NOTES Introduction: Internal Folklore 1. See, for example, Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984); Thomas Pavel, Fictional Worlds (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1986); Marie-Laure Ryan, Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991); Ruth Ronen, Possible Worlds in Literary Theory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Lubomír Doležel, Heterocosmica: Fiction and Possible Worlds (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998). 2. See Claude Bremond, “The Logic of Narrative Possibilities,” New Literary History 11 (1980): 387–411; Ronen, Possible Worlds, esp. pp. 5–16; also, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Works and Worlds of Art (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), pp. 106–97. 3. See Nicholas Rescher, “The Ontology of the Possible,” in Logic and Ontology, ed. Milton Munitz (New York: New York University Press, 1973), pp. 213–28. Rescher notes the indispensability of language in the creation of these mental constructs. See also, David Lewis, “Truth in Fiction,” American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (1978): 37–46. 4. Ronen, Possible Worlds, p. 8. See also, Doležel, Heterocosmica, pp. 19–20. 5. J. R. R. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories,” in Tree and Leaf (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1964), p. 23 [3–81]. 6. Gillian Beer, The Romance (London: Methuen, 1970), p. 8. 7. Northrop Fr ye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 33. 8. It is also, as Thomas of Erceldoune illustrates, a realm distinct from the three afterlife realms of medieval Christian theology. Thomas of Erceldoune, ed. J. A. H. Murray, EETS o.s. 61 (London: N. Trübner, 1875), pp. 6–7. 9. Helen Cooper, The English Romance in Time: Transforming Motifs from Geoffrey of Monmouth to the Death of Shakespeare (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 173–74. 10. Due to the methodological difficulties in reconstructing folkloric practices or beliefs (past or present) in the actual world, “folklore” has become something of an uncomfortable word in recent criticism. My use of the term, however, modified by “internal” and referring only to 152 NOTES intra-diegetic phenomena, avoids those methodological complications inherent in traditional analyses of folklore. 11. See Ryan, Possible Worlds, pp. 54–57; also, Kendall Walton, Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1990), esp. pp. 57–69. The concept of minimal departure also points to both the problems and the possibilities of considering representations of fairies in their romance text-worlds in relation to conceptions of fairies in the actual world. Indeed, it seems there is some sort of continuity, as the folklorists insist, between fairies in romance and fairies in folkloric culture (if it is possible to take, for instance, the accounts of Walter Map, Gervase of Tilbury, and Thomas Walsingham as evidence of fairy beliefs and/or ideas in their respective cultures at large). But even if we could reconstruct these beliefs or ideas, they could only tell us so much about how fairies operate in romance, since romances are under no compulsion to abide by the postulates of these beliefs. 12. See Umberto Eco, “Report on Session 3: Literature and Arts,” in Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 65, ed. Sture Allén (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), p. 352 [343–55]. 13. For a general study of Anglo-Saxon elves, see Alaric Hall, Elves in Anglo- Saxon England: Matters of Belief, Health, Gender and Identity (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2007). 14. Catholicon Anglicum, ed. Sidney Herrtage, EETS o.s. 75 (London: N. Trübner, 1881), p. 113; Gervase of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, ed. and trans. S. E. Banks and J. W. Binns (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), pp. 424–25; Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, ed. and trans. M. R. James, rev. C. N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 154–61 and 344–45; Etienne de Rouen, “Epistola Arturi Regis ad Henricum Regum Anglorum,” in Latin Arthurian Literature, ed. and trans. Mildred Leake Day (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 2005), pp. 248–49 [236–57]. See chapter 1 for more on the theological explanation given for the existence of fairies, and chapter 2 for a discussion of Laʒamon’s elves. 15. As Helen Cooper suggests, fairies in medieval romance did not require belief, but they “probably needed rather less suspension of disbelief.” Cooper, Romance, p. 174. 16. Alaric Hall, however, argues for a greater degree of continuity between pre- and post-conquest beliefs in/conceptions of elves, though the evi- dence is too sparse to consider how, in pre-conquest England, they might have been engaged with imaginatively. See Hall, Elves, esp. pp. 75–95; also, Karen Louise Jolly, Popular Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Context (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996). 17. Spenser, of course, treated his fairies very seriously, though it seems he can get away with this in large part because he allegorizes them. For a study of fairies in renaissance England, especially Spenser’s, see Matthew Woodcock, Fairy in the Faerie Queene: Renaissance Elf-Fashioning and Elizabethan Myth-Making (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004); and Minor White NOTES 153 Latham, The Elizabethan Fairies: The Fairies of Folklore and the Fairies of Shakespeare (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930). 18. Laurence Harf-Lancner, Les Fées au Moyen Âge: Morgane et Mélusine: La Naissance des Fées (Paris: Libraire Honoré Champion, 1984), pp. 372–73. 19. Doležel considers this attention to the “world-constructing activity of human minds” to be one of the primary advantages of thinking about fictional narratives in terms of possible worlds. See Doležel, Heterocosmica, pp. ix–xii. 20. Lucy Allen Paton, Studies in the Fairy Mythology of Arthurian Romance: Enlarged by a Survey of Scholarship on the Fairy Mythology Since 1903 and a Bibliography by Roger Sherman Loomis, 2nd ed (New York: Burt Franklin, 1960); J. A. MacCulloch, Medieval Faith and Fable (London: George G. Harrap, 1932); John Revell Reinhard, The Survival of Geis in Mediaeval Romance (Verlag: Max Niemeyer, 1933). For a characteristic sampling of Roger Sherman Loomis’s work on this subject, see Celtic Myth and Arthurian Romance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1927). 21. C. S. Lewis, “The Anthropological Approach,” in C. S. Lewis: Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 301–12. 22. C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1964), esp. pp. 122–38. 23. Cooper, Romance, esp. pp. 173–217. 24. See Corinne Saunders, Magic and the Supernatural in Medieval English Romance (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 2010), p. 4. 1 Fairies and Humans between Possible Worlds 1. Prose Merlin, ed. John Conlee (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1998), p. 274. 2. Saunders notes that the word “nigromancy” finds its origins in the Latin niger (black), rather than in the Greek nekros (corpse), from which the modern “necromancy” is derived. Necromancy is the art of magic con- ducted through the powers of the dead. For a full discussion see Saunders, Magic and the Supernatural, pp. 154–58. 3. For a recent discussion of Morgan and her “sisters” (namely the Lady of the Lake, Morgause, and Vivien) in their human representations, see Carolyne Larrington, King Arthur’s Enchantresses: Morgan and Her Sisters in Arthurian Tradition (London: Taurus, 2006). 4. Robert de Boron, Merlin: Roman du XIIIe Siècle, ed. Alexandre Micha (Paris: Librairie Droz, 1980), p. 245. 5. Chrétien de Troyes, Le Chevalier de la Charrette, ou, Le Roman de Lancelot, ed. Charles Méla (Paris: Le Livre de Poche, 1992), p. 200; Chrétien de Troyes, Lancelot: The Knight of the Cart, trans. Burton Raffel (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 75. 154 NOTES 6. Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, Lanzelet, ed. Wolfgang Spiewok (Greifswald: Reineke-Verlag, 1997), pp. 8–10; Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, Lanzelet, trans. Thomas Kerth, with notes by Kenneth G. T. Webster and Roger Sherman Loomis (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), p. 29–30. The romance likely had an Anglo-Norman original predating even Chrétien’s Lancelot. See Kerth’s introduction, pp. 7–8; and Cooper, Romance, p. 468 n39. 7. Lancelot: Roman en prose de XIII Siècle, ed. Alexandre Micha, 9 vols (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1978–83), 7.38; Lancelot-Grail: The Old French Arthurian Vulgate and Post-Vulgate in Translation, ed. Norris J. Lacy, 5 vols (New York: Garland, 1993–96), 2.11. 8. Prose Merlin, p. 274. 9. Map, De Nugis Curialium, pp. 156–59. This widespread reputation of the extreme beauty of fairies is also suggested by their use as benchmarks to gauge the beauty of human women. Thus, in Marie de France’s Guigemar, we have: “Dedenz unt la dame trove / Ki de biauté ressembloit fée” (703– 704). The seneschal’s wife in the thirteenth-century Durmart le Gallois is described the same way: “plus estoit bele que fée” (231). Likewise, the narrator of the Anglo-Norman Amadas et Ydoine makes a similar claim for the heroine’s superlative beauty: “Ne fu ausi bele trouvee, / Se ne fu figure de fee” (4697–98). This sort of comparison, however, was popular long before the twelfth century. Judith, for example, in her eponymous Anglo-Saxon poem, is of “elf-shining” (ælfscinu) beauty, as is Abraham’s wife Sarah (ælfscieno) in Genesis A. Marie de France, Lais, ed. Alfred Ewert, intro. Glyn S. Burgess (London: Bristol Classical Press, 1995), p. 21; Durmart le Gallois, ed. Joseph Gildea, 2 vols (Villanova: Villanova University Press, 1965–66), 1.7; Amadas et Ydoine: Roman du XIIIe Siècle, ed. John Revell Reinhard (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1926), p. 185; Beowulf and Judith, ed. E. V.