Notes

Prologus historiarum Britanniae

1. 1. Rushdie 343. This initial interpretation of Sisodia emerged from a flurry of cyberwriting as Patricia Clare Ingham and I prepared a panel on colonial Britain for the conference “Comparative Colonialisms” (SUNY Binghamton, October 1997); its authorial origins are in fact long forgotten.
2. 2. Chris Bongie defines the difference between post-colonial and postcolonial in nearly opposite terms, both situated in a process of linear development toward the liberation of post/colonial (12-13); numerous other schemes abound (Trivedi).
3. 3. E.g., Bahri 140-43.
4. 4. Biddick; K. Davis 612-13; Ingham; Warren, “Making Contact” 115-16.

1. Arthurian Border Writing

1. 1. Young 3; Bhattacharyya 15-19.
2. 2. Zumthor 86.
3. 3. Ingham, “Marking Time.”
4. 4. Girard d’Albissin 402–3, 407.
5. 5. Alliès 45–69.
6. 6. Schwyzer.
7. 7. Early Maps, figs. 6, 8.
8. 8. Quilley.
9. 9. A range of examples appears in Bartlett and MacKay.
10. 10. Lemarignier 79–85.
11. 11. R. Davies, “Frontier” 93–98.
12. 12. Lemarignier 85, 93–95, 101, 143.
13. 13. Whether this insurgency operates outside of fantasy, however, remains uncertain (Fludernik).
14. 14. Klein; Wolf.
15. 15. Holt, Magna Carta 43–44.
16. 16. See also Genicot; Spiegel, “Genealogy.”
17. 17. Mehrez; Jacquemond.
18. 18. Rollo 123.
19. 19. Bhabha 160–61; Anderson 199–201.
20. 20. De Certeau 85; emphasis in original.
21. 21. Davidson 102–3; Lejeune, “Noms” 142, 150; Oakeshott 14–15.
22. 22. Spitzer, “Name” 50.
23. 23. Davidson 46–48; Oakeshott 5, 54, 57–59.
24. 24. E.g., Exeter Book 190–91; O’Curry 254; Polistorie del Eglise de Christ de Caunterbyre (cited in R. Fletcher 90).
25. 25. Nichols 200; Chanson de Roland, 11. 2297–354.
26. 26. Richardson 174.
27. 27. “The following are the names of military swords:—the sword of Arthur, Caled-vlwch; the sword of Julius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, Ange glas (pale death); the sword of Charles, King of France, Gwdion; the sword of Roland, Durundardd; the sword of Oliver, Llawtyclyr” (“Arthur” 49).
28. 28. Estoire de Merlin 231; Mort le roi Artu 106.
29. 29. Davidson 10–11; Chanson de Roland, 1. 2359; Historia regum Britanniae 129; Estoire del saint graal 522–23.
30. 30. Frantzen 356; Gimeno 54–55; Nichols 199–202.
31. 31. Lejeune, “Noms” 165; Gervase 2:92–93.
32. 32. Biblia, “Ad Ephesios” 6:11–17.
33. 33. Ordines 28, 43, 54–55; Pontifical romain 4:383–84; Ullmann, Growth 157, 253.
34. 34. Oakeshott 35, 38, 46, 54, 56, 59.
35. 35. Pontifical of Magdalen 92–93; Benedictional 144; Jackson; Schramm 20–21; Martindale 225–27.
36. 36. Sacramentaire 224; Le Goff 50–56.
37. 37. Flori, Lessor 108–11; Pontifical romain 3:430, 436, 447, 549.
38. 38. Flori, Idéologie 86–99.
39. 39. Culbert; Frantzen; Gimeno; E. Green; Haidu 44–49; Harris; Overing; Van Meter.
40. 40. E.g., Hanning, “Uses of Names” 327–31; Nicole 238; Spitzer, Linguistics 41–85.
41. 41. Biblia, “Secundum Lucam” 22:38.
42. 42. Field 45–62, 103–78, 200–252; Lecler; Stickler; Ullmann, Growth 107, 344–425; Watt.
43. 43. Modern etymologists claim that the Irish Caladbolg means “hard notch(er)” (O’Rahilly, 1. 4827 n); the Welsh Caledvwlch, “strong carving instrument” (Mabinogion 1:258); and the French Durendal, “strong scythe” (durant dail) (Lejeune, “Noms” 158), “stone master” (Bellamy 273), or “strong flame” (dŭr end’art) (Rohlfs 866–67) (see also Spitzer, “Name”).
44. 44. Faral 2:266; e.g., Virgil 8:421, 446; 10:174.
45. 45. Louis 74; Jenkins 12.
46. 46. The modern English Excalibur seems to result from the metathesis of the resulting esc, rather than from the addition of the prefix ex.
47. 47. William of Malmesbury, De antiquitate 15.

2. Historia in marchia

1. 1. Hanning, Vision 145–49. R. Davies characterizes Geoffrey as a “deliberate trader in multiple ambiguities” (Matter 6).
2. 2. Courtney 307–9; Hughes 185–96; Tatlock 68–77, 440.
3. 3. E.g., Gillingham, “Context” 100–103, 106–10; Padel 4; Tatlock 396–402.
4. 4. J. Lloyd 460–66.
5. 5. Crick, Dissemination, Summary; Bern; First Variant.
6. 6. Remley 460.
7. 7. Bern xxxv-xliii, liv-lix.
8. 8. Bern xlix; Reeve, review of First Variant 124, “Transmission” 107.
9. 9. Dumville 25–29.
10. 10. Davis 12–33.
11. 11. Crouch, Beaumont, 38–41.
12. 12. Gillingham, “Context” 114–15.
13. 13. E.g., Gloucester’s founding by Claudius (140), Eldol of Gloucester’s heroism (184, 206), Eldadus of Gloucester’s wisdom (210), and several mentions in Merlin’s prophecies (199–201).
14. 14. Amt 30–32.
15. 15. Vine Durling 18.
16. 16. Brut y Tywysogyon: Red Book 109–14.
17. 17. Keats-Rohan 65–66.
18. 18. Crouch, Beaumont 208.
19. 19. J. Lloyd 465–66.
20. 20. Hanning, Vision 142–43.
21. 21. Ibid. 139–40, 164.
22. 22. JanMohamed 103, 114.
23. 23. Lane 16. See also Loxley.
24. 24. Otter 71.
25. 25. Ibid. 71–73.
26. 26. Bloch, Etymologies 81.
27. 27. Birns 51.
28. 28. Geoffrey 76.
29. 29. Davies, Domination 52–56, 116–17.
30. 30. E. Salter 9.
31. 31. Otter 73.
32. 32. Hanning, Vision 149. Jeffrey Cohen insists on this episode’s biblical subtext (33–36) and its unifying rather than contaminating effects (61).
33. 33. Otter 74–75.
34. 34. Geoffrey 191.
35. 35. J. Green, “Family” 161–62.
36. 36. Vernon.
37. 37. R. Davies, Domination 10, 41–43.
38. 38. Johnson, “Etymologies” 129–30.
39. 39. Gillingham, “Foundations.”
40. 40. J. Green, Aristocracy 335–42.
41. 41. Mempricius (96), Cunedagius (106), Dunvallo Molmutius (107), Belinus (112), Peredurus (123), Asclepiodotus (149), and Uther (219).
42. 42. E.g., Leir (99–105), five warring kings (109), Belinus and Brennius (109), Ingenius and Peredurus (123), foreigners in the north (205), Gormund (281), and Cadvan (285–86).
43. 43. By rather different means, Shichtman and Finke also link Geoffrey’s performance to Merlin’s (29).
44. 44. Shichtman and Finke 21–26.
45. 45. Holt, “Politics.”
46. 46. Geoffrey 74.
47. 47. Heng suggests that the giant figures the recent trauma of crusader cannibalism (116–26), while Jeffrey Cohen analyzes the episode in terms of bodily containment (37–39).
48. 48. Birns 57–59.
49. 49. Tatlock 279–83.
50. 50. Wright, “Geoffrey of Monmouth and Bede” 36–48, “Geoffrey of Monmouth and Gildas Revisited” 160–62; Flint 453–54.
51. 51. Bhabha 91.
52. 52. Crawford 160 n. 14.
53. 53. Gillingham, “Conquering.”
54. 54. R. Davies, Matter 11.
55. 55. Flint 457.
56. 56. He divides the north (236), rebuilds towns (237), marches on Rome, and dies at the hand of a close relative.
57. 57. Bern 104 n. 1.
58. 58. Tatlock 308–99; Knight 44–52.
59. 59. Knight 55.
60. 60. Robertson 48–49.
61. 61. Otter 83–84.
62. 62. First Variant 192 n. 7.

3. Ultra Sabrinam in Guallias

1. 1. Crouch, “March” 261, 263, “Slow Death” 32–36.
2. 2. Brut y Tywysogyon: Peniarth 51, 52. Gruffydd’s career also inspired a full narrative history, which places him at the multilingual center of international powers (Irish, Danish, and Norman), heir to Trojans, Romans, and noble Hebrews (History).
3. 3. Crouch, “March” 276–82, “Slow Death” 34.
4. 4. Brut y Tywysogyon: Peniarth 63.
5. 5. R. Davies, Conquest 51.
6. 6. Roberts, “Geoffrey.”
7. 7. Crick, Dissemination 197–98, 214–15; First Variant lxxviii-cxiv.
8. 8. First Variant lxxvi.
9. 9. Ibid. lxv.
10. 10. R. Davies, Conquest 99–100.
11. 11. Leckie 106–7; First Variant xlii-xlviii.
12. 12. Geoffrey refers more vaguely to “another name” (“alio nomino” [231]).
13. 13. R. Davies, Conquest 181, 200–201.
14. 14. Hammer 18.
15. 15. First Variant 192 n. 7.
16. 16. Ibid. lxxiii, lxxix-lxxx.
17. 17. Mempricius rules “regni monarchiam” (20), Cunedagius “tocius regni” (28), Dunvallo “totam Britanniam” (30), Belinus “tocius Britannie” (33), Marius “totum regnum” (63), Octavius “potestas Britannie” (71–72), Maximianus “regum Britanniae” (75) (instead of “regnum Britanniae insulae” [Geoffrey 160]), and Malgo “totam Britanniam” (176); Augustine and Dinoot debate the ecclesiastical regnum (178–79).
18. 18. R. Davies, Domination 58–65; Lydon 49–51.
19. 19. Calendar 86 (a paraphrase and partial citation of the letter, not a complete edition).
20. 20. Cited in D. Lloyd 171.
21. 21. Avent; R. Davies, Domination 40–44.
22. 22. Roberts, “Tales” 210–13.
23. 23. Leckie 104–5, 107–8; First Variant lxx.
24. 24. Crick, Dissemination 197.
25. 25. R. Davies, Conquest 57–59, 122–29.
26. 26. Ibid. 18–19.
27. 27. First Variant 1-liii.
28. 28. Ibid., 4; Geoffrey 76.
29. 29. While Geoffrey explains tersely, “Hortatur Aurelius christianos, monet Hengistis paganos” (207), First Variant redactors elaborate while eliminating religious references: “Hortatur Aurelius suos ut pro patria et libertate uiriliter pugnent. Monet Hengistus Saxones quatinus omni spe fuge postposita fortiter feriant” (118). Moreover, the narrator does not interject any direct encouragement of the Britons.
30. 30. First Variant xxxii.
31. 31. R. Davies, Conquest 16–19.
32. 32. First Variant lxxi.
33. 33. Ibid. lxiv n. 98; Virgil, 1:313; 12:165.
34. 34. Tilliette 220 n. 17.
35. 35. R. Davies, Conquest 66.
36. 36. R. Davies, “Law.”
37. 37. First Variant 174; Geoffrey 278.
38. 38. R. Davies, Conquest 292–307.
39. 39. Ibid. 236–51; Brut y Tywysogyon: Red Book 175–239.
40. 40. R. Davies, Conquest 308–54.
41. 41. Brut y Tywysogyon: Peniarth 110.
42. 42. Brut y Tywysogyon: Red Book 247–57; Brut y Tywysogyon: Peniarth 114.
43. 43. Brut y Tywysogyon: Red Book 257–58; Brut y Tywysogyon: Peniarth 115.
44. 44. Brut y Tywysogyon: Red Book 263.
45. 45. Ibid. 267–69; Brut y Tywysogyon: Peniarth 120–21; Annales Monastici 2:401–2.
46. 46. Thornton 10–12, 18.
47. 47. Registrum 2:435–92, 3:774–78.
48. 48. Roberts, ed., xxxiv-xxxvi.
49. 49. Reiss 107.
50. 50. Brut y Brenhinedd 193, 199–200. Ian Wood argues that stories of Augustine’s difficulties originated in Wales (although without refering to the Brut).
51. 51. Brut y Brenhinedd 163.
52. 52. Roberts, ed., 57–61.
53. 53. Jesus College LXI 536.
54. 54. Brutus arrives at the island 1,200 years after the Flood (22), Madoc dies 1,274 years after (27), and so on.
55. 55. R. Davies, Conquest 16–19. Llywelyn’s genealogy testifies to this shift.
56. 56. Reiss 102.
57. 57. Cyfranc 8–9; Trioedd 84.
58. 58. I cite from the translation in Brut y Brenhinedd; a similar version is translated in Jesus College LXI 302–6.
59. 59. Cyfranc xxxii-xxxiii; Troiedd 84–86.
60. 60. Cyfranc 1.
61. 61. Ibid. 5; Jesus College LXI 304.

4. Here to Engelonde

1. 1. Allen, “Implied’ 137.
2. 2. Laʒamon, 11. 4775, 8071, 8100–225, 8290, 8340, 9535, 13580, 15478, 15618 ff.
3. 3. Robert of Gloucester, 11. 2679ff., 7722–8911, 9925, 10560, 11138 ff.
4. 4. Mason 162–63; Robert, 1. 10559.
5. 5. Prestwich 81; Robert, 11. 10561, 10655, 11786.
6. 6. Howell 49–70, 168–70; Prestwich 84–90; Robert, 11. 10986–1005.
7. 7. Turville-Petre 9.
8. 8. Laing identifies the Otho dialect as more southerly (46). The text is edited on the pages facing the Caligula manuscript text in Brooke and Leslie’s edition; on dating, see Bryan, Collaborative 183–90.
9. 9. Watson; Bryan, Collaborative 48–50; Cannon 203.
10. 10. Bryan, Collaborative 64–65, 77–78, 92–94.
11. 11. E.g., Donoghue 544.
12. 12. Mercatanti Corsi 302–3; E. Salter 66–70; Weinberg summarizes the complete range of regionalist evidence.
13. 13. Le Saux, “Laʒamon’s Welsh” 389–93; Tatlock 501. On English-Welsh bilingualism, see Bullock-Davies and Richards. An earlier version of the Brut may even have been copied in Wales (Le Saux, “Listening”).
14. 14. Everett 24–25, 45; Rampolla 190; E. Salter 68–69; Stanley, “Laʒamon’s Antiquarian” 30.
15. 15. Allen, “Eorles” 15–16.
16. 16. Allen, “Implied” 136.
17. 17. E.g., generosity of kings with food (ll. 3025, 3259, 4040, etc.); food and kitchen items at Arthur’s feast (ll. 9945ff.); children’s quarrels (l. 7776); Brian as wine merchant (ll. 15311–19); payment for services (ll. 9441–43); Vortimer’s promises to the land tillers (l. 7409); and the role of peasants in wars (ll. 7300, 10730, 15151).
18. 18. Laʒamon, 11. 1309–15, 1897–906, 7575, 8840, 12730, 13924, 14180; 2140ff.; 5815–25, 9795.
19. 19. Ibid., 11. 3246–49, 9335, 11189–93, 13094–100, 14225.
20. 20. Johnson, “Reading” 152; Allen, trans, 1. 13526.
21. 21. Gillingham, “Beginnings” 393; Short.
22. 22. E. Salter 39–66; Stanly, “Laʒamon’s Un-Anglo-Saxon.”
23. 23. E. Salter 33–34; Turville-Petre 60. Tiller emphasizes the violence of this conquest (19–21, 143, 152).
24. 24. Carruthers 165–70.
25. 25. Bryan, Collaborative 37–46.
26. 26. Laʒamon, 11. 4964–75; the Otho redactor suppresses the runes.
27. 27. Gaimar, 11. 6429–525. Since the Arthurian portion has not survived, I have not studied Gaimar here.
28. 28. Herbert 4:15, 61–62, 372.
29. 29. Turville-Petre 74.
30. 30. E.g., Robert, 11. 1631, 6517, 7323, 10628.
31. 31. Ibid., 11. 624–25, 859–60.
32. 32. Ibid., 11. 1329–32, 1358–61.
33. 33. Gransden, Historical Writing 1:432–38; Robert, 11. 8886–909, 11581–95. Local references are too numerous to catalog here.
34. 34. Robert l:xv-xxxii; Turville-Petre 76.
35. 35. E.g., the commendacio hybernie that accompanies the settlement of Ireland (ll. 997–1014) and the dating of Caesar’s arrival in England as sixty years before Christ’s birth (l. 1068).
36. 36. Robert’s own reviser used the English Brut as an additional source (Robert 1:xxxiii-xxxvii).
37. 37. Turville-Petre 142.
38. 38. E.g., Laʒamon, 11. 478–79, 560–63, 1011.
39. 39. E.g., ibid., 11. 662, 4435.
40. 40. Robert, 11. 1044, 2223, 3190.
41. 41. Laʒamon, 11. 7087, 7089; Wace gives no topographical description.
42. 42. Ibid., 11. 8577–80, 8622–23.
43. 43. Ibid., 11. 144337, 14668–75.
44. 44. Ibid., 11. 8471, 8568, 8570, 8899, 8903.
45. 45. For Robert, “round table” is not an object but a social event, as much chivalric as imperial (ll. 3881, 3889, 3902, 3916).
46. 46. Robert, 11. 9275–77, 10980–85, 11484–85, 11618–21.
47. 47. Allen, trans., xxvii; Brewer 204.
48. 48. E.g., Kirby 53–55; Allen, trans., 1. 7. Interestingly, both the oldest and the newest translations accept Laʒamon’s radical view (Madden; Barron and Wienberg).
49. 49. Robert later narrates the founding of Bath and Stonehenge (ll. 660–75, 3060ff.).
50. 50. Robert, 11. 445, 660, 1762, 2379, 3047, 3056, 3106, 7464, 8436.
51. 51. Le Saux, Laʒamon’s “Brut” 39. The Otho redactor takes the process a step further, shifting focus to territory and away from regnal genealogy (Bryan, Collaborative 85–94).
52. 52. Le Saux, “Relations.”
53. 53. Laʒamon, 11. 12930, 12957; Bryan, “Laʒamon’s Four Helens” 70.
54. 54. Robert, 11. 1057–67, 1886–94, 1989–238. When Caesar decides to warn the Britons of his intent to conquer, he does cite chivalric courtesy (“hende”) rather than fear of offending his ancestors.
55. 55. Vincent, Albanus, and Christine appear in the South English Legendary (25–31, 238–40, 315–26); Albanus, Foy, and Vincent, in the Early South-English Legendary (67–70, 83–86, 184–89).
56. 56. Laʒamon, 11. 7255–57, Robert, 11. 2945–48.
57. 57. Robert, 11. 2535–36, 2541–42, 2560–64.
58. 58. Laʒamon, 11. 13635–70, 14115–22; Robert, 11. 4522, 4528.
59. 59. Laʒamon, 11. 16670–78; Allen, trans., 466.
60. 60. Laʒamon, 11. 15614, 15781; the Otho redactor again substitutes “England” (l. 15781) (there is no line corresponding to 1. 15614).
61. 61. Le Saux, Laʒamon’s “Brut” 166.
62. 62. Johnson, “Reading” 155–56.
63. 63. Laʒamon, 1. 15870; Bryan, “Laʒamon’s Four Helens” 72.
64. 64. Laʒamon, 11. 15969–70, 15974–77.
65. 65. Le Saux, Laʒamon’s “Brut” 229; Wright likewise dismisses the idea that Laʒamon distinguishes Angles from Saxons (“Angles”).
66. 66. E.g., Robert, 11. 56, 2121 ff., 2935ff., 7324.
67. 67. Turville-Petre 94.
68. 68. Stein 108–9.
69. 69. Turville-Petre 89–91.
70. 70. Robert, 11. 8068–547, 9866 ff., 8520, 8808–17, 9075 ff., 9640ff., 9735 ff., 9866 ff., 9947 ff., 10150 ff.
71. 71. Ibid., 11. 7876–8000, 8580–673.
72. 72. Ibid., 11. 8800–817, 8510–46.
73. 73. E.g., ibid., 11. 10165–91, 10645.
74. 74. Ibid., 11. 9909–23, 10245, 10972, 11634–41, 11935–40.
75. 75. Ibid., 11. 5150–51, 5199–5200, 5210–15.
76. 76. Turville-Petre 19 n. 47.
77. 77. Robert, 11. 7250, 8064, 8635–51, 8938–79; Turville-Petre 18–19, 93.
78. 78. Turville-Petre 94–95.
79. 79. Robert, 11. 7566–71, 7631, 7638, 7645, 8065, 8730–51.
80. 80. Turville-Petre 98.
81. 81. Robert, 11. 9121, 9993–95, 10112–23.
82. 82. Maddicott 5, 75–76, 229–32, 361–63.
83. 83. Ibid. 161,317–18.
84. 84. Short 259.
85. 85. Turville-Petre 20–21.
86. 86. Stanley, “Laʒamon’s Antiquarian” 30–33; Donoghue 546–50.
87. 87. E.g., Pendragon (l. 9090), Cernel (ll. 14809–17).
88. 88. Laʒamon, 11. 6950–55 (the Otho redactor heightens the effect by giving each day a half line and presenting them in chronological order); Robert, 11. 2431 ff., 4699 ff.
89. 89. E.g., Allen, trans. 1. 3547; Barron and Weinberg, 1. 3547.
90. 90. Le Saux, Laʒamon’s “Brut” 83–92.
91. 91. Gillingham, “Beginnings” 398.
92. 92. E. Salter 34–35. Walter Map describes Gilbert Foliot as a man versed in Latin, French, and English (18); Roger Bacon affirms that English, French, and Latin are spoken in England (1:433).
93. 93. Laʒamon, 1. 13099; the Otho redactor reverses the order of the languages.
94. 94. Gillingham, “Beginnings” 396.
95. 95. Laʒamon, 11. 4505, 4581; e.g., Robert, 11. 475–77, 4898, 10548.
96. 96. E.g., Laʒamon, 11. 960, 5410, 5815, 5895.
97. 97. E.g., Robert, 11. 10825, 10857, 11069, 11249.
98. 98. Le Saux, “Narrative Rhythm” 47.
99. 99. Turville-Petre 73.
100. 100. Robert, 11. 190–205, 478–82.
101. 101. E.g., ibid., 11. 645–47, 893–900, 946–52.
102. 102. Ibid., 11. 1068, 1093–94, 1522–24, 4732–38, 7515, 8664–69.
103. 103. Ibid., 11. 1368–71, 1405–9.
104. 104. E.g., ibid., 11. 1525, 3373, 4136, 4681, 4753, 5890, 6482, 6497, 10524.
105. 105. E.g., ibid., 11. 2815, 3190–94, 3201–4, 3849, 4701, 6741, 7285, 7301, 7925, 9345.
106. 106. Donoghue 554.
107. 107. Laʒamon, 11. 10543–45; Allen, trans., 446–47.
108. 108. Everett 36; Le Saux, Laʒamon’s “Brut” 197–200.
109. 109. Le Saux, “Narrative Rhythm” 69.
110. 110. Laʒamon, 11. 14055–59, 14065–66, 14082–83.
111. 111. Allen, trans., 461; Barron and Weinberg 887–88.
112. 112. Laʒamon, 11. 9405–19, 11500–517, 14277–82, 14288–97.
113. 113. Le Saux, Laʒamon’s “Brut” 230.
114. 114. Donoghue 563.
115. 115. Le Saux, Laʒamon’s “Brut” 230.
116. 116. Robert, 11. 5538–43, 8148, 9450, 9787.
117. 117. “Elegy” 82, 92.
118. 118. Robert, 11. 3881, 3889, 3902, 3916.
119. 119. Ibid., 11. 4093, 4378, 4452, 5793; Geoffrey 272.
120. 120. Ibid., 11. 4685, 4692, 4736–37.
121. 121. Riddy 326.

5. L’enor d’Engleterre

1. 1. Cited in Richard 37–38.
2. 2. Hollister 17–57.
3. 3. Potts, “Atque”; Crouch, “Normans” 59.
4. 4. Bates “Normandy,” “Rise”; Crouch, “Normans,” “Robert”; J. Green, “Unity.”
5. 5. Crick, Dissemination 180–81, 187–88, 204–5, 214; Crick, Summary 125, 127, 150.
6. 6. Bern xxxv-xliii, lix; Dumville 22–25.
7. 7. Bern liv-lix.
8. 8. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 3849–54, 9761–72, 10107–32, 11141–52.
9. 9. Ibid., 11. 795, 12190, 13927.
10. 10. Knight 38–66; Ingledew 685.
11. 11. Caldwell; Leckie 116; First Variant liv-lxx.
12. 12. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 21 ff., 2478ff., 3287ff., 6040ff., 11192–238, 12061–64.
13. 13. Wace, Roman de Rou, 11. 5305–12.
14. 14. Francis 83–84.
15. 15. Houck 163–64, 207–8, 219–28; Blanchet.
16. 16. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 1532–34.
17. 17. Ibid., 11. 7539–40, 9015–16, 9787–98, 10286, 13275, 13282–90, 13291–93.
18. 18. Marcia likewise translates with great “engin” (ibid., 11. 3335–48); Vine Durling 27–30.
19. 19. Rollo 144–45.
20. 20. Hanning, Individual 12–13.
21. 21. He loses his patron’s support before finishing the work (Gouttebroze).
22. 22. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 3822, 5173–84.
23. 23. Schmolke-Hasselmann, “Round Table” 61–62.
24. 24. Holmes 61.
25. 25. Tyson 194–95.
26. 26. White.
27. 27. Amt 21, 26–28.
28. 28. Lejeune, “Rôle” 45; Legge 139.
29. 29. Recueil 3:4–9.
30. 30. Broich 43–54; Haskins 74.
31. 31. Ransford.
32. 32. Ingledew 693–94.
33. 33. Ritchie 347–48.
34. 34. Broich 54–63; Haskins 75.
35. 35. Lejeune, “Rôle” 52–53.
36. 36. Ibid. 25.
37. 37. Wace, Roman de Rou, 11. 5311, 5313–16.
38. 38. Green, “Unity” 129–32.
39. 39. Blacker, Faces 97.
40. 40. Cingolani.
41. 41. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 1667, 2044, 2316, 2599, 3559–60.
42. 42. Ibid., 11.3315–26, 3289–92.
43. 43. Variants underscore the equivalence between cultivated land and inheritance: for desertee, two redactors substitute desheritez and one desgastee.
44. 44. Shopkow.
45. 45. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 1829–34, 9781–84, 12485–94, 13036.
46. 46. Ibid., 11. 5153–60, 5199–208, 11753–58; 4888–90, 5102–6.
47. 47. Hanning, Individual 105–38.
48. 48. One redactor identifies the equal legitimacy of force and deception explicitly: “Engin et force deit l’en faire” (Wace, Roman de Brut, 1. 363 n.).
49. 49. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 2403–4, 2420–22.
50. 50. Bern 92; First Variant 125; Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 8147–50.
51. 51. Bern 3, First Variant 3.
52. 52. Reynolds 254–55.
53. 53. Searle 161–75.
54. 54. Searle 167–77.
55. 55. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 3834–38, Roman de Rou 1:12,1. 304.
56. 56. Blacker, “Transformations” 67.
57. 57. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 2183–84, 2207–10.
58. 58. Ibid., 11. 2890, 3903–60, 5048, 9611–40, 10171, 11132, 13631–42, 14381–90, 14609–16, 14401–2.
59. 59. Ibid., 11. 4855–76, 13842–64.
60. 60. Ibid., 11. 9516–21, 13461–62.
61. 61. Ibid., 11. 946, 1597, 2310, 5086, 5093, 10360; Vine Durling 19, 26.
62. 62. Some redactors resist these effects by revising lines 7–8: one specifies the language of the source (“Cil reconte la verité / Qui lo Latin a translaté”) and another the result (“Del livre oez la verité / Qui en romanz est translaté”).
63. 63. Rollo 112.
64. 64. One Insular redactor rehistoricizes the account by amending the name to Engellonde (l. 1198n).
65. 65. I discuss Cernel’s etymology at length in “Memory.”
66. 66. Wace, Roman de Brut, 11. 1223–30, 1233–35, 1521–24.
67. 67. Brosnahan lists the proverbs exhaustively.
68. 68. Blacker, “Transformations” 62.
69. 69. Leckie 111–12.
70. 70. Schmolke-Hasselmann, “Round Table” 47–49.
71. 71. Wace, Roman de Rou, 1:3,11. 5–6, 45–46.
72. 72. Holt, “Politics”; W. Warren 332–33.
73. 73. Whether the silence has anything to do with the shame of crusader cannibalism (Heng 140) is another matter. Finke and Shichtman also link the episode to boundary issues, but in rather general terms that cast the giant as a figure of the purely foreign.
74. 74. Potts, “Normandy.”
75. 75. Dufief 98–99.
76. 76. Ibid. 81–101.
77. 77. One redactor extends the litany of aggression by inserting two additional lines between 11. 11726 and 11727: “Et par bataille la tandra / Et par bataille la randra” (And by battle he’ll hold it, and by battle he’ll take it).

6. En la marche de Gaule

1. 1. Micha 87; Lancelot 7:2 (subsequent citations from this edition).
2. 2. Burns, Arthurian 114.
3. 3. Estoire del saint graal xi-xiv, lvi-lix; Stones.
4. 4. Lot 140–51 and Frappier 22–23 (Champagne); Micha 294 (Berry); Bloch, Medieval 44.
5. 5. Putter.
6. 6. Benton, “Collaborative” 52; Bur, “Comtes” 32; Stirnemann 204–6, 212.
7. 7. Frappier 151–72; Stirnemann 204–9. Another early manuscript, however, seems to have originated in Paris (Stones). Perhaps it witnesses a royal appropriation of an aristocratic form, similar to the royal French prose chronicles (Spiegel 269 ff.).
8. 8. Crick, Dissemination 210–13.
9. 9. Bur, “Comtes” 25–27.
10. 10. Bur, Formation 283–92, “Comtes” 29.
11. 11. Bur, “Quelques” 347.
12. 12. Bur, “Comtes” 30–32.
13. 13. Baldwin 101–25.
14. 14. Bur, “Rôle” 244–45; Evergates.
15. 15. D’Arbois de Jubainville 4.1:101–7; Lemarignier 156, 166–67.
16. 16. Bur, Formation 504, “Comtes” 32.
17. 17. Bloch, Etymologies 198–227, Medieval 8–12, 25–28, 202–10; Schmolke-Hasselmann, Arthurische.
18. 18. Spiegel, Romancing 126; Brandsma 64–65; Hanning, “Arthurian” 356–57; Kennedy; Lagorio 1–2; Méla 386; Hartman.
19. 19. Burns, Arthurian 11–12; Estoire del saint graal xi-xil.
20. 20. Kittay and Godzich 179–83.
21. 21. Baumgartner, “Choix” 13; Kittay and Godzich 34, 53–58; Nimis 402; Perret 175.
22. 22. Kittay and Godzich 183.
23. 23. Ibid. 125.
24. 24. Burns, “Voie” 166.
25. 25. Kittay and Godzich 207.
26. 26. Spiegel, Romancing 158–59, 269 ff.; Bloch, Medieval 224–58; Boutet, “Arthur” 50.
27. 27. Cited in Kennedy 82–83.
28. 28. Shell 28–29.
29. 29. Todorov 129; Leupin 153.
30. 30. Baumgartner, L’arbre 146–54; Lagorio.
31. 31. Berthelot 471–88; Burns 7–54; Leupin 25–53.
32. 32. Leupin 25–30.
33. 33. Lepick 520–24.
34. 34. Ibid. 525.
35. 35. Türk 159–60.
36. 36. Baumgartner, “Espace” 109–10.
37. 37. Türk 162, 168–69.
38. 38. Benton, “Court” 576; Map, De nugis 225–26.
39. 39. E.g., Narrow March (Lancelot 8:272), Beyond the Marches (Lancelot 7:96), Marcoise (Queste 145); Micha 278; Méla 334.
40. 40. Estoire 3, 53–60.
41. 41. E.g., Estoire 187–95, 249–57; Queste 93–115; Szkilnik, Archipel 8, 20–21.
42. 42. Estoire 22, 40–42.
43. 43. D’Arbois de Jubainville 4.1:110–95.
44. 44. Estoire 98; Mort 205–7.
45. 45. Baumgartner, “Joseph” 11.
46. 46. Estoire 453–72, 484, 513–24, 545, 549; Baumgartner, “Joseph.”
47. 47. Lancelot 1:3, 8:128–30.
48. 48. Merlin 175, 229, 286, 370, passim.
49. 49. Pickford.
50. 50. Baumgartner, “Lancelot” 28–31.
51. 51. Bloch, Etymologies 219.
52. 52. Ibid. 219–21, 224–25.
53. 53. Baumgartner, “From Lancelot” 16.
54. 54. Morris argues that these and other resistances derive from nationalistically “French” interests (“King Arthur” 122–29).
55. 55. Burns, Arthurian 45.
56. 56. Leupin 71.
57. 57. Bloch, Etymologies 209–10; Méla 369–71; Leupin 86, 174.
58. 58. Lancelot 1:1; Leupin 116; Plummer; Mieszkowski.
59. 59. Citation in Leupin 90; Bloch, Etymologies 210–12.
60. 60. Leupin 48.
61. 61. Estoire 73, 155, 261, 562.
62. 62. Banitt, Étude 191, “Poterim”; Levy; Signer xxii; Lambert and Brandin; Strong 56; Blondheim 2:48; Spitzer, Review 128.
63. 63. William of Malmesbury, Polyhistor 62.
64. 64. Isidore 31, 33; Bloch, Etymologies 39–41; Dahan 239–40; Sapir Abulafia 96–97, 133; Jordan 15.
65. 65. Jordan 16; Dahan 520–27; Trachtenberg.
66. 66. Hugh 32; Jeremy Cohen, “Scholarship” 319.
67. 67. Grabois 629; Dahan 276; Pakter 71.
68. 68. Jeremy Cohen, “Scholarship” 326, Friars; Dahan 258–63; Chazan, Daggers, Medieval 124–33.
69. 69. Stow 241.
70. 70. Grayzel, “Papal.”
71. 71. Stow 238–51; Synan 103–6; Chazan, Medieval 149.
72. 72. Stow 235–38; Chazan, Medieval 101–39; Taitz 147–81.
73. 73. Jeremy Cohen, “Scholarship” 324.
74. 74. Stow 98–99, 278; Chazan, Medieval 69–70; Menache.
75. 75. Taitz 150.
76. 76. Chazan, Medieval 75; Jordan 38–39, 69.
77. 77. Jordan 88; Grayzel, Church 351–56; Taitz 166.
78. 78. Jordan 97.
79. 79. Chazan, Medieval 107; Taitz 167–68.
80. 80. Jordan 101.
81. 81. Ibid. 133.
82. 82. E.g., Estoire 28, 39, 47, 188–95, 327, 349, 366, 411, 484, 551; 546; Halasz 180–84.
83. 83. Queste 280; Mort, 263.
84. 84. Estoire 23, 69; Merlin 96.
85. 85. Bloch, Etymologies 1–5, 212–15.
86. 86. Chase 129–32; Rockwell 187–228.
87. 87. Micha 91–93.
88. 88. Burns, Arthurian 44–45.
89. 89. Ibid. 85–112; Méla 342ff.
90. 90. Baumgartner, L’arbre 94–95, 137.
91. 91. Todorov 141–42.
92. 92. Burns, Arthurian 172.
93. 93. Estoire 346; Mort 221, 226–27, 243, 247.
94. 94. Queste 211; Hanning, Individual 106.
95. 95. The twelve manuscripts that witness this episode transmit the Merlin in conjunction with both the Estoire and the Lancelot (Pickens 108), firmly establishing their mutual entanglements.
96. 96. Benoit, Roman de Troie, 11. 980–1023.
97. 97. Vielliard 7.
98. 98. Jung 504.
99. 99. Later, Arthur grants Merlin complete dominion over himself and his lands (378).
100. 100. Beaune 344–47.
101. 101. Flori, “L’épée.”
102. 102. Lancelot 8:234–35, 388, 416; 1:111.
103. 103. Leupin 74 n. 15.
104. 104. Ibid. 137.
105. 105. Williams 395.
106. 106. Lancelot 2:218–19, 261.
107. 107. Williams 396.
108. 108. Warren, “Marmiadoise” 145.
109. 109. The final battle, for example, begins at least three times (118, 125, 142).
110. 110. Mort 3, 61–65, 107–10; McCracken 105–8.
111. 111. Vinaver 519–25.
112. 112. Frappier 152–64.
113. 113. Grisward 300–304; citation in Burns, Arthurian 164.
114. 114. Boutet, Charlemagne, e.g., 171, 603; Boutet, “La fin” 45–46.
115. 115. Lepick 518; Burns, Arthurian 167.

7. In Armoricam

1. 1. Montigny 177–79.
2. 2. Gesta regum xcix-ciii.
3. 3. William of Newburgh 1:235.
4. 4. Hillion.
5. 5. Montigny 137.
6. 6. Chédeville and Tonnerre 104.
7. 7. Galliou and Jones 199–200.
8. 8. Montigny 143–61.
9. 9. Ibid. 162–68, 170–75.
10. 10. Fleuriot, “Histoires” 100.
11. 11. Montigny 188–209.
12. 12. Chédeville and Tonnerre 97.
13. 13. Fleuriot, “Prophéties” 161–64; Curtius 128–29.
14. 14. Gesta regum liii-liv.
15. 15. Brett 17.
16. 16. E.g., Hector (18), Priam (100, 282), and Brutus (236, 282).
17. 17. Fleuriot, “Histoires” 107.
18. 18. E.g., Sabines, Latins, Italians, Quirites, and Romans—all from Rome (38, 218, 220).
19. 19. W. Smith 95.
20. 20. E.g., the narrator accuses Androgeus of selling the Britons into Roman slavery (80–82), Conanus’s speech is eliminated (116), and the archbishop does not reason genealogically with Aldroenus of Armorica (120).
21. 21. Gesta regum liv, lix.
22. 22. Gesta regum xlviii-xlix.
23. 23. Morris, “Gesta” 71.
24. 24. E.g., Gesta regum 20, 22, 180, 236.
25. 25. Morris notes, without reference to the fish, “The idea that each nation should remain within its natural boundaries... is at the root of the Gesta” (“Gesta” 98).
26. 26. The angle brackets indicate the editor’s emendation.
27. 27. Morris, “Gesta” 95.

Epilogus historiarum Britanniae

1. 1. Appiah; McClintock; Suleri; Young 164–65.
2. 2. Ingham, “‘In Contrayez Straunge.’”
3. 3. E.g., de Certeau (1975); Hulme (1986); Montrose (1991); Rabasa (1993); Zamora (1993); McClintock (1995); Conley (1996); Bank (1999). The first printing, by Philippe Galle, is reproduced in Stegman.
4. 4. Hulme (268 n. 8) and Montrose (35 n. 5) both mention the drawing in passing; only Rabasa compares the two images, analyzing the perspectival effects of rubrication (23–48).
5. 5. Rabasa 23, 29, 37.