give sir tristtem the appearance of an actual title, and thus the "titie" of the romance as it appears in the manuscript. 46 I have all put in English, In as simple speech as I could. That is lightest in man's mouth. Nothing made I for singers. Nor for reciters or harpers. But for the love of simple men, That cannot understand sttange English, In rhymes they cannot comprehend; And unless they know what I mean here, I think that it would be all useless. I wTote not for praise. But so the lowly man could understand. If it were fashioned in rhyme couwee. Or in sttangere or enterlace, Those who read English are few That could not have copied a proper couplet That was either in cowee or in baston. Like some have already written; So that men who heard the rhymes. Would not know what they meant. I see in song and in recited tale. Of Erceldoune, and Kendale, No one says poems as they wrote them. And when people say them they seem senseless, This you may here in Sir Tristrem, It is better than all gests. All gests that are or were. If men say it as Thomas wrote it, But I hear no man say it Without leaving out some couplet. So despite all of their fair speech. They fail in their task; They said for pride; Thinking none were as good as they. And everything that they wanted most [fame]. Will now be lost. They said it [their rhymes] in such quaint English, That many do not know what they mean. Therefore it is more bothersome To work so difficulty in sttange rhyme; And my wit is too thin To work in such sttange speech; And forsooth I could not work in Such sttange English as they wrought. And men often sought me out 47 To ttanslate it into light rhyme. They said if I wrote in sttange rhyme. Many would refuse to listen to it; For the names seem sttange And are not used today. And therefore, for the common man, That would gladly listen to me, I began it in light language, For love ofthe lowly man.)

Scott relies then on the references to Erceldoune, Thomas, and a "geste" known as "sir

Tristtem" to give the authorship ofthe poem to Thomas the Rhymer. The flaws with this line of argument are nearly immediately evident.

First, it is not precisely clear as to which "Thomas" de Bmnne is referring,

Thomas of Erceldoune or Thomas of Kendale,^^ although Kolbing, McNeill, and of course Ritson, Ellis, and Scott certainly think that the lines clearly refer to Thomas of

Erceldoune.^^ Murray suggests that the mention of "sir Tristtem" by de Bmnne may be merely a third example of difficult poetty of the type that Thomas of Erceldoune and

Thomas ofKendale employ (xx). Murray goes on to say that the "Thomas" mentioned as the author of "sir Tristtem" by de Bmnne "may not be the Erceldoune of the second line

" (xi). For that matter, it follows that it may or may not refer to Thomas of Kendale, who is mentioned elsewhere in de Bmnne's own work: When Engle hadde IpQ lond al J)orow, He gaf to Scardyng Scardeburghe; Toward \>Q northe, by \>Q see side. An hauene hit is, schipes in to ryde. Flayn highte his broJ)er, als seyj) J)e tale, I>at Thomas made of Kendale; ^^Tomas of Kendale is mentioned as a historian elsewhere in de Bmnne's work. See the following paragraph. ^^For the opinions of Kolbing and McNeill see Sir Tristrem, ed. McNeill, xxxix-xliii. See Johnston 178 for the opinions of Ritson, Ellis, and Scott, as well as, of course, Scott's inttoduction to Sir Tristrem. 48 Of Scarthe and Flayn, Thomas seys. What })ey were, how l)ey dide, what weys.^"*

(When Engle had all ofthe land, He gave Scarborough to Scardyng; Toward the north, by the sea side, It is a haven into which ships sail. His brother was called Flayn, as the tale says, That Thomas of Kendale made; Of Scarthe [Scardyng] and Flayn, Thomas says. What ways they lived and died.)^^

Kolbing concludes that Thomas of Kendale authored a chronicle "written in a difficult measure" (McNeill xl). As to how Kolbing deduces that Kendale's poem is in a

"difficult measure" I'm not sure, but he does use this conjecture, as doubtless did Scott, to back up his assertion that the Thomas mentioned in de Bmnne wrote the "sir Tristtem."^^

McNeill is certainly correct in saying that we should give much weight to the chronicle of Robert de Bmnne, and McNeill's argument that critics who suggest that the

"sir Tristtem" which de Bmnne mentions is not the same "Sir Tristtem" that we now possess are pushing things too far does indeed merit some discussion. In the inttoduction to his edition of his Sir Tristrem, Scott goes into great detail to prove that the poem we now have is the same one referred to by de Bmnne.^^ Scott begins by pointing out two distinguishing "peculiarities" ofthe poem mentioned by de Bmnne; that the poem is written in "quaint Inglis," and that no minsttel could recite the poem without omitting

^"•McNeill, quoting Kolbing, prints these lines from Warton's History of English Poetry, ed. Hazlitt, ii. 86 (McNeill xl). ^^ Flayn appears to be the brother of Engle, who gave land to Scardyng. ^^Apparently, Kolbing and Scott are associating the above reference with the longer reference, which does suggest that Thomas of Kendale authored a difficult poem, as it also suggests that Thomas of Erceldoune authored a difficult poem. ^^It is important to note that Scott never claimed that the "Sir Tristtem" in the Auchinleck MS "contains the very words devised by Thomas the Rhymer. On the conttary, I [Scott] have always thought it one ofthe spurious copies in queint Inglis, of which Robert de Bmnne so heavily complains" (Letters 1: 192). 49 some part ofthe couplet (Sir Tristrem Ixxxiii). Conceming the "quainte Inglis," Scott says the poem bears all the marks of having cormptions inttoduced by "frequent recitations," and that the poem which we now possess "bears a very peculiar character"

(Ixxxiv). Tuming from the issue of "quainte Inglis," Scott goes on to discuss the style of minsttels in the age after "Sir Tristtem," a style which he describes as very circumlocutions and containing many prolonged descriptions. Scott also says that this complex style is due to the minsttels' desire to make a tired tale new by embellishing the same old narration of events with new and complex details (Ixxxv). In conttast to the later romances, he says, meaning of course the version of Thomas of Britain which the author of "Sir Tristtem: actually redacted instead of vice-versa, "Sir Tristtem" possesses a "simple and short narration of incidents" (Ixxxv). He goes on to say that works later than "Sir Tristtem" contain the "circuitous and diffuse flourishes ofthe Anglo-Norman

Rimeur," but he offers no examples or evidence (Ixxxv). In addition, Scott relies on the complexity of the version of Douce's French fragments, which actually predate the

English version, to further advance his theory that the English version is indeed older than the French version, and the simplicity ofthe narrative of "Sir Tristtem" is proof in itself (Ixxxvi).

Despite Scott's shaky theories in other parts ofthe inttoduction, one is perhaps surprised at the absurdity and logical flaws inherent in this particular assertion. The most obvious defect with Scott's assertions is that he offers no examples from French versions of the Tristan legend to support any of his claims conceming medieval popular minsttelsy and the oral ttansmission ofthe romances. Scott offers only the romances of

50 Sir Guy and The Squire of Low Degree as examples ofthe "diffuse style which characterizes the later metrical romances" (Ixxxv, fti.). If Scott means the Sir Guy contained within the Auchinleck MS, which I assume he does, then this line of argument is indeed muddled, as it would be difficult for Scott to assess the comparative ages of two works in the same manuscript penned by the same scribe. In addition, The Squire of Low

Degree, referred to in Scott's "Essay on Romance," is said by Barron to contain "the common stock of romance conventions...themselves not absolutely distinguishable from inherited folklore motifs" (Barron 196). Furthermore, in his "Essay on Romance," Scott notes that no French original of The Squire of Low Degree has been discovered (Jerome

Mitchell 23). Therefore, unlike the case with the English "Sir Tristtem" and the French

Douce fragments where, although he does not, he could compare specific incidents and details, Scott has in fact nothing with which to compare The Squire of Low Degree.

Tme, The Squire is very prolix, and does contain several lengthy passages of enumerative detail, but this is not only a romantic convention, but a convention of vmtten and orally ttansmitted literature that sttetches back to Virgil, Ovid and Homer, whose detailed lists and epithets are well known even today. Even in "Sir Tristtem" itself, Scott's one and only comparison to the later romances, we can see the embellishment of detail and prolixity inherent in poetic romance. It is remarkable that in such a skeletal version of

Thomas' Tristan as "Sir Tristtem" more than thirty lines, 470-500, are devoted to

Tristan's dressing of a freshly killed hart, an episode which advances neither the plot nor action of the romance. Again, in lines 2396-2406, an entire stanza is devoted to the description of a dog: I>e king, a welp he brouzt 51 Bifor tristtem J)e ttewe; What colour he was wrouzt Now ichil zou schewe. Silke nas non so soft. He was rede, grene and blewe. I>ai J)at him seizen oft Of him hadde gamen and glewe, Y wis. His name was peti crewe, Ofhim was michel priis. (2396-2406).

(The King brought a whelp Before Tristtem the tme; How he was colored I shall now show you. Silk was never so soft. He was red, green, and blue. Those that saw him often Had happiness and glee. Most certainly. His name was Peticrewe, And he was much prized.)

Here again, we have a detailed and elaborate description of a dog, an intermption that is merely omamental and does nothing to enhance the narration ofthe poem, and is therefore a characteristic of all romance, not merely "later" romances. While it is tme that The Squire of Low Degree is a very late romance, Scott's argument is not positively affected by this fact, as his assumptions conceming romance conventions and the elaboration inherent in oral ttansmission are far too broad and unfounded to be considered valid. Thus, every one of the examples which Scott uses to further his opinion that Thomas of Erceldoune authored "Sir Tristtem" has at least one factor that excludes it from being a valid point of argument. The romances of Sir Guy and the

Squire of Low Degree have in fact many similarities with "Sir Tristtem," and "Sir

Tristtem" does indeed have several "prolix" passages, a characteristic Scott says is found

52 only in later romances. In the end then, Scott offers no valid proof in his comparisons to other English romances to show that "Sir Tristtem" is older than the French version of the Tristan story.

The other set of proofs that Scott offers to support his assertions that the work mentioned by de Bmnne is in fact our "Sir Tristtem" concems the form ofthe stanzas. I have already discussed what Scott thought ofthe form, but it is his assertion that he has not had "the fortune to meet any romance, written in any which nearly approaches it in difficulty" that bears directly upon the evidence of de Bmnne (Ixxxvii).^^ It is Scott's contention that the "sttange and peculiar stanza" of "Sir Tristtem" is enough to "answer the description of Robert de Bmnne," which suggests that the poem of "Sir Tristtem" is in a complicated style. Scott goes on to say that "It may be impossible to determine whether this be the rime cowee, or strangere, or baston, or entrelacee mentioned by

Robert de Bmnne, "^^ and indeed Scott does not even attempt to speculate as to which of these styles makes up "Sir Tristtem"(lxxxvii). Scott finishes his discussion on this matter in what is an almost humorous fashion. He claims that his edition of "Sir Tristtem" is closer in form to the fashion that Robert de Bmnne heard recited than one might imagine

(Ixxxiii). De Bmrme states that the poem is so difficult to recite that he never heard a minsttel deliver the poem without omitting some copple, part, or stanza, and Scott says that there are at least two places in "Sir Tristtem" where this lapse occurs, thus making our version more like that which de Bmnne would have heard (Ixxxiii).^^ Scott

^^I have already speculated as to the nature ofthe word that is apparentiy missing between "any " and "which" in foottiote_. ^^Cowee is tail rhyme, as in Chaucer's Sir Thopas, and enttelacee means "interlaced," such as a scheme which follows the pattem ababab. ^^In a footnote, Scott says to "See Fit I. st. 80, Fit III. st. 1, each of which stanzas 53 concludes by asserting that since this "more modem edition of Tristrem agrees in diction and sttiicttire to the detailed description of Robert de Bmnne...the poem must closely resemble that of Thomas of Erceldoune" (Ixxxix). It is interesting to note that both Scott and McNeill use the texttial evidence of'Sir Tristtem" to prove that it is the poem mentioned by de Bmnne, and that they do not use de Bmnne as simply confirmation of the claims of authorship and location in the poem itself Scott speaks of "Sir Tristtem" as

"answering" to and "agreeing" wdth de Bmnne's description, and McNeill largely follows

Scott in all of his assumptions. This practice of using a poem to fit into the supposed canon of an author, rather than trying to prove authorship of a poem based upon the evidence found in the poem is very unsual to say the least. Such a novel approach as this is indeed a testament to Scott's ingenuity in forming an argument.

want two lines, though there is no hiatus in the MS." The first reference, to lines 874-5 in the MS, is correct, but the second reference, to line 2303 ofthe MS is an error, as the entire stanza appears in the manuscript. 54 CHAPTER VIII

THE "INTRODUCTION"~PART II

Following the arguments conceming de Bmnne and the "establishment" of

Thomas of Erceldoune as the composer of "Sir Tristtem," Scott offers a summary of what he feels the inttoduction has established up to this point (page Ixv): 1st, that the minsttels ofthe south of Scotiand, living in or near the British tribes of Reged and Sttathclwyd, became the natural depositaries of the tteasures of Celtic ttadition, esteemed so precious in the middle ages; 2ndly, That, from the peculiar circumstances under which the English language was formed in the Lowlands of Scotiand, and north of England, it probably was more early fitted for the use ofthe poet in that country [Scotland], than the southem parts ofthe sister kingdom, where it was long confined to the use ofthe populace....It is probably owing to this circumstance, that almost all the ancient English minsttel ballads bear marks of a northem origin, and are, in general, common to the borderers of both kingdoms. By this system we may also account for the superiority of the early Scottish over the early English poets, excepting always the always unrivalled Chaucer. And, finally, to this we may ascribe the flow of romantic and poetical ttadition, which has distinguished the borders of Scotiand almost dowoi to the present day. (Ixv-lxviii)^^

This long statement nearly perfectiy summarizes what Scott was endeavoring to

accomplish in this, the most complex and technical section ofthe inttoduction. To his

mind, he accomplished it very well, and he then feels free to tum back to what was the

original, stated purpose of this part ofthe inttoduction, to provide some "history ofthe

romance of Sir Tristtem" (iii).^^

^'For a history of Scottish contributions, Scott refers the reader to Percy's Reliques, "v. I. p. 118," and the Border Minstrelsey. ^^This goal may be termed, perhaps more properly, "to provide a history of 'the 55 After assuring the reader that "It is time to retum from this digression," Scott begins a discussion ofthe various forms and poems conceming the subject of Tristan in

French, German, Italian, etc. With the passage of time came the embellishment ofthe story of Tristtem and Yseult, Scott says, and "the unity and the simplicity ofthe story has suffered very much" (Ixxiv). Thus, Scott continues, it is only in the later tales of Tristan that we see the association of Tristan with the knights ofthe Round Table and King

Arthur, tales which Scott earlier cites as being the much exaggerated versions of the tme

and original exploits of Arthur and Tristan (Ixxv, xxiv). Among the works that Scott lists

and describes in his discussion ofthe various tales of Tristan after Thomas of Erceldoune

are the French Ze Roman du noble et valliant Chevalier Tristan of 1489, the Spanish

Libro del esforgado Don Tristan de Leonys of 1528, and the two volume ItaHan Delle

opere magnanime de i due Tristan, published in Venice in 1552 and 1555 (Ixxvii-lxxix).

In addition, Scott discusses a reworking of the prose Tristan by Jean Maugin dit

L'Angevin in 1554, and ends his discussion ofthe history ofthe tale of Tristan with

Malory's "Morte Arthur" (Ixxx). Ofthe art of Malory, Scott has nothing good to say.

The history ofthe Round Table is "exttacted" from the French "at hazard, and without

much art or combination" (Ixxx). Scott goes on to say that "Those, unaccustomed to the

study of romance, should be aware of ttusting to this work, which misrepresents the

adventures, and ttaduces the character of Sir Gawain, and other renowned knights ofthe

Round Table" (Ixxx).''

tale of Sir Tristtem," which is how Scott puts it at the outset of this section (xxii, italics added). ^'Throughout the inttoduction and his history ofthe Tristan legend in literature, Scott makes no mention of Thomas of Brittany or of Gottfried von Sttassburg, the two most famous chroniclers of the Tristan legend. Johnston notes, however, that 56 Here, Scott ends the second part ofthe inttoduction, but gives the reader no indication as to the reasons that he includes such various and diverse accounts of the story of Tristan as it appeared in Europe after the time of Thomas of Erceldoune.

Obviously, Scott's accounts and descriptions ofthe tales of Tristan which were disseminated into all ofthe countries of Europe do provide the reader with a glimpse of the popularity ofthe story ofthe Round Table and its characters; however, the reader is left with the sense that Scott's work here remains unfinished. Throughout the inttoduction, Scott offers assertions conceming the life and work of Thomas of

Erceldoune, and the history ofthe Tristan story, the state of language, etc., and he backs these assertions wdth proof and offers some conclusions as to the importance of the points which he has established.^ At the conclusion of this section which provides some

history ofthe tale of Tristan, however, Scott does not adequately discuss his ideas as he has done previously in the inttoduction, and thus, to the reader, the conclusion of the

second part ofthe inttoduction seems abmpt and even unfinished. This marks the end of the most significant part of Scott's edition of Sir Tristrem, in terms of both overall space

devoted to the arguments as well as the historical and intellectual import of the arguments themselves. This section contains Scott's centtal arguments, and here Scott

in the third edition of Sir Tristrem, which was published in 1811, Scott, responding to charges that Gottfried's references to a "Thomas" indeed came earlier than the life or work of Thomas of Erceldoune, refers to Gottfried somewhat ambiguously as "a German minsttel ofthe thirteenth century" (Johnston 186-7). Millgate notes that in order for Scott to keep his theory conceming Thomas of Erceldoune intact in light ofthe evidence conceming Gottfried von Sttassburg, Scott "posits for Thomas of Erceldoune a lifespan of almost a century" (196). ^Of course, as we have seen, Scott's methodology is in many cases flawed, and his conclusions and even the "proof which he uses to back them up are often imperfect, if not positively incorrect. 57 falters in both his scholarly acumen and his theories conceming the beginning ofthe

Tristan legend, the nature and work of Thomas of Erceldoune, and the beginning of romance in England and France.

Section III, as Scott says at the very beginning ofthe inttoduction, is provided to give "Observations on the copy [ofthe romance of "Sir Tristtem"] now published" (iii).

Scott begins this section wdth a discussion of some aspects ofthe Auchinleck manuscript, such as dating, and then moves into another discussion conceming Thomas of

Erceldoune and the poem of "Sir Tristtem."'^ The purpose of this continued discussion is to establish that the present copy of "Sir Tristtem," which we now possess in the

Auchinleck MS, is a version in which "the language may have been softened into that of the fourteenth century" (Ixxxvix). It is thus probably not the original poem of Thomas of

Erceldoune, but since the poem "agrees in diction and stmcture to the detailed description

of Robert de Brunne" Scott concludes that the present poem is very close to the original

of Thomas of Erceldoune (Ixxxviii-lxxxix).

The final five pages ofthe inttoduction are devoted to the changes or

modifications which Scott has imposed upon "Sir Tristtem" for this edition. Scott notes

that he has divided the poem into "three fyttes, or cantos," a division to which the poem

nattirally lends itself, and to each fit he has appended a "full Argument, referring to the

stanzas which it abridges, and forming, as it were, a mnning paraphrase to the poetty"

(Ixxxix). Perhaps the most important changes are described next, the modemization and

modification of many "Saxon characters," as "retaining these ancient characters only

'^ Scott refers the reader to Appendix no. IV ofthe inttoduction, which contains an "account" ofthe manuscript (Ixxxi). 58 throws unnecessary embarrassment in the way ofthe modem reader" (Ixxxix). Scott substittites the modem th for the P, and the z has been replaced with either a>^ or gh.

Furthermore, "7, when used for the pronoun I, is printed wdth a capital, to distinguish it from>', the usual cormption ofge, the Saxon preposition" (Ixxix). The editorial practice about which Scott is most unsure is the printing ofthe name ofthe heroine "Ysonde."

Scott says "All persons, conversant wdth ancient MSS., know the difficulty of distinguishing betwixt u and n" (xc). Thus, even though Scott thinks that he should perhaps print "Ysoude," the text appears to read "Ysonde," and he therefore prints that form accordingly. The reason that Scott thinks that "Ysoude" would be more proper is that every "analogy" shows that the name is generally regarded as having no "n" or n-sound. Scott says that in Welsh it is "Yssilt," in French "Ysolt," in Gower "Isolde," in the Fabliaux "Ysou," in the French folio "Yseult," and lastiy in Italian "Isotta." Only in the much later poem the Temple ofGlas do we find "Ysonde," Scott concludes (xc). This argument is of course a bit simplistic, as we find the name "Isond" in the Old Norse

Tristrams saga ok Isdndar(\226), and if we cannot be sure about the nature ofthe letters u and n in ancient manuscripts to begin wdth, the argument that one form of a name be privileged over another is unstable at best.'^ Scott ends this portion of discussion by

'^Kelton argues that Scott errs in this judgement, and that we should read "Ysoude" (23). It is unfortunate, Kelton continues, that we do not have the name at the end of a line, and are thus left wdth the minims used in the writing of the name. Both Kelton and Skeat note that Scott uses the name at the end of a line in stanza IX of the conclusion which he composed to the poem, and this usage does not, again, occur in the poem of Sir Tristrem (Kekon 23-24, Skeat 62). Scott uses the form "Ysonde" at the end of line 94 of his conlusion to rhyme wdth the words "honde," "londe," and "husbonde." Clearly, Scott is bolstering his opinion that the form of the name should be "Ysonde" by making the only possible form that would rhyme wdth the other words in the stanza. 59 stating that wdth the exception ofthe above changes and "a very few errors of pen, or press, it is hoped that this edition of Sir Tristtem will be found sufficientiy accurate. A line or two, in p. 224, are omitted, on account of their gross indelicacy" (xc). The question of bowdlerizing the poem is thus very quickly glossed over," and unfortunately, the errors were not as few as Scott hoped them to be.

Scott's final comments concem his own conclusion, composed to "complete" the romance which of course ends imperfectly due to the defacement of the manuscript caused by the cutting out of the illumination which headed the next poem. Scott says that the conclusion "has been attempted by the editor, in the same stanza and diction wdth the original" (xci). Johnston says that it was Ellis who suggested that Scott compose an ending for "Sir Tristtem," as John Hookham Frere had done for the Battle of

Brunanburgh (180).^' Margaret Ball describes Frere as having talent, but being "an inciu*able dilettante," yet Scott considered him an authority on medieval English poetty

(Ball 20). Johnston describes Scott's efforts as his (Scott's) first attempt to create a poem from a body of antiquarian lore, a practice he continued wdth the Lay ofthe Last

Minstrel, in which Johnston says the "notes exist for the text, the text to whet the appetite for the notes" (181). Johnston's pronouncement is a bit simplistic however, as the Border

Minstrelsey is filled wdth modemizations and modification ofthe ancient border ballads.

The most notable of these "modemizations" is indeed an original composition, the theme being none other than Thomas of Erceldoune. In describing the poem, Scott says that it is an "attempt to commemorate the Rhymer's poetical fame," and it is interesting to note

'^For the discussion of this particular issue see page 19. **John Hookham Frere (1769-1846) was an amateur scholar and antiquarian. 60 that he describes his conclusion to "Sir Tristtem" as something that is being "attempted" as well (Border Minstrelsey IV, 127, Sir Tristrem xci). Overall, the conclusion to the poem was well received, and Frere, who learned it by heart, thought that it was "the best imitation of Old English at present existing" (Johnston 181).

Scott also explains the nattire ofthe "Notes" section following the poem, which

"contain illusttations ofthe text, from the romances and history ofthe middle ages, and particular notices ofthe correspondence, or discrepancy, occurring betwixt Thomas's narration, and subsequent works on the same theme" (xci). Scott says that the glossary, which is essentially the glossary of David Macpherson (1746-1816), editor of Winton's

Chronicle, provides the meaning ofthe words as they appear in the poem, and "ofthe

Glossary little need be said" (xci-xcii). This pronouncement is ttoubling, as the glossary is not particularly good if not positively bad. In 1833, these errors were pointed out in

Gentleman's Magazine by Francis Madden and Samuel Singer, who, in referring to the edition which was the fifth volume of Scott's Poetical Works, are disttessed to note that the latest edition (of Scott's work) "servilely repeats every error, and most of the misprints ofthe preceding editions" (307).'^ Over fifty errors are pointed out by Madden

'^Madden, Francis and Samuel Singer. "Remarks on Sir Walter Scott's Sir Tristrem." Gentleman's Magazine 103 (1833): 307-312. Ciudously, nowhere in their piece do Madden and Singer fault Scott for the errors of the edition or of the glossary. They ascribe Scott's errors to the fact that "Old English poetry, at the period when the work [Scott's Sir Tristrem] first appeared, was but little studied or understood, and it was sufficient to guess at the import of a word, without regarding its analogy or etymology" (307). Johnston remarks that "the problems of glossing were for Scott a game of ingenious guesswork, for which he felt his knowledge ofthe Scots dialect fitted him" (186). Madden and Singer go on to say, further exonerating Scott ofthe errors of text, "A hired scribe was generally tmsted to, and the copy often printed without further collation" (307). This is an uncannily accurate remark, for it appears that this is precisely what Scott did, the text of Sir Tristrem being printed in October 1802, and the edition as a whole 61 and Singer, and one suspects that the list could certainly be expanded. Another complaint, made by Kelton, is that Scott "glosses only 'hard' words" (80). In the end then, Scott's glossary has littie to commend either it or Scott, and it is lamentable that this highly unsatisfactory glossary is the final portion one encounters in Scott's edition of Sir

Tristrem.

The final paragraph ofthe inttoduction is a list of acknowledgements of those "by whose assistance the editor has been enabled to complete his undertaking" (xcii). Scott lists the Duke of Roxburgh, whose library Scott used while in London, Francis Douce, the absttacts of whose fragments ofthe French Tristan poem EUis gave to Scott, Richard

Heber, William Owen-Pughe, Dr. John Leyden, and most importantly George Ellis, of whom Scott says "it is better to say nothing than too little" (xcii-xciv). Scott's last sentence in the inttoduction is a type of statement of purpose conceming the edition itself. He says, "Such as it is, the labour which [the making of the edition of Sir

Tristrem] it has cost has been dictated by no other motive than the laudable, if ineffectual wdsh, of contributing to the history of early English literature"(xciv).

With typical humility and graciousness, Scott thus concludes the inttoduction to his edition of Sir Tristrem. As has been said, this inttoduction is indeed the singular achievement ofthe entire volume of Scott's work of "Sir Tristtem." Not merely a miscellany of illusttative material, the inttoduction provides useful information, creative arguments conceming various literary theories, and valuable insights into the material available for study at the time Scott wrote the inttoduction. The extensive amount of material that Scott studied, and makes available to the reader in the form of references

being published in May 1804. 62 and arguments, is worth studying in itself Scott's understanding ofthe source material, and his ability to draw relevant conclusions between the romance of "Sir Tristtem" and other medieval romances is tt*ulyth e mark of an able and leamed scholar.

The inttoduction is far from perfect, however, as we have seen. Too often, Scott lets local pattdotism color his judgements, as in the case of ascribing "Sir Tristtem" to

Thomas of Erceldoune or practically inventing an entire school of lowland Scots poets based upon little or no evidence. Often, it is simply flawed logic in reaching his conclusions that causes Scott to arrive at determinations at which he should have never arrived. In addition, Scott's methods, while seemingly lax by our more modem scientific standards, were average if not above average for his time, and the knowledge of medieval language and texts which we now possess is certainly much more than Scott could have ever hoped to have available for him to study. Thus, like the reputation of Scott the novelist, the reputation of Scott the scholar has diminished steadily since the late 19th century, and is only recently beginning to be resiurected. In fact, Scott's edition of Sir

Tristrem, despite its somewhat grandiose conjectures and questionable forms of argument, stands as the capstone to the marvelous scholarly achievement of the Border

Minstrelsey, and solidified Scott's reputation as a man of letters and pioneer in the study of romance material.

63 CHAPTER IX

THE "APPENDIX TO THE INTRODUCTION"

Scott's appendix to the inttoduction of his edition of Sir Tristtem is divided into

four parts, the first part being a copy ofthe charter by which the heir of Thomas of

Erceldoune ttansferred his inherited land to the convent of Soltta.'" Scott appends to the

charter an anecdote conceming a stone in the walls ofthe church in the village of

Earlstoun, the modem cormption of Erceldoune. The stone is said to have been

ttansferred to the modem church from the more ancient site, and it bears the inscription

"Auld Rhymer's race/Lies in this place" (xcviii). Scott says that the characters are

modem, as is the spelling, because the stone was replaced after being defaced in 1782 by

a drunk. The old characters were "said to have been very ancient" (xcviii). While the

first appendix contains no material of essential importance to the poem of "Sir Tristtem,"

the charter and Scott's anecdote are wonderful examples of the ttemendous and wide

ranging illusttative material that Scott had compiled prior to this edition.^'

The second appendix is the dialogue from the Welsh that Scott obtained from

William Owen-Pughe in December of 1802.'^ The dialogue concems a short account of how Tristan bested 28 of Arthur's best men, who wished him to retum to the court of

Arthur. Only through his friendship to Gawain is Tristan persuaded to retum to court,

^^The importance of this document and Scott's use of it are discussed on pages 1-3 above. ''Apparentiy, the stone is still visible to visitiors today. '^See page 30 for the discussion of Scott's correspondence wdth Owen and the importance of this information to Scott's theories conceming the Celtic kingdom of Sttathclwyd and the ttansmission ofthe Celtic tales of Tristan and others. 64 where he pledges his fealty to Arthur (xcix-ciii).'' Again, the information in this second appendix is not vital to the subject ofthe romance "Sir Tristtem," nor is it particulariy illusttative. What is important here is that Scott provides the reader wdth an example of the type of eariy literattire that contained the tales of Tristan and King Arthur. Such an illusttation provides a wonderful example of a nearly contemporary document. Not based on the type of dry material that much ofthe facts ofthe inttoduction rely upon, the dialog shows the character of Tristan in a purely literary light. Once again, Scott's roving reading lit upon something of interest to him, and thus supplies the dialog for the reader whom, Scott hopes, is interested in many facets of medieval personages and literature.

The third appendix, the ttanslation ofthe "Lai dee Chevrefoil," is very important, as is discussed in pages 6-8 of above. As no more need be said of the third appendix, it is natural to tum to the fourth and most important appendix, which is a description of the contents ofthe Auchinleck MS.'"* Scott provides a complete description ofthe manuscript, including the number of leaves, the number ofthe "pieces of poetry," and the types of handwriting found in the manuscript (cvii-cviii). Such descriptions are invaluable, and Scott was the first to provide a complete and fairly accurate catalogue of the entire contents ofthe Auchinleck MS.'^ Modem scholarship is supposed to enable us to date manuscripts more accurately than Scott conceivably could, but his date of

''The names Arthur, Tristan, and Gawain read, respectively, Arthur, Trystan, and Gwalzmai in what is certainly a modemized version of the Welsh. '"'A complete discussion ofthe Auchinleck MS. and Scott's work wdth the contents is found in pages 31-33. '^Percy and Ritson both gave incomplete accounts ofthe contents ofthe MS, and David Laing produced a description of it in 1857. More accurate accounts ofthe MS however are by Eugen Kolbing and A. J. Bliss. The most complete account is found in Pearsall's inttoduction to the Auchinleck MS, 1977. 65 approximately 1330 for the Auchinleck MS, a point in which Ritson and Ellis agreed wdth him, remains largely the consensus (Sir Tristrem Ixxxi).'^ Scott's further conjectures that the manuscript appears to have been compiled in "South Britain" seem to be correct as well, as Loomis and others agree that it is likely that the manuscript was a product of

London (Sir Tristrem cvii, Loomis 595).'^ Scott ends the description ofthe contents of the manuscript rather abmptiy, wdth no further comment or discussion. Overall, Scott's descriptions are both accurate and interesting, and he provides the reader wdth references to other works in which some ofthe separate parts ofthe manuscript may be found, such as Ritson's metrical romances and Scott's ovm Border Minstrelsey.

'^Loomis, Kelton, Zeti, etc. '^That Sir Tristtem was copied in the south has been often suggested, and the fact that a southem scribe would have great difficulty in copying a northem text may indeed account for many of the errors of ttanscription and difficulties found in the poem. 66 CHAPTER X

"DESCRIPTION AND ABSTRACT OF TWO ANCIENT FRAGMENTS

OF FRENCH METRICAL ROMANCES ON

THE SUBJECT OF SIR TRISTREM"

Ellis's absttacts ofthe two French fragments conceming Tristan found in the

Douce collection follow the poem of "Sir Tristtem" in Scott's edition.'^ Johnston says that the fragments are believed to be from the mid-thirteenth centtiry (182). Ofthe

fragments themselves, Scott says little, relying on his discussion of them and their import in the inttoduction. He does say that For the opportunity of comparing the stile of composition which prevailed in France and in Scotland, and of illusttating, by each other, poems written about the same period, and on the same subject, the reader is indebted to George Ellis, Esq. by whom the following elegant precis of the French romance was ttansmitted to the editor. (203)

Thus, for Scott, the "curious fragments" are little other than illusttative material, no more

valuable or necessary than any other works or examples in the inttoduction, appendices,

or notes (203). Although Scott does not discuss fiirther or elaborate on any part ofthe absttacts, they occupy the next forty pages, and thus comprise a major part ofthe edition, and despite the cursory tteatment given them by Scott, we now know that the fragments are indeed more important, in the way ofthe ttansmission ofthe Tristan legend, than the

Middle English romance of "Sir Tristtem." The first fragment contains lines 1268-3087

ofthe Tristan poem of Thomas of Brittany, written about 1170. According to Johnston,

'^Ellis's absttacts may be more properly termed paraphrases, as Ellis seems to make no attempt to abridge the content ofthe fragments. 67 "this fragment corresponds to stanzas following number 78, Fytte 3, in Scott's text"

(182). Neither Scott nor Ellis could find any proof that the fragments predated Thomas of Erceldoune, and thus they did not alter their opinion that Douce's fragments represent a later poem than the "Sir Tristtem" that they had ascribed to Thomas of Erceldoune.

Thus, once again, as in the case of the lai of Chevrefoil, even aspects of the edition which

seem somewhat trivial to Scott, are of great interest to the modem scholar.

68 CHAPTER XI

"NOTES ON SIR TRISTREM "

The notes to the poem itself are, next to the inttoduction, Scott's major conttdbution to his edition of Sir Tristrem, and once again demonsttate his keen and wdde ranging ability to elucidate many obscurities in the poem which may cause confusion to even the most attentive reader. Interestingly, Scott even provides notes to the conclusion which he composed for the poem.'' The main sttength ofthe notes is Scott's ability to draw material from the many romances which are nearly contemporary wdth "Sir

Tristtem," especially romances form the Auchinleck MS such as Arthur and Merlin and

Guy of Warwick. Any parallel between "Sir Tristtem" and another poem, or even an obsciu-e ttadition or fairy tale, is often enough to elicit an exemplary passage from the vast body of lore that Scott possessed. Often, Scott makes personal observations conceming ttaditions or practices which occurred in medieval times and yet were still current among the lowlands of Scotland. Such is the case conceming a passage in stanza

63 of "Sir Tristtem" in which the steward Rohand has his beard grown long, or "rowe."

Scott says that such a growth was a sign of sorrow, as "our ancestors usually kept their beards closely trimmed" (268). He then goes on to say that this practice of letting one's beard grow as a sign of mouming continued "to a comparatively late period," and says

"Like the notes to the poem itself, Scott notes to his own conclusion are provided to shed light upon the various medieval practices and references mentioned in Scott's conclusion. For example, Scott gives an example ofthe type of eulogy that would have been said over the bodies of Tristan and Isolde. 69 fiirther that "the editor's great grandfather wore his beard till his death, in regret for the supposed injury ofthe unforttinate house of Sttiart" (269).

Curiously, this type of personal observation seems to lend an air of credibility to the notes themselves, as Scott's body of knowledge is so large and recondite that the reader cannot help but be duly impressed. The modem reader, pemsing the text wdth a much more skeptical eye, is still keenly aware ofthe potential for fiirther smdy that may be gleaned from the notes, and to search out all ofthe analogues and sources that Scott cites conceming knighthood, hunting, chess, harping, and even the origins of personal names found in the poem as well as the notes would be a massive task. The only flaw with Scott's notes is that they do not contain any material which would bolster his contention that "Sir Tristtem" marks the beginning of English romance, and that the composition of EngHsh romance began in Scotiand. Notes such as Scott's, filled wdth personal comments and recollections which draw upon multitudes of subjects, would be an ideal forum to sttengthen one's thesis and offer compelling evidence to one's case.

Despite this minor drawback, Scott's notes are tmly a major sttength of his edition of Sir

Tristrem, and it is in many ways remarkable that his illusttations and analogues, and even his methodology in presenting the notes, remain vital to even the modem reader.'^

'"^e glossary follows the notes, and for a discussion ofthe glossary, including its generally poor quality, see pages 56-57. 70 CHAPTER XII

SCOTT'S USE OF "SIR TRISTREM" AFTER HIS 1804 EDITION

As stated eariier, Scott ttimed, throughout his life, to the legends of Thomas of

Erceldoune and Tristan for material for his poetty and novels. Scott began using the legend of Thomas of Erceldoune in the Border Minstrelsey, where he included a romance supposedly composed by Thomas the Rhymer along wdth a rather long and detailed inttoductory chapter to the poem. Of course, Scott's use of Thomas the Rhymer and his reputed work culminated wdth his 1804 edition of Sir Tristrem, but Scott continued to use the legend in his poems and novels long after his main work as an editor was completed.

In large part, Scott's desire to use Thomas the Rhymer and the Tristan legend in his original works is of course inextricable from his desire to use the same material in his scholarly work. Scott's entire youth was filled wdth the stuff of medieval romance and legends, and it is only natural that whatever he chose to write, his love of medieval literature shows clearly.

In his article "Scott's Use ofthe Tristan-Story in the Waverly Novels," Jerome

Mitchell discusses several episodes in the Waverly novels which relate to the Tristan legend.^"^ Mitchell relates several examples, although many are somewhat dubious in actual relation to the Tristan legend, of episodes in the novels in which Scott draws on

^"'Mitchell also purports to discuss Scott's poems as well as the novels, but offers, I think, only one concrete example of usage of Sir Tristrem, and that is in the poem "The Lady ofthe Lake," where Scott speaks of "breaking" a stag, and refers the reader to the same references used in Sir Tristrem to describe the quartering of a deer (Mitchell 20). Mitchell also incorrectiy suggests that the version of Chevrefoil in Sir Tristrem, discussed above, is "Scott's own prose ttanslation" (19). 71 the Tristan legend. Mitchell errs, I think, in citing the novels The Heart of Midlothian,

Peveril ofthe Peak, Quentin Durward, The Talisman. Guy Mannering, The Abbot, The

Betrothed, and Kenilworth, as containing episodes which have anything to do, even remotely, wdth the Tristan legend (24-26). His examples of Scott's use ofthe legend, which involve merely parallels or similarities of Scott's episodes to the story of Tristan and Iseult and offer no concrete evidence whatsoever, could have easily been culled by

Scott from any of a number of medieval works.'"^

The examples that Mitchell uses from works in which the Tristan legend is specifically mentioned are of course more plausible simply because they are more well founded. Mitchell quotes a humorous passage from Ivanhoe (1819), in which the Saxon

Cedric lets a Norman know that he, the Saxon, is indeed an able hunter who can perform all aspects ofthe hunt "without using the nefangled jargon of curee, arbor, and nombles, and all the babble ofthe fabulous Sir Tristtem" (Mitchell 23; Ivanhoe ch. v). Mitchell is surely correct in asessing the humor ofthe passage and its effect on the characterization ofthe Saxon, but he neglects to complete the study ofthe reference in Ivanhoe. For example, when Scott has the Saxon character say "all the babble of the fabulous Sir

Tristtem," is the character referring to merely the reputation of Tristan as a huntsman, or

'"^For example, Mitchell mantains that in the novel The Betrothed Scott's episode "of having a character sing a lay in order to irritate or disturb another character" is taken from the prose versions ofthe Tristan story, possibly Malory (26-27). I find it equally plausible that Scott could have taken the idea from Hamlet, in which the scene where Hamlet revmte's the player's play to disturb his uncle is certainly more well known than the episode in Malory. The fact that Scott admired Shakespeare infinitely more than Malory would suggest that the work of Shakespeare would tend to be on Scott's mind rather than the work of Malory, whose writing Scott found to be constmcted "without much art or combination" (Sir Tristrem Ixxx). 72 to the poem of "Sir Tristtem" itself? Scott makes it a point to characterize Cedric as a simple man, which is the type of man that Robert de Brunne says that his writing is for.

Although Cedric is probably referring to the French hunting terms, it is not outtageous to suggest that what Cedric terms "babble" could be precisely what de Brunne terms "quaint

Inghs." In what also seems a nod to de Brunne, Cedric laments the loss ofthe old

"Saxon bards," and their "plain English." In additon, in the poem of "Sir Tristtem," three times in three stanzas (stanzas xlvi-xlviii) it is pointed out that after the hunt, Tristan shows the huntsman of King Mark how to properly blow the homs, and the people of the court of King Mark wonder who taught the men this new technique. Perhaps this is what

Scott has in mind when Cedric says "I can wind my horn, though I call not the blast a recheate or a morte" (ch. v).^"'

What Mitchell overlooks entirely, despite his stated purpose to explore what "use

Scott made of Sir Tristrem and other Tristan material in his creative works," are the specific references in this passage from Ivanhoe to the poem of "Sir Tristtem" itself

(Mitchell 19). In the long passage in which Tristan kills and "breaks up" a deer, three important parts ofthe deer are called the "erber" ("arbor"), the "noubles" ("nombles"), and the "quirre" ("curee") ("Sir Tristtem" lines 485-500).'^ In addition, the references in

Ivanhoe to two types of hom blasts, the recheate and the morte, as being part ofthe leamed huntsman's repetoire are found in the notes to Scott's Sir Tristrem. As already

^"'For definitions of medieval hunting terms and a thorough discussion of all aspects of medieval hunting in literature, see Rooney's Hunting in Middle English Literature. '"^e quoted words in parentheses are from the above quoted passage from chapter five of Ivanhoe. Also, see Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, lines 1590-1621 for a passage similar to the one in "Sir Tristtem" conceming the hunt. 73 mentioned, Scott goes into great detail in his notes to Sir Tristrem conceming the long hunting passage ofthe poem. He quotes at length Lady Juliana Bemer's 15th century

Boke of St. Albans, which is a tteatise on the sport of hunting and its technical aspects.

Bemers mentions the "erbere," "numbles," and the "querre" as well, and the book also describes the practice of blowing the hom after killing the deer, blowing what is known as the death note, which Scott terms the "morte" (Sir Tristrem 255-265). Scott also quotes the anonymous ^rr ofVenerie, which describes the blowing ofthe "richate" on the hom, which is clearly where Scott derives the term "recheate" which he uses in Ivanhoe.

Furthermore, in the section of notes appended to Ivanhoe, number five refers the reader to "Dame JuHana Bemers' book on the subject [hunting]." Clearly then, Scott is more indebted to the story of Tristtem from the romance of "Sir Tristtem,"and his own edition of the poem than has been previously recognized.^"^

Such is also the case wdth the novel The Bride of Lammermoor (\S\9), in which, as Mitchell points out, compares the main character Edgar Ravenswood wdth Tristan, again in terms of hunting prowess (Mitchell 22). Mitchell points out two specific references in chapter IX of Lammermoor to "breaking" the stag and the getting ofthe

"nombles" and the scraps for the ravens, and notes where these references occur in Scott's

Sir Tristrem(22). This is the extent of Mitchell's discussion on the Bride of Lammermoor and Sir Tristrem however, and as we shall see it is can be expanded. Much more important to the concept of Scott's use of his own Sir Tristrem and the reputed work of

'*^^As a final reference to Scott's use of Sir Tristtem in Ivanhoe, it is interesting to note in the Inttoduction to the 1830 edition of Ivanhoe what Scott calls a "trifling cicumstance." He says that "a roll of Norman warriors, occurring in the Auchinleck Manuscript, gave him [Scott] the formidable name of "Front-de-Boeuf [a character in the novel]. 74 Thomas of Erceldoune in The Bride of Lammermoor than brief references to Tristtem are the references to Thomas of Erceldoune himself The setting ofthe novel is the

Lammemuir Hills in Berwickshire, just northeast of the Hills of Eildon, Thomas the

Rhymer's legendary haunt. In chapter VII, Edgar Ravenswood is wamed by his faithful servant Caleb not to go to Ravenswood, the ancient home ofthe Ravenswood family.

Caleb tells Ravenswood a prophecy, told to Caleb by an"auld priest." The prophecy was delivered by "Thomas the Rhymer, whose tongue couldna be fause," and who "spoke the word of you house that will e'en prove ower tme if you go to Ravenswood this day" (ch.

VIII). The prophecy reads: When the last Laird of Ravenswood to Ravenswood shall ride. And woo a dead maiden to be his bride, He shall stable his steed in the Kelpie's flow. And his name shall be lost for evermoe! (ch. VIII)

Ravenswood scoffs at the prophecy, saying that he well knows the dangers ofthe quicksand near the banks ofthe Kelpie river, and rides out anyway to his doom. This prophecy does not come to pass until chapter XXXV, and Caleb remembers the prophecy as he finds his master drovmed in the Kelpie. Thus, while the references to Tristtem do provide the novel wdth a little medieval color, the character and prophecies of Thomas the Rhymer are integral to the plot and denouement of the story, and the importance of

Thomas the Rhymer outweighs any ofthe brief references to the Tristan legend.

Although he purports to be dealing with Scott's Sir Tristrem as well as the Tristan legend, Mitchell neglects to mention the first novel in which Scott uses the material gleaned from his research conceming "Sir Tristtem" and Thomas of Erceldoune, and that is Scott's very first novel Waverly (1814). The legend of Tristan and Thomas of

75 Erceldoune does not figure in the plot of Waverly, largely because it is a novel ofthe

Highlands, far removed from the Border regions where Thomas is supposed to have lived. In fact, neither Thomas of Erceldoune nor Tristan are even mentioned in the novel proper; but in the first appendix to the novel, Scott prints what he terms a 'TRAGMENT OF

A ROMANCE WHICH WAS TO HAVE BEEN ENTITLED THOMAS OF ERCELDOUNE." Scott says that he includes the fragment even though he does not feel that it has "any intrinsic value," but he feels that the fragment is intriguing to those who are "interested in the more finished works ofthe arist [Scott]." The fragment itself is merely a short portion of a prose tale by Scott, and although the fragment does not even mention Thomas of

Erceldoune, Scott says that the tale was to "tum upon a fine legend of superstition, which is current in the part of the Borders where he [Scott] had his residence; where, in the reign of Alexander III [r. 1249-86] of Scotiand, that renowned person Thomas of

Hersildoune, called the Rhymer, actually flourished." Scott goes on to call Thomas the

"Meriin of Scotiand," and says that he was "a magician, as well as a poet and a prophet."

It is Scott's designation of Thomas the Rhymer as a poet that is most interesting.

Waverly was not pubHshed until 1814, ten years after Scott's edition of Sir Tristrem, and by the time the novel was published, Scott already knew that there was little possibility that his theory that Thomas of Erceldoune was the author of "Sir Tristtem" was valid.

Clearly, in labeling Thomas of Erceldoune "a poet" Scott is referring to Thomas as the author of "Sir Tristtem," which by 1814, Scott knew that he was almost certainly not.

This obscure reference to Thomas is interesting in that it sheds a little light upon the character of and nature of Scott's scholarship. Scott was unwilling to let go of his

76 romantic notions conceming the authorship of "Sir Tristtem," and even though he no longer published any scholarly material conceming Sir Tristtem or Thomas of

Erceldoune after his 1804 edition of Sir Tristrem, Scott never modified his views, and his

creative works became an outlet for his scholarly theories.

As important as the Bride of Lammermoor, Waverly, and Ivanhoe are for this

discussion, Scott's last novel. Castle Dangerous (1831) is indeed the most important

work to consider, and again is a work which Mitchell does not even mention as having to

do wdth "the use Scott made of Sir Tristrem" (19). The legend of Thomas of Erceldoune

and the story of Sir Tristtem figure more prominently in Castle Dangerous than in all of

the aforementioned novels combined, and while brief references and allusions to Thomas

and Tristan can be found in the early novels, it is only in Castle Dangerous that we have

entire, lengthy episodes which revolve around the legendary material. More importantly,

the material which Scott uses in Castle Dangerous is directly related to his theories

conceming the authorship of Sir Tristtem, and upon even cursory examination of the

episodes in Castle Dangerous, it is readily apparent that the theories conceming Thomas

of Erceldoune and "Sir Tristtem" have, for Scott the romantic noveUst, certainly

overshadowed the more rational views of Scott the scholar.

The first mention of the legend of Thomas of Erceldoune in Castle Dangerous

comes nearly two-thirds ofthe way into the novel, when Sir Aymer asks Berttam the

minsttel for a story. Berttam relates a story which was told to him by an old minsttel

named Hugo, and the old minsttel himself participated in the events. According to

Berttam's story, Hugo is accompanying his master on a raid of Castie Douglas (Castle

77 Dangerous). Anxious to escape the horrible fray, Hugo goes off in search of a book of poetry, to which he [his master Douglas] had been attached of old. This contained the lays of an ancient Scottish bard, who, if an ordinary human creature while he was in this Hfe, cannot now perhaps be exactly termed such. He was, in short, that Thomas, distinguished by the name of the Rhymer, and whose intimacy, it is said, became so great wdth the faery folk that he could, like them, foretell the future deed before it came to pass, and united in his own person the quality of bard and soothsayer. (200-201)

Hugo finds the study, and he discovers "the celebrated lay, called Sir Tristrem, which has

been so often altered and abridged as to bear little resemblance to the original" (201).

Berttam, despite the incredulity of his audience, continues to narrate the story of Hugo,

to whom the apparition of the Rhymer actually appears in the room in which the book

containing Sir Tristrem is found: "The vision spoke to him [Hugo] in an antique

language, like that formerly used in the Kingdom of Sttathclyde, being a species of Scots

or Gaelic, which few would have comprehended" (202). Later, Berttam himself finds the

manuscript, and makes exttacts from it, in tme scholarly fashion. The volume which

Berttam finds seems to be a description of the Auchinleck MS itself, as the newly found

book is described as containing "a few, though imperfect, fragments" (242). In addition,

the prophecies contained in the book are told to other characters by Berttam, and like the

prophecies of Thomas in The Bride of Lammermoor, they do indeed come tme.

Thus, in the space of only three pages (200-202), Scott presents the theory that he

first expounded twenty-seven years previous: that the romance of "Sir Tristtem" was

written in Scotland by the poet and seer Thomas of Erceldoune, who knew the ttaditions

and speech of the Celtic kingdom of Sttathclyde and was therefore able to compose an

78 early romance conceming the story of Tristan based upon the legendary material. It is quite evident that in Castle Dangerous, his last novel, Scott has no intention of changing his mind about the issues conceming the authorship of "Sir Tristtem," and it is indeed remarkable that he can again infuse his work wdth the legend of Thomas of Erceldoune in

a very plausible and seamless manner. Many tiny details of the manuscript and of the

legend of Thomas of Erceldoune can be easily ttaced to Scott's edition of Sir Tristrem,

such as the description ofthe romance itse\f, which is said to be "so often altered and

abridged as to bear little resemblance to the original" (201). Although this discussion

could certainly be magnified, it is enough for the purposes of this thesis to note that quite

clearly, Scott derived no small comfort in narrating, at the very end of his life and career,

the same stories and legends that inspired him as a child and fledgling editor and author.

79 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Robert Dana Walden. A Tristan Bibliography. The University of Southem California Language and Literattire Series 4. Los Angeles: U of Southem California P, 1943.

Ball, Margaret. Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature. New York: Columbia UP, 1935. Rpt. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1966.

Barm, Stephen. Romanticism and the Rise of History. New York: Twayne, 1995.

Barron, W. R. J., ed. English Medieval Romance. Longman Literattire in English Series. New York: Longman, 1987.

Bold, Alan, ed. Sir Walter Scott: The Long-Forgotten Melody. London: Vision Press 1983.

Borroff, Marie, ttans. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. New York: Norton, 1967.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton, 1987.

Corson, James C. Notes and Index to Sir Herbert Grierson's Edition o/The Letters of Sir Walter Scott. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1979.

Cranston, Maurice. The Romantic Movement. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.

Ellis, George. Specimens ofthe Early English Poets. 3 vols. London: W. Bulmer, 1801.

—. Specimens of Early English Metrical Romance. 3 vols. Edinburgh, 1805.

Goldstein, R. James. The Matter of Scotland: Historical Narrative in Medieval Scotland. Lincoln, Nebraska, and London: U of Nebraska P, 1993.

Grierson, H. J. C. The Letters of Sir Walter Scott. 12 Vols. London: Constable, 1932.

Henderson, Thomas F. Scottish Vernacular Literature: A Succint History. 3rd. ed. rev. Edinburgh: John Grant, 1910.

Johnson, Edgar. Sir Walter Scott: The Great Unknown. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1970. 80 Johnston, Arthur. Enchanted Ground: The Study of Medieval Romance in the Eighteenth Century. London: Athlone, 1964.

Kelton, Robert William. A Critical Edition o/Sir Tristtem, Edited From the Auchinleck Manuscript. Diss. Ohio State U, 1974.

Ker, W. P. Romance. London: The English Association, 1909.

Kidd, Colin. Subverting Scotland's Past: Scottish Whig Historians and the Creation of an Anglo-British Identity, 1689-c. 1830. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.

Kolbing, Eugen, ed. Sir Tristrem. Die Nordische und Die Englische Version Der Tristan-Sage. Heilbronn: Henninger, 1882.

Lockhart, John Gibson, ed. Sir Tristrem. Edinburgh: Robert Cadell, 1833.

Long, Charles Edward, ed. Sir Tristrem, Diss. Arkansas State University, 1963.

Loomis, Laura Hibbard. "The Auchinleck Manuscript and a possible London Bookshop of 1330-1340." PMLA, 62 (1942), 595-627. "Chaucer and the Auchinleck Ms: 'Thopas' and 'Guy of Warwdck'."

—. Essays and Studies in Honor ofCarleton Brown. New York: NYU Press, 1940. pp. 111-128.

Loomis, Roger Sherman, ed. Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1959.

—. The Romance of Tristram and Ysolt. Rev. ed. New York: Columbia UP, 1951.

The Mabinogion. Jones, Gwyn and Thomas Jones, ttanslators. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. for Everyman's Library, 1991.

Madden, Francis, and Samuel Singer. "Remarks on Sir Walter Scott's Sir Tristrem." Gentleman's Magazine 103 (1833): 307-312.

Margaritis, Nicholas Stephen. "Thomas of Erceldoune." Diss. Uof Virginia, 1982.

Marie de France. The Lais of Marie de France. Burgess, Glyn S. and Keith Busby, ttanslators. London: Penguin, 1986.

McNeill, George P., ed. Sir Tristrem. Publications ofthe Scottish Text Society vol. 8. Edinburgh and London, 1886. Rpt. London and New York: Johnson, 1966. 81 Mehl, Dieter. The Middle English Romances ofthe Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. New York: Bames and Noble, 1968.

Millar, J. H. A Literary History of Scotland. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1903.

Millgate, Jane. Walter Scott: The Making of a Novelist. Toronto: Uof Toronto, 1984.

Mitchell, Jerome. Scott, Chaucer, and Medieval Romance. Lexington: U of Kentucky P, 1987.

—. "Scott's Use ofthe Tristan-Story in the Waverly Novels." Tristania 6 (1980): 19-29.

Murray, James A. H., ed. The Romance and Prophecies of Thomas of Erceldoune. London, EETS, OS vol. 61. N. Triibner and Co. 1875.

Newstead, Helaine. "Arthurian Legends." A Manual ofthe Writings in Middle English: 1050-1500. Vol.1. Eds. J. Burke Severs and Albert E. Hartting. 8 vols. New Haven, Connecticut: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1967-88.

Pearsall, Derek and I. C. Cunningham. Inttoduction to The Auchinleck Manuscript: National Library of Scotland Advocates' MS. 19.2.1. Facsimile ed. London: Scolar P in association wdth the National Library of Scotiand, 1977.

Percy, Thomas. Reliques of Ancient English Poetry. 3 vols. London, 1765-76.

Pickford, Cedric E. "Sir Tristtem, Sir Walter Scott and Thomas." Studies in Medieval Literature and Language in Memory of Frederick Whitehead. Ed. W. Rothwell, W. R. J. Barron, David Blamires, and Lewds Thorpe. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1973.

Piggott, Stuart. Ruins in a Landscape. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1976.

Reiss, Edmund, Louise Homer Reiss, and Beveriy Taylor. Arthurian Legend and Literature: An Annotated Bibliography. New York and London: Garland, 1984.

Ritson, Joseph, ed. Ancient English Metrical Romances. 4 vols. London: G. W. Nicol, 1802.

Rooney, Anne. Hunting in Middle English Literature. Cambridge: Boydell Press, 1993.

Rumble, Thomas C. "The Middle EngHsh 5'/r Tm/rem: Toward a Reappraisal." CompLit, 11 (1959), 221-228. 82 Saintsbury, George. A History of English Prosody. New York: Russel and Russel, 1961.

Samuels, M. L. "Some Applications of Middle English Dialectology." English Studies, 44(1963), 87.

Scheopperle, Gertmde. Tristan and Ysolt: A Study ofthe Sources ofthe Romance. Rev. ed. 2 vols. New York: Ben Franklin, 1960.

Scott, Sir Walter. The Bride of Lammermoor. 1819. The Waverly Novels by Sir Walter Scott, Bart. VIII. New York and London: Harper & Brothers; Cambridge Mass: Cambridge UP, 1900.

—. Castle Dangerous. 1832. The Waverly Novels by Sir Walter Scott, Bart. XXX. New York and London: Harper & Brothers; Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge UP, 1900. —. Ivanhoe. 1820. New York: Scholastic, 1959.

—. Minstrelsey ofthe Scottish Border. 1801-03. Ed. T.F.Henderson. 4 Vols. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York 1902. Reissued by Singing Tree Press, Dettoit MI 1968.

—. Sir Tristrem: A Metrical Romance ofthe Thirteenth Century, By Thomas of Erceldoune, Called the Rhymer. Edinburgh: Constable, 1804. 2nd ed. 1806, 3rd. ed. 1811. Reprinted 1819, 1833, 1848, and 1855.

—. Waverly. 1814. Ed. Claire Lamont. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Skeat, Walter W. "The Romance of Sir Tristtem." The Scottish Historical Review 6 ' (1909): 58-62.

Smith, Janet Adam. "Scott and the Idea of Scotland (Part One)." University of Edinburgh Journal 21:3 (1964): 198-209.

—. "Scott and the Idea of Scotiand (Part Two)." University of Edinburgh Journal 21:4 (1964): 290-298.

Weston, Jessie L. The Chief Middle English Poets. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1914.

83