This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Critical Study of the Middle English Alexander Romances presented by Luann M. Kitchel has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in English Major professor / Date May 4, 19 73 0-7639 2" ”mane ‘6 Iv HOME & SDNS’ The p» major Middle Er erature. Smce 3f Alexander, A \ ander) are mo“ \ negligible schol ary matters, ax attempts to fill ers to ascertai in carrying om der as it inforl them their me within their C} the above aspf ice Ch; E_.‘1'.Sh Alexandéf 122118 canon of ir. 1222. copy of a ’v‘ x of the Pin ____‘.___—————— :e:iso: of tne E; I Craps;- sis to demonstra: mental excrescen :he KVUE Alisaur M 533.13g a deal pd refine forces of r. tacos of the mar» 53.52: of motzfs. l_‘exender's role '. Search, he app-r graztical stance, :ate a man a gre While 11' utievem nts, {hr etibit considera‘: azz' Alexander B : a generally accorde ln‘ {tonight by LEM MARIE Kim. 19?} The CO: 13:43, 15 the gift the: efforts, am: It is a Professor John criticism were or ;ersiszent good h Deer-9* ' " ‘ .. ..asors Willi; :e committee an "‘L , 1 “2' tuoognt and s Final} .eetorician, pro-1 .5 mmeasurable '* 313' Parents, t pu' 9»qu Ural“. ‘ ha I. IXTRODUC 11. mo AL:~ III. THE WAR“ I‘v'. ALEXANL‘II V- m VI. coxcws} .aperxmx . . .I BELIOGRAPHY ,l flu“ ' M“ The p is attested to by nge for treating met“ Iris popularity, gown“: a phe r. itself to the lite r arises in the My mt htera ry inte Iradii-10:1 Of Ale The Wars of Alex- #— air live Nasser. . - saa:der,"u a ir -. ”Alexander‘s Let {gunmen w rue 'r. atalf pages of p Pseado-Callisth‘ two other surviw Pseudo-Method it relates the enclc to Aristotle. "15 l Since lover e 5 Xtanl.’ 5. made °i it. C on m" Cu 2'epl'ESen bestoi the Middl' Tee "Expanded r. Fibrin weakly 20 l .' anstotelem. The D razor. of Ale xami meses but follow tendensed transl :rench- Dits Mo .- K «A . | m'y). Tile Fre: , v .shversions, to llasasschir ibn “on ' .. . an Arabic ' tfifl‘zes. \ NoCfi l: . Mme;- enstencl ArchPTCSb‘fler ] a: - “”13 t0 Cen- azd later. at the Latin PrOSe, 2-2 W prey: \hs. a title l - flexifiiéf A, 9m: / Lie derive from 1197.5. A usef - _ _ L355): romanCe: The 1 :e basis iOr m is: e and the la. ‘hl ‘ 0‘.) CU‘ ‘ -QQO I ‘0‘ Alexander \ srzgeSlS that The aLatin MS of the Such a superfluous sino es the sub;ect m. the obnous one c positive side, it five: legend in the 1‘51. and mo ral rosy of Chauce I file English Alex most fragmenta Secor {-313 sources or Least inexact. V“ res led scholar ~ rarely proceed ' establishing tex discussions or ( authorship, and editions and d1: often haphaza‘: of the {major E erally in pass Th file Engllsh l \ {Wicked thESe he an exhau Lumlansky dral fragm as a Sepia: metal-ion - :nd’ at ‘1 tie chp era‘ure Bra ‘3' ~ renames. The ndeed, since in: of Alexande r c u: Alexander roma three pages, w. eral statements zanzes. Thus, It is . and 2“. Like tion I 1y far as a breal here~ andr‘ \ :ezslderatzon of t: aziagain, 0h tech eral terms, comz; aneofthe create raise, like Lin-s; Most 01 :ezts on the lite: are usually briei 2: Wrong, l5 refr :rom a critical Risen; for his ; Smith at" .0 . '1 ‘Onslderatic ‘rench epic 4?. “'3 ' r «1. light of a {I \ i 6 more 0m. 5&3 o a, __“‘ Primarl' conce I: Fredc Flisa'an'ler and ? aspartolhisb’ English Poetry : emphasis falls 1. languishing bl terprets as the hose descripti c aeadpieces in tr although they he I at excrescences landscape had i iarious desc rip hose which are torts his View c One . titular, often 11 interest for scl l0'- ‘ ”591W exte soil: lead their inter as 11. ltttlc' valu- not :‘ With ‘! rare promises d the romance asariple citatir stand these ltIT realization grecohceived l 02% oi his pre the "realistic often takes ar titer total fan eventually ad of the tuo; h ‘ I] ' 0‘ ldealiZa 1' 2.1 ‘M ’--—-n -- nierueu one i If; ;'::ased and h ie “uprightness enticing remote. ias any of the la silernoral rec: _:Le:e condemns-.1; Onetr rests on the he; scme of these p, These turns hours and a Ihech USE. Prett then1 H; . “.5 thinly, veile or RS 5 Car] SPF; 8fit} one CIOSes Ka of nineteenth and at: the poss;ble merit. Yinaver consequences w’r concerns of thos Natur, establ COnter “'35, l lent a“ basis if any Alexander outra. _.__.._. as selected aspe The; writs of litera: arc Inez: soccc iers‘and the co: :c'rtidoal Work success or failt E. titezr Chosen In: Uta Corr“Pal'iSo eration'fi'll6xa N I}. mzsamp. mall the plac land. it becon, . ‘ ‘0‘5 that none he same can e tally the same ‘ artwork is "or. sac: an assum; rosary. One a: 23:}; 330 asses: rowers. What Writer gets his he doeS with it abllllles ShOUIj naydemand SE “—4 e' ‘c. .a L s ‘1! lThe ‘ 3.351.193 l l,‘ zsee: oflttacedon (Ca; .tfiCCV‘ exa! ~“. William $3,, 5-5-03 I O 3Tne l 7' indicate it {rice and AS 1&3) m his 8‘ 512:1 '15 Stemmin E'ZEES. exClUC 1 3,6,6 (r I. failing-1. C11 ‘3 extep t Of t (1:... ’4 - .. l‘fslac “-71.294oassm, 533cc, at tms Eterre de Gadr-r #— ‘.",:‘..".a. DOYLJD Later interpolat‘. also; :ierstand mt :ed‘ate source, stzcn :s, in par . sewn, “user of p055; tatRTC was tr. sanded pg 51; art the depender szurce but COul< 3l RlC does nc fiofiTOnmin th: :ed it in his he the 310“ recen i150{lestioh c llse 22 ”Q J SEQ F I'll filheldEIbQ 23 {Jinans‘n Cl 2. D ., s. ,biaile’ 19) Lie Old F It 1' '3: £1 l 2re tomolete, I: mi of Alexande zeroolated into t: 31He e Faerre de Cadre- 7 39516., ”In arenas of a us. i P. Magoun, :12. de Preliis = \- 345v. tent edition of l pzblished by W: that's text of t lying Alisaunde: fragments rem'. lltdleval ROma ll 'ipon Km 2 A: 353 of {m Etc a knight at: ejars Kratins, Prilological Q.‘ 38L i it'azchester, 1. 395cc that, Alexandr ilerdon, la lop, I iell-sapported 401.: | “in; 423h1l 43Rc, tic: of Middle E “it. 48,1 restricted” W? Reg. 49lb. \ 50E; Ialter, 5‘: ogknce, H ‘\ ‘WWYOr r it shatter Caxti' tn smond' Piiosoghers. completeness fhave felt it xnmmnolss InnofCaxtOL 52 ' example, the: ander ‘shtch a ESEThoseve amne;rather character, a:; 53; (Toronto, 19?— 1943). p. 24. K "(ll ——. ier romances, The romance 5 Inn-are comp In: holds some teem-s with the..- transmission, ntnstrel's co; evidence of be In a from the othe‘ ant episodes M: . *«\-ereceive : cld of a “hill- lhe gods SynC p S ”C! n: :7 O. D” ,_.. l‘ _— and emphas 15. detail in t; strives for cc For example, t'seen armtes Le: activity, 53316 time the “€113 on the t 1128 men-19.301“; Si. C Tied llith a Hethere-fore or on the 35p ter and lend : osnvoice, m to draw a Sp? I Tome Chet-a \ French Tome. Olle muSt re: netted with r. honeys; ye: a ibut little the thematic material is o I; of these rig- :aste, provid iiich sun-0,; Phorucompa w-Q . ‘ LumClS - -eCr‘ l‘C‘Jld in the b rain the octos; :arrazive poem, :55 is perhaps great freedom; 1 tare are almos smepaddmg, ; 52d 'saunz fabl. firming attenti; -413 I SL1; 3:931, first of '. gresence of Al.- sermus mater; 31::eover, “‘5'- :ozqaests, “a? -rr.a:ve10u5" 5 iicle for the e skewer" (1-3)- .as opposed 10 M. mac: tai; dis: ma} Cer" dac‘ Cha 3L1}: be ._ and i T} . He didactic: 1,} textion, 31335, P .‘bafishne: die fa ct t1: changing h fez'eZOPing Of'tbe previ P36t's closin 1 1 The poet‘s ht 5151728021067, .‘ 5.: Inc 1 0% or”: greater wax <11! 131cm! 9. , great emp'm ZMEVQM unn POY‘JS' role the reader's W king, 01 A His fric Zia poet Similar, j; Statements and tongue 1' T 515953 Alex metaphoricz - A | mblhty. in merely a s aldacia i \ so 33 Alexander as ideal knight. He receives continuing praise, from friend and foe alike. His foes: [The mes sangers] tolden Kyng Darrie of Ali- saunder 3engpe, His boost, his pride, his hardyness, his strengpe. (1321-22) Lordynges, Alisaunder be kyng Hat: on erpe non euenyng. Hardy is his flesshe and blood. (3003-05) Wonder Ich habbe of his mi3th-- Ne sei3 Ich neuere so hardy kni3th. (3317-18) Forsope, we witeb alle wel pat Alisaunder is stronge and fel. (3371-72) His friends: Often bymened his prowesse, His 3ingbe, and his hardynesse. (7878-79) The poet: He porou3-berled euery presse-- Was bere non to his prowesse. (2397-98) Alisaundres hardyness may noman seye. (4890) Similar, in effect, to these brief laudatory comments are the short statements which indicate the ease with which he wins so many battles and conquers whatever lies before him (1414-20, 1425-29, 5549-52 ). The metaphor is yet another method used by the poet to stress Alexander's ability in battle. Although Alexander is at times metaphorically connected with the lion, an appropriate association for nobility, in times of battle he becomes the wolf. He is found to be not merely a skilled warrior, but a ferocious one. He possesses the audacia so often admired in the knights of romance; his sheep-like ad- versaries can hardly be a match for him. {IT great < .flexa: mough i stressin stances a troops of with Alexa. ticns. A28) Vim an eve; he motivat {ooh-1rd)” out distinct my a point 34 Alisaunder ferde on vche half Als it were an hungry wolf, When he comeb amonges shepe-- Wib teeb and clowes he gynneb hem strepe. (2179-82) Salome sei3 at bat on half Hou Alisaunder, as a wolf pat fele dawes had yfast be shep todrawep in be wast, So Alisaunder amonge his men Slou3 doun-ri3th, by sex and ten. (2413-18) An- hatt is Alisaunders blood. He hete his folk so a wode wolf Assailen hem on be cee half. (3266-68) And Alisaunder on vche half Sleep doune-ri3th so doob a raged wolf. (4463-64) For all of Alexander's ferocity as a knight, the poet takes great care to avoid portraying him as rash. Only twice in the poem is Alexander guilty of what might be considered rashness in battle, al- though in one instance the poet manges to excuse this aspect while stressing the valor Alexander exhibits. 21 No extenuating circum- stances absolve Alexander in the other episode (3463-3518). The troops of Alexander and Darius are lodged on opposite sides of a river with Alexander remaining there in order to observe Darius' disposi- tions. Alexander plunges fully armed into the river apparently to ob- tain an even closer look, but the poet does not explicitly identify this as the motivation. As a result, Alexander, who almost drowns, appears foolhardy, although he is said to be "stronge and bolde" (3483). With- out distinct motivation for this action his plunge into the river seems only a pointless, rash escapade. It cannot be suggested, however, that this is an intentional attribution of rashness, for the poet has evidently over-looked the lack of mgti‘adon 31$ 5&5 to 3V0 ePisode is. it dose to deati :15 physician wao attempts aged for hi sode- He 5a 399%: not 0: diction: he r m swat“ casts a Shad are on the p I pyoVide app: obvious” “1 glory. T with“? the poem. as a knight: WlSdOmo 5a 35 of motivation because his concentration is directed elsewhere; he wishes to avoid a contradiction he finds in his source. The swimming episode is, in other versions, merely a means of bringing Alexander close to death so that his trust in and knowledge of the true worth of his physician can be brought forward. Yet because it is Parmenion who attempts, out of envy, to discredit the physician Philip and is hanged for his intrigue, the poet has discarded this part of the epi- sode. He saw the contradiction in having this same Parmenion later appear not only alive but loyal (3506-16 ). But in removing the contra- diction, he removes even the narrative excuse for Alexander's swim. This situation, coupled with the lack of motivation for Alexander's act, casts a shadow of rashness over Alexander. It is an interesting fail- ure on the poet's part not only because he is elsewhere so careful to provide appropriate motivation for all his characters but because he so obviously wishes Alexander not to appear rash, even in the pursuit of glory. The poet's desire to portray Alexander as other than a rash, unthinking, albeit skillful, knight and leader becomes evident early in the poem. If Alexander's defeat of Nicholas establishes his reputation as a knight, his second conquest is intended to show that he possesses wisdom, sapientia, as well as bodily strength and bravery. When the king of Mantona revokes his allegiance to Macedonia, the reaction of Philip--the leader of the forces which conquered Egypt and caused the flight of Neptanabus--seems strange unless one recognizes that its pur- pose is the elevation of Alexander as wise and thoughtful leader: be kynges veynes wexen chelde, And nyst what he done mi3th, Ac by conseil of his kni3ttes. -' P—u Only after 1 :5 Media .‘...’-.. n ‘ mam (1 lie the cla and anothe1 ctr knight 22d the bal 36 He takep Alisaunder bis disray, Forto amende it 31f he may. Alisaunder it hauep aflonge, Wharfore at table hym pinkep long. (1174-80) Only after pondering the situation does Alexander take action. Then it is immediate: "After mete, demeyntenaunt, / To moupe he sett his olyfaunt" (1181-82). The poet often links these two qualities of Alexander. Un- like the classical epic, where one character often possesses fortitudo and another sapientia, Alexander combines both. He is successful as both knight and leader precisely because he has both valor and wisdom, and the balance between the two becomes almost formulaic: And in bat grete regioun Nas castel, cite, ne toun pat man bi loue oiper mi3tte Lesse ban in fourtene ni3tte. (1495-98) Jt [Alexandefl is an hardy flumbarlyng, (firebrand) Wijs and war, in a1 ping. (1788-89) Alisaunder was wijs and war; Now he was here, now he was par, And bad hem be hardy and noping drede-- (2129-31) Wonder Ich habbe of his mi3th-- Ne sei3 Ich neuere so hardy kni3th, So queynt . . . . (3317-19) Alisaundres hardynesse may noman seye, be which, oiper bi strengpe or elles by sum gynne, _ Al pat he see}: penchep forto wynne. (4890-92) Aside from finding mention in conjunction with his hardiness, Alexander's wisdom, sagacity, and cunning22 are developed indepen- dently. Although this Alexander is no scholar, as is the Spanish Alex- ander, nor a philosoPher-king, as is the Alexander of Dicts and Say- ings, he does, upon occasion, indulge in a bit of moralizing (1287-93, 1657-58), and his primary means of relaxation seems to be chess W, 23%}. eiecatxon" tc Kale the (0? met inste- azder leg-EEC 3.31 In it a p A: the outse maistres ten, But Alexanvi m5 aSSOCia: exhibits an d“ in pers individual C Cunnmg in : bfidy Will h: erected b) I “flat his Ch‘ to the tau. 37 (3129, 2096). The poet also devotes a few lines in the ”catalogue of education" to Alexander's mastery of scholarly pursuits: be seuenpe maister techep his pars And be wytt of be seuen ars. Aristotle was on perof. (665-667) While the connection between Aristotle and Alexander, and the influence which Aristotle had upon him, had early been established in the Alex- ander legend, some effort is made to stress this relationship and to find in it a partial explanation for Alexander's success as a conqueror. At the outset of the poem, the poet notes that Alexander "dude by his maistres teching" (32); later he makes the same point more strongly: He doop by Aristotles conseile; By hym he is so full of gynne pat alle men he may wynne. (3008-10) But Alexander is no puppet of Aristotle; he merely gains stature by his association with the ”maister. " The sagacity and wisdom he exhibits are meant to redound to his own glory. Aristotle may be mentioned twice as a source of Alexander's overall success; Alexan- der in person appears innumerable times as the source of concrete, individual successes. The poet finds numerous ways of portraying Alexander's cunning in battle, his ”battle-knowledge." In the first encounter with Darius, Alexander does not attack the forward guard but moves through, hoping to reach Darius, knowing that if the head is slain the body will have little heart to fight. In the same battle, he keeps twenty thousand knights hidden as a reserve force. To defeat Thebes he has erected by "cunning, ” a runway of timber up the wall of the city so that his chivalry may ride into the attack. He has his men tie boughs to the tails of their horses to create the impression of a great attack 444’ 4’4 4 ‘V 4F '1 ‘ ‘l' 2:6 cause bib 5235 his mer‘. nibetrappe bastai attack :2 force start gait crabs v. tze nations of he has his me barians with 1 A 1 Patent in two tattle 01' gair 3595 a psych impments c m Cleverne lesseess, ar dEF's (hym. itifieynt Silt Itable, He he ePisode hot Alma;- {Dave’satie “P. as the I' and hardy. DIE final ir Singer to (1 Same a114, 38 and cause his opponents to retreat to a less favorable position. He or- ders his men to pretend to flee so that Darius' tr00ps will cross a river and be trapped with their backs against the water. When the all-out frontal attack on the enclosed city of Mantona fails, he turns to the seige, to force starvation or open battle. He uses fire-brands to drive off the giant crabs which cannot be pierced by swords. When he cannot defeat the nations of Gog and Magog, because of their advantage in position, he has his men create a diversionary attack while he encloses the bar- barians with the marvelous bitumay. A rather different type of cunning, coupled with valor, is ap- parent in two episodes which have little to do with winning any kind of battle or gaining much advantage for a forthcoming battle, except per- haps a psychological one. His two forays, in disguise, into the en- campments of Darius and Porus emphasize Alexander's personal bravery and cleverness of mind. The situations themselves attest to his fear- lessness, and, consequently, the poet focusses on deve10ping Alexan- der's cleverness. The poet obviously enjoys relating Alexander's "queynt gyle" (5456) in convincing Porus that Alexander is old and feeble. He also develoPs the irony of the situation to the fullest, for the episode begins with the statement that Porus had great desire to know Alexander's "estre and his beyng" (5459). During Alexander's conversation with Porus and his counselors, the irony is again played up, as the Indians agree that the weak Alexander is surprisingly bold and hardy, although he would not dare approach Porus face to face. The final irony is that Porus enlists the disguised Alexander as a mes- senger to deliver a challenge inspired by the false impression that the same all-too-helpful stranger has given him of his enemy's strength TI. I I! ”cram.- I 3'! ilvlll'i ; IJIC ad age; thl Aiemde r gait and si tasally be 11g With D; 156 lightne Darius as merchant, tat he {3k mare seri 2"tiling to i SCheme of amore f0; mere four dimly gu‘ talk himsi tip tom; and“ mu: of hanging {Engenac anderhuis ”i"— — — _ _ _ 39 and age; the challenge is, of course, to be delivered to none other than Alexander himself. Porus rewards his newly-enlisted messenger with gold and silver, and the messenger, perhaps amply rewarded already, casually bestows the gifts upon the porter as he leaves Porus' camp. The same enjoyment of irony appears in Alexander's meet- ing with Darius (4105 ff. ), but the tone of the incident never takes on the lightness of the encounter with Porus. Alexander appears before Darius as a noble messenger from Alexander, not as a mud-spattered merchant, the disguise he assumed to meet Porus. Darius commands that he take a return message, rather than asking as does Porus. The more serious atmosphere of this meeting, culminating in Alexander's having to fight his way out of the city, is appropriate in the larger scheme of the poem. Darius is Alexander's major civilized opponent, a more formidable enemy than Porus--whose armies are defeated in a mere four lines--and less easily duped. In fact, Darius almost imme- diately guesses Alexander's true identity and Alexander must quickly talk himself out of a difficult position. Similarly, the stealing of the cup contrasts sharply with the reward Openly given by Porus. Alex- ander must defend himself against the charge of thievery and the threat of hanging to an extremely angry Darius, so that the skill of his de- fense--accusing Darius of being less generous and noble than Alex- ander--is not merely intellectual play but necessity. The defense he gives, however, is an effective one; Alexander clearly understands that Darius will not allow himself to be thought less gracious and gen- erous than his enemy. The poet thus manages to convey not only Alex- ander's personal bravery and sagacity, but sets these qualities in a context appropriate to a meeting of the two formidable enemies. [a :s:hdogi arrthet firteice- :gPorus nexander 1?, 3‘ . .ke‘s who Efiigg back I: K.- I it! am In. 40 The understanding of human nature apparent in Alexander's psychological defeat of Darius is also evident in Alexander's actions after the trees of the sun and moon have predicted his death. Alexan- der twice cautions his men to secrecy, noting the necessity of prevent- ing Porus from gaining knowledge of the prediction, for All boo men bat ben of Ynde Wenen me a god to fynde; berfore hij nyllen, saunz fayle, A3eins me taken batayle. 3if hij wenden bat Ich man ware, A3eins me fi3tten hij were 3are. (7008-13) Alexander's assessment of the situation proves true: Here herd Pore to hym unwreen bat Alisaunder ne shulde Grece seen. . . . borou3 pis ilk tydyng He forsook Alisaunder be kyng. (7024 ff. ) One final example of the understanding of human nature which forms a part of Alexander's wisdom is found in the method he uses to trap Darius' murderers. He makes no attempt to hunt them down, but instead appeals to their pride. He promises the unknown Slayers great honor: Jch wolde auauncen her corps, And setten hem on Hei3e hors, And 3iuen hem stole and baudry, As men don be kynges amy-- Leden hem be cite aboute, And don be folk to hem loute. (4687-92) They naturally take the bait. The poet is here more skillful than some. others who deal with this episode. In The Wars of Alexander, for ex- ample, Alexander is confronted by the two murderers and accused of going back on his word by not giving them the riches he had promised. In Kyng Alisaunder, however, Alexander's offer is so worded that he need not make lame excuses; they get exactly what he has promised: tent qualiti ~: medieval k; i ice and re; gitiiiately i L fed separa ; \ ZEEVI“ AA 10 t the: 1 ( 11$ Counter , n .4. a (1 “A it; from leaWes behi 41 He dud quyk herneysen hors, And setten bere-on her cors. Hynt-anforb hij seten, saunz fail, And hadden in her honde be tail. Of pese-bu3th was her coroune. Hij waren led aboute be toune; A wibbe was her stole, cert, (halter) And wib an obere hij weren girt. As men hem ladden aboute be toun, Men shewed bat folk her traisoun. Men hem brew wib drytt and dunge. (4699-4709) Although sapientia e_t fortitudo are Alexander's two most promi- nent qualities, the poet also stresses other virtues which Alexander, as medieval knight and king of excellence, possesses, principally his jus- tice and regard for law, loyalty, and liberality. All of these might 1e- gitirnately be said to be aspects of his wisdom, but they are better han- dled separately since they receive independent emphasis in the poem. Alexander does not merely conquer nations and then move on, leaving them in a state of chaos and anarchy, seemingly the policy of his counterpart in The Wars of Alexander. As a lord who receives fealty from those he has subdued, by whatever means, Kyng Alisaunder leaves behing a reign of order and law: bere he sette his owen assises, And made baillifs and justises. (1421-22) And to be obere he 3iueb law3e. . . . Alisaunder sett bere his baillyf. (1770 ff. ) Whan he had ystabled be lay. . . . Ironically, Alexander's attempt to maintain law and justice in his lands causes his death. Since Antipater, one of his justices, has perverted the law and "don shame” (7813) to many men, Alexander, at the re- quest of the peOple, has him removed and ordered to court. Out of fear, Antipater determines that Alexander "shal abygge are He (7843) and sends him the poisoned wine. 3. “it"tr. tr' cmment. 1r. men is use< .crd, out :0 he places or. fairteenth c It U‘rr: 0 361131139 tilt U Jfifl 0f 10“ '30 has re 42 A more politically-minded poet would make a great issue out of the treason of Antipater, but this poet allows it to pass without comment. In fact, the treatment afforded traitors throughout the poem is used not to discuss the political aspects of assault upon a lord, but to demonstrate Alexander's sense of justice and the value he places on loyalty. As one commentator points out, loiutee, as employed in the fourteenth century, takes in a wide range of meanings: It is a quality of the soul . . . . It implied fidelity to the pledged word, or loyalty to an individual owing to a transient relationship such as that of guest and host . . . or loyalty to an individual because of love or friendship. The two murderers of Darius are humiliated and hung not simply because they have killed a king, but because they have betrayed a generous lord. The fact that, for the poet, loyalty is a "quality of the soul, " a quality that can belong only to those of noble birth, ex- plains his admonition after Darius has been mortally wounded: Fundelynges were bai two bat her lorde bisei3en so. berfore ne shulde no gentil kni3th Neuere norissh no founden wi3th, Ne beggers blood brynge in hei3e wyke, (office) Bot he wolde hym-seluen biswyke. (4595-4600) Men of low birth cannot possess or comprehend the loyalty due the man who has raised them in his own court. Loyalty also forms the basis for the judgment Alexander gives to the knight who, in disguise as one of his own men, has attempt- ed to kill Alexander. Alexander's peers believe that the act itself makes the knight guilty of greason. Alexander considers his motiva- tion: '3: this has 5, it: does ti 2 'aiz'r. the we ‘n abalit loyal ,- lhe "traito: -i 43 Darrie was my ri3th lorde-- Jch fonded to don his words, His foo to quelle on vche manere. (3988-90) On this basis, Alexander frees and rewards the knight: . . . Kni3th, he were wood bat wolde bee don ou3th bot good! Trayson bou ne dedest ne feyntise, Ac hardy dede in grete queyntise. (4044-47) Nor does the poet allow Alexander's decision to pass unnoticed. As with the warning after Darius' murder, he obviously feels strongly about loyalty and its meaning, which evidently only he, Alexander, and the "traitor-knight" can fully comprehend, at least at this moment: Non ne Spaak hym on word fore, Bot bat he shulde be forlore. boo Alisaunder sei a1 bis, Yhereb what he du e, jwis! It is ywrite bat euery bing Hym-self sheweb in be tastyng. So it is of lewed and clerk-- Hym-self sheweb in his werk. (4034-40) Demonstrations of loyalty by Alexander of a kind similar to that of Darius' knight are of necessity not found in the poem since he is lord rather than vassal: The poet, does, however, dwell at length on Alex- ander's loyalty to his mother when she is cast aside by Philip in favor of a new queen. Alexander, as is pr0per, often demonstrates his loy- alty to his followers by vowing to protect and defend them. If, in the line of duty, his knights are slain, they are at least buried, and, upon occasion, revenged. Thus when two hundred young knights are de- voured by hippopotamuses while trying to swim to a castle, Alexander has the guides who did not warn him of these beasts thrown into the water to be similarly destroyed. If Alexander knows that his followers owe him service, he knows that he owes them reward: are: Perdit ~ r. :12'. i: tne I. isathbefl 5* J, .5 :a, as 'sei'. 9m her Cg- PT‘ESented { Cites, in a amass ire; ‘berahty . I 44 Bigynneb 3oure foomen coile, (attack) A1 to slei3tte, and nou3th to spoyle. 3ee shullen habben after battaile All be bi3ete, saun faile. (booty) (3133-36) When Perdicas saves Alexander during his lone battle in the enclosed city in the East, Alexander promises to make him his heir. On his deathbed, Alexander keeps his vow, making Perdicas king of Macedo- nia, as well as rewarding all the other peers who have served him faithfully. Alexander's rewarding of his peers, knights, and troops, however, might better be seen as an expression of his liberality, a quality attributed to him conventionally throughout the Middle Ages. 24 What Paul Meyer says about the Alexander of the Roman d'Alexandre also applies to this English Alexander: Alexandre est devenu le type idéal du seigneur féodal, ne cherchant point a amasser pour lui, mais distribuant généreusement a ses hommes les terres et les richesses gagnées avec leur aide. 25 The poet often notes Alexander's liberality, generally in the context of generous payment for services rendered: Coupes, pelles, broches, rynges, Herneys, armes, ober binges, Alisaunder freli di3ttes After werbe amonge his kni3ttes. bere nas knaue ne quystroun (scullion) bat ne had his warisoun. 2 (2503-08) On other occasions, however, Alexander's distribution of gifts is not presented as just payment, but simply as Open-handedness. It indi- cates, in a positive way, his freedom from avarice or the desire to amass treasures and riches for whatever reason. How highly such liberality was regarded can be seen in Darius' shame and vexation when Alexander-~however unjustly--accuses him of niggardliness. 9.: the timi zaclt tors: T‘s-l ue .east Lie-‘59 tent \ 3'ng Alis \ ‘5 a Tequi ““5 Dari aid in the 115‘ _ ‘ ‘ . “'qJ‘¢gn 1 45 At the time of his knighting, Alexander receives from Philip seven pack horses laden with gold. And departed on gentyle wyse, Sum to kni3ttes of hei3e seruise, Sum mareschales, and botlers, To 3oman, page, and joglers. All boo bat fongen woulde Ynou3 hadden of rede golde. Alisaundres gode loos Of bat 3yuyng first aroos. (831-838) The least that can be said of Alexander's generosity on this and other similar occasions (1389-90, 4668-74) is that he is insuring the loyalty of his followers, but he never seems to fall victim to a conscious seek- ing after the popularity that such giving may bring. C. B. West states that in medieval times, Alexander's lar- gesse tended to eclipse his other qualities;27 yet such is not the case in Kyng Alisaunder. His liberality certainly receives notice; this virtue is a requisite for any medieval king of excellence; nonetheless, it does not acquire the prominence that his wisdom and hardiness do. Thus he wins Darius' men to his service by cunning as well as gifts (4673-74); and in the final summary of his virtues, largesse is not even mentioned, although it would easily have fulfilled the requirements of the rhyme: [They] Often bymened his prowesse, His 3ingbe, and his hardynesse, His gentrise, and his curteisie. (7878-80) While "curteisie" appears in this final catalogue, it does not actually receive much emphasis in the poem. West points out the nu- merous meanings and associations which the term collected in medie- val tirnes, 28 but since Kyng Alisaunder is not only relatively late, but also English, its use is extremely restricted. The term ”curteisie. " as applied to Alexander, appears only four times, excluding the final catalogue, and in only two different contexts. Twice the term is asked to Al tigtre and i The context I :2: a come I but here the lit rhyme . its 358 Can 9‘ I ‘COunoic. \ Start l 500i} 46 applied to Alexander's treatment of Darius' wife and mother after their capture and indicates little more than politeness and generosity.29 The context here, however, suggests that ”curteisie" is little more than a conventional rhyme-formula: bere dud Alisaunder curteisie-- He kept hem from vche vilenye. (2495-96) [He] faire lokeb my meyne, Jn chamber, at boord, wib curteisie. Wibouten vche vilenye. (3 314-16) The other two uses of the word occur in another context, but he re the term has such vague meaning as to be almost indefinable: Sir, als bou art gent and curteys, Lete vs libbe in gribbe and pays. (2 947-48) Kyng Alisaunder was hym [Porus] curteys, And graunted hym his loue and pays. (5555-56) The rhyme with "pays" again suggests a formulaic pattern. At most, its use can suggest the same opposition to "vilenye" and the general- ized behavior appropriate to a man of nobility and gentle birth. In spite of Derek Pearsall's belief that the Candace episode can be viewed as an example of fine amour, 30 there is little evidence of courtoisie in Alexander's relationship with the queen. The affair starts out promisingly enough: Of al be werlde she was richest; Of alle wyrnmen she was fairest. She loued Alisaunder pryuelik, And he hire, sikerlyk. Ac non of hem ne had obere yseie. (6650-54) But Alexander is hardly a Lancelot; because of "suspicion" and "trea- son" he does not go to visit her. Candace, for her part, is no unap- proachable courtly lady. When she finds that he has passed by her land, her "frenzy of love" prOpels her into action; she declares her $1.11“ .‘ NIL", 3". .. eve azdp :etbeits N7 riches if ‘ e first the nit . I ‘ — —'—— —' "‘n PT Cti :i" . - tie, ‘1 air this th >u~ .eifler i an l'r‘ L031P518: 1';- and 0 e» d '10:: "3.. ' §~i_ . tgnt 331' big 0f i}: re i - 1 - sold, 0: hi, ('e tgl ti, 47 love and preposes marriage in a letter. 31 But love of Candace need not be its own reward for Alexander; she promises him unbelievable riches if he will fulfill her desires. Clearly, he will hate the "maistrie, " if not the initiative, in this affair: Jch wil bee serue to honde and to fote By ni3th and day, 3if Ich mote. (6716-17) 5 Although Alexander later takes the initiative in venturing, in disguise, into her city, his visit seems motivated more by daring than by love. For one who has loved her secretly, his emotional involvement, even accepting the fact that he might be subdued by the trickery she has accomplished, is not at all worthy of the courtly lover: boo Alisaunder gan ysee bat it most so nedes be, He dude a1 be lefdyes wille Under couertoure stille. (7718-21) When practical considerations intervene, namely danger from Candace's son, Alexander and Candace part company. We are told that he takes his leave with "mournyng, " (7770), but no details or conversation be- tween the two are given. From all we can tell, Alexander never thinks of her again; Babylon quickly replaces Candace and her bed-chamber in his thoughts. In this situation, Alexander is clearly the heroic rather than the courtly hero. PE, which by the fourteenth century is little more than "a compassion . . . which finds eXpression in immediate action”32 is simp- ly and overtly attributed to Alexander as he attempts to solace his knights for the loss of their comrades or grieves because they are dy- ing of thirst (1653-60, 5086). Yet this quality is best not considered in isolation, but in conjunction with Alexander's tendency toward anger, since the two so often appear side by side in Kyng Alisaunder. The 3361566315 T.‘ Citsidering '. art imp o; 1:21 attribt' :xLes neutr... :esits from :iebars, Ir. laig'rits who -. -.___ *‘éeopotami. :zzgrts, ktl. liti‘. poisong 48 poet seems not at all bothered by Alexander's at times immoderate anger. Considering that. all the kings of the Alexander romances become "wroth‘l at the drop of a hat, Alexander's anger would best be seen as a conven- tional attribute of nobility. From a moral point of view, his anger oc- cupies neutral ground, deserving neither approbation nor condemnation. The poet, nevertheless, seems cautious; Alexander's wrath normally results from provocation, as by the insults of Nicholas, Lesyas, or the Thebans. In other cases, his anger arises from the pity he feels for knights who have been slain; thus, in anger, he casts the guides to the hipp0potamuses and later, again in anger over the death of young knights, kills "wibouten pite" (5700) the warriors who have slain them with poisoned weapons. While Alexander‘s anger may sometimes be motivated by pity, it may also be tempered by pity. When the nobles of Athens send a deprecating letter and refuse to yield to him, Alexander answers with extreme wrath and vows revenge. Yet when Demosthenes begs for mercy, Alexander grants it, not, however, without receiving the obeisance and ransom he desires. Later, when another Greek city defies him, the outcome is similar. Knowing that they cannot resist forever, the people of the city slip the keys to Alexander and beg his mercy: . . . be kyng it herd. He hete vche man don jn his swerd; He vnderfenge her fewte . . . . be kyng afongeb her mone, And wibouten more tale Makeb hem alle his Speciale. (3276 ff. ) Alexander is first a conqueror and feudal lord; only secondly is he a merciful conqueror. F malevole: t1. —— God that ‘na Sit in or. y be seen as . titctly pc 51' ed me re; a. case Ale ;a: should mt : 60d; ratl e: Oedipus till the gym n the poet )cl 49 Friedrich Heer states that ”wrath and displeasure" (ira et malevolentia) were legitimate royal traits . . . . It was the wrath of God that manifested itself in the wrath and displeasure of the king. "34 But in only one instance, the battle of Thebes, can Alexander's wrath be seen as an expression of the wrath of God, and therefore as a dis- tinctly positive quality. Thebes, moreover, is the only city not grant- ed mercy and spared when the people beg for it, simply because in this case Alexander becomes an instrument for divine punishment. One should not suppose that Alexander is aware of his role as instrument of God; rather he himself assumes the role of divine judge. He hears of the great men and gods the city has nurtured and of the iniquity of Oedipus and other Thebans. His judgment is for destruction since, as the poet points out, the evil outweighs the good: bat was city of me st werbe, Of all bat weren in erbe. For her synne and dede on-hende Nou is it brou3th out of mynde. (2887-90) At one other point in the poem Alexander again becomes a representative of the divine will. One motivation in his decision to con- quer the lands of Gog and Magog is to prevent the spread of evil (6134 ff. ). Although he cannot defeat them, for such is not the divine plan, he can enclose them until, at doomsday, they are freed by the Anti- Christ. What needs to be stressed is that Alexander never becomes a conscious representative of the Christian God; Alexander's instrumen- tality in the divine plan, as well as the occasional assistance he re- ceives from God, are imposed by the poet in his own commentary. Thus, in enclosing Gog and Magog, Alexander indeed receives "rede" from "heuen" (6155), but as a result of offering pagan sacrifice; this Christian coloring comes in the poet's summary (6279 ff. ). 1 - '--'I 50 Nonetheless, it is impossible to accept _i_n_t2t2 Cary's pronouncement that outside Germany "Alexander was either always a pagan unprotect- ed by God or he was a courtly hero thinkly overlaid with the courtly con- ventions of Christian chivalry. "35 The latter half of the statement is acceptable. Alexander scarcely qualifies as a courtly hero, although he is , to an extent, medievalized. He is generally a consistent pagan, although on one occasion he is shriven by a bishop before approaching the trees of the sun and the moon; and he once swears by God. Nor- mally, however, he offers pagan sacrifices, swears by "Dans Ma- houns" (3170), and believes in the will of "be goddes" (6873) or "0118. unce" (1658). Furthermore, it is not true that he is unprotected by God. The poet either implies or makes it perfectly clear that Alex- ander receives divine aid in his conquests (1408), in healing his poi- soned men (5079-80), and when Perdicas comes to his rescue (5896). After his death a messenger from God designates his burial place (7993). Coupled with the refusal of the poet to see Alexander's death as a 1'eBuJ.t ofa pride or overweening ambition which angers God,the effect of this presentation of Alexander is to elevate and idealize him. He becolTies, in the eyes of the poet, the noble pagan whose anger at the pur"eyors of iniquity is justified, and with Thebes and Magog an echo Of divine wrath, whose personal courage and compassion for his men may be divinely rewarded. The fact that God withholds assistance at the time of Alexander's death is not a mark of disfavor. He has been aided before, as part of the divine plan. Now he receives no aid and must submit to the divine plan as it is contained in the natural work- ings of the world. The point is not that Alexander dies young because or divine punishment, but simply that, because he is human, he dies. 51 Alexander's treatment of the Thebans and his enclosing of Gog and Magog bring up the question of the motivation behind Alexan- der's conquests. These two episodes might suggest that the poet wishes to make Alexander something of a religious crusader even though he is acknowledged to be a “heben kyng" (8006). But subduing the forces of evil or establishing a reign of ”goodness" are by no means his primary intentions. The motivations behind his conquests, adventures, and explorations are purely secular, although not for that reason deserving of condemnation. The poet, in fact, twice points out that whatever the intention, Alexander's conquests and hardy deeds are admirable in themselves (30-36, 4748). Revenge, the desire for fame, and conquest for the sake of conquest have impelled many a knight and king- —Arthur among them--even though Alexander alone among the great romance heroes is motivated, at times, by nothing more than curiosity. Alexander's early conquests, before he assumes the throne, are motivated almost entirely by his desire for revenge. He will bat- tle Nicholas to "wreke his fader of his fon” (844), although it is not made very clear exactly what Nicholas has done. He will "amende" (1178) the disturbance caused by the King of Mantona's rebellion against Philip. Later, in his final excursion before Philip's death, he goes to "a‘dl‘esse" (1330) a city that will not follow Philip's command. At only one Point in the narration of Alexander's early deeds does a motivation Other than the desire for revenge appear. When Darius' messenger dema. ads the tribute due ”by vsage" (1284), Alexander refuses pay- ment on the interesting grounds, in light of his future actions, that wood. water, and land belong equally to all men. In refusing to pay m 52 the tribute, Alexander makes his "boast": 3if Darrie hauep borou3 his meynes Don Philippe, my fader, wrong, Jch am elde ynou3 and strong A3eins Darrie hym so to wreke pat be werlde shal bere-of speke. (1294-98) The young Alexander no longer merely strives to right wrongs against his father; his own desire for fame has now become a factor. Since these last two lines are repeated almost verbatim later (2515-16, 2977- 78), they might be considered a mere formulaic filler. There are, however, other statements and incidents to support the conclusion that one of Alexander's motivations is the desire for earthly glory. No clear reason is provided for Alexander's first conquests as king. He seems interested merely in subjugating lands, but the con- text does suggest that his primary objective is to amass a great army (1396-1510). When Darius sends him the insulting presents--the whip, ball, and purse--A1exander's answer indicates his wish to be conqueror of the world. But whether this aspiration results from the desire for earthly fame, or from a belief that he is thus destined, 36 or from the pleasure he finds in conquering--all of which are possible and appear in one or another of the Alexander romances--we cannot at this point tell. As the narration progresses, Alexander's conquests now and again center around his need to avenge wrongs perpetrated against him, but often the vengeance becomes secondary. He sets out to con- quer a city and the revenge motif enters only when its inhabitants re- sist. The city of Thebes offers the most complicated example, but it places in perspective the role that revenge takes once Alexander has assumed the throne. When he approaches Thebes, the Thebans insult h .and re: avenged. l :.e basis of should be r der's list 0 1 king, three to be conq: filling of ci‘ ability to C the miracz, the World. 1Name, t er of the f pects to g, with Dari; 53 him and refuse to yield; Alexander therefore declares that he will be avenged. It is only after he has conquered the city that he decides, on the basis of the evil in their past and present history, that the city should be razed. The resolve to destroy evil ranks third in Alexand- der's list of priorities. h By the time Alexander is well-launched in his activities as king, three motives have taken precedence. First, there is the desire to be conqueror of the world; this drive stands behind his constant sub— duing of cities and nations. 37 That Alexander is concerned about his ability to conquer the world becomes evident in his conversation with the miraculous trees; his first question to them is whether he will rule the world. Alexander's second motive is his driving desire for earth- lY fame. but not simply the fame that would come from being the lead- er 0f the forces which subjugate all nations. Certainly Alexander ex- PeCtS to gain renown as the mighty conqueror; in one of the battles with Darius we are told: Bobe kynges bere, saunz doute, Beeb in dassht wib a1 her route, be on to don men of hym speke. be obere his harmes forto wreke. (3842-45) The 8urrounding context of these lines makes clear that Alexander is the king who hopes to cause men to speak of him. The enclosing of Gog and Magog also begins on this note. A marvelous man challenges Alex- ander! a reputation, stating that if he desires to win the most renown of t he “’0 rld, he must conquer these nations (5978-79)- Alexander takes up tha challenge on this basis; only later does the resolve to destroy eV11 finter (6134-39). Furthermore, Alexander'wishes to be esteemed f . or k11-8 personal bravery and cleverness off the field of battle. These 54 are qualities Alexander hopes to demonstrate through his excursions into the camps of Darius and Porus. And Alisaunder hym bibou3th Hou he mi3th do sum bing Of to speke wibouten endying. (4174-76) He therefore steals the cup from Darius and, returning to his troops, "tench hem his auenture" (4270). He also enjoys recounting his "auenture" (5533) after he has returned from the confrontation with Porus. Alexander's third prominent motivation, curiosity, while hinted at in his desire to "see be countenaunce / Of Darries court” (4116-17) and know who Porus is, 38 appears mainly in those portions of the poem devoted to the marvels of the East. The poet insists, in what becomes almost a refrain, on Alexander's intellectual curiosity, only once suggesting that it might be tied to a desire for fame: He wolde wende borou3 desert, bise wondres to seen apert.(at first hand) (4799-4800) Forb went be kyng wondres sekynde. (5707) Forb he went ferr in to Ynde, Moo merueiles forto fynde. (5753-54) Forb went be kyng and all his folk apert Wondres to seen in be desert. (5771-72) b0 be kyng was heal and wel ydou3th, Mo wondres he hab ysou3th. (5897-98) He shipped swibe in to Ethiope, Forto seen bat folk selcoub Jn wyde londes bat weren coub. (6289-91) Certes, Lordynges, Alisaunder be kyng Wolde yseen a1 bing, Were it Open, were it yleke, bat he mi3th here of speke. (6504-07) Wyten 3ee ouwhare, by any waies, Any merueiles in bis countreyes bat Ich mi3th don in storye. (6744-46) Yet even cases the ukeseCOI ftheMeo difiesS in l 55 Yet, even in this section, no single motivation prevails. In several cases the pursuit of marvels is connected with conquest or may even take second place to it: Now went Porus, so J fynde, Wib Kyng Alisaunder ouere a1 Ynde, To shewe hym be me rueilynges Of men, of bestes, of ober binges, F. And helpen wynne vnder his honde All be naciouns of be londe. (5561-66) Now be kyng hab a1 bis in his rope, He shipped swib in to Ethiope, Forto seen bat folk selcoub. (6288-90) '1: Now hab Alisaunder agrope E All be merueiles of Ethiope, And taken feute of bo men. 39 (6632-34) When Alexander investigates the wonders of the sea, under the tutelage of the Meopantes, it is not his curiosity which is stressed, but his har- diness in making the descent. These shifting combinations of motivations for Alexander do not necessarily indicate confusion on the part of the English poet; rather, they suggest that he wishes to motivate not only Alexander but the en- tire narrative. Thus the marvels, which seem almost an excrescence, are tied to the narrative line through Alexander's curiosity and re sult- ant wanderings in the East. But this curiosity, which has support, al- beit minor, in some of Alexander's other exploits, can take second place to or be combined with other drives, those more conventionally associated with a great hero. The poet, therefore, most often relies on the desire for fame, conquest for the sake of conquest, and revenge. Yet he will choose from among these one or more which will be appro- priate to the particular situation. In two cases, moreover, he will add a Christian coloring, by having Alexander punish or contain evil. Such rune:‘.- «and: u...‘ . 2:01 P U 6 .p. 9 CO] u“ 105i: Cr .11) JV :4 varies A ‘H 56 may not seem a very artistic approach, but it is effective. The poet successfully motivates the various episodes, and, at the same time, the motivations ascribed to Alexander befit the ideal knight or king. Alexander is elevated to the ranks of the great heroes simply by having stock motivations assigned to him. What may be ultimately more important is that at no time does the poet condemn Alexander by attributing degrading motives to him. Alexander's desire to conquer and his successes in conquest do not lead him to pride, nor does his desire to investigate the world suggest outrageous ambition or the aspiration to become a god. In fact, Alexander, who is always aware that he is no more than a man, stands in contrast to Darius, who claims descent from a god. Alexander's ambitions remain within conventional bounds, and the only suggestion of pride appears in his refusal to answer Darius' plea for mercy im- mediately because of concern for his prestige. All in all, Alexander's motivations, if not clearly virtuous, are always acceptable; they are apprOpriate accessories to the great medieval knight and king. The Kyng Alisaunder poet, then, presents Alexander within the conventional framework of the idealized medieval hero. He pos- sesses the virtues and qualities befitting such a figure: wisdom and valor, liberality, loyalty, pity, the desire for fame and conquest, a generally regal anger, and, in a typically restricted English manner, courtesy. More exceptionally, he is partially motivated by intellectual curiosity and, on certain occasions, becomes the ally of good, if not of God, and the recipient of divine assistance. His ambitions are not considered immoderate, and, unlike the Alexander of some other ver- sions, he is not accused of attempting to challenge divine power. '- 57 Consequently, his early death is not presented as a punishment for violating the natural order. Yet this does not mean that the poet finds Alexander's death puzzling or leaves it unexplained, for there are two sides to Alexander. Besides being the ideal knight and king inhabiting the ideal chivalric or heroic world, Alexander is also a man, part of the ordinary world and T subject to the laws of nature. The poet therefore explains Alexander's death and makes it an integral part of his narrative by presenting, particularly early and late in the poem, the non-ideal sides to Alex- ander. He gives him motivations and emotions, commits him to I actions, which are typically human. The first evidence of the poet's humanization of Alexander comes at the death of Neptanabus. The Kyng Alisaunder poet is ex- ceptional in the motivation he attributes to Alexander for his killing of Neptanabus;40 in many versions no reason is given; in a few ver- sions Alexander murders him for falsely claiming to be a seer. It is true that this Alexander follows the traditional line in stating that Neptanabus is a false magician who cannot predictofortunes by the stars as he has stated he could; thus his death will prevent him from beguiling others. But the first reason which Alexander gives for casting Neptanabus into the pit is not only original with this poet but is reiterated in future portions of the poem: Ouer a1 so 3ede be sclaunder bat bou haddest bi3etten me. (726-727) The humiliation of being illegitimate and therefore, on a practical lev- e1, of not being Philip's proper heir, continue to torment Alexander. The poet does not, however, emphasize the political aspect so much as 58 me personal shame which Alexander feels. When Olympias is put aside as an adulteress and Cleopatra installed as the new queen, Alexander becomes incensed, but not only out of loyalty and love for his mother. To be sure he rebukes Philip for casting her aside, yet seems not about to do anything until Lesyas ”ramproned hym of Olympias" (1099). He kills Lesyas and then, after receiving Philip's assurance that he is his son and heir and lessening the "sklaunder" (1142), he frees his mother and brings accord between Philip and Olympias. Nonetheless, the humiliation of illegitimacy haunts him, un- doubtedly because Neptanabus had stated that Alexander was indeed his son. Thus, after he becomes king, Alexander journeys to Tripolyn where he sees the statue erected by Neptanabus and hears the story be- hind the flight of that king. Although Alexander seems moved, his real desire is to quell the slander and know for certain who his father is. He therefore asks the bishop--in such a way, it seems, as to receive the right answer: "Bisshope, " he seide, ”bere is a sklaunder Yleide on me Kyng Alisaunder, bat J shulde ben bi3 eten amys. Telle me who my fader is, Pryuely bituene bee and me-- bi trauaile shal J quyte bee. " (1551-56) The bishop proceeds with all the appropriate motions of ”longe sacrifyeyng" (1561) and returns with the answer that "his fader hi3th kyng Philippe" (1564). Alexander has finally heard what he has wanted to hear: Kyng Alisaunder vpon hym lou3, And in he rte was blibe ynou3 boo alberfirst he vunderstood bat he was ri3th of kynges blood. (1565-68) ‘r_ Ali-nude: ii is scandalt H anyane othe ham to me and devouox .flexander‘s Aiminedly gdposeful cation to he :s the char. Ci Alexandg \ vain. Willi: Either Oi he :iml‘y'lmfa 1°» '56 wil 31ft he? 1c he Clearly motivatiO: national ( the Stem, I 'L .Of hEr UH 1:. “file that tag, Willi: Sfracture. 59 Alexander is satisfied. No further mention is made of his concern over his scandalous birth. Historians often suggest that Alexander really never loved anyone other than his mother Olympias. Perhaps this view, probably 41 known to medieval writers, accounts for Alexander's continued loyalty and devotion to her in Kyng Alisaunder. Nevertheless, the poet makes Alexander's devotion a blind thing, and for that reason, more human. Admittedly a certain difficulty exists in determining whether this was a " ..... v 1.- - purposeful accomplishment or not since the mode of Alexander's dedi- cation to her does not differ from the other romances; what does differ E is the characterization of Olympias. Unlike the Olympias of The Wars of Alexander, for example, the Olympias of Kyng Alisaunder is a proud, vain, willing accomplice of Neptanabus, although she does believe the father of her child to be the god Amon. On the other hand, she is a dis- tinctlyunfaithful wife, actively enjoying, rather than passively submitting to, the will of a god in her association with Amon and later conspiring with her lover Pausanias to kill Philip. The poet, in his portrayal of the queen, has two goals. First, he clearly wishes to make Olympias more human by giving her some motivation. Even though her characterization rests heavily on the con- ventional qualities of the courtly lady, the poet succeeds in enlivening the stock figure of the other English Alexander romances. Secondly, the poet is committed to a moral approach; he wants to condemn her for her unfaithfulness to Philip and is too much the rationalist to be- lieve that she could be "seduced" by Neptanabus/Amon without a cer- tain Willingness or availability on her part. He therefore carefully 8tructures the episode to make Olympias a consistently motivated shefi 5 shed. 5 iig 1-; n 0pm . 14..., :1. l artac} ”“3; mile) 60 character worthy of condemnation bythe moralist. Olympias desires to gain the praise of men and rides through the city decked in her fin- est. She sees the stranger Neptanabus in the street and looks at him ”unabashedly" (220), but will not linger to talk with him, afraid that "he shulde tell I bing of shame" (229-230). She seems not to have been the devoted wife even at this point. Curious about his declaration that he has ”ycome to telle be soob” (228), she finds the whole situation a "game deliciouse" (243), but the context suggests that love is the game she finds most interesting. There is, then, true consistency in that she does not refuse Amon's ”game" (392) and in fact desires a continu- ing relationship with her lover. Her amiability gives the moralist his Opening: Olympyas stant tofore Neptanabus Of her nywe loue wel desirous. So doob womman after mysdoyng, Ne can no shame ne no repentyng, Er she be lau3tte in her folye So in be lyme is be flei3e. ‘ She seide to hym "of maistres floure, Hou shal J take on wib myne amoure ? Shal J any more hym yseen, Shal J anymore aqueynte hym ben? 3if he is god, he is kiynde, And wil me often come hende. His loue is also swete, jwys, So note-muge oiber lycorys. Erbelich kni 3th ne erbelich kyng Nys so swete, in none bing. " (415-430) Lines 417-420 and 427-430 have no basis in the Roman de Toute 42 fievalerie; they are the poet's own. The poet works within a conventional medieval approach and attack on women; he later picks up this motif when Candace, after trap- Ping Alexander, catalogues the noble men deceived and ensnared by WOmen. Whether he really wishes to attack women or simply feels 61 that such an attack is a rhetorically appropriate inclusion, the overall effect of the Olympias/Neptanabus episode is the humanization of Olym- pia. s and a consequent humanization of Alexander. Admittedly, it is pos sible that Alexander never knows the willing role Olympias has played in his birth; but he clearly knows of her unfaithfulness to Philip wit h Pausanias. When Alexander returns from battle to discover Philip mo rtally wounded, Fonde he stonde Pausanias By be quene dame Olympias. (1351-52) EVe 11 though he helps Philip kill Pausanias, he takes no action against Olympias. Perhaps, like the poet, Alexander considers such action tV13>ical of women--"Wommans he rt is wib be werst" (1341)--and there- fore to be dismissed. Whatever the case, his devotion to her continues u“Clixninished. One of the questions Alexander puts to the magical trees is ' ' 3if he shulde to Grece a3ein wende I To seen his moder and his fife nde" (6844-45). Since Olympias is not more sinned against than sin- ning and since, in Km Alisaunder unlike The Wars of Alexander, Philip and Alexander do not attempt to excuse her by saying "after all it was a god, " Alexander's continuing loyalty to Olympias is an attach- the nt in spite of her imperfections. Somewhat like Arthur's devotion to c311enevere, it makes Alexander more human. Alexander's involvement with Candace serves the same hu- I'na'rlli-zing purpose, but accomplishes this end in a different manner. Alt hollgh it is typically English for the poet to de-emphasize even the few courtly aspects of the relationship found in his source, it needs to be re(:ognized that such de-emphasis makes the episode more coherent. Ins tead of having, as in the Roman de Toute Chevalerie, an Alexander 62 who wavers between the courtly lover--in the Anglo-Norman poem he sends the first letter and has the aura of a man who will die should he not: see Candace43--and a man trapped by a clever woman, in m Ali. saunder he remains consistently the latter. Kyng Alisaunder is caught not by Cupid's arrows but by his own rashness and overconfi- dence. He does not venture into her city as a result of burning, or even smouldering, love. Through Tholomeu, who at this point is im- Per sonating Alexander, we receive the following motivation, although We can, at most, only hypothetically attribute it to Alexander: She is yhote dame Candace; Fair and bri3th is hir face-- Nis in bis werlde so fair quene. Fayn Ich wolde hir ysene, Her castels and ek her toures, 3if hij weren to myne honoures. (7580-85) J wil hir send loue-drurye, ' And her estres ek aspye. (7604-05) The offering of the love-token falls within the courtly convention, but he seems as interested in the glories of her city as in Candace herself. EVen if we accept Tholomeu's words as a reflection of Alexander's de- Sires, and admit a certain acceptable or required restraint, we must a18C) realize that the desire to see another's "estre" was the superfi- Cial motivation given for Alexander's disguised meeting with Porus. In fa-ct, since by this time Alexander has attempted, and been success- ful at, three disguises in which he entered into a dangerous situation ulti:l'rlaitely out ofthe desire for fame--to have a good adventure to tell and to show off his bravery and cleverness--one strongly suspects that the 8‘élme motivation underlies his actions here. In support of this sus- p1c10n one can note that his meeting with Candace fOHOWS. “P to the poxnt the reversal occurs, exactly the same pattern as the meeting 63 with Darius and presents Alexander employing the same irony he had used with both Darius and Porus. Thus, as with Darius, after the nitial greeting, he is accused of being Alexander himself: fl. ”Do way!" quop quene Candace, "Jch vnderstonde by pi face pat pou Alisaunder be . . . . ”Nay," he seide ”by Goddes ore! Alisaunder is wel more, Redder man on visage, And sumdel more of age, And pou shalt certeyn ben, Sumday whan pou shalt hym sen!" (7640 ff. ) SinCe Candace now dr0ps the subject, Alexander is allowed to believe that his cunning has once again out-witted his "Opponent," just as he out- witted Darius and Porus with the false descriptions of Alexander. His victory is short-lived; Candace soon reveals the image she had made of him and revels in her conquest: O, Alisaunder, of grete renoun! pou art ytake in my prisoun! Al pi strengpe ne gaynep be nau3th, For a womman pee hap in her laas! (7688-92) Although the anti-feminist convention plays a part, there is still no doubt that Alexander has been trapped by his own overconfidence. He has trusted in his own cunning mind, as he did successfully with Darius and Porus, left his armor behind, as he was not rash enough to do With Darius so that then he was able to fight his way out when finally recognized, and forgotten the ways of women, which he might have learned from Olympias' treatment of Philip. "0!” quop Alisaunder, "Allas, pat J nere y-armed wel, And had my swerd of broun steel. Many an heued wolde J claue Ar J wolde in prisoun laue. Ac noman ne may hym waite From pise wymmens dissaite. ” (guile) (7693-99) 64 The last two lines seem a bit limp as an excuse, though conventional enough, but Candace supports his words. As she catalogues the heroes betrayed by women--indirect1y condemning herself in the mode of the Wife of Bath--she makes the point that, like Adam, Sampson, David, and Solomon, Alexander may be a great man but not a perfect man. q... Her catalogue, moreover, emphasizes the betrayal by women, not the "vice" which brought these men into the snares of women. Consequently Alexander is not accused of any major sin, but simply of the weakness inherent in being a man. And, like the others she names, Alexander's é- weakness takes the form of overconfidence; he trusts too much in his own position and abilities and is therefore not wary enough of those around him, in this case a woman. But he can equally well allow him- self to be betrayed by a man- -Antipater. Here Alexander is once again not cautious enough; he drinks the poisoned wine "er pan he sholde" (7851). Overconfident, he forgets the guile of which men, as well as women, are capable. The poet could have made Alexander's ove1'-"2=Onfidence into the sin of pride; he does attribute that sin to Olym- pias ( 284). But his intention is not to morally debase or degrade Alexander, simply to humanize. When Alexander hears the prediction of his early death from t . . . . he tree of the sun, his reaction is conventional. He suffers great woe, but a-1:tempts to solace his knights by telling them he must submit to the gods ‘ will and by giving them possessions and rank. Yet Alexander must know more; he returns to learn where and when he will die. His sorrgw is compounded; "his wytt he for3ate for sorou3" (6898). Philo- tag l'l'iust confront the sequestered Alexander to remind him of the dan- gel-8 of a foreign land and secret foes unless he puts in an appearance 65 and raises the morale of his tr00ps. Alexander has forgotten his duty. It takes a strong rebuke to make him aware of what he must do: "Ne hastou herte and flesshe hardy?‘l (6915). Such dereliction in duty for personal reasons is conventional enough in the romance, but the poet develops it as evidence of the human side of Alexander. He also suc- cessfully conveys the facade which Alexander puts on as he returns to I hearten his army: Kyn Alisaunder, pou3 hym were woo, poo took gode herte hym too . . . . Etep and drynkep, plaiep and scoff Als he ne 3af hoping perof. (6913 ff, ) The poet's final step--he has now presented the derelict Alexander and the anguished but duty-bound leader--is to show Alexan— der making one last attempt to find a way out of his predicament. AlexaIlcier's third trip to the trees is to find out exactly when he will die and at whose hand. The tree, knowing Alexander's plan to remove his rIlllrderer ahead of time, will give him only half the information. But hope springs eternal: He wil fonde 3if he may, pei3 it be to hym yshape. On sum manere forto a-skape. (6969-71) Nonetheless the attempt to defy death never takes on heroic pr0por- tions 3 this is its only appearance. The poet cites one other human trait in Alexander. Although the lFITI-ention is brief, it takes on importance for it specifies the one thing that Alexander is at the mercy of: nature. In all the battles With men and ferocious, marvelous beasts, Alexander always appears in the £1- out lines, heartening his fearful soldiers. But once he himself suc- on“: be to fear. Ironically enough, the fear arises after his dangerous 66 escapade in Darius' court. When he has escaped the clutches of Darius' entire army, only a river remains between him and his troops. It is a swift, broad, and deep river, but not a marvelous one. He has only to contend with common nature. As he swims, however, he is " sore adrad of his deb" (4260). He reaches safety, not by his own ef- forts, but because his horse--an ordinary one and not the wondrous ! Buc ephalus--is good. Alexander is at the mercy of nature in this scene; he will either be destroyed by it or saved by it. We have also seen that Alexander is, in another sense, at the mercy of nature. Ideal as he may be as knight and king, the poet stres ses his humanity. Alexander is subject to the weaknesses, errors Of Judgment, and emotions imposed by human nature. He remains, for all his great cunning and ability, a man; in ways perhaps a superman, but nonetheless a man. Ultimately, then, as a man he must be subject to the laws which govern man and the natural world: the unchanging laws of mutability and transitoriness. Even if we can explain Alexan- der. 8 death in terms of human weakness, and the poet suggests that we may do so, the poet also forces his audience to find an explanation in the broader, unvarying laws of nature. It is the function of the he‘mdpieces, and to a lesser extent the marvels, to deveIOp the duality Of it‘-eal--human presented in the characterization of Alexander and to make the didactic application of this duality by showing the underlying dottiinance of nature and the laws which govern it. Rosamond Tuve and G. V. Smithers have dealt most com- pletely with the headpieces of Kyng Alisaunder. 4‘4 Tuve argues that the H 8ea—sons" motif can be traced back to Lucretius. As used in English puetry, the motif represents an attempt to deny the "outrageousness of :01 stam "Stay arc Lie the green at The heat ., '1. «hair; 4 Men A] 11 the 01 I'Ex'iatioz are unac :1) W Struc 67 fortune" and find in ”the cycle of the seasons the immutable law of mu- ta.bi1i.ty."45 But she insists that the headpieces of Kyng Alisaunder do not stand within this essentially moral and phiIOSOphical tradition. They are closer to the descriptions of French courtly poetry; "more like the record of a society where lovers sang songs within a paled green and sighed because the birds were gay and the ladies proud. "46 The headpieces, then, serve as a rhetorical decoration, not moral com- mentary; at most they function as indicators of the passage of time be- tween .Alexander's adventures. 47 Smithers, in finding the immediate source for the headpieces in the Old French epic, correctly points out Tuve's failure to see the variation in the headpieces and states that her conclusions about them are unacceptable. 48 Smithers' description of their import in the over- all structure of Kyng Alisaunder does not, however, go beyond Tuve's: The lyrical headpiece let in to a long narrative serves, as an arabesque might, to catch and relieve the eye as it attempts to take in the effect of a large fabric. In fact. he groups the headpieces under the category of ”stylistic or- name Qt. "50 His examination of the headpieces, moreover, is less than satisfactory. He ambiguously states that there are "no less than 27"51 When in fact there are 29. His discussion of the ”at least five varieties" is filled with confusing distinctions or lacks distinctions when theY h 8 (nu-d. be made. 52 For purposes of reference and clarification I have 1. “ted below the 29 headpieces of Kyng_Alisaunder. This list is followed y 3‘ a(.thematic representation of the important elements contained in eat: . . h 1leadpiece. The column headings indicate the type of reference The . . . . de 1n the headpiece; the numbers are those given the headpieces in th e pl‘eceding list. 68 THE HEADPIEC ES Averylle is mery and langeb be daye: Leuedyes dauncen and bai playe. Swaynes justneb, kni3ttes tournay, Syngeb be ni3ttyngale, gradeb be jay; be hote sunne clyngeb be clay, As 3ee wel yseen may. Gamen is good whiles it wil last, Ac it fareb so wyndes blast-- be werldelich man, and lesse and maast, Here leue bere-inne so wel waast. Whan it is beest to bee henne it wil haste. Me wondreb bat men ne beeb a-gaste, And bat somme hem by obere ne chasteb. Whan corne ripeb in heruest-tyde, Mery it is in felde and hyde. Synne it is and shame to chide, For shameful dedes springeb wyde. Kni3ttes willeb on huntyng ride—- be dere galpeb by wode-syde. He bat can his tyme abide A1 his will hym shal bityde. Mery tyme is wode sere: be come rypeb in be ere, be lefdy is rody in be chere, And maiden bri3th in be lere. be kni3ttes hunteb after dere, On fate and on destrere. Cler and fair is day-springyng, And makeb many departyng Bituene kni3th and his suetyng. be sonne ariseb and felleb deveyng, Of nesshe clay and makeb clyngyng. Many ben jolyf in be morowenyng And bolen deb in be euenyng. Nis in bis werlde non so siker bing, be tyme nei3eb of her wendyng. Mery swibe it is in halle Whan bat berdes waweb alle. Ofte springeb be bri3th morowe, Many to blisse, many to sorowe. Qued it is mychel to borowe, And wers it is euer to sorowe. boo bat connen nou3th ben in payse, Often hij maken hem yuel ataise. (hardens) (139-144) (235-241) (457-465) (795-801) (disperses the dew) (soft) (911-919) (wag) (1163-64) (evil) (1239-45) 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. 69 Noyse is gret wib tabour and pype, Damoysels playen wib peren ripe. Ribaudes festeb also wib tripe; be gestour wil oft his moube wype. Mery it is in June and hoot firmament; Fair is be karole of maydens gent, Bobe in halle and ek in tente. In justes and fi3ttes nys obere rente Bot bones knusshed and hard dent. In tyme of Maij hoot is in boure. Diuers in mede spryngeb suete floure, And be lefdy be kni3th honureb. Trewe herte in loue dureb. At gode nede coward byhynde coureb; At large 3ift be hungry loureb. Gentyl-man his lemman doob honoure Jn burgh, in cite, in casetel, in toure. In tyme of Mai j be ni3ttyngale Jn wood makeb mery gale. So done be foules, grete and smale, Summe on hylles and smnme in dale. Mery is be blast of be styuoure; Mery is be touchyng of be harpoure. Swete is be smellyng of be floure; Swete it is in maydens boure. Appel swete bereb fair colours; Of trewe loue is swete amoure. Mery it is in sonnes risynge-- be rose Openeb and wile vpspringe. Wayes faireb, be clayes clyngeb, be medes floureb, be foules syngeb. Damoysels makeb mournyng Whan her leues shullen make partyng. Whan nutte brouneb on heselrys, be lefdy is of her lemman chys. be persone wereb fow and grys-- Ofte he setteb his loue amys. be ribaude plaieb at be dys; Swibe selde be fole is wys. Lordynges, after mete ariseb pleie. be coward is wel loob to deie; Late slowe man keuereb preie. 0573-76) a843-48) (2049-56) (2543-46) (bagpipe player ) (2567-72) (2897-2902) (3289-94) (3439-41) 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22, 23, 24. 70 Horses strengbe and hardynesse Sheweb many faire prowesse. Nis non so fair bing, so Crist me blisse, As kni3th y-armed in queyntise, Bot be preest in Goddes seruyse. (3579-83) Mery it is in be day graukynge, (grey light of dawn) Whan be foules gynneb synge, And jolyf herte so gynneb sprynge. To sone it bencheb be slow gadelynge! Jn mychel loue is grete mournynge; Jn mychel nede is grete bankynge. (4056-61) Jn a morowen-tyde it was, bat dropes hongen on be gras, And maidens loken in be glas, Forto atyffen her faas. (beautify) (4101-04) Day- spryngynge is jolif tyde. He bat can his tyme abide, Often hym shal his wille bitide. Loob is gentil-man to chide. (4283-86) Mercy, Jesu! bou vs socoure! Jt fareb wib man so doob wib floure-- Bot a stirte ne may it dure; He glyt away so doob bessure. (a puff of wind) Fair is lefdy in boure, And also kni3th in armoure. (4313-18) Faire ben tales in compaignye; Mery in chirche is melodye. Yuel may be slow hye, And wers may blynde blynde siweye. Who bat hab trewe amye Joliflich may hym disgye. (conduct himself, live (?)) Jch woot be best is Marye-- . She vs shilde from vilenye! (4739-46) Jn somers tyde be day is long-- Foules syngeb and makeb song. (4791-92) Mery tyme it is in Maij! be foules syngeb her lay. be kni3ttes loueb be turnay; Maydens so dauncen and bay play. (5201-04) be sonne ariseb, be day spryngeb, Dewes falleb, be foules syngeb. (5447-48) Z5. 26. 27. 28. 29. 71 In tyme of heruest mery it is ynou3-- Peres and apples hongeb on bou3, be hayward bloweb mery his home, Jn eueryche felde ripe is corne, be grapes hongen on be vyne. Swete is trewe loue and fyne! (5745-50) Mery it is in halle to here be harpe; be mynstrales synge, be jogelours carpe. (5980-81) Averille 3iues mery shoures; be foules syngen and springen floures. Many hokett is in amoures! (shabby maneuver) Stedfast seldom ben lecchoures. Hote loue often after wil soure. Fair juel is gode nei3boure. be best byng is God to honoure. (69 88-94) Good it were to ben kni3th, Nere tourneyment and dedly fi3th. Wib marchaundes to ben it were hende, Neren bacountes at bordes ende. Swete is loue of damoysele, Ac it askeb costes fele. Better is litel to habbe in ayse ban mychel agh3tte in malayse. Who-so is of dedes vntrewe, Ofte it shal hym sore rewe. (7352—61) Jn bis werlde falleb many cas, Gydy blisse, short solas! Ypomodon, and Pallidamas, And Absolon, bat so fair was, Hij lyueden here a litel raas, Ac sone for3eten vchon was. be leuedyes shene als be glas, And bise maidens, wib rody faas, Passen sone als floure in gras; So strong, so fair, neuere non nas bat he ne shal passe wib "alias !" (7820-30) 72 Aphoristic Ideal plus Sea son Time* C011 rt Nature Comment Humanik 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 .4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 1o 10 1o 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 25 26 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 | - :viél'flme” indicates a reference to the passage of time not connected deg the seasons. ”Ideal plus Human" indicates that the headpiece feet-f: ribes or includes situations/activities which are less than per- . generally human activity which is less than pleasant or virtuous. 73 An examination of the headpieces in context shows that Thve's statement on their function--to indicate the passage of time between Alexander's adventures--at least needs modification. The first three headpieces, for example, occur before Alexander's birth. Twelve (nos. 2, 6, 8, 12, 15-16, 20-22, 26, 28-29) mention neither season nor time of day. 53 One might make her generalization acceptable by stat- ing that the headpieces serve to indicate any kind of break in the narra- tive regardless of the character involved. More precisely, the head- pieces signal that some indefinite amount of time (from an instant to months) has passed, whether or not they actually make a specific time reference; therefore they function as a method for l. bridging gaps be- tween discreet episodes (nos. 1, 4, 6, 13, 17, 21-25, 27-28); 2. cover- ing a smaller break within a single large episode (nos. 2-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 16, 18-19. 28-29); 3. making the transition from one character or scene to another within the same narrative episode (nos. 14-15, 20, 26). In the last, the time element can be non-existent, equivalent to our "mean- while." Such a broadening of Tuve's description is not only required, but illuminates the variation in the poet's use of the headpieces as fil- lers for narrative pauses. The poet can, however, indicate any of these types of break, or the pure and simple passage of time, without resorting to the head- piece. For example, a clear lapse of time occurs between Philip's discovery, in Egypt, that Olympias is pregnant and his arrival in Ma- cedonia, yet no headpiece appears (518 ff. ). 54 Further, the poet makes specific references to the passage of time, once again without incorporating his direct statements into the formal headpiece. 55 On the other hand, headpieces such as #6 or #15 occur at points where no time 1; 1.5 5C8] sassag Nichol 12an1 can be The co tranSit C:Eath ( 26 “81 Perhap “Suing Tue 50 Mery. 74 time lapse exists, but they do serve to mark a new episode or change in scene. Finally, some of the headpieces which appear to be indica- tors of time are actually redundant if looked at only in this light. Headpiece 5 is typical. It seems to occur simply as a signal of the passage from the events of the night before to the day of the battle with Nicholas, but the poet accomplishes this time transition outside the headpiece : be ni3th bae resteb litel, forsobe, Bot as men bat ben wrobe. Wel warded bae weren bobe bat ni3th, Al forto spronge be dayes li3th. (907-910) [Headpiece] Alisaunder in be daweying Quyk had armed a1 his gyng-- (920-922) Wib mychel ost he is comyng. Similarly, the changes from episode to episode or the change of scene can be achieved without headpieces56 or, as with #14, the headpiece is again redundant: And bere he ordeyneb his wendyng Toward Darrye be riche kyng. Now listneb, wibouten gyle, Hou Darrie doob berwhile. [Headpiece] (3285-88) The conclusion must be that the headpieces are not used consistently as transition pieces. One commentator mentions that the headpieces ”foreshadow death on the battle-field"57 but at most headpieces 5, 7, 9., 10, 15, and 28 8uggest impending battle; even fewer suggest death in battle. It is perhaps possible to see most of the headpieces as foreshadowing some ens uing event, but this is occasioned by the fact that their descriptions are so general that they could be applied to almost any situation. Only aver), few (nos. 2, 9, 29) are precise enough in reference to be 75 considered intentional foreshadowings. What can be said is that the headpieces are always apprOpriate to the context although only occa- sionally do they have any direct connection, either by statement or imagery, with what follows. 58 Their primary function is to be found in terms of the entire poem and not in terms of any immediate situa- tion or episode. As the most important function of the headpiece, Flynn cites the fact that "their imagery is all of the court and the city. . . . AS constant reminders of the social life of man and woman at court, knight , and tradesman in town, they emphasize the contrast between the civili- ET zed, inhabited world and the wasteland.”59 Such a contrast is only par- tially evident. There are certain problems in fitting the "hayward" (no. 25), for example, into courtly society, though he would indeed be- long to the civilized world. Moreover, the contrast between the civilized world and the wasteland would be more evident should the headpieces ap- pear primarily in the second half of the poem; in fact, only five appear there. The rest occur in the Opening half where Alexander never ventures far from court and city; even in the latter half, the headpieces generally ilnmediately precede Alexander's meeting with civilized peOple. Where- ever he is, Alexander often takes a kind of battlefield court with him. The pavillions, nobles, feasts, and chess games scarcely indicate, in 8Pite of the battles and hardships, that he carries on a solitary knightly cluest across the wasteland, though some such aura surrounds the mar- vels Section. Finally, it is difficult to find the headpieces "expressive of the safe world the hero leaves behind. "60 A number of the scenes prese nted in the headpieces and most of the sententious comments they c(antain make it clear that no part of life or the world is entirely 76 "safe.” The dangers may not be as violent or obvious as those of the battlefield or wilderness, but they are just as treacherous. Alexander, after all, succumbs in the midst of his court. The primary function of the headpieces, then, is not to be discovered in their individual placement or relationship to individual, or even groups of, events. Rather they offer a running commentary on the life of Alexander by implicitly mirroring the ideal-human contrast set up in his characterization. In an explicit way, they present the major didactic commentary on his life and death. This didactic com- mentary has as its basis the well-known, well-worn medieval theme of the transitoriness and mutability of human life. Admitting that the lyrical descriptions contained in the head- pieces are similar to the descriptions of the courtly poet and are, for the most part, conventional, general, abstract, and often proverbial in content as Opposed to highly original and detailed, certain generaliza- tions can be made. Most of the headpieces combine descriptions of natural events with those of courtly activity. Approximately half pre- sent a clear idealization of life, whether it be through pictures of courtly life or natural events or the combination of both (nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, 11-12, 16, 18-19, 22-26). The others temper the idealized pictures with descriptions of less noble human activity or with generally nega- tive aphoristic commentary. We have then the same combination as in the presentation of Alexander: the ideal placed against the less ideal, the Perfect moderated by a recognition of the less-than-perfect activity Which typifies human life. While only a few more than half of the headpieces make time ref'E’l‘eencesueither seasonal or diurnal--and thereby create a 77 background of temporal movement or change, a number more (nos. 2, 15, 20-21, 29) make reference to the transitoriness and mutability Of earthly existence. 61 The preponderant emphasis Of the headpieces, then, is to place the events of the poem in the context of a life which is essentially brief and changeable at any moment. These qualities of life add perspective to the mighty conquests and hardiness of Alexander. Just as the ideal Alexander is qualified by less-than-ideal human quali- ties, ideal life-~courtly or natural--is qualified by less-than-perfect activities. All life is seen in the context of what is, for the poet, its most apparent characteristic: the immutable laws Of mutability. Insofar as Alexander partakes in this life he is subject to the same laws. The quality Of mutability, like Alexander's human traits, receives particular emphasis at the beginning and end of the poem, to identify the framework within which Alexander's life, marvelous as it may appear, is to unravel. Thus, although the poet in his prologue seems to be addressing his audience, his Opening statements apply to the overall narrative and introduce the didactic theme which the poet applies to Alexander's life: Djuers is bis myddellerde To lewed men and to lerede. Bysynesse, care and sorou3 Js myd man vche morrOW3e, Somme for sekeness, for smert, Somme for defaut oiber pouert, Some for be lyues drede bat glyt away so floure in mede. Ne is lyues man no so slei3e bat he ne boleb Often ennoy3e Jn many cas, on many manere, Whiles he lyueb in werlde here. Ac is bere non, fole ne wys, Kyng, ne duk, ne kni3th of prys, bat ne desireb sum solas Forto here Of selcoub cas; For Caton seib, be gode techer, Obere mannes lijf is ours shewer. (1-18) 78 The image of the fading flower (7-8) or its equivalent is an insistent one in the poem, 62 but it finds its longest develOpment in the final head- piece, the one which introduces Alexander's death. Although the poet mentions, immediately after this headpiece, that fortune has turned a- gainst Alexander, this is the only clear appearance Of Fortune personi- fied; more iInportantly, because of the insistence on instability as an essential aspect of earthly life, "chaunce" (7831-32) is really only an extension Of this instability. 63 The placement of the headpieces also warrants notice. Twenty occur in the first half Of the poem, and headpiece 21 serves as the dividing "interlude" between the two halves. Thus only eight occur in the second section which is devoted mainly to the marvels of the East. One might suggest that this imbalance results from purely aes- thetic considerations, primarily the already extensive amount Of de- scription in the marvels section which might be over-burdened by a number of headpieces. The headpieces appearing in this section do not introduce Alexander's wanderings and viewing Of marvels, but rather those episodes which are similar to the first half of the poem: Alex- ander's search for and conflicts with Porus (nos. 22, 24, 27, 28) or the nations Of Gog and Magog (no. 26), his active and formidable battle with a series of wild beasts (no. 23), and finally his death in Babylon (110. 29). Only headpiece 25 introduces Alexander's journeying and the strange peOple and wonders he passively encounters; even here the headpiece precedes a general battle, quite like other city-battles, by only 5 0 lines. The poet therefore sets the marvels section aside and avoids headpieces near the description of these marvels, but not simply becau these views world are s tonne be "L‘ cmnn ordin 11881 79 because he shies away from excessive description. The poet accepts these marvels; for all his use of "wondrous" and "extraordinary" he views these creatures and people as an acceptable, real part of the world (4763 ff. , 4836-40). They may be heightened nature, but they are still nature, subject to the laws Of their kind. He conveys their connection with "ordinary" nature through his description; they may be ”larger” or "bigger" but they are still very much like the most common animals: hogs, fish, dogs, deer, horses, and sheep. Like ordinary nature, they may not escape the natural laws which govern them: Ac no womman O bat contrey Ne lyueb no lenger, par ma fey, ban she be Of twenty wyntres age. (4999-5001) And so ay, by be ten 3ere, be coloure chaunges Of her here. (5025-26) Eueryche man and eke womman _ Of be londe of Taproban Of an hundreb wyntres full-libbeb be dawe, Bot hij ben of fomen yslawe. (5645-48) Weren hij yladde oiber ybore Out Of her londe, hij weren ylore. (6488-89) bus is be cokedrille ysshant And yslaw3e of be delphyn. (6613-14) The Alexander who seeks these wonders generally has the role of passive observer, if he is in evidence at all. The Observing Alexander is simply submerged in nature. Even when actively engaged in Conflict, he is more often vanquished by nature than victorious over it- When victorious he usually has received help from nature, for ex- ample the small adders, the giant dogs, the large birds, the shrieking h0g8 a or the bitumay from the sea-people of MeOpante. We are told 80 that Alexander brings all these lands of the East under his rule, but except for the containment of Gog and Magog, we do not see the sub- jugation being accomplished. The marvels section, then, achieves the same effect as the headpieces. First, it indicates that all life is subject to the laws of nature. Second, the inability of Alexander to cope, without out- side help, with heightened nature makes concrete his essential power- lessness at the hands of ordinary nature. Such powerlessness is made explicit through the commentary in the headpieces; in the mar- vels section it is made explicit through Alexander's ineffectuality or passivity in his encounters with heightened nature. In both the didactic point of the author remains the same. Nothing in this world- -Alexan- der included--is indestructible, no matter how extraordinary its strength or cunning. Everything falls before the laws of transitori- ness and mutability which govern this world. There is for him, as for the poet's audience, only a moment's solace, a moment's victory before life ”darts away as a flower in the mead. ‘1 Now man leig3eb, now man wepeb! Now man is hool, now man is seek; Nys no day Ober ylyk. Noman bat lyues hab borowe From euene libbe forto amorowe. (6983-87) won altho ‘f " IEGP, 111 :;c 10:31 a Advocates Fragment formed a 1 "Expandec Bigford B ‘5‘; De Irc is based 0 Vocation i: ewas a c 1in Which 1 \ “8 1890): Richard C 1N. Chamt filth” for e‘YA‘ghsChe C 1 SU e W. H. gfgr rate authc 01‘ follOWe Period. S lith land 14 383% of the r Carrie ti by] d in 0118 and I and “9:21: elend OCC FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER II lSmithers, II, 44. A more precise date has not been agreed upon although W. H. French, ”Dialects and Forms in Three Romances," JEGP, XLV (1946), 130, would date it 1275-1300 on the basis of linguis- tic form and word usage. ZLaud Misc. 622 Of the Bodleian Library; Lincoln's Inn 150; Advocates' l9. 2. l Of the National Library Of Scotland; the St. Andrews Fragments Of the University Library Of St. Andrews which originally formed a part of the Auchinleck MS. The surviving fragments Of the "Expanded Kyng Alisaunderu are found in the collection known as The Ba ford Ballads held by the British Museum. All citations in my text will be From the Laud MS. as printed by Smithers, I. 3Smithers, 11, 11-12. 4Smithers, II, 58-60. The suggestion that he was in orders is based on extremely tenuous evidence. The poet praises the priestly vocation in l. 3583 of Kyng Alisaunder, but Smithers' conjecture that he was a cleric is based primarily on the prologue of Arthour and Mer- lin which he believes to be another of the Kyng Alisaunder poWs works. 5Eugen KOlbing, in his edition Of Arthour and Merlin (Leip- zig, 1890), lx ff. , states that Kyng Alisaunder, Arthour and Merlin and Bjchard Coeur de Lion are all by the same author. G. V. Smithers, "Notes on Middfe English Texts, " in London Medieval Studies, ed. R W. Chambers et a1, Vol. 1, Pt. ii (London, 1938), 209 urges a single Karl Brunner, Der Mittel- author for Artfi-O'u'r- and Kyng Alisaunder. englische Versroman UBer Richard Eowenherz (Wien, 191m- . suggests the common authorship of Richard and Kyng Alisaunder. W. H. French, "Dialects," pp. 128-129, However, argues for sepa- rate authorship but states that ”all must have had a common training 01' followed a prevailing mode," and all wrote in the same dialect and Period. See also Dieter Mehl, The Middle English Romances Of the 13th and 14th Centuries (London, 1968), pp. 231132 and Smithers, 11. 8-60. 6See the list of headpieces, below pp. 68-71, for examples of the rhyme scheme. In a few cases the rhyme of the headpiece is carried into the first couplet of the narrative, but these are excep- tions and no pattern is evident. 7The judgment is not unanimous. Kane f inds Alexander A and Alexander B better and French, "Dialects," p. 127, states that nyn Klisaunaer is the work of a "hack without any instinct for style eyon occasional deference to commonplace rhetorical ornament." 81 )1Ctor AEES’ \ Hi Qera the 11. CEnt. \ 82 8See below, pp. 66-67. 9Mehl, p. 230. loEverett, p. 107. 11Elizabeth Flynn, "The Marvellous Element in the Middle English Alexander Romances" (Unpubl. diss. , University of Wisconsin, 1968), p. 6531 passim. lz'Elder Olson in Critics and Criticism: Ancient and Modern, ed. R. S. Crane (Chicago, 1952), p. 67. 13386 11. 17. 241, 3025-26, 3035-36. 14C. M. Bowra, ”The Hero, " in The Hero in Literature, ed. Victor Brombert (New York, 1969), pp. 26-28. 15English Medieval Literature, p. 182. 1 6Cary, p. 142. 17Ernst Curtius, Euro ean Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask (New 9m, 1953), p. 175. 18As Smithers, II, 77, points out, the normal meaning Of "derayeyng"--throwing into disorder--does not seem satisfactory here; the line is probably corrupt. 191265-71. 1353, 2151-53, 2421-23. 2741-46. 3784-89. 3795-99. 4365-70, 4449-53. 202395-98. 5379-80. 21See above, pp. 30-31. 22The three terms are used synonymously. zBGervase Mathew, "Ideals of Knighthood in Late-Fourteenth- 12:31:11); Ereicgllarfid, 'v'ving‘gigiésailntggifgafias;ory Eggsented to F. M. \, . . . , , p. . 24Cary, pp. 358-368. 25Meyer, 11. 373. Z6See also 1569-71. 5998-6003. 2133-36. Z7Courtoisie in AjglO-Norman Literature (Oxford, 1938) p. 73. 28West, pp. 1-16. TOE“ C 3 u 4!. I d u o 1 k r 1 1i :4 n11. . . CL 1 . C 01. at 0 JR . 9. . . e 0 .d 1 .u. an... Mia Pm - u 5U» \H‘ . 6 afl‘ a!» ud- QI‘” . I 1 A . . u . - ‘ I I? n .,..nu.i.'¢.-l - .. 83 29Cf. 2561-64 where "curteisie" itself is not used, but the type of behavior it implies is catalogued. 30”DevelOpment," p. 101. 31As H. L. Creek points out, the woman as woer is an attri- bute Of the chanson de geste. "Love in Medieval Romance,” Sewanee Review, XXIV (1916), 92. 3‘zMathew, p. 359. 33588 also 1893-97. 34The Medieval World (New York, 1963), p. 349. 35Cary, p. 189. 36Alexander's reaction to the ease with which he pulls out the magical sword (2621 ff.) is the only incident which would lend sup- port to this view. 37566 4892, 5905-06, 5932 8., 6842. 38Because of the poet's sometimes loose use of pronouns, this line (5464) admits of two interpretations. "He wolde wite who was he" may mean simply that Alexander wishes to know who Porus was or it may be an ironic statement by Alexander, to the effect that indeed Porus will know who Alexander is. 39868 also 5605 11., 6632-34. 40Smithers, II, 28. . 41Many medieval writers, however, preferred to stress his 1ncontinence. See Cary, pp. 99-100. 4szithers, 11, 73. 43West, p. 75. 44Enkvist actually only refines Tuve's general findings. He (1°88 stress the influence of French poetry on English after the twelfth Century in contrast tO Tuve, who insists on the antipathy of the French Poetry to the spirit of the English. His view on the headpieces does not differ from Tuve's and Smithers‘. 45Tuve, p. 13. 4%» p. 181. 4711251. , p. 32flpassim. 48$mithers, II, 35-39, e6p. 37. 84 49Ibid., p. 39 5olbid. 511bid. , p. 36. 52For example: "A third type adds to the seasonal references (a) gnomic elements . . . some of the more pleasing of which are pic- tures of courtly or aristocratic society, or (b) sententious elements, or uses both." p. 36. 53Tuve never indicates that she is dealing only with the sea- sons-headpieces; if, because of the title Of her work, that is to he‘s—3: sumed, the twelve 1 have mentioned as exceptions to her statement would have to be eliminated from consideration. In any case, the first Objec- tion stands. 54See also 656 ff. , 710 ff. 55For example, 605, 1019-20, 1067, 3956 ff. 56For example, 1325, 1435-39, 1661-66. 57Flynn, p. 81. 58Mehl, p. 239, insists on the individual structural, the- matic, or stylistic importance of the headpieces but does not clearly suggest any overall, general function. 59Flynn, pp. 80-81. 601bid.. p. 81 61Those headpieces which do not (6, 8, 12, 16, 26, 28) all Concentrate on an idealized description of courtly activity, but even one Of these (28) does present both the ”good" and "bad" sides Of this life. 6ZSee, for example, 718, 4314-15, 6982-87, 7828. 63Mehl, p. 235, states that they are evenly Spread through the poem. A brief look at the line numbers shows the unacceptability 0f such a statement. CHAPTER III THE WARS OF ALEXANDER The Wars of Alexander, the longest of the Middle English alliterative Alexander romances, is preserved in fragmentary form in two MSS: Bodleian Ashmole 44 and Trinity College Dublin D. 4.12. Al- though Ashmole is the better manuscript, the two generally supplement one another, with Dublin filling a gap of some 145 lines in the Ashmole; unfortunately, both lack the conclusion of the poem. The date and provenance Of the original are difficult to determine because of the distance of the M85 from the original; but the poem is generally ascribed to the first half Of the fifteenth century and to the North or Northwest Midlands. 1 Much discussion has centered on the possible common authorship with other alliterative poems such as the Morte Arthure and lhe Destruction of Troy, but the arguments offered are generally tenuous. 2 Aside from artistic considerations, the poem is of interest Since Of the three alliterative fragments it alone Offers evidence Of Possible oral presentation. Not only is V_Va_r;s divided into pas sus of mare or less regular length, 3 a division contributed by its author, but also contains numerous references to a poet-audience situation: I sall rehers, 8: 3e will, renkis rekyn our tongis, A remnant of his rialte & rist quen vs ikis. (21-22) Bot will 3e herken hende now sall 3e here How he kide him in be courete 81 quayntid him with ladis. (212-213) 85 86 And if 30w likis Of bis lare to lesten any forthire, Sone sall I tell 30w a text how it be-tid efter. 4 (523-524) However, since the poem is quite late, such references may represent nothing more than rhetorical or stylistic convention. Estimates Of the poem's artistic merit vary greatly and criti- cal assessments are generally confined to the metrical skills of the poet. Andrew states that ”the best work in [Wars'frequently reminds one of the Gawain-poet . . . . In Spite Of his rather dull subject matter . . . his work is alive and shows that he has mastered his art. " Oakden, as noted earlier, finds the poem a noteworthy product of the alliterative revival. Skeat, on the other hand, considers it little more than a trans- lation, and Elliot finds the lushness Of some descriptive passages the only redeeming aspect of the poem. Kane, in grouping all three frag- ments together, believes that they "are the most successful of the at- tempts at adjustment between ancient classical material and the allit- erative long line.”5 These evaluations, excepting that of Oakden which is based on detailed metrical analysis Of the alliterative line, fall short since they are unsupported and usually the product of cursory overviews, if not critical prejudice. One generally accepted view of Wars is that most succinctly stated by Oakden. In his view the poem is a "drama in chronicle form-- a I‘apid narration Of events centered around a mighty hero, " an epic rEither than romance hero. 6 Indeed, little medievalization has been un- dertaken by the poet. Alexander's ”knighthood" may be referred to; he may encounter the "bishop" of Jerusalem and even bow to the name of the one God. Yet beneath the most superficial level, chivalric or romance aspects are all but non-existent. Alexander has his twelve 87 "peers," along with many "knights" and "squires," but his captains are more thanes than lords. Alexander and his trOOps fight, albeit in medieval armor; they do not joust. There is no knighting ceremony for Alexander. He is interested in meeting Candace, but no suggestion Of love enters the picture. He receives tribute from the conquered cities and nations, but not fealty. Olympias is the honorable but sub- ordinate queen with no courtly qualities. The list could be continued, but the point is clear. The poet serves as the historian/biographer of the epic Alexander. In the prologue, again an original contribution, the poet suggests that his work is meant simply as entertainment. He will present a ”remnant" of the life of an "Emperoure be a3efu11est," the "athill Alexandire, " for When folk ere festid 8: fed fayn wald bai here Sum farand bing efter fode to fayn bare hert. (1-2) As will be seen, 7 entertainment is not the poet's sole purpose; he is also a didactic writer. Yet, insofar as his concern lies with the pre- sentation Of the life of the conqueror Alexander, the work exhibits a consistent unity. The structure and movement of the poem are con- trolled by the author's concept of Alexander and his desire to keep his hero always in the limelight. Although one cannot accept Oakden's Statement that the narration is, without qualification, "rapid, " and that no digressions are admitted into the narrative, 8 the account of Alexan- der's feats is straight-forward. The episodes are unified not merely by the presence of Alexander, but by the author's commitment to the Portrayal of Alexander as a superman. Alexander's virtues and moti- vations are consistent with such a picture, and the characterizations 88 of those closest to him--Olympias and Philip--are molded to fit it. Unlike KyngAlisaunder, this poet allows no intrusion of mere human qualities in Alexander. 9 Moreover, the individual episodes, as well as serving to Offer a clear-cut presentation of the noble qualities Of the superhuman hero, center around or reflect back upon the figure of Alexander. He is constantly front and center; all action is designed to bring out the epic nature of the warrior and king Alexander. Such a single-minded approach can result in a certain monotony. The method of the poet is evident in the battle scenes, which W1 are fewer in number, briefer, and less varied than those of Kyng Alis- aunder. In fact, the only battle which approaches the extensiveness of those in Kyng Alisaunder is that of Tyre, which actually combines two episodes: the siege Of Tyre itself and the Foraging of Gadirs. The poet does not allow himself to become interested in develOping battles for their own sake, nor is he interested in showing Alexander overcom- ing his foes even in the face of extreme difficulty. His goal is a simple one: to stress Alexander's heroic bravery and cunning, and he chooses the most straight-forward approach. In Kyng Alisaunder, formidable foes at times confront Alexander; in overcoming them, his abilities are elevated. At other times, his enemies cause him only minor in- convenience; again Alexander is elevated. But the poet Of Wars chooses not to elect this variation; he works by accumulation. One after an- other Alexander's opponents fall to his hand and no one Offers him much in the way Of Opposition. His Opponents are as nothing compared to Alexander; therefore the poet presents them as little more than names accompanied by stock epithets, if they are given even that particulari- zation. The poet achieves his purpose; no one stands in the way Of the 89 invincible Alexander, but the artistic result is a certain sameness, a certain monotony in the battle scenes. Although the poet's battle descriptions indicate that he pos- sesses a facility in this area, they are handled in a very conventional way, are quite rigidly structured, and show little of the freedom in the use of the line which the poet introduces into straight narrative and dialogue. 10 One might attribute this to the fact that the long tradition of the battle description has caused it to become merely a convention and is used as such by the poet; yet other evidence indicates that he 1? is more constrained» by his desire to keep Alexander in the forefront whenever possible and continually emphasize his invincibility. A schematic presentation Of the battle episodes in Wars, set next to those of KyngAlisaunder for purposes of contrast, makes evi- dent that the Wars poet not only includes fewer battles, which can be simply attributed to his source, but more importantly devotes less time tO most Of the ones he does present and treats all of them in the same general way. It should be first noted, however, that the overall format Of the battle episodes is the same in both poems; this pattern, of course, is not peculiar to these two poems but coincides with the set form in many medieval romances. I present merely the most general pattern rather than including all the individual details which may go to form such an episode. 11 This overall pattern contains six basic elements: 1. Motivation: rebellion, demand for tribute, in- sult either verbal or in a letter, refusal to Open the gates to Alexander. One or more Of these may appear, and, in situation such as the ex- tended conflict with Darius, the motivation may appear hundred Of lines before the actual com- bat. 90 2. Preparation: the gathering of trOOps, arrival at the battle field, the arraying of the men. Obviously if Alexander or his Opponent is al- ready in the field the first of these will not be included for that army. 3. The boast. This element is very flexible; it may appear immediately after the motivation or during the battle as well as in this position. Moreover, it may occur more than once. 4. The battle. The form of the actual battle will be considered below. 5. The defeat, yielding, or flight of the Opponent. 6. Cleaning up: mercy is granted or denied to the survivors, law is established, fealty received, booty seized, the dead buried, Alexander Offers comments on what has occurred. Again, one or more may appear. Both poems incorporate all Of these elements in approximately the same way, but a great difference exists in their reSpective treatments of "the battle" and "the cleaning up. " The differences are attributable to each poet's view Of Alexander and the aspect of character which he wishes to emphasize. Leaving the battle aside for the moment, Kyng Alisaunder devotes a relatively large amount of time to the "cleaning up"; in Wars it receives little, if any attention; when it is present, the burial and, in one case, Alexander's comments, receive most consid- eration. The KyniAlisaunder poet consistently presents Alexander not only as conqueror, but as law-giver, liberal lord, and generally merciful king. In W_a_r§ the emphasis falls more consistently on Alex- ander as conqueror, on the sheer quantity of lands subdued. He is a man driven to conquer rather than rule. The contrast between the medieval outlook of Kygg Alisaunder and the more heroic approach of Wars is, Of course, also evident here. In the following chart, the battles are designated as 'simply "~- 91 as possible, by the name of the Opposing king or city, given in the first column. In the second and third columns the first number indicates the total lines devoted to all the elements listed above (pp. 89-90). The sec- ond number, then, denotes the lines given to the battle prOper, whether it be the mass encounter of the two armies, Alexander against numerous Opponents or a single Specified Opponent, some other identified knight in F1 single or mass combat, or, as in most cases, combinations of these. The count for the battle does include certain elements besides actual fighting; for example, Alexander or his Opposing king Often "sees what is happening to his forces and prepares to enter himself." There seems L no reason for excluding such material from the count, but for purposes of the overall view these short interludes or interruptions, which are, however, intimately connected with the battle, have not been given par- ticular mention. I have also separately indicated, since they are par- ticularly relevant for the approach Of Wars, the lines devoted to letters between Alexander and his Opponents; these letters actually form a part of the motivation. Thus the count for the letters, as for the battles proper, is included in the overall count for that episode. The battles considered here are those which have been deemed "major": more than 20 lines are devoted to each and they contain actual battle description; the importance Of the second requirement will be made clear later, for there are "battles" or at least "conquests" where the battle is mentioned but not actually presented. I have excluded from this list those battles in each poem which are primarily devoted to Alex- ander's confrontations with non-human Opponents. An examination of these battles would yield the same results; they have been omitted for the sake of brevity. 13 Major Battles l . Nicholas battle 2. Mantona battle 3. Tyre battle 4. Araby battle 5. Thebes battle 6. Macedonia battle 7. Darius - three battles early motivation15 First Battle battle letters Se co nd Battle battle lette r 8 Third Battle battle letters 8. Porus - two battles First Battle battle letters Second Battle battle 9. "City in the East" battle 10. Gog> and Magog16 attle Totals battle letters 92 Kyng Alisaunder Wars 153 124 61 24 112 7 45 none14 84 135 38 88 f Foraging 148 41 58 28 15 20 248 59 i 171 9 E 70 (Lacedemonia) 47 42 none 34 24 574 274 330 8 73 236 567 60 230 none none 48 332 120 104 14 32 44 22 124 none 34 none 36 206 66 44 14 86 ---- 69 ---- 232 18 37 none 27% T219 1186 252 105 364 93 Approximately one third of Kyng Alisaunder is devoted to the presentation of major battle episodes and 1186 lines to the battle scenes themselves. On the other hand, the poet of V_V_a_r_s devotes only about one fifth Of his poem to the major battle episodes and only 252 lines to battle scenes. Besides the obvious fact that he is not as interested in a detailed depiction of the conquests of Alexander and his knights, certain other Observations are also relevant. First of all, the battle of the "City in the East" does not appear in 1123. Four other battle scenes-- Mantona, Lacedemonia, the second battle with Darius, and Gog and Magog-~receive no direct description; the occurrence of the battle is simply reported. In Kyng Alisaunder only the first battle with Porus is indirectly reported. Only the battle of the "City in the East" does not appear at all in the source of W332; the poet himself, therefore, has chosen not to develop the others. Five battles are presented ex- tensively in M: Nicholas, Tyre, the first and third battles with Darius, and the first battle with Porus. But it is interesting that the encounter with Nicholas, and the battle scene in particular, is approxi- mately the same length as the encounter with Darius, if one discounts the numerous letters contained in the Darius episode. And the two battles with Porus, again omitting all letters, are equivalent to the three with Darius. Finally, the battle of Tyre, even excluding the Fora- ging, receives more attention than any other in terms Of actual battle description and is the only one that reaches the develOpment quite com- mon in Kyng Alisaunder. This general overview, then, suggests that the poet Of Wars does not differentiate or weight Alexander's conquests on the basis Of physical conflict by giving more attention to his battles with his most important foes. A closer examination of the five fully 94 develOped episodes reveals the poet's method of differentiation, a cer- tain variation in his method, and makes clear some Of his major con- cerns. The battle with Nicholas, just as in Kyng Alisaunder, re- ceives quite extensive development, undoubtedly for the same reason. This is Alexander's first battle and the battle scene itself concentrates on his single combat with Nicholas. Once Alexander has proven him- self, as he does through his speedy defeat of Nicholas, the poet sees no reason for continuing the detailed presentation of Alexander in the same mode: individual combat. Thus, although there are other indi— vidual combats involving Alexander, only Alexander's defeat Of Porus approaches the 16 lines given to that with Nicholas. The method here is typical of the poet. He develOps a single important scene or episode to make one particular point about Alexander and then allows this as- pect to fade into the background while he develOps another major scene for another major point. His only violations of this method occur in his constant emphasis on the philosophical side to Alexander and, to a much lesser extent, Alexander's foreordained conquest of the world and early death. The episode of Tyre, which is interlaced with the Foraging Of Gadirs would seems to belie this point, since the battle description receives so much attention; but the difficulty is only a superficial one. Much of the episode is devoted to showing Alexander's ingenuity in con- structing "towers" with which to attack the city (1155-60, 1360-76), and he conquers Tyre as much by cunning as by brute force. The fact that he is destined to take the city also receives emphasis as Alexander re- counts, and a seer interprets, the dream in which he crushes a handful 95 of grapes (1343-60). Most importantly, Tyre-Gadirs is the single epi- sode in which the poet spends an extensive amount of time showing Alexander's peers as they engage in battle. From one point of view, the poet, in focussing on Alexander's nobles, varies from his usual ap- proach of keeping Alexander himself in the limelight; yet the poet's wil goal is the same, In turning from Alexander his real concern is not to show the bravery and skill of Alexander's loyal lieutenants, although the situation parallels that of Roland. The final emphasis Of the entire episode is still directed toward Alexander in his function as the heart, head, and hand of his army. The siege Of Tyre proceeds well until 1 Alexander leaves to aid his men at Gadirs; in his absence the king of Tyre manages to nearly devastate his army. At Gadirs, in Spite of a splendid fight, Alexander's peers cannot destroy their enemies until Alexander appears on the scene; then the peers fade into the background while Alexander seemingly single-handedly mows down their enemies, easily vanquishing them (1315-36). Upon his return to Tyre, he recoups the losses suffered in his absence and brings the city to its knees (1377 ff. ). Thus, although a gigantic army accompanies Alexander, the focus must ultimately return to his own accomplishments and his direction of his peers and troops. The seeming dismissal of Alexander from the inlmediate action is sirnply a means to the regular elevation of Alexander, here as the cunning, "predestined” warrior. The battles with Darius offer another approach to Alexander and his conquests. Here are presented two generals who hardly fight each other; only 22 lines describe actual battles. In fact, of the 478 lines apportioned to the conflict between Darius and Alexander, 328 of these involve the exchange Of letters. The real interest Of the poet is 96 not, then, with physical warfare, but with the more or less philosophi- cal dialogue between the two kings. For all practical purposes, Alex- ander meets and defeats Darius off the battlefield. This conflict serves to bring to the fore Alexander as philOSOpher and moralist, extremely knowledgeable in the nature and workings of pride. The letters not only spell out what pride is, and its connection with fortune, but because Darius has succumbed to this deadly Sin, his downfall is traced through E the debate. The battlefield losses only echo his final ruin. The poet, 1? as will be seen more fully later, is also looking ahead to Alexander's g: .t -__ downfall; it likewise results from pride and can be traced particularly, but not exclusively, in his later letters. The fifth extensively develOped battle episode is the first en- gagement with Porus. Taken with the second battle it neatly balances, in placement and approach, the early battle with Nicholas. The poet is wise enough not to overwork the philOSOphical debate and therefore presents Porus as Alexander's most important single physical enemy, just as Darius was his most important philOSOphical Opponent. In the first battle with Porus, the poet offers an extensive general battle as preparation for the culminating single combat between Porus and Alex- ander. This is the same approach followed, on a smaller scale, in the Nicholas episode, where the individual combat Of some 16 lines is pre- ceded by 8 lines of general battle (785-808). The poet achieves varia- tion from the battle with Nicholas by here concentrating on a few indi- vidual acts (3992-4002) rather than giving a panoramic view and by in- sisting not on Alexander's physical abilities but his internal qualities, after Porus has delivered his equivalent of Nicholas' challenge: 97 Thus porrus in his hi3e pride to ours kyng spekis, For he [Alexander] was littill 8. laghe him 1ythly dispices. For quen he wan to wax be writte me recordis, Thre cubettis fra be croune doun his cours had a lenghte. be person of ser Porrus past him bat hi3t twyse, He feetis him forth in his force 8: in his faire hi3te, Bot be prowis 8: be prouidens 8: of be pure thewis bat lurkis with-in bis lede full litill he kennes. (3984-91) These five major battle episodes, then, stand out in different E‘ ways and stress different aspects of Alexander's greatness and heroic qualities. The rest Of the major battles have a general sameness, not merely in their perfunctory presentation, but in the fact that they work by simple accumulation to support the various qualities Of Alexander which elsewhere receive individual attention. AS Alexander continually leads his army to victory, the poet concentrates on the general, pan- oramic battle scene. Lacedemonia and Thebes, respectively, are quite typical Of his descriptions: With bat be kyng 8: his kni3tis vm-clappis be cite, Settis all be gailis on gledis 8: girdis doun be wallis; be Citi3ens 8: seriantis at vne-Slayne ware Bowis ban to bis baratour bodis 8: lyuys. (2473-76) Now ere his seggis all sett 8: be saute ne3is, Were wakens be-twene werbild in trompis; Oure pepill with payns pressis to without, Halis Vp hemp cordis hurled out arrowis; Othire athils of armes Albastis bendis, Quirys out quarrels quappid thur3e mayles. Sum with gunnes of be grekis girdis up stanes, To tene be Tebis folke bat on be touris fe3tis; Som braide ouir be barrers in blasand wede, And faire fest on a fire all be foure 3atis; All be bur3e at a braide was on a bale kyndild, And ba bat sounde ware vnslayn als sottes bam 3eldis; (2221-32) The brevity with which the poet treats these discrete episodes, and par- ticularly their battle scenes, is a clear indication that they hold only passing interest for him. Moreover, even the more detailed Of the two-- Thebes--scarcely differs from the first battle with Darius, where 98 appropriately the battle receives little emphasis Since the real battle takes place elsewhere: Bathe be two batails bremely as semblis, And aithire segg with his sowme SO3t vn-to othire. Kni tis on cursours kest ban in fewtire, Taclles in-to targetis tamed baire brenys. bare was stomling of stedis sticking of erles, Sharpe schudering of schote schering Of mailes, SO stalworthly within a stond sterid baim be grekis, bat of be barbryne blod all be fild flowis. (2619-26) Looking more closely at battle scenes themselves, the gen- eral format of those in Wars is much less complicated than those in Kyng Alisaunder. In Wars four Of the major battle sceneS--Tyre, Araby, Lacedemonia, and the first battle with DariuS--are simply gen- eral battles, that is, battles panoramic in approach, involving the mass combat of the Opposing armies. The battles with Nicholas, the third battle with Darius, and the first battle with Porus have again the gener- al battle, but also include Alexander entering into Single combat or en- gaging in the general attack, SO that there is some complication: an al- ternation in focus between the general battle and Alexander's feats or at least his presence on the battlefield. The battle Of Tyre is the most full developed and the most canplicated battle description, even aside from the time devoted to the deeds of Alexander's peers in the Foraging of Gadirs. After the return from Gadirs and the erection Of the new tower, there is the complicated (and at times not terribly clear) alterna- tion between the deeds of Alexander and those Of the two armies (1377- 1444). Kyng Alisaunder, in contrast, has much longer battle de- scriptions and--perhaps this is not exclusive but inclusive Of that fact--they almost all exhibit more complexity. Only two of the major 99 battle sceneS--Tyre and the very brief first battle with Porus, present the simple general battle. All others at least include retreats, rests, and new attacks; more frequently the poet switches back and forth between a panoramic view of the armies and the feats of Alexander as he con- fronts a Single Opponent or engages in mass slaughter. The poet includes in this alternation the individual and mass deeds Of Alexander's knights or gives a good deal Of attention to an opponent's deeds, following this with Alexander or a peer taking on that hearty foe. Since these battles are too lengthy to quote, the pattern of one--Thebes--must suffice: (Approach, insult, boast Alexander vs. a duke General battle Madan vs. many Alexander vs. Madan (mourning General battle Parmenion vs. many General battle 18 1 1 2679-99) 2700-02 2703-10 2711-39 2740-46 2747-55) 2756-2815 2816-30 2831-37 A comparison with the most complex Of the battles Of Wars, the final attack on Tyre, will show the relative simplicity Of the poet's approach in that poem: (Alexander heartens trOOpS, enters city General battle Alexander fights General battle Alexander vs. Balan General battle 1377-83) 1384-1400 1401-04 1405-24 1425-32 1433-44 The approaches of both poems have their particular strengths. Kyng Alisaunder, with its many long battle scenes, achieves a depth Of presentation while avoiding monotony by using different combinations and shifting focus from the general to the individual; the resulting pace is a leisurely one. In Wars the brief battles keep the narrative moving. The approach of Wars might by analogously compared, to use E. M. 100 Forster's distinction, to the employment, in novels or the drama, of several "type" characters who Speed the plot along and, by their rela- tive simplicity, bring into Sharper focus the "round" characters, 19 in this case the five extended battle episodes. Moreover, the brevity of the battle scenes, even those in which Alexander does not himself par- take personally, keeps Alexander in the Spotlight, for he is on the scene in person or by report immediately before or after; and since these scenes are short we are not distracted from the hero for any length Of time. Three differing examples, again in abstract form, 11.-I- can illustrate the refusal Of the poet to turn the audience's attention away from Alexander for an extended period: He fihe duke Of Arabia] girdis him with a ging be grekis he asailes, With Alexander all day asperly fe3tis. (2038-39) [22 lines: general battle, flight] And slike a pas, saiS be prose to Persy he [the duke of Arabia] ridis, bat 3itbe selfe sandismen he in be sale fyndis, bat fra be streme Of struma were apon stedis wysid Fra Alexander 8: his ost with his [Alexander's] athill pistill. (2062-65) [Letter of Alexander to the Lacedemonians] With bat be kyng (Alexander) 8: his kni3tis vm-clappis be cite (2473) Blines: general battle, defeat] lexander's comments on the victory] Sire Alexander be hathill armed on blonkis (2612) [24 lines: general battle] ttempt on Alexander's life] The brevity of many of the battle scenes, as well as the dis- patch with which Alexander--upon once entering--puts an end to the con- flicts in the relatively longer battle descriptions, serves to emphasize the ease with which Alexander and his legions conquer city after city, nation after nation. The extreme example of this rapidity, which 101 points out that no one can stand in his way and the foolishness of trying to do so, appears in the second battle with Darius. Here, after much preparation on both sides, in one line (2671), Darius and his trOOps enter the field and flee. The poet may also make this point in a Slightly different way, using accumulation to achieve the desired effect. Once again a contrast ‘ with Kyng Alisaunder is helpful in seeing the poet's method. In both I"- poems there are a number Of "conquests" achieved without any battle at all or with a mention of a battle but no description given. Some of these, termed "Easy Conquests," are, then, actually little different from the second battle with Darius, except that all Of these episodes are much shorter than the "Major Battles" listed in the earlier chart. In the schematic representation below I have simply listed the "Easy Conquests" which appear in both poems, again excluding those against non-human Opponents. Each conquest is followed by the line count and, since these episodes are not scattered or broken up, it has been possible to include the actual line numbers. I have omitted the one-line, vague accounts Of generally indistinct conquests. The first two conquests in the list are the only ones parallel in the two poems; for that reason they appear first; no parallelism is suggested in the succeeding conquests, except for the inclusion Of Pausanias where the more heroic Alexander of Wars defeats him in battle while Kyng Alisaunder Simply kills him in the palace. It should also be noted that four conquests in Wars--Man- tona, Lacedemonia, the second battle with Darius, and Gog--actually belong here, as does the first battle with POruS in Kyng Alisaunder; but these have not been included since they are longer episodes and have been given in the preceding chart Of ”Major Battles" (p. 92). Kyng Alisaunder Rebellion against Philip Rescue of Candulek' 5 wife (not in battle) Thrace Sicily Lombardy Rome Libia "land" "many lands" "many lands" Yperoun city Of Upper India "all fall" 21 11 18 22 28 102 1329-29 7945-65 1416-20 1426-37 1439-56 1474-80 1493-98 1501-05 1581-84 2904-10 5633-54 5679- 5706 5929-31 Easy Conquests Wars Pausanias Calcedonia Italy-Europe Africa Egypt Syria Damascus , Sidon Gaza Sicily Asia Abandra Ac ra Babylon 13 20 16 905 ff. 5215-21 951-59 1025-37 1039-46 1047-54 1121-24 1137-40 1141-42 1451-52 2102-07 2114-15 2130-49 4721-36 5611-12 103 Including the four given in the chart of "Major Battles, " there are, then, 19 "easy victories" in Wars and 14 (including the first battle with Porus from the previous list) in Kyng Alisaunder, a poem some 2500 lines longer. It might also be noted that in Wars many of these con- quests are treated more summarily than those of Kyng Alisaunder. What is achieved is not only rapidity of narration, but an impression of the effortlessness--to the point of incredibility--with which Alex- ander defeats whatever lies in his path. Most of his "easy conquests" are not merely cities, but entire nations; in fact, he subdues all of Asia in two lines and all of Africa in eight. The whole pattern Of these victories, as well as most of the earlier more extended battles, is to make all Of Alexander's foes about equal, and none much of an opponent for Alexander. The narrative method and effects achieved by the poet are also evident outside the battle episodes. Any of the many major epi- sodes might be examined, but the length, complexity, and combination of elements in the confrontation of Alexander and the Athenians makes it a logical choice. Once again it has seemed useful to present an abstract of the episode and to set its presentation in Wars beside that Of Kyng Alisaunder. The overall pattern of events is the same in both poems, but the Wars poet deals with each element more briefly and rapidly, keeping the focus on Alexander as much as possible and care- fully stressing only his nobler qualities. Athens Episode 1. Alex. '8 letter: demands tribute Of 2. Athenians angered They reply with an in- sulting let- ter Alex. sends an angry reply 3. Athenians' council 4. Athenians send pre- sents and beg for peace 104 Kyng Ali 5 au nde r money 2999-3119 Emperor: agree to Alex. '5 demands Dalmadas : do not give in People de- cide to fight Demosthenes: 2919-38 293 9-42 2943-65 2966-90 2999-3036 3037-70 3071-78 agree to Alex. '3 demands Dalmadas: rebuttal Of Demos the ne S People agree with Demos- the neS via Demosthenes 3080-3104 3105-12 3113-19 3119-58 Wars philosophe rs 2347-98 Ae sc hylus: do not give in Demosthenes: agree to Alex. '3 demands People agree with Demos - via messengers 2319-42 2343-46 2347-50 2351-90 2391-98 2399-2406 Athens Episode 5. Alex. '3 reaction to envoy(s) 6. Alex. '3 letter to Athenians 7. Athenians' reaction 105 Kyng Alisaunde r anger; revenge Demos the ne 5 reasons with Alex. Alex. recants no revenge if reparation made send tribute 3159-70 3171-79 3179-80 3181-92 3193-96 Wars pleased; aware of debate 2407-12 warns them to Obey; forgives them 2413-36 rejoice 2437-38 106 The typical condensation appears as the Wars version in some 58 lines shorter than the version of Kyng Alisaunder; the heroic Alexander does not linger quite as long before moving on to his next conquest. Of more importance, however, is the weight given to various aspects in the respective poems. KynLAlisaunder builds the entire episode around the motif Of anger. Both Alisaunder and the Athenians, rightly or wrongly, become enraged, and the responses and actions of each result from the give and take of anger. In Wars, on the other hand, Alexander does not become the angry man. In this episode at least he does not allow himself to be provoked by the insulting letter from the Athenians. More importantly, although he knows Of their de- bate and original unwillingness to send the tribute he demands, he does not stoop to a display of outrage when the envoys deliver the Athenians' peace Offering. The EELS poet hints at Alexander's displeasure in the letter the king sends to the Athenians near the end of the episode; but the emphasis falls on Showing that Alexander is not a man who nurses a grudge. Alexander's reaction befits the magnanimous man: Slow to anger and quick to forgive. His treatment of the messengers and his grateful reception of the gifts they bring, while he is completely aware of the Athenians' reluctance in sending them, is consistent with the ear- lier episode with Nicholas (749-752). In both cases the poet brings out the continuing control Alexander maintains over his temper even when great provocation is Offered. The Alexander of Wars is the stern heroic figure and not to be trifled with, but not one to seethe with use- less or unwarranted anger. Also in line with one clear emphasis in Wars is the tribute demanded: while Kyng Alisaunder demands money, Alexander, much more the philosopher himself, asks for several 107 philosophers to accompany him on his journeys. In the interests of keeping the spotlight on Alexander and the narrative moving, the council scene at Athens occupies less space in the V_V_a__r_s version, resulting in the loss of a good deal of drama. Aeschylus' exhortation to fight Alexander has little impact since it is only briefly, and indirectly, reported. Demosthenes' Speech, entirely approPriate to the eloquent man, appears in full and quickly wins over the Athenians. In Kyng Alisaunder the speeches, more numerous in themselves, are all given in full, with the crowd's Opinion swaying back and forth with each speech. The changing opinions of the pe0p1e, coupled with the hot-headed, biting words of Dalmadas make the scene a spirited one. Dalmadas, in his anger, moreover, echoes and fore- casts the anger of Alexander, thereby adding a nice balance, devel- Oping the motif of anger, indirectly reflecting on Alexander's own somewhat unreasonable anger, and looking ahead to the debate between Alexander and Demosthenes. The \_N'_a_r_s poet foregoes the confronta- tion between these two men. Not only is the meeting superfluous since Alexander has such a magnanimous Spirit, but the poet perhaps desires to avoid taking the Spotlight off Alexander at that point. No messenger can, as Demosthenes could, steal the scene from Alexander. The poet's refusal to commit Alexander to anything but the most necessary di3p1ays of temper also becomes evident in the Candace episode. In all versions, Alexander comes off least admirably in his entrapment by Candace, with the possible exception of his loss of the debate with Dindimus. The Kyng Alisaunder poet attempts to mitigate Alexander's responsibility through Candace's enumeration of other great men unknowingly ensnared by less than reputable women. In 108 m Alexander, upon learning of his predicament, permits himself a display of anger, directed only at himself. His outburst remains with- in the heroic framework as he bemoans his foolishness in leaving behind his armor, making him unable to take his revenge on those around him before killing himself (5325-30). This Alexander, unlike Kyng Alisaun- der, does not demean himself by admitting that a woman has outwitted r him and that he, like other men, is at the mercy of the unscrupulous sex; he rebukes only his own rashness. The Wars poet, moreover, quickly turns out attention away from this low point in Alexander's career and gives Alexander, the cunning and wise man, the chance to redeem himself. He quickly settles the dispute between Candace's sons, con- vincing Cartros that there is no point to killing this "messenger from Alexander" merely to gain revenge on Alexander for the death of Porus (5368-78). The Alexander of M, however politic it might be, is not one to sneak away in the dead of night to avoid the wrath of the outraged son. His role is to re-establish peace and gain the heartfelt thanks of Candace: "Had I 30w ay with me here happy ware I pan, pan wald I wene with 3our witt to wast all my fais. " With pat scho kende him a croun clustrid with gemmes, With Amatists 8: Adamands & an athill mantill, Sterind & 8ti3t full of stanes sithin stelis to him cussis, With othire preuates him plesis bad pas on with hele. (5381-86) This quotation is also noteworthy in that it contains the only reference to the affair between Alexander and Candace. This epic Alex- ander has no time for love affairs: not even a hint of romantic involve- ment underlies his visit to Candace; she is merely something else for Alexander to see. Perhaps this extremely moral poet, who wishes to stress only Alexander's nobler qualities--except for the pride which 109 leads to his destruction--has consciously avoided all suggestions of the courtly code. Even the possibility that Alexander might enjoy the ro- mantic company of Candace is glossed over: "preuates" or "secret kindnesses" is certainly vague enough to exempt Alexander from more than an ambiguous involvement in an illicit affair. More probable, how- ever, is that in the Candace-Alexander relationship the poet simply follows the heroic mode. All in all, women hardly exist for Alexander except on the level of loyalty or duty. He remains dedicated to his mother Olympias, herself deserving of that loyalty since she plays no active part in the seduction by Amon/Neptanabus. Alexander marries Roxana out of duty, to fulfill the request of the dying Darius; she, of noble birth, is the apprOpriate mate for the new emperor. The mar- riage also suggests the conventional symbolism of many romances; Roxana is the reward of victory and finalizes Alexander's assumption of Darius' throne. The other woman in Alexander's life-~Candace-- is compared to his mother (5256), thereby participating in that platonic relationship. Since Alexander shows not even a glimmer of love for Candace, either from a distance of after their meeting, Candace func- tions mainly as a vehicle to exhibit Alexander's bravery, wisdom, heroic anger, and, secondarily, his descent into pride. 20 What the battle episodes, the Athens episode, and the meet- ing with Candace make evident is the picture of the basically epic hero consistently presented. Nothing, except his pride, can stop Alexander. In his encounters with the beasts of the East, many of his men may be killed; but under his leadership, his army always manages to finally kill the beasts, capture them, or at the very least drive them off. These feral opponents serve merely as something else for Alexander to 110 conquer; in the last analysis they do not cause him the problems that the corresponding beasts of Kyng Alisaunder cause its hero. He never requires outside help in defeating or containing them and the beasts do not, as in Kyng Alisaunder, cause such depletion of Alexander's forces that he feels danger from Porus. As the episodes of Athens and Nicholas make clear, Alexan- I? der's anger remains under control. So do all his emotions. He never r mourns excessively, even after hearing the prophecies from the magic trees, although the number of times the prOphecy appears in the poem _. IL would serve to prepare Alexander so that no single prophecy delivers a stunning blow. Alexander, nevertheless, is the balanced man. The poet does not permit him to seem overly liberal; he is not seen doling out rewards and booty to his followers even as just payment for their services. He does consistently reward messengers and is generous in his gifts to Jaudas of Jerusalem (1660-87). Nonetheless, this de- emphasis of Alexander's liberality may not result so much from an attempt to moderate Alexander so much as to, once again, rely on the one important scene to bring out a particular virtue of Alexander. His liberality is therefore strongly stressed as he opens his coffers to Jaudas. His loyalty to Olympias is noted in passing a number of times, but receives direct and extended attention in his restoration of his mother to her proper place as queen. Alexander's loyalty to Philip appears, in the heroic mode, as he wounds Pausanias in battle and brings him before Philip to exact the final revenge. His loyalty to his army stands out in his refusal to drink the few dr0ps of water offered him by one of his knights; if his men die, he will die. Alexander's wisdom, eloquence, and cunning receive lll continual emphasis. The battle episodes, the continuing correSpond- ence with Darius, Dindimus, and, to a lesser extent, with Porus, his peace-making mission to Candace's sons, and his treatment of the dis- guised traitor illustrate the interest of this poet in an intellectual, philosoPhical hero; and, as might be expected, even this side of Alex- ander assumes heroic proportions. The pride to which Alexander suc- cumbs is not only appr0priate to the superhuman figure, but, as the debates with Darius and Dindimus are meant to suggest, Alexander's sin of pride results as much from his intellectual accomplishments and desires as from his physical ones. From the moment he assumes the throne of Macedonia, Alex- ander is found to be the philosOphical ruler, who, while not disdaining physical abilities, has a greater reSpect for wisdom and cunning. As he receives the oath of loyalty from his nobles and prepares to engage in conquests, he refuses to accept the resignation of the older knights: Nay, be my croune . . . my couatyng is elder pe sadnes of slike men pan swyftnes of childir; For barnes in par bignes it baldis pam mekill, 0ft with vnprouednes in presse to pas out of lyfe; For-thi ouer-si3t of alde men I anely me chese; Be connynge 8: be consaile pai selcuthely prayse. (1016-20) On a higher plane, Alexander's respect and desire for wisdom are evident not only in his questioning of Dindimus in order to learn about other possible approaches to life (4225-28) but in his response to Doctoneus: "Mekill dere," quod ane Doctoneus "of 30w I deme sall, And he of be takyng of Troi tald all his lyue. " "Nay, I wald more worth, " quod be wee "a wyse man .disciple, pan be honour pat Acheles a3t all his time. " (2122-25) '1?" A L I. '3' iii..- fuming... 112 The poet prepares his audience for this aspect of Alexander by devoting some attention, at least more than is given in KyngAlisaun- der, to Alexander's mastery of scholarship under the guidance of Aris- totle: Sone wex he witter 8: wyse & wonder wele leres, Sped him in a schort Space to Spell 8: to rede, "_- And sepen to gramere he gase as be gyse wald, '- And pat has he all hale in a handquyle. In foure 01' in fyfe 3ere he ferre was in lare pa othire at had bene pare seuynte wynter. (629-634) Alexander's wisdom and eloquence are first evinced (in his homily to Nicholas on pride (843*-728) ) while he is still a "child" (824*). 21 Alex- E; ander's reply to Darius when the initial demand for tribute is made varies little from that in most versions; but in line with this poet's tendency to stress only the most noble side to Alexander and to bring all forces to bear in exhibiting that side, the messengers recognize Alexander's abilities. In Kyng Alisaunder they accuse him of foolish- ness and rashness in thwarting Darius; here their reSponse is quite the opposite: pen merualid pam be messangirs mekill of his speche, His witt & his wisdom wonderly praysed. (897-898) One could, since Alexander is so strongly intellectualized in this poem, point out almost innumerable examples of his wisdom. Per- haps worthy of notice, however, is the poet's treatment of Alexander's wisdom in the handling of the "traitor knight" (2655-67). Here, as in Kyng Alisaunder, Alexander's decision is based on his understanding of the need for loyalty to one's lord. The Wars poet, however, keeps the scene brief and the focus remains on Alexander. Consequently he sacrifices dramatic conflict since he permits no lengthy debate among the peers about what to do with the man. Only two lines (2657-58) are 113 devoted to indirect reporting of the peers' judgments, obviously with none of their reasoning given, just as the traitor knight is not given the opportunity to state the principle of loyalty upon which he has acted. The enunciation of that principle is left to Alexander. Alexander thus seems wise and just enough, but the impact is lessened since we have no noble peers acting as foils, presenting purely military and practical f reasoning. Alexander does not stand out by contrast. Alexander would much sooner conquer by cunning than by force, but not because battle means the loss of tr00ps or engaging in a difficult enterprise. He attempts to persuade Athens and Lacede- monia, for example, to submit; and, in the latter instance, after de- feating them by burning their ships and thereby rendering them help- less, he cannot resist offering philosophical commentary: 3e knaw wele. . . my comyng was esye; Bot for 3e fangid me no3t faire fired is 3our schippis, 3our bur3e is bretind 8: 3our bernes I bed 30w my-selfe, 3e suld no3t stody ne stern pe sternes for to handill. (attempt) For he pat steppis on a stee quen pe staues failis, (ladder) pan fautis him festing to his fete 8: fall him be-houes; (lacks) So, ri3t as Sexis was slayn sum time with 3our eldirs, So ettild 3e ser Alexander bot pare 3oure ame failes. (2477-84) Alexander's use of the shrieking pigs to turn back the charging ele- phants--and it is he who devises this method, not Porus--as well as his killing of the basilisk by means of a mirror and the erection of tow- ers to defeat Tyre are admittedly all prompted by necessity; yet they alsoprovide good examples of the number of times Alexander relies more on cunning than outright force. The poet's concentration on the wise, intellectual, and philosophical Alexander also accounts, partial- ly, for the reduction in emphasis on Alexander's purely military vic- tories, evident in his generally perfunctory treatment of the battle 114 scenes. This poet's characterization of Alexander, then, allies him with the approach of the Dublin Epitome, that is, The Dictes and Say- ings of the PhiIOSOphers where Alexander appears as pure philOSOpher. Although the poet concentrates on the rapid narration of the events which trace Alexander's career, and at the same time deline- ates the virtues which make him the superhuman hero, he does admit i digressions. The most lengthy of these are the Opulent descriptions of Jerusalem (1513-73), the palaces of Porus (3660-3703) and the "sun- god" (4891-4920), closely followed by the lush vegetation encountered F..- -r on the way to the trees of the sun and moon (4968-90), Candace's pal- ace and the revolving room (5265-96), and the throne in Babylon con- structed by Alexander to mark all that he has conquered (5631-77). A1- so to be included as digressions from the narrative line are the diagram- matic analogies of the steps of Darius' throne (3336-91) and Dindimus' attribution of the various parts of the body to particular gods (4494- 4517) followed by his delineation of the respective sacrifices to each of these gods (4521-43). All of these are typically medieval in orientation or interest, but more importantly, while not all are organic elements in the overall structure of the poem, none can be called mere excres- cences. At the very least the descriptions are fitting in a poem devo- ted to the ”noble Emperor" Alexander. Alexander displays continuing interest in the marvelous, be it natural or man-made, thus giving the poet reason to introduce such descriptions; moreover, no superman would be concerned with less than the most extravagant, thus almost requiring the poet to describe those things which particularly attract Alexander's attention. These cities and palaces, after all, form a part of Alexander's conquests and the descriptions always begin or 115 follow central adventures. In general, the descriptions emphasize or support the regal Alexander. All which surrounds and interests him must be regal; such is part of the poet's consistency of approach to the character Of Alexan- der. Just as with the battle scenes, he works by accumulation rather than by variation or Opposition. This Alexander is not the type to wear merchant's dirt-Spattered clothes to visit a king or even one to go as a mere royal messenger, as he does in Kyng Alisaunder; in Wars he visits Darius disguised as an angel. Thus the palaces he conquers and inhabits, the men who meet and guide him, the wonders he finds most interesting, are also regal, beyond the ugly or ordinary. It is only pr0p- er that not an ugly bishop but a sun-god, physically elegant and noble, living in Opulent surroundings, conduct Alexander to the magical trees. This Alexander, in fact, has the greatest disdain for even the ordinary; he rebukes his men for their concern over the horses which are dying of thirst (2159-64), since any number of beasts of burden can be secured. In contrast, he can mourn and build a temple for the dead Bucephalus. Outright ugliness may merit brief interest, but his ultimate desire is to destroy it. The non-human "peasant," who is, interestingly, roused to action only by the beautiful woman, is the single truly ugly creature more than sketchily described; and he is quickly slain (4740-62). Final- ly, it appears at times as if Alexander simply cannot comprehend any- thing but glory, beauty, and elegance; he cannot understand the meagre "low life" of the GymnOSOphists and Brahmins. In Alexander's view, for one to live in less than Splendor suggests not wisdom but stupidity or the inability to accomplish more, as he finally points out to Dindi- mus (4695-4706). Thus Alexander surrounds himself with marvelous 116 things, is enraptured by his possession Of the great palaces of Darius and Porus, is awed by the adorned Jerusalem, and builds magnificent cities and monuments to mark his conquests. All these are described in full. For the poet, the glories within Alexander are to be reflected by the glories without. Yet at least some of these descriptions have a closer con- r nection with the narrative line than either reflecting Alexander's own magnificence or marking his important conquests and adventures. While the poet allows himself to be carried away with the description of the decorations of Jerusalem and the procession of the chief priests and peOple, it is only through this extravagant welcome for Alexander that Jaudas can forestall Alexander's anger and vowed destruction of the city, actually luring Alexander into granting the city's freedom and domination of other peOple. Candace, in a somewhat similar manner, uses her revolving chamber to ensnare Alexander; while he marvels at the glories of her machine, the piece de resistance in an all together wonderful palace, she isolates him and makes escape impossible. The poet is generally in control of the placement, if not al- ways the length, of these descriptions. Thus while the description of Jerusalem is unconscionably long, and somewhat repetitious, it is not inapprOpriate. The description of Darius' palace (3220-25) is kept to a minimum, perhaps because the poet realizes that the entire scene clashes with its immediate context. Although one would expect Alexan- der to marvel at the greatness of the palace and enjoy the thought that he now possesses such magnificence, the moment he picks to indulge in these thoughts is jarring. Alexander has come to the palace having heard of Darius' mortal injury at the hands Of traitors. Perhaps it is . H‘I-d. f. fill-Ilia PG. 117 fitting that the new emperor first receive the homage of the peOple and then somewhat leisurely survey his new possession before seeking out Darius. Yet his display of emotion at the condition of Darius makes his earlier delay seem rather callous and self-centered or this display somewhat false; yet the poet gives no indication that such is intended: Sire Alexander him avysis 8: authly him thinke; .. be pure pete of his [Darius' payn persid his hert. ban nymes he fra his awyn neke an emperoures mantill, And bat he couirs ouire be kyng 82 clappis him in armes, With grym gretyng 8: gro 8: grysely terys; Bad: "comfurth be, ser conquirour 8c of bi care ryse, Don a3ayne be dignite be diademe of Pers, And all be ri3tis Of bi rewme resayue as before. . . ." bis 8a3e sobband he said. (3234 ff. ) V1» The poet does not emphasize the incongruity of the scene by extending the description, but neither does he manage to resolve the conflict. On the other hand, he should perhaps not receive so much credit for keeping the description to a minimum, since he does devote extensive time to the presentation of Darius' throne, the real symbol of Alexander's vic- tory over the Persian emperor. Of the two extended diagrammatic analogies in the poem, only one--that Of the steps leading to Darius' throne and the virtues each represents-~seems truly functional. AS already noted, the poet Spends much time develOping many of Alexander's virtues. This particu- lar description, in effect a kind of catalogue of virtues, enables the poet to summarize the virtues of Alexander--virtues which we have seen or are to see demonstrated in the individual actions of Alexander--and to attribute other virtues to him which the poet does not portray through action. Outside its connection with the portrayal of Alexander, the description of the Stones and their powers suits the didacticism of the poet by allowing him to Spell out the proper virtues for the great and 118 good king. Coming immediately after Alexander has reached the high point of his career by defeating his most formidable enemy and earning the name of Emperor, this description also provides a touchstone against which the audience can measure Alexander's future actions, particularly his descent into pride and the ultimate downfall that such pride presages, just as it did for Darius. While the enumeration of the kingly virtues is rather stilted, with each stone and meaning re- ceiving about the same amount of attention and little variation of pre- sentation being offered, this description is neatly balanced by the other diagrammatic analogy, which in itself has little to recommend it. Like the description of Jerusalem, the diagrammatic analogy presented by Dindimus seems overly long. But as Dindimus condemns the pagans by Showing their dedication of each part of the body to a par- ticular god with a consequent commitment to various vices and by enum- erating their false sacrifices, the poet is perhaps required--by the number of members to the body and, to a lesser extent, by the number Of important godS--to carry it through to completion. The poet is also not only indulging in his enjoyment of the diagrammatic analogy (a device common in literature in the allegorical modes), but is confined by his moralism. Although it is fitting that Alexander, who at this point has fallen prey to pride, should meet his match in the philOSOpher Dindimus, the force with which the poet allows the Brahmin to diSpar- age and demean the activities and attitudes of Alexander may be attri- buted to the poet's preference for the essentially Christian outlook of Dindimus. He therefore does not condense these two descriptions since they contain two of Dindimus' most telling arguments: the dedica- tion of the pagan Greeks, including Alexander, to false gods and their 119 resultant foolishness, Sin, and materialism. As with the description of the steps to Darius' throne, then, these catalogues are inherently didactic, but approach the material from a negative rather than a positive side, stressing the failures of the pagans rather than the vir- tues of the good and wise king. The lengthy description of Darius' throne also attributes, in a general way, one quality to Alexander which is otherwise little stressed in the poem: his ability as ruler. Unlike the Alexander of Kyng Alisaun- E: this Alexander has only a minor interest in bringing order to those lands which he conquers. We do not see him setting up laws and magi- strates, establishing a stable, loyal realm which he can leave securely behind; instead, he conquers-«perhaps destroying-~and then Simply moves on, although upon occasion he may overtly return the city or land to its peOple. 22 Only after taking the throne of Persia does he deal with matters of law and order (3406-18, 3440-43). This Alexan- der, then, in action is not ruler, but conqueror. Alexander's most compelling motivation reflects such action. He desires to be conqueror, not really ruler, of the world, thereby gaining fame for himself and, secondarily, Greece. He himself enun- ciates the desire for fame which lies behind his conquests: For with be graunt of my god I gesse, or I dye, bat all the Barbare blode sall bows to my-self. bare is na region ne rewme ne renke vnder heuen, Ne nouthire-quare na nacion bot it sall my name loute. For we of grece sall haue be gree with grace ay to wild, And anely be ouer be werd honourd 8: praysed. (990-995) And quen all kynd was on colis 8: kast apon hepis, ban airis he on with his ost mare honour to wynn. (2247-48) Bees li3t 8: laches 30w a lose it is a lord gamen. For I make a-vow at Messedone we sall na mare see, Till all be barbres vs bow ban may we blith turne. (2604-06) 120 I sall neuir graithe me to grece gase quen 30w likis, Or mare wirschip I haue won for wathe vndire heuen. (3522-23) Once Alexander has conquered the world, he turns his Sights to the Sky and the sea (5511 ff. ). Although he cannot possess these areas, he can, in a sense, conquer them by personally investigating and thereby under- standing their natures. He thus builds the marVelous flying machine F and the diving bell, ascends briefly to the stars, and views the wonders of the sea; he never Speaks of the latter Since no other man can believe or comprehend them(5 550- 52). Alexander's desire for fame and later his secondary desire E for knowledge--whether it be of the strange peOples and beasts of this world, the modes Of life of peOple like the Gymnosophists and Brahmins, or the nature of the stars and the sea--are his personal motivations. His need to conquer the world is a driving force implanted by exterior powers, for this Alexander is emphatically a "predestined" man; more- over he is constantly aware of his destiny. Alexander's fate, and the consequent backing he receives from God or the gods, is one of the most insistent elements of the poem: An angel to Jaudas: For he mon ride bus 8: regne ouire all be ronde werde Be lordschip in ilka lede in-to his laste days, And be be di3t to be deth of dri3tins ire. (1502-04) Demosthenes: Wate 3e nO3t wele bur3e all be werd how wirdis with him cheues? (2379) Darius: be grace of be grete god I ges, will him help, Of prise be hi3e prouynce vn-to bis prince leues. (2507-08) Alexander: Ne we prid vs for na prouwis predestayned we ere, Oure gods gayn vs bare-to bat gretly bou Spises. (2745-46) 121 Darius' mother: For godis prouidence apert ay prestly him helpis, Sauys 8: sustenes him-selfe 8: socurs him auire. (2833-34) Candace: For it was purveid a-pert of be kyng of heuen, Pre-desteyned Of his prouydence 8: of his pure mizt, bat 3e suld pas in-to Pers 8: prese it with armes. 3 (5107-09) Because Alexander's destiny is to be conqueror of the world the actual 3'1 physical acts of conquest do not, apprOpriately, take as much precedence in this poem as the various expressions Of Alexander's wisdom and cun- . ning. From this point of view, one feels compelled to liken the Alexan- i der of Wag to Virgil's Aeneas, whether or not the poet consciously i; established the parallelism. In any case, the qualities of wisdom and cunning belong to the man; his victories ultimately belong to the powers beyond hin'i. The fact of Alexander's foreordained victory, known to many of the peOpleS he encounters, also reduces, in a very practical way, the number Of all-out battles; these peOple simply acknowledge his destiny and bow to the inevitable. Further, Since Alexander has the assistance of the gods, either explicitly or implicitly, no one can long resist him if a battle does occur. If this is kept in mind, Alexan- der's almost single-handed defeat Of the forces of Gadirs and Tyre seems not quite so unbelievable. Whether Alexander is to be viewed as the instrument of the pagan gods or God depends on the particular moment, and, more pre- cisely, on whether he is being seen from the pagan point of view or the poet's Christian outlook or the Christianized Jewish view of Jaudas. Alexander himself is the consistent pagan who receives help from pagan gods. He constantly sacrifices to, and is granted visions Of, Amon, Serapis, and Apollo. Although Alexander does, in Jerusalem, bow to 122 the name Of God, it is only sketchily suggested at this point that he believes in God or even recognizes one superior god; this ambiguity results from the dream which he recounts (1621-43). While the W353 poet is more the realist than, for example, the poet of KyngAlisaunder Since he does not elaborate as extensively on the strange peOples and animals found in the East, he is less the FE realist in the number of prophesying dreams and appearances Of gods which he presents. The Kyng Alisaunder poet views Alexander as a man driven and directed by powers beyond him, but be generally puts 7P7 this in as his own interpretation. In this poem, the poet may rational- ize an unbelievable Situation by stressing that nothing is impossible for God, 24 but on the whole he tends to supernaturalize events. He there- by elevates Alexander to the superhuman level; yet, at the same time, he diminishes Alexander's personal accomplishments. Alexander rides Bucephalus not because he has great skill in horsemanship and possesses great bravery but because the horse recognizes Alexander's destiny, bows and submits to him. Further, Bucephalus remains evident in this poem as a reminder of the power given Alexander by the gods. Alexan- der's opponent, in one instance, is told by a seeress that Alexander will defeat him; such is fated (2305-09). Although Alexander has not yet de- vised a means for defeating Tyre, he has the dream which predicts his victory over that city (1345-60). Early in the‘poem, Serapis predicts that Alexander's deeds will be remembered until the day of judgment (1093-95). Alexander and Jaudas both believe that the prophecy of Daniel--understood in medieval times to refer to the Greeks' conquest Of the Persians as a preparation for the coming of the Roman Empire-- applies specifically to Alexander (1655-58). Alexander's foray into 123 Darius' camp affords no real danger; Amon has promised him protec- tion and he goes disguised in the form in which Amon appears to him, as an "angel" (2863, 2893). Alexander's closeness to the gods is most strongly evident as his sacrifice to stOp the violent storm receives an immediate answer (4183-86). Alexander's conversations, awake or in dreams, with his gods, in which they continually remind him of his des- tiny, culminate in his statement to Dindimus: Sire, be my croune . . . be cause at I haue Is purly gods prouidens predestayned it is before. Be se, wele seldom is be see with himself turbild Bot with bir walowand windis; my will war to rifte, 2'5 Bot a-nobir gast, 8: n03t my gast bar-of my gast lettis. (4061-65) One can suggest, therefore, that while the poet is the enter- tainer intent on presenting the adventures of the mighty and wise con- queror Alexander--and allowing nothing to sidetrack him from the con- sistent picture of the heroic figure--he has also a didactic purpose. He uses his hero to demonstrate the qualities of the wise king. He also presents Alexander in two other lights: as the instrument of God, whose conquests fulfill the divine plan and are ultimately the result of divine aid and, secondly, as a man who, in his later years, falls prey to and is destroyed by pride. 7 Although Alexander's conquest Of the world must be seen as the result of the assistance he receives from God, the cause of his down- fall is his alone. Since the conclusion Of the poem does not survive, one cannot, Of course, see exactly how the poet has handled Alexander's death. But enough of the poem is extant to make it obvious that the poet intends his audience to see Alexander bringing about his own death. The gods, or God, and Fortune do not suddenly turn against Alexander ‘I 124 and capriciously destroy him; neither does Alexander die Simply be- cause he is a man: the entire portrait of Alexander as the V_V_a£_s poet presents it militates against such a view. Much of the poem, in fact, is devoted to the preparation for Alexander's death, as he brings the wrath of GodJand His instrument Fortune, down upon him. It has already been noted that the correspondence between a Darius and Alexander is an apprOpriate way for the intellectualized Alexander to defeat his major Opponent. Their battle is one of minds; Alexander's battlefield victory over Darius' army simply echoes his philOSOphical conquest. Yet this debate also serves the poet's didac- tic intent. In showing the cause Of Darius' downfall--his pride--the debate defines the relationship between pride, the will of God, and Fortune. Furthermore, it sets up the means for seeing Alexander's very similar descent into pride. Darius, regarded by Others as a descendant and associate of the gods, 26 as is Alexander, 27 allows himself to believe these views. Thus, in his letter to Alexander, he not only states that he has the prO- tection of the gods (1748) but that he is "peere to be sonn" (1723) and that the gods fear him (1964-65). TO the medieval mind, a man who believed such would necessarily have succumbed to the greatest of all sins, pride. Shortly before his defeat, Darius' mother warns him of his foolish pride (2835-36). As he feels his position crumbling Darius finally recognizes his mistake, acknowledging that he is no more than a man (3092) and that he has indeed destroyed himself by his pride: So grete I grew of my gods 8: gold in my coffirs, bat kindly gods creatoure I kend nO3t my-selfe, Bot for his feIO3e and his fere faithly me leued, bus prOSperite 8: pride so purely me blyndid, I couthe nO3t se fra my sege to be soile vndire, bat at me failed ban to fynd fast at my e3en. (3280-85) 125 In a similar way Porus also comes to believe himself a god (3544-45, 3555), yet he never recognizes his sin. In the early letters of Darius and Alexander, the connection between Fortune, the wrath Of God, and the Sin of pride is not of prin- cipal interest. Although Darius continually accuses Alexander of fool— ish pride and vanity and discusses the mutable ways of Fortune in the affairs of men, he does not associate the two. The only conclusion he can draw is a restatement of Alexander's earlier words (1850-65): that Since Fortune is by nature fickle, quickly elevating the low and de- basing the high, one must not become proud: For-bi bi mynd neuir be mare lat mounte in-to pride For chance Of na cheualry bat bou a-cheued base. For vertue ne no victori ne vant noght bi-self; He bat enhansis him to he3e be heldire he declynes. 28 (2711-14) Ironically Darius does not apply the same lesson to himself. Yet, that a connection between pride and Fortune exists has been implied early in the poem, during Alexander's confrontation with Nicholas. Alexan- der warns Nicholas against pride, for nothing in this life is secure: For it was wont . . . as wyse men tellis, Full hi3e bingis ouer-heldis to held ober-quile. Slike as ere now brou3t a-bofe now be bothmn askis, And slike at left ere on lawe ere lift to be sternes. (*725-728) Later, writing to Darius, Alexander states that Since his "prouwis” comes from the gods he and his men do not "prid" themselves on their victories (2745-46). He also recognizes that pride is punished: Sire, vanity 8: vayne-glori 8: vices of pride ba ere be gaudis, as I gesse bat all gods hatis, And ilka dedly douth bai driffe barn to punesch, bat has dri3ten of vndedlynes dra3en baim to name. (2731-34) After receiving the warning from his mother to turn from pride and futile conflict with a man who has the gOdS' protection, Darius under- stands the connection between pride and the destruction of great men: 126 Quen he bis rawis had rede he rewfully wepid, (letter) His eldire 8: his ancestris als he remembris; b03t how pride baim depriued. (2843—45) Sire, I knawlage me a creatour 8: come of a woman, Heues no t 3our hert Vp t0 hi3e take hede to 3our end. . . . Was no3t Sexes him-selfe be souereynest in erth, And cheued him of cheualry chekis out of nombre ? (victories) 3it for his will out of worde was won into pride, In be lede here of Elanda lithirly he feyned. (3093 ff.) As Alexander embraces the dying Darius, this once proud king finally makes clear the association between God's plan and the role of Fortune. Fortune, the servant of God, is changeable to prevent man from succumbing either to pride or to the de3pair which would cause him to forget or reject God. Darius' words are best quoted at length: All werdly bing, I-wis bur3e be will of oure lord, In-to be contrare clene is at a clamp turned. For had he wor3t ay to wees welth 8: na nothire, So grete had bene vayn glorie glotony 8: pride, Suld nane haue gessid bat grace come of god, bot of bairn-self; So far be makare O mold suld many man haue erryd. And had he shapyn Ay to shalkez shend-Ship 8: illyS, So feyle had bene be frelettis fOIO3and oure kynd, We had bene drawen all bedene in-to dis Spaire clene, And of be godness Of god no3t a grew traisted. For-bi he wald of his will his werkis to be changand, bat, quen a hathill ware ouire hi3e in happ & in welthe, bat he knew no3t his creatour bi-cause of his pride, In-to be dike of debonerte droune bud him nede. (humility) A (3262-74) Ultimately, then, Fortune is not an independent force, but the instru- ment of God which may bring about a change in man's condition to pre- vent pride or, as Darius stated earlier, punish that pride. Although the poet points out, in discussing the meaning of the stones in Darius' throne, that Fortune will eventually turn against all men for they are by nature doomed to return to dust (3360-67), Alexander's early death results from the fact that he forgets his prober role and his humanity; 127 consequently Fortune "all his dignite bedene driues in-to poudire" (3367), just as Darius is "dreuyn all to dust" (3305). Fortune brutally reminds Darius of what he is: a man and no more. The correspondence between Darius and Alexander, then, sets up the role of Fortune in the lives Of men and makes the poet's didactic F point about punishment for pride. It is necessary for man to remember his precarious position in the world, to recognize that his successes come from God, and not to presume to be more than a man. Alexander fails primarily in the last point. ‘I. It hardly seems a coincidence that we are informed quite early in the poem that it is not only God's will that Alexander conquer the world but also that he is to be ”di3t to be deth of dri3tins ire" (1504). This pre- diction comes, moreover, not from a pagan god, but from an angel. Alex- ander himself demonstrates why the anger of God will descend upon him. Although the conclusion to the poem is missing, one can with a fair degree of certainty surmise that Fortune will be instrumental in his demise since the connection between God's punishment for pride and the workings Of Fortune has been made so forcefully. Interestingly, Alexander insists, in letters and in conversation, that he is no more than a mortal man: Bot I knaw I am coruptible 8: caire 30w agaynes, Als with a dedly duke to do my bataill. (1878-79) [The peOple Of Persia] Sayed: "bou ert Duke of ilk dome 8: dri3tin bi-Selfe !" ban was he fraid in his flesche bad, "feyne of 3our wordis! I am a coruptible kyng 8: of clay fourmed!" (3457-59) The form Of the salutation in all his early letters supports this view of himself: Alexsaundere be athill aire oute of grece, 128 be son of Philip be fers 8: of his faire lady, Honored Olimpadas be oddest vndire heuyn, To be, ser Dari, on bi dese bis dities I write. 29 (2006-09) Even though he will insist on his mortality late in the poem, once he has conquered Darius and assmned the throne, the form of salutation changes: be kyng with-outen compere of kyngis othire, Of all be lordis now be lord bat lefis apon erth, Sire Alexander, athill son of Amon his dri3ten, And als Of Olirnpades anyly consayued. 30 (3396-99) Only once in the poem after the defeat Of Darius does Alexander refer to Philip as his father, not in a letter but in the inscription on a pillar L.- which records his conquests (4711). A further progression is also to be noted. While the latter salutation is never entirely rejected, late in the poem it alternates with one in which Alexander omits all mention of Olympias. Thus, in his greeting to the Amazons, he acknowledges only his divine parentage: Alexander, athil child of Amon oure dri3tin, TO Calistride be conquirese comfurth 8: ioye !31 (3710-11) Alexander has fallen prey to the same sin as Darius. Although he knows clearly that he is the son of Neptanabus and has accepted Philip's ac- knowledgment of him as his son, 32 he comes to believe that he is the son of a god, having, in some instances, nothing human in him. In light of this change, other occurrences and statements in the poem assume significance. Alexander suggest to Candace that she meet him so that they may sacrifice together. Her answer demonstrates her own pride and failure to recognize not only the duty she owes to the gods but her rejection Of her humanity: We at ere voide ay of vice 8: vacant of syn, Quat suld we moue in-to be montts? bat mysters bot litill, Outhire Appole to adoure or any othire dri3tins. (5116-18) 129 While Alexander does not make any statement to the same effect, he also makes no effort to contradict her or insist on carrying out the sacrifice. When Alexander, disguised as Ptolemy, accepts Candoile's invitation to visit Candace because he "had list on hire to loke many r lang wintir" (5228) and is consequently trapped, the poet does not him- self accuse Alexander of pride, rashness, or overconfidence. It is noteworthy, however, that Alexander has engineered this disguise him- self; he does not, as in his meeting with Darius, have the protection of his gods. More importantly, Candace, as She exults in her conquest of him, notes that Fortune has indeed turned against the king: Ser, wete it wele 3oure worthenes bat for na wele here Suld neuire no hathill vndire heuen be to hi3e losed; For all be welthe of be werd ware it a wee grantid, It witis a-way at a wapp as be wynd turnes. (5315-18) Since the connection between the change in fortune and man's pride has been established earlier, Candace's attribution of "pride" (5324) to Alexander cannot be dismissed as a merely spiteful or unwarranted ac- cusation. The poet, admittedly, does not wish to debase Alexander too thoroughly and does allow him to reassert his nobility and regain his heroic position by bringing peace between Candace's two sons. On the other hand, it is Significant that the Candace episode is enclosed by two major predictions of Alexander's early death: that offered by the trees of the sun and the moon and by Serapis. The earlier of the two has both positive and negative sides; while Alexander will die young, he will also conquer the world. But the meeting with Synches and Serapis after the Candace episode has only negative aspects. Alexander, first of all, is accused Of having forgotten to worthily honor the god (Synches) 130 who has all the world in his power (5401-03) and, secondly, he does not even recognize Serapis (5408); Alexander, not blind to the powers beyond himself, identified him immediately in that god's earlier ap- pearance (1084-1100). Finally, this dialogue with Serapis includes only a discussion of Alexander's death. an. Shortly after his meeting with these gods, Alexander, having I for all practical purposes subdued or investigated the world's men and beasts, finds this world too small for him. He therefore desires to explore the sky, enticed by the thought that a mighty mountain is . g- "gaynir to god ban to be grounds vndire" (5512). From the poet's point Of view Alexander is pursuing a "fonned fantasy" (5513). Alex- ander manages to ascend to great heights in his wondrous machine, but "be vertu of be verray god envirounis him swythe" (5527) and he falls. Whether this statement means that God actually causes the fall or whether Alexander, in reaching beyond the human sphere, can- not withstand, in a human construction, the power of God exuded at these heights is not made clear, but it matters little. Alexander is now engaging in the kind of activity which has doomed so many Alexanders in other versions. He iS reaching beyond his prOper realm, and in doing so, challenging God. He escapes unharmed, for the present, and is permitted to eXplore the bottom of the sea where he encounters wonders which are beyond description, unbelievable to any man. The poet makes no comment about this escapade; perhaps it is not as fool- ish as attempting to invade the traditional realm of God--the Skies. The two episodes together, however, indicate Alexander's unwilling- ness to accept his human limitations. Whether Alexander fully believes that he is not only 131 descended from a god, but truly god-like himself can only be ascer- tained from the salutations of his letters. Aristotle, in answering Alexander's letter recounting his "auntours . . . angwisch and . athill werkis" (5618), states his belief that "sum grayne Of godhede” has grown within Alexander (5622). This can be taken as no more than a marveling response to all the things which Alexander has accom- plished and thus merely another commendation; yet a certain ambiguity exists in Aristotle's words. He states that "I wex all affraid" (5621) when looking on Alexander's works and thus thinking that this godhead has grown within. He may fear because such greatness is not natural for a man; as such his fear is merely an expression Of awe. Or he may be afraid of what Alexander's reaction will be to his accomplishments, "for bou has said bat neuir did segge ne sa3e bot bine ane" (5623). At the very least he recognizes that Alexander has broken the limits nor- mally accepted by men. In light of Alexander's "fonned" exploration of the skies, the statement has ominous implications. In examining the correspondence between Dindimus and Alexander one must recognize that the poet, because Of his Christian outlook, allows his hero to come off particularly badly. Originally Alexander had the better of Dindimus in the debate, 33 but since Din- dimus' otherworldliness, like that of the GymnOSOphistS, was particu- larly acceptable to the Christian writers, the Opposite eventually oc- curred. Thus in the debate between an essentially active versus a contemplative like and, secondarily, a C hristian versus a pagan out- look, Dindimus, in many versions, not only wins the argument but has the final word. Here Alexander does send the last letter, but his last words to Dindimus only make him look worse (4695-4706). Although the 132 Gyrnnosophists also get the better of Alexander by trapping him into admitting that he really cannot give them anything they desire (4053- 58), there he has the sense not to press a useless, petulant attack. Thus, while the poet is not original in his handling of the Alexander- Dindimus debate, his inclusion of it at a point where Alexander has clearly become the proud man, forgetful of his nature. is apprOpriate. Alexander, at the Opening of the correspondence, is, in Spite Of his declaration that he wishes to learn wisdom and thereby improve him- self (4215-20, 4225-27), already on edge, having heard that the Brah- mins despise the laws and customs of the Greeks. He also appears a bit condescending in assuring Dindimus that they will not lose anything by explaining their mode of life to Alexander, just as a flame is not diminished by giving light to another candle (4228-32). Dindimus' main arguments, aside from his condemnation of the Greeks for worshipping false gods, center on the failure of Alexander and the Greeks to recog- nize their end and their dependence on God. His point is thus the same one that is made, albeit less strongly, elsewhere. Alexander does not recognize his prOper place nor have the prOper attitude toward his maker; he lives only for this world, is self-serving, and proud rather than humble. Alexander, in spite of his renowned wisdom, simply cannot answer the accusations. Ironically, the man who had earlier reSponded that he desired wisdom more than fame can only conclude the discussion by damning himself. He closes his eyes to the bitter attacks of Dindimus and asserts that were be able to enter their land he would teach them to be knights and gain fame (4701-06). No single one Of these episodes can be said to Show Alexan- der succumbing to pride, but coupled with the Opening of his letters 133 and seen in the framework of the correspondence with Darius they clear- ly suggest what would be the poet's treatment of Alexander's death. Just as Alexander has virtues or qualities which raise him above the human, he falls prey to an apprOpriate vice: the Sin of pride in the form of a failure to recognize his human limitations. Thus he will be destroyed by "God's ire" as a punishment and a reminder by superhuman powers-- Fortune as the servant of GOd--that he has dared to challenge these powers by going beyond what is prOperly human. The poet, therefore, presents a consistent picture: the epic hero in strength, wisdom, and interests destroyed by the Single defect of a superhuman pride. The poet is particularly effective in showing the decay of Alexander's intel- lectual powers and wisdom. What he had perceived so clearly in Darius he is blind to in himself. He perverts his greatest strength--his mind-- by seeking imprOper knowledge so that he cannot understand the words of Candace and Dindimus; and they repeat only what he had once told Nicholas and Darius: pride can lead only to destruction. Several studies of the poetic technique of WEE have appeared, most of them confined to an examination of the alliterative line. Oak- den's previously mentioned analysis and classification is helpful, but his concern lies mainly with demonstrating the continuance of the Old English tradition. His statement that the original poem was probably very simple in its use Of the possible metrical types34 and the general praise he gives to the poem do little tO indicate concretely the ability of the poet; that is, how successfully he handles the alliterative line in a primarily narrative poem. Steffens' metrical study is also useful in presenting an organized classification of the various types of lines and alliteration, but much of the value of his work is vitiated by his attempt 134 to fit the line into the seven-stress pattern, a tactic which necessi- tates the emendation of more than a few lines. 35 His interest, more- over, does not include a consideration of the larger artistic use of the alliterative line. Approaching Wars on a broader scale, Max Kaluza has stated that the poem is composed in strOphes of 24 lines. 36 His theory, which also involves the assumption of a number of interpolated or miss- ing lines, has nevertheless found renewed support from a recent edi- tor On the basis of a re-examination of the manuscript. 37 Kaluza, -.‘ however, does not go into the artistic import of such a division. An examination Of the poem, as printed by Skeat, does suggest that the poet was attempting to divide it into passus which were multiples Of 24, since 16 of the 26 complete passus are, in fact, divisible by 24. 38 Yet it is difficult to see that the poet could have been interested in anything more than a mechanical process, eSpecially Since a number of the passus divisions are extremely arbitrary. To cite only the most striking examples, Passus 7 ends by introducing a letter from Darius; the letter itself is presented in Passus 8. Exactly the same is true of the break between Passus 8 and 9, 9 and 10, 20 and 21. Passus 18 and 19 end in the middle of Dindimus' letters to Alexander and Passus 24 concludes with Alexander entering Candace's magical chamber. These and other breaks suggest that the poet was actually more con- cerned with dividing his poem into units which could be recited in a single sitting and maintaining his audience's interest by stopping at a suspenseful point in the action. There is also a good deal of evidence to contradict Kaluza's theory that the poet consistently composed in strOphes of 24 lines, if. 135 one looks at the poem not from the point of view of manuscript mark- ings but from that of narrative content. For example, with Passus 6, in itself a multiple of 24, one can blindly count Off units of 24 lines in succession and find that some kind of break or pause occurs at the end of each unit; on the other hand, to note only one case, while there is a pause at line 1144, as Alexander lies in siege around Tyre, this line is by narrative repetition connected to the following line, and the next unit describes what occurs during the Siege. Even more clearly--and such occurs more and more frequently as the poem progresses--a J break should occur at line 1624 or Pas sus 7; but while Alexander pauses at this point, lines 1624-25 actually fall in the middle of his Speech. Mabel Day, among others, has rejected the hypothesis of the 24-line stanza and posited composition in quatrains: Hence it seems that a more accurate way of describing the structure of these poems is to say that they were written in quatrains, but that their authors . . . saw to it that each Passus should contain a multiple, in the case of the Wars of Alexander‘perhaps the same multipléT Offour linesj‘} Day's theory, of course, would account equally well for the pauses in Passus 6 noted above. This theory enjoyed a good deal of popularity and has been applied to a number of other poems, including Alexander _A_and Alexander B. 40 Once again, however, the proponents have not considered the poet's use of, or ability within, this set form. Such is my intention. In showing that the poet has some poetic skill--that only seldom does he fall into needless or senseless repetition merely to fill out his set number of lines--and in showing that his use of the form changes as the poem progresses, the evidence will also make clear that Day's theory, here assumed rather than directly proven, is valid 136 for Wars. Certain clarifications are required at this point. To state that the poet's basic compositional unit is the quatrain does not mean that four lines is necessarily the minimal thought-unit; that is, that each independent thought is expressed in exactly four lines and no more. Although there are many instances of thought-units which are exactly four lines in length, there are more which are two lines, or three lines, or one line. What quatrain composition does mean, although certain qualifications apply even here, is that, in an overwhelming number of cases, there is a pause or thought-break after each series of four lines; furthermore, almost without exception, all major breaks occur at the end of a four-line unit. To put it somewhat differently, the poet may present a single thought-unit in four lines or he may com- bine sequentially two thought-units of two lines or two thought-units of one and three lines, or although it is rare, a series of four one-line units in order to convey a single thought. 41 Furthermore, quatrain composition does not mean that the quatrain is the maximum unit: that any particular thought, idea, Speech, event, or description must be conveyed in four lines and no more. Obviously such would be im- possible in a narrative poem of any length. What this type of com- position does mean is that, in the majority Of cases, the poet will present a description, for example, in no less than four lines or, if he requires more than four lines, the total number of lines which make up the description will be divisible by four. As might be eXpected, the poet has few difficulties in handling the quatrain in descriptive passages; it is easy enough to add another line of description to reach the desired four-line unit or multiple of 137 four. In a letter or dialogue the difficulty iS increased; but again he can embellish, clarify, or define in order to fill out the quatrain. The real test comes in narrative portions. Here only so much is to be said, and yet the poet must find a way of expanding or squeezing it into the quatrain form. Obviously, then, redundancy, inane or useless repeti- tion are also quite easy to detect in the narrative portions; and the fact that such occur actually lends support to the quatrain theory. The most interesting aspect Of the poet's use of the quatrain, from an artistic point Of view, is the development which it undergoes. TO oversimplify for the moment, in the early portions Of the poem the poet adheres very closely to the quatrain form--in fact is very con- strained by it--with the result that the narrative becomes extremely rigid. As he progresses, however, he uses the quatrain more freely with the significant exception of Passus 15 which marks, by the poet's own comments (3468-75), the beginning of the second half Of Alexander's life and adventures. In general, it can be said that in the early part of the poem the quatrain form controls the narrative; as the poet progresses, however, narrative content gradually comes to control poetic form. One result, although not the most striking, is that the later portions of the poem contain fewer unnecessary repetitions. The poet allows viola- tions of the quatrain when dictated by narrative content. On the other hand, a non unexpected consistency is to be found in the descriptive por- tions. As has been suggested earlier, the poet regards descriptions, whether they be of battles, cities or palaces, or marvelous personages, as secondary supportive material for the development of Alexander. COnsequently, of all the matter in the poem, they continue to be most rigidly presented within the quatrain structure. The greatest freedom, 138 on the other hand, develOps in dialogue and straight-forward narrative. Although it certainly would not be impossible, it would be extremely tedious to consider exhaustively each of the 26 complete passus in order to Show this use and development of the quatrain; more- over, the law of diminishing returns would apply. I have therefore examined six passus in detail: two each from the beginning, middle, and end of the poem. 4‘2 It has been deemed expedient, for purposes of reference and clarification, to present the passus under discussion in graphic form. In the following charts, I have first divided each passus into its large episodes. It might be argued that all of Passus l, for example, is in reality only a single episode which introduces Neptanabus and relates the events which bring him to Macedonia. On this principle, however, the entire poem could hardly be divided into more than a score of epi- sodes. Not only would such be unmanageable, for critical purposes, but, to refer again just to Passus 1, it seems clear that it is composed of a number of separable episodes or scenes: Neptanabus' flight, the plight of the Egyptians, and Neptanabus' arrival in Macedonia. These episodes are placed under the heading "Major Episodes" in the follow- ing charts. Secondly, I have further broken down these "Major Epi- sodes" into smaller components, again primarily for purposes of clari- ty and manageability. These components, designated "Smaller Units, " will in some cases correspond to the "Major Episodes"; such is the case with the Prologue in Passus 1. In some ways, the division into "Smaller Units" is admittedly somewhat arbitrary. Each of the smaller units satisfies the criterion of being an independent portion, but this 139 does not mean that it is necessarily or easily separable from what im- mediately precedes or follows it. Also, because I desired neither to make these "Smaller Units" so small as to Obscure Obvious connections nor so large as to be unmanageable and Obscure distinctions, the basis for division may not always be consistent. For example, in Passus l the dialogue between the warden and Neptanabus has been divided into .‘1-1 two units. Obviously they are closely connected, but because Of the 5 length of these Speeches and because there is a rather definite break after the warden's comments, I have separated them. On the other hand, in Passus 2, the dialogue between Neptanabus and Olympias after the conception of Alexander has not been separated into a series of ex- tremely small units. Ultimately, the use Of the "Smaller Units" is to facilitate reference and the further breakdown into what I consider to be the smallest "Thought-Units" of the poem. This breakdown is given on the pages with the heading "Thought-Units. " What should be Obvious is that the process of dividing the poem is a progressive one: from the largest episodes Of the poem, which might span more than one passus, to the largest episodes within the individual passus, to the division Of these episodes step by step into their smallest parts-~the individual thought-unit. I have not tried to be comprehensive in doing this; such would not serve. the purposes of this study and would, I believe, simply result in graphic confusion with subdivision upon subdivision. My listing of the "Major Episodes" and "Smaller Units" and finally the breakdown into "Thought-Units" will (make it possible for the reader to carry such a. process through should he so desire. It should be emphasized that all divisions have been made without reference to the quatrain system and that I have 140 included all of Skeat's interpolations of lines from the Dublin manu- script, although these have been noted. In a few places I have purposely violated my principle of list- ing only the smallest "Thought-Units" in the charts of the designation, especially in Passus l and 2. Because I felt it to be illuminating, in certain places where there is a description or catalogue I have allowed fl this to stand as a unit and, after Specifying whenever appropriate whether it is a general description (designated gin.) or Specific details Of description (Spec.) or simply catalogue (cat. ), I have then broken it '- KI. ‘1" down into though t- units. Certain other abbreviations have also been used: iindicates an introduction, in narrative form, to a Speech or letter. _S_ indicates that those particular lines, or, if a longer section is divided, off, that all within the horizontal lines belong to that single speech. _I:, used in a similar way, designates a letter. A Single line or less which serves as a transition between units or episodes, but cannot strictly Speaking be separated from its preceding episode is designated trans. The asterisk consistently indicates that a line is probably missing from the MS at this point. Line numbers from Skeat's edition are included for the "Major Episodes" and the "Smaller Units. " In a separate column, mainly to Show the reliance on quatrains or multiples thereof, I have given the .Simme count for each "Major Episode" and "Smaller Unit. " The "Thought-Units" are grouped under numbers in parentheses which refer to the corresponding "Smaller Unit," given in the preceding chart for that pasus. Without making the charts chaotic and in effect para- phrasing the poem I could not indicate the content of each "Thought- Unit" or even give the line numbers from the poem. Thus a Sirnple 141 numeral represents the number of lines in each "Thought-Unit. " The reader is therefore unfortunately compelled to refer back to the "Smal- ler Units" and ultimately to the poem itself to study the content of these "Thought—Units." Finally, I have printed, again for purposes of easy reference, the lines from each of the passus discussed which are clearly repeti- tious in the sense that they either add nothing to the content Of the poem or are simply redundant. Such repetitions indicate that their presence is merely for the purpose of filling out the quatrain. These lines have been placed in a brief context to indicate their repetitious- ness and are marked by the symbol "##." 142 Passus 1 Major Episodes: 1. Prologue 1- 22 22 2. Description of the seers of Egypt 23- 38 16 3. Neptanabus: introduction, sorcery, flight 39-146 108 4. Egyptians: mourning, appearance of Serapis, erection of the statue of Neptanabus, defeat by Persians 147-209* 63 5. Neptanabus' arrival in Macedonia 210-213 4 Smaller Units: ( 1) Prologue 1- 22 22 ( 2) Description of the seers of Egypt 23- 38 16 ( 3) Introduction of Neptanabus 39- 46 8 ( 4) Neptanabus learns of invasion 47- 70 24 ( 5) Wardens of Egypt; one warns Neptanabus 71- 94 24 ( 6) Neptanabus' answer to the warden 95-110 16 ( 7) Neptanabus conjures and sees defeat 111-118 8 ( 8) Neptanabus prepares and flees 119-146 28 ( 9) Egyptians seek Neptanabus 147-158 12 (10) Egyptians offer to Serapis 159-166 8 (11) Serapis' Speech 167-189* 23 (12) Erection of the statue of Neptanabus 190-205 16 (13) Persians conquer Egypt 206-209 4 (l4) Neptanabus arrives in Macedonia Repetitious Lines: And be sotellest vndere son segis in baire lyfe, ##bus ware bai breued for be best as be buke tellis. 34- 35 Gales 8: grete schipis full of grym wapens, And full of breneid bernes bargis a hundreth, ##Of Slik a naue is noy to here or to tell 65- 67 For ber is comyn with him kny3tes of landis dyuerse, ##Segis of many syde oute of sere remys. 85- 86 Full wele he wist, or he went quat suld worbe efter, ##And all be fourme of be fare bat fall 30w be-houys. 171-172 Sen it is set to be 500 8: Slip it ne may ##Ne schewid to be na nobire schap ne we to schount nouthire . . . 179-180 Quen it was perfite 8: pi3t a place bai it wayted, ##And stallid him in a stoute stede 8: sti3thed him faire. 194- 195 bare gan bai graithly barn graue in golden lettirs, All be wordis at he baim werpid of baire ware kynge. ##bare bai wrate bam I-wis as be buke tellis. 201-203 143 Pas sus 1 Thought- Units (1) 22 (7) 8 3 4 2 4 2 3 (8) 28 l 4 l 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 (2) 16 2 (gen.) (9) 12 3 (Spec-1 (2'5) 4 (gen-) (2'5) 2 (gen. 6 (spec. ) (2's) 4 2 (gen.) (3) 8 (10) 8 2 (gen.) 4 4 (spec. ) (2's) 4 2 (gen.) (11) 23* (4) 24 1-1 4 3'3 4 (gen.) (2's) 2 4 (spec. ) (2's) 2 4 (gen.) (2's) 4 5 (spec. ) (3,2) 3* 3 (gen.) 1 3 (5) 24 4 4 _ 2 (12) 16 2 2 1-1 2 TE 2 Z 2 2 5 2 (gen.) 3 8 cat. 1' ( )( S) (13) 4 (6) 16 3 2-1 3 g S (14) 4 1/2 2 1/2 2 3 1 144 Passus 2 Major Episodes: 1. Neptanabus and Olympias meet 2. Olympias's dream 3. Meeting Of Neptanabus and Olympias 4. Conception of Alexander . Meeting of Neptanabus and Olympias . Philip dreams of a dragon which appears in battle . Philip returns to Macedonia . Feast: first marve1--dragon--appears . Second marvel appears: bird and egg aller Units: ) Philip leaves Macedonia )Neptanabus and Olympias meet and greet )Neptanabus ”identifies" himself ) Conversation between Olympias and Neptanabus ) Description of Neptanabus' instruments 1 ) Neptanabus conjures up dream ) Meeting of Neptanabus and Olympias ( 9) Alexander conceived (10) Meeting of Neptanabus and Olympias (11) Neptanabus conjures up dream for Philip (12) Philip's dream; interpretation; dragon appears in battle (13) Philip returns to Macedonia (l4) Feast: dragon appears (15) Second marvel appears: bird and egg (l6) Poet's transition . 5 6 7 8 9 Sm ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Repetitious Lines: Quen he was boune oute of bur3e 8: his bake turned, ##As tite as Anec him amed out of his awyn kythe. ##Sone as him selfe was in be sale 8: sa3e hire with e3e, He beheld Olympadas bat honourable lady. Concluding dialogue between Olympias and Nept. And bar hire spakid with his Speche 8: spird of him wordis. ##Quen he was sete in his sete bat semely qwene A5. of Egipt erd enquirid if he were. With bat rysis Vp be renke 8: his rowme lefys, ##La3t leue at be qwene for a litill quile, Gase him doune be be grecis a-gayn fra be sale. Sire, chese be a chambre quare be chefe binkis, Nowbire myne awen ne na nothire god lat be nO3t Spare, ##Or any place at 30w plece my palas with-in. 214-333 120 334-349 16 350-373 24 374-393 20 394-405 12 406-453 48 454-477 24 478-500* 23 501-524 24 214-217 4 218-237 20 238-261 24 262-273 12 274-285 12 286-333 48 334-349 16 350-373 24 374-393 20 394-405 12 406-417 12 418-453 36 454-477 24 478-500* 23 501-522 22 522-523 2 218-219 222-223 237-239 330-332 363-365 145 Qwen it was metyn to be merke bat men ware to ryst, ##And folke was on baire firste slepe 8: it was furth euyns . . .374-375 Sone as hire bele gun bolne all hire blee changis, So was scho ferd 8: a-fri3t a ferly ware ellis. ## To be bonden with barne mekill bale to hire ne3ehis. 394-396 Quat dose now bis diuinour bot to desert wendis, ##Airis on all him ane out of be cite. 406-407 All bat was done be bedene was me be dreme schewyd, ##I sa3e it surely as my-selfe slepe in my tentis. 474-475 146 Pas 5 us 2 Thought-Units IS IS JG.” * _. .. 2 2 2 4 2 2 my: .44 “.3; mu: 1 l .l. 1 ( ( ( ( 4. 4 ”4: JC. DC 80.. s as 4 m 6 see . _ 44422 4 4 4 44222222 41 2 4422 44224222 10 4 0 2 2 IO 1 1 Z 2 .l. .l. 3 .71 mm mu m: U :2: ( ( ( 1 1 1 ( ( ( ) 2 2. L. L. 2, ) ))) )o 883 0c Isl-I- ne 222 GP ((( e w w as ea 45556 as . 42221234 4 32222224 422 2 48 13444444 3422 4 0 4 IO 2 8 2 2 .l. 1 4. U ) ) ) ) ( I‘ ( 147 Passus 10 Major Episodes: .mflO‘U'ln-kUJNn—o S ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (l (l Alexander's letter to Athens Athenians' council Athenians send tribute; Alexander's letter Lacedemonia Darius' council Alexander's Sickness Transitional interlude Crossing of the Euphrates maller Units: 1) Alexander's letter to Athens 2) Athenians' reaction 3) Athenians' council: Aescylus' speech 4) Athenians' council: Demosthenes' Speech 5) Decision to send tribute 6) Alexander receives tribute 7) Alexander's letter to the Athenians 8) Athenians rejoice 9) Alexander approaches Lacedemonia; council 0) Lacedemonians prepare for battle 1) Alexander's letter to Lacedemonia (12) Preparation and battle (l3) Alexander's commentary on battle (14) Alexander rides forth; Darius calls council (15) Darius' council: debate (16) Alexander falls sick (17) Alexander cured; treason of Parmenion (18) Alexander conquers Media and Armenia (19) Alexander crosses Euphrates R epetitious Line 8: Ane Eschilus in erde 8: ernstly he Spekis, ##be douth 8: all diuinours be-dene he comaundis, bat bai suld corde be na cas vn-to be kingis hestis. ban amed bai to ser Alexander onane for to send A croune all of clere gold clustrid with gemmes, Of fifty ponde with be payse as be prose tellis, ##be tresoure tire bae him to 8: tribute him hetes. ban mourned all be Messedons as meruaill ware 2319-2342 2343-2394 2395-2438 2439-2486 2487-2534 2535-2582 2583-2584 2585-2606 2319-2342 2343-2346 2347-2350 2351-2390 2391-2402 2403-2412 2413-2436 2437-2438 2439-2448 2449-2460 2461-2470 2471-2476 2477-2486 2487-2510 2511-2534 2535-2552 2553-2582 2583-2584 2585-2606 ellis ##bai sa3e him so to be seke said ilkane to othire . . . 24 52 44 4943 48 48 22 24 40 12 10 24 10 12 10 10 24 24 19 20 22 2348-50 2395-98 2547-48 lu— .._l_ S 22 ll 22 s S 11 22 l . I, 11.11.... .1122 4222211 2.1112 2 2 2 ) ) 8 0/ 1 1 ( ( ) n .1 n m .. u 2 D U a ) r t. a S _ w e S t . .l. 2 I m T.. .. . I I... ll.\ .. U 22 3222332 2 22 11 1 14112 3231221122 0 4 4 9 b 2 2 l 2 h g \II \II \II ) u 4. 5 IO n 8 0 u 11.\ a ( 4 h 1 T 0 1 S . w 4 S .2 2.29224277111722 4.1 2 2.17.142722 2.524 92222 a 4. Z 0 0 6 0 P 2 1 W... 1 .I. ) m ) ) ) ) 7 9 \I ( ( ( ( .I. ) ) U 2 u.) m. ) ( ( ( 5 ( 22 I, ll ITUEEnS.) 1122 4132 (6) 10 149 Passus 17 Major Episodes: 1. Alexander's army: thirst and consequences 2. Attack by beasts 3. Alexander in Bactria 4. Battle with Porus Smaller Units: ( 1) Alexander told of Porus' preparations; rides forth ( 2) Alexander and army tortured by thirst ( 3) Attack on castle ( 4) Alexander finds water ( 5) Attack by beasts (adders, dragons) ( 6) Attack by beasts (crabs) ( 7) Attack by beasts (miscellaneous) ( 8) Attack by ”Adanttrocay" ( 9) Attack by beasts (mice, bats, birds) (10) Alexander in Bactria (11) General battle with Porus (12) Porus proposes single combat (13) Alexander fights Porus (14) Alexander wins Persians over Repetitious Lines: Oure kni3tis at be first come clenly baim Slo3e, ##AltO-bretind baim on bent 8: bro3t baim on f1i3t. A3t 8: tuenti men of armes onone scho delyuird, ##Bernes was di3t be deth with dintis enoghe. 3780-3847 3848-3947 3948-3961 3962-4018 3780-3789 3790-3827 3828-2847 3848-3863 3864-3891 3892-3899 3900-3919 3920-3931 3932-3947 3948-3961 3962-3971 3972-3991 3992-4002 4003-4018 68 100 14 4843 10 38 *" 20 16 28 8 , v'” 20 3) 12 5‘ l6 14 10 20 12 3904-05 3930-31 150 Pass us 17 Thought- Units . S ) . n b u D \n’ a s. u n x a e r .1. 11...: 1.. ( JT _ 1114 41.21.31.222 222112 2212122 21.12 1.12224 2112 .l. m 0 2 IO 2 .I. .l. ) ) O 1 \I ) \l ) S n m 22 t [I ( J. 11 1211 441121 2 112222 422 222331322 421112 2231 8 8 0 2 IO 2 2 1. 1. ) ) ) ) ) 5 6 7 8 0/ ( ( ( ( ( 2 22 I 2U I, . _ l 0442 81111321141 1 11.. 2221111521.. 4112211134 112223 0 6 .l. 3 2 .l. ) ) ) ) 1 2 3 4 [It ( ( ( 151 Passus 25 Major Episodes: 1. Alexander trapped by Candace 2. Alexander's meeting with gods 3. Attack by miscellaneous beasts 4. Sojourn in a country of wealth Smaller Units: ( 1) Description of revolving room ( 2) Entrapment by Candace ( 3) Alexander makes peace between Candace's sons 4) Parting of Candace and Alexander 5) Alexander's meeting with gods 6) Encounter with adders 7) Attack by wild boars 8) Attack by vultures 9) Crossing of a river (10) Sojourn in a country of wealth: gifts (1 l) Sojourn in a country Of wealth AAAAAA R epetitious Line 3: 5291-5386 5387-5419 5420-5458 5459-5482 5291 -5298 5299-5338 5339-5379 5380-5386 5387-5420 5420-5430 5431-5438 5439-5458 5459-5464 5465-5474 5475-5482 The room Quirland all on queles quen be quene entres. Quen bae ware sett bar in samen on silkin webbis, ##Sone begynnes it to gaa 8: gretly he wondres. 96 33 39 24 41 33 1/244 10 1/2 20 6 10 (5294-96) ------------IIIIIIIIIIIIlaa=======a====gFF—----——-—————1r*—__—5 152 Pas sus 25 Thought-Units (1) 8 1s (8) 20 1 2 2 g 1 2 3 6 (1/2-s 2.5 4 2 ) (2) 4o 1 .3: 1 2 1.5 (4) 71 2 f 2-5 2 2 1/2 (9’ 63 1 1 2 :-s I 1 __ (5) 33 1/2 2 1 S 2 2 2 1/2-s Z {-— 1 1/2 8 (cat.) 4 g 1 (2,2,1.1/2,1.11/2) 1-5 T31 l/2-S (11) 82 ..__. 1 2 s 2-5 ,1 4 Z-S 1 Z 2-s 1172-5 ; 5 1/2 S 2 1/2 2 1/2 _ 2— l/Z-S (3) 414 11/2-s 32's ——2'5 1 2 s 2 3 2 2 1/2 (trans ) 2.5 2.5 (6) 101/2 1 2 1-1 4 Z-S 2 (7) 8 1 S 2 1 1 1.11 3 -— 1 2 153 Passus 26 Major Episodes: . Enclosure of Gog and Magog 2 Various travels Of Alexander 3 Alexander's exploration of the sky 4 Alexander's exploration of the sea 5. Travels; encounters with beasts 6. Death of Bucephalus 7 River Detiraty 8 Palace Of Xerxes 9. Alexander conquers Babylon 10. Exchange Of letters Smaller Units: 1) Enclosure of Gog and Magog 2) Various travels of Alexander 3) Alexander's exploration of the sky 4) Alexander's exploration of the sea 5) Attack by horned beasts 6) Attack by adders 7) Attack by "devil-beasts" 8) Death of Bucephalus 9) River Detiraty (10) Palace of Xerxes (l 1) Alexander conquers Babylon (12) Exchange of letters Repetitious Line 3: 5483-5502 19 1/244 5502-5510 5511-5530 5531-5554 5555-5578 5579-5594 5595-5598 5599-5610 5611-5614 5615-5626 5483-5502 5502-5510 5511-5530 5531-5554 5555-5562 5563-5568 5569-5578 5579-5594 5595-5598 5599-5610 5611-5614 5615-5626 And foure Griffons full grym he in bat graythe festes; He makis to hinge ouir baire hede in hokis or iren Flesch on ferrom baim fra at bair mi3t no3t to reches, To make baim freke to be fli3t bat foded for to wyn, ##For bai ware fastand be-fore halden for be nanes. 81/2 20 24 24 16 4 12 4 12 19 1/2 8 1/2 20 24 8 6 10 16 4 12 4 12 5518-22 '3.“ 154 Pass us 26 Thought- Units (1) 19 1/2 (7) 2 1 1 14 1/2 (cat. )45 1/2 1/2 (2) 8 1/2 2 1/2 (8) (9) HWWval-‘UJNN (10) (4) 24 (ll) (12) NNNNb—IHNNNthh (5) 8 NNNN (6) 6 t—ot—IOJH 10 16 (l/Z-S) r—av—nv—ar—oNNN 2 (trans. ) 155 An examination of Passus 1 and 2, through references to the charts on these passus, reveals that the poet holds closely to the qua- train, fitting Speeches, descriptions, and straight narrative into four- line units and multiples thereof. This rigidity is reflected by the pres- ence of more unnecessary repetition than in the later passus. The stringent maintenance of the quatrain form causes the poetry to assume a static neatness. Except for the Prologue--the first 22 lines of Passus l--all of the major episodes and smaller units within these episodes are controlled by the quatrain form; this is made evident by the fact that the total number of lines devoted to the major episode or smaller unit is consistently divisible by four. The poet allows only one exception to this practice of presenting his narrative material in groupings of four lines or multiples of four lines: at the conclusion to Passus 2 he adds a two-line transition into the next passus. In other words, extraneous lines, lines which cannot be made to fit into. the underlying quatrain pat- tern, are almost non-existent; narrative units are neatly and continually bundled into multiples of four lines. Within the "Smaller Units" the poet does not stray far from the quatrain. There exist a great many four-line thought-units; a single-line thought-unit is quite rare and then generally Serves as an introduction to a three-line speech, as at the beginning of P 1.1146 and in P 2. 6, P 2. 8, and P 2. 13. If one compares the Prologue with the rest Of the first two passus, the relative freedom of the Prologue, in contrast to the rigidity of the rest of these Opening sections, becomes very evident. In the Prologue, the poet takes Six thought-units to reach a multiple Of four; that is, a group of lines divisi- ble by four. In the remainder of these two passus the greatest number of thought-units required to reach the 4-multiple is four (in P l. 6, 156 P 2.2, and in the catalogue of P l. 5). In five other cases the poet takes three thought-units to attain the multiple of four. 47 The re is nothing, then, in these two passus that approaches the freedom of the Prologue in breaking from the underlying quatrain form. The most free, in tak- ing four thought-units to reach the multiple of four, are P l. 6 and P 2. 2, the first of which is a speech and, in the use of half-line units, Shows some flexibility in the treatment of the individual line. Although the poet later achieves his greatest freedom in the speech or dialogue, at the beginning of the poem most of the Speeches are confined to a qua- train or two and are constrained by that poetic structure. The extreme in regularity can be found in the dialogue between Neptanabus and Olym- pias in P 2. 6 where, for all practical purposes, they speak in alternat- ing quatrains. Simply, then, in these pas sus poetic form dictates the presentation of narrative content. Passus 10 and 17 demonstrate the change in the poet's hand- ling Of his verse form. Content gradually takes priority, and the qua- train is molded to fit the content. It is noteworthy, however, that the relative flexibility usual in the middle Of the poem is much more re- stricted in Passus 15 where the poet begins, with a formal introduction, the second half of the poem. It is as if, in starting the second portion of Alexander's life and adventures, the poet himself is starting over, once again staying rather strictly within the confines of the quatrain. Although the quatrain cannot be discarded as the basic unit Of composition, an examination of Passus 10 and 17 indicates that the poet treats the four-line unit less as a constraining measure and more as a background pattern. It has already been noted that in the first two passus, excepting the Prologue of Passus l, the poet at most 157 requires four thought-units to reach a multiple of four lines, and on only seven occasions requires even three thought-units. In Passus 10 and 17, however, there are 27 cases where three thought-units are needed to reach the multiple of four (thus asserting the underlying quatrain), 48 6 cases of four thought-units, 4‘7 4 cases of five thought- units, 50 3 cases of six through-units, 51 and 1 case each of seven and eight thought-units. 52 TO a much larger extent the quatrain has given way to the narrative. A not unexpected result is the many fewer un- necessary repetitions. In fact, the last two instances of useless repetition in Passus 17 both occur in battle scenes which, as pre- viously noted, the poet treats more like non-essential description than required narrative. On a larger scale, it is obvious that the "Smaller Units" no longer fall neatly into multiples of four lines. Four examples, P 10. 6 (Alexander's receiving of the Athenian tribute), P 10. ll (Alexander's letter to the Lacedemonians), P 10. 16 (the debate in Darius' council), and P 10. 19 (Alexander's crossing of the Euphrates) are not multiples of four. Certainly many others are. But the "Smaller Units" are not consistently self-contained as they were earlier. One must either com- bine two "Smaller Units," 1. e. , P 10.12 and P 10.13, or what is truly the case, look at the entire "Major Episode" to find a multiple of four. In other words, the narrative unit within which the poet works has be- come much larger and the quatrain foundation ultimately holds up pri- marily in the extremely large major episode. Passus l7 exhibits the same tendency, although the attacks Of the various beasts, as I have presented them, somewhat obscure the situation. Alexander's "riding forth" and the episode of Bactria must Obviously be seen in terms of 158 what precedes or follows them; while one can go in either direction, the only consistent approach is to combine all of the smaller units up to the battle with Porus (P 17.11); these smaller units are merely a seria- time recounting of the adventures Alexander encounters on the way to his meeting with Porus. Also important are the four transitions (in P 10.13, P 10.18, 1 P 17. 4, and P 17.10), each of which is only one or two lines in length. In earlier portions of the poem these linking passages, which might make mention of a large campaign or briefly tie up the preceding epi- EB sode (as with P 10. 8) would have been developed into at least a full qua- train. 53 If one includes, as earlier, the one or two-line introduction, long speeches still work with the multiple of four lines, yet they are much freer in terms of the Single quatrain. In dialogue, the quatrain does not necessarily predominate. As in P 10.15, P 10.17, and P 17.14, characters no longer Speak in quatrains; rather, brief and rapid ex- changes occur. The difference is quite evident if these conversations are compared with those in P 2.10 or P 2.16 or even the somewhat less rigid P 2.13. Even the single line is no longer self-contained,_as is nor- mally the case in the Middle English alliterative tradition. While one might suggest that the poet looks back to the Old English use Of the run-on lines, it seems more probable that, influenced by narrative con- tent, he has simply broken away from the strict confines Of the Single- line unit. Although the run-on line and its complementary broken line occur most commonly in direct Speech, they also appear in straight narrative. The poet employs this form occasionally in the early 159 sections of the poem, for example P 1. 6, but a glance at the charts will Show that he uses it much more extensively later in the poem. Once again, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the narrative content now dominates and controls the poetic structure. Passus 25 and 26 indicate that the poet has further extended the limits of the quatrain. Passus 25, which continues, without any break or comment from the poet, the Candace episode begun in Passus 24, demonstrates the poet's linking of episodes not merely by separate transitional quatrains or, as in Passus 10 and 17 by one or two lines of independent transition, but by at times merging one episode with the next through a continuing motif or description. Thus the description of Candace's palace flows into the description of her marvelous private chamber to link Passus 24 and 25. At the end of the Candace episode (5386-87) one has difficulty finding a clear point of transition to the meeting with the gods in the cave since Candoile accompanies Alexan- der to the cave and briefly describes it to him. After Alexander's con- versation with Synches and Serapis, Candoile is not simply forgotten; a Short parting scene is Offered as Alexander prepares to rejoin his troops. Yet even this portion Of the narrative blends with the next (P 25. 6) to the extent that the division can only be said to fall in mid-line. One might argue that the division of P 25. 2 and P 25. 3 or P 25. 5 and P 25. 6 are false ones: that the two smaller units Should be grouped to- gether and seen as one large episode; but a comparison with earlier passus makes the difference Obvious. Even if the poet elects, as he does in the middle of the poem, to use something less than a quatrain as a transition or divider, he consistently keeps different adventures separate. Here, on the other hand, they merge, to the point that the 160 quatrain and even the independent line occasionally disappear, as link- ing is accomplished by content rather than poetic form. The major epi- sodes also begin to flow together. One is forced, if one wishes to find the multiple Of four--and thus the underlying quatrain structure-—to group together not only "Smaller Units" but even "Major Episodes. " In Passus 26, which is not as free as Passus 25, the two very different episodes relating the enclosing of Gog and a miscellaneous col- lection of travels by Alexander are not treated in multiples of four lines, as they so clearly would have been early in the poem. Possibly my di- vision of these two passus is most Open to criticism, on the charge of subjectivism; but it has become, at times, almost impossible to divide the poem at all. The very fact that breaks fall in mid-line supports the view that the poet will now permit narrative content to over-ride not only the quatrain but the line itself. Indicative of the poet's method is the almost complete lack of repetitive lines in Passus 25 and 26. Those which I have listed might even be challenged: the repetition extends to only a half line, and one must look at a much larger context to even notice what repetition does exist. In any case, repetitious lines do not appear simply because the poet has other concerns besides Simply filling out the quatrain. He will now "violate" the quatrain structure to obtain narrative continuity. The developing flexibility in speeches and dialogue is also noticeable in these late passus, particularly in P 25. 5 and P 26. 8. But the poet also extends this freedom in treatment to include the letter (P 26. 12), plain narrative ( P 25. 10, P 26. 6), and, most surprisingly, the normally stiff catalogue (P 25. 8). The gradual develOpment in the poet's use of the quatrain 161 thus Shows his ability to vary and escape the monotonous rigidity of form. The poet of Wars is quite often praised for his skill in presenting battle-scenes, but an examination of even the few battles which occur in these six passus indicate that while he shows competency in this type Of description, be generally treats these scenes as formal, non-organic entities, as he works quite stringently within the quatrain, particularly n in battles with beasts. The general battle with Porus in Passus 17 which takes up only ten lines, while still building quickly to the four-line mul- tiple, is the exception rather than the rule, as a comparison with the ) battles with Nicholas (770-818), at Tyre (1377-1448), and with Amonta ”j (2034-61) Show. In fact, the poet's ability to manipulate the quatrain and the line really becomes evident only outside battle scenes and most other descriptions. While his straight narration and his presentation of dialogue or monologue are not as striking or colorful, his strength as a poet, in terms of his material, Shows itself when he handles these portions well. Once he allows himself to concentrate on his content, rather than on his set form, he presents a rapidly moving narrative, broken up by more rigid and leisurely, but apprOpriate, descriptions. The effect of the quatrain form balanced against narrative emphasis pro- duces an artistically satisfying tension. One must therefore Offer qualified praise for the poet's hand- ling Of his poetic form; the Same applies to his treatment of his subject matter. His dedication to the one-Sided, heroic Alexander of philOSOphi- cal bent certainly results in a consistent portrait, but at the same time causes the poet difficulties in characterization as well as narrative plausibility. The poet wavers in his characterization of Neptanabus. 162 Rather than successfully integrating the two sides of NeptanabuS--wise seer and cohort of demons-~he alternates between the two, presenting the side which correSpondS to the Situation at hand as he wishes to de- velop it. When Neptanabus is introduced as one of the "wysest wees of the werd" (24) he is acclaimed as a "clerke noble, / be athelest ane of the werd" (39-40) and commended for his wisdom (41-46). Yet when he flees Egypt, the poet Offers a debasing comment about his magic, 54 which, while not efficacious in defeating the Persians, has correctly predicted the defeat of the Egyptians. One is thus at a loss in how to interpret the poet's intention when Neptanabus displays his "trammys" or divining equipment to Olympias (276-286), whether to view them as a certification or abasement of Neptanabus' magical powers. The poet's Christian outlook and his decision to present a totally Sinless Olympias cause him to inveigh against Neptanabus for deception (417) and involve- ment with devils (342). At the same time the poet hesitates in totally condeming the true father of Alexander. His prediction that his own son will be the cause of his death proves true and, somewhat surpris- ingly, it is Alexander who receives a slight rebuke for killing Neptana- bus: "bus shamesly of hys awne childe hym chevyd such end" (739*). Olympias, on the other hand, is a consistently noble char- acter. Before Alexander usurps the stage, leaving Olympias to be no more than a concerned mother, abused wife, and the woman against whom Alexander measures Candace, She is characterized in a some- what stock but nonetheless interesting manner. Her extreme naivete and innocent modesty form the basis of her portrait and are her most engaging qualities. Although Alexander indirectly accuses her of folly (735-736*, 874-875), he and Philip willingly excuse her role in 163 Alexander's conception. She is viewed as no more than a vehicle or pawn and, in their terms, her sin is the less because no one may refuse a god (470-477). The poet's presentation of her character and actions perfectly accord with this judgment; she is indeed, given her personal- ity, a helpless instrument. Neptanabus, in a convincing scene, over- whelms the "myld" (234), "semely" (238) queen by his bearing, his elo- quence, and his declaration that he can predict the future (214-233). His intent staring puts her off balance and her innocent wonderment gives him the opening to ply her with flattery and a display of his equip- ment. Olympias is clearly not an unfaithful wife; her first questions to test the prophecy of Neptanabus concern the "bald kyng bat I best lufe" (289). She honestly fears that Philip will put her aside for another wife (294-297). Thus Neptanabus' promise that "Ane of be grettist Of oure godis" (307) will aid her in her plight, plus a most marvelous descrip- tion of this god (315-321), strikes exactly the right note. Her innocent mind, coupled with her fear of the future, makes her an easy prey for the wily Neptanabus. She manages to put the dangers of even unwilling consort with a god out of her mind, with the aid of Neptanabus' reassur- ances, until her pregnancy becomes Obvious (362-405). Even then Nep- tanabus can calm her fears so that she greets the returning Philip with joy and utter unconcern (455-457). This scene (454-477) of the jovial, teasing Philip confronting the silent, blushing Olympias is not only suc- cessful in itself, but brings to its culmination the naivete and innocence of the queen. Although not as much attention is paid to Philip, his charac- terization offers some interesting parallels with that of Olympias and Neptanabus. He suffers somewhat the same fate as Olympias. Once 164 the focus of attention has shifted to Alexander, both Olympias and Philip serve merely as tools for the presentation of one aspect or another of Alexander's personality and virtues. Olympias actually fares better than Philip; she remains encased in her nobility, mainly suffering un- justly so that Alexander may save her. Philip, on the other hand, vacil- lates between fierceness and degeneracy. At one moment he is the king who fights and conquers many lands (214-217, 454), at the next moment a man who cannot defeat Pausanias and, moreover, is wounded as he turns his back to flee the battlefield (925-935); first a jovial, under- standing husband, then the Speechless man who, for no stated reason, puts aside Olympias (821 ff. ). He acts in whatever manner is appropri- ate to Show off Alexander at a particular time. One could suggest that Philip's wavering attitude toward Alexander, and, secondarily, Olym- pias, is the poet's attempt to make him the somewhat believable husband: a man who, in Spite of his real feelings, while "proof" is at hand ac- cepts the will Of the gods with equanimity and then, as time passes, forgets the dreams and marvelous apparitions to reject Alexander as his heir and Olympias as his queen. Yet the attention is so clearly on Alexander in all these later sceneS--as with divine help he restores his mother (825-880) or by his own prowess defeats Pausanias (940-969)-- and Philip changes so quickly into the precisely apprOpriate position that we must see Philip as acting SO that Alexander may react. The poet's most severe problems, however, lie in narrative plausability. Unlike Kyng Alisaunder no attempt is made in this poem to Straighten out certain contradictions in the story. This poet allows Par- menion to be hanged for treason and later appear alive and faithful. When Alexander arrives at the land of the Brahmins he cannot personally "' ‘1 I la 165 visit Dindimus because the river is uncrossable; yet, rather quickly, a bridge is constructed capable of carrying a messenger back and forth with the correSpondence. No eXplanations are offered for Alexander's not going himself and it is, of course, not in line with the character of Alexander to assume that the danger of crossing deters the king. More probable is the fact that the poet wishes to give an explanation for re- 1 taining the traditional exchange of letters rather than presenting a face- tO-face confrontation. The poet is also hampered by the fact that some of Alexander's arguments against Dindimus are based on the isolation of the Brahmins from the rest of the world. Alexander's parting words re- emphasize that fact: if he could reach their land he would teach the Brahmins to be great knights (4695-4706). In one episode (5159-5210) the poet seems caught between the requirements of his narrative and his continuing desire to stress Alex- ander's control over every situation. When Candoile ventures into Alex- ander's camp to gain assistance in recovering his wife, he first meets Ptolemy. Ptolemy then reports to Alexander. The king conceives the plan of having Ptolemy impersonate him and gives his peer detailed in- structions on the proper way to act. The poet directs his attention to the cunning of Alexander and seems most interested in Alexander's ef- forts to teach Ptolemy the appropriate behavior for a king and overcome Ptolemy's reticence in treating Alexander as a subordinate. When Alex- ander and Ptolemy, who have not been properly attired, carry out the impersonation, Candoile evidently does not find it strange that "Alexan- der" failed to identify himself at their first meeting. In his concentra- tion on Alexander the poet never thinks Of Simply substituting another peer for Ptolemy during the impersonation scene. Kyng Alisaunder 166 handles the Situation more successfully by clearly explaining Alexan- der's policy of sifting all visitors through a deputy. This Candulek in that poem does not by chance encounter the impersonator before that peer takes on the role of Alexander. While no narrative improbabilities result, the poet's attempt to keep Alexander in the forefront and keep the story moving weakens the effectiveness of certain other episodes. The battles, as noted, are normally brief and somewhat monotonous. Alexander's invincibility makes his easy conquest of the most marvelous and ferocious beasts not only monotonous but almost ridiculous, even within the conventions of the romance. Because the wisdom of Alexander is to be accentuated, there is no extended debate among the peers over what Should be done with the traitor knight. The Athens episode is similarly condensed, but the poet effectively builds to and from this confrontation by having Alexander overtly compare Athens to Tyre and Thebes (2319-2448) and, later, by having the knights of Lacedemonia contrast themselves to the cowards of Athens (2444-48). Although accumulation, as seen in the use of the Athens epi- sode, may be an effective device, it may also by monotonous, particular- ly when indicative Of an inability or unwillingness to break from a pat- tern. The over-abundance of letters in the poem provides a good ex- ample. The correSpondence between Darius and Alexander, central to the motif of Fortune and pride and appropriate to the philOSOphical Alex- ander, is handled well. The letters not only develOp, in a logical pro- gression, the philOSOphical and moral principles of the two kings, but the exchange is broken up by other incidents; further, the letters are kept to a reasonable length. In contrast, the extremely long letters of 167 Dindimus, in which he Often makes the same point several times, dem- onstrate the willingness of the poet to sacrifice not only narrative movement but the heroic character Of Alexander--who becomes merely petulant--to ideas which are congenial to his Christian bias. Perhaps even this correSpondence would be acceptable to the reader if he were not inundated with letters by that point. Rather than T} sacrifice the sage words of Alexander to indirect reporting, the poet gives in full the king's letters to everyone; and their replies are gen- erally also recorded. Likewise we are presented with Darius' re- ‘F%v—-mri _ v .i quests for aid and supplies, Often with the negative answers Of his allies. Admittedly a certain ironic parallelism is worked out at times through the correspondences. Darius begs for assistance from Porus and receives a"Northumberland" excuse (2799-2819). Early in the poem, before Alexander has gained much notoriety, Jaudas denies his requests (1170-88), but later his commands are seemingly fulfilled; at least he receives no negative reply (2755-70). But most of the time Alexander Simply does not have to request reinforcements. In an- other instance the Queen of the Amazons, in her letter, convinces Alex- ander not to attack by explaining that his defeat of women would do nothing for his glory while their victory would mean ignominy for Alex- ander (3754-57). This is precisely the argument, with adjustments befitting the sender, that Alexander had used earlier with Darius (1880- 85). Nonetheless, these relatively successful parallelisms are swal- lowed up by the endless succession of reiterative letters which vary only in the names of the writers. The poet thus allows himself to be overly constrained, at one point or another, by his poetic form, a particular narrative method, 168 his concept of Alexander, or his Christian bias. His greatest weak- nes s is his tendency to use one device, to make one point, not wisely but too well. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER III lSkeat, The Wars Of Alexander, p. xxiii; Oakden, II, 95; J. R. Hulbert, "The West Midland of the Romances," Modern Philol- og , XIX (1921), 16. Hereafter the poem will be referred to as Wars. 2William Matthews, The Tragedy of Arthur (Berkeley, 1960), pp. 38-67. S. 0. Andrew, "The Wars ofllemnder and The Destruction Of Troy," RES, V (1929), 270. 3The passus range in length from 119 to 335 lines. 4See also 1455-56, 1718-19, 2317-18, 3465-66. 5Andrew, p. 271; Skeat, Wars, p. xxi; Ralph w. v. Elliott, "Landscape and Rhetoric in Middle Engllsh Alliterative Poetry, " Melbourne Critical Review, NO. 4 (1961), 75; Kane, p. 59. The rest OfKane's discussion of the three poems is difficult; to follow. He believes Wars to be the least successful because of its subject mat- ter--a problematical distinction at best Since Alexander A and Alex- ander B cover material, with certain expansions, also treated in Wars. Moreover, his convoluted prose makes it almost impossible to tell to which poem (or poems) he is referring when he praises the "moderation" in style and the avoidance of "embroidery and elabora- tion," p. 60. 6Oakden, II, 29. 7See below, pp. 123-133. 8Oakden, II, 29. 9Oakden, II, 31, states that Alexander is sometimes a human person, "capable Of mercy and pity." But these qualities are not stressed and when they do appear they are heightened and made appropriate to the superman. 105ee below, pp. 158-159, 160. 11Albert C. Baugh presents a similar, but more detailed outline for the battles of King Horn, Havelok, Beves of Hampton, Guy of Warwick, Richard the Lion-Heartmd'Athelston in "Improvisa- tion in the Middle English Romance,“ Procemthe American Philosophical Society, C111 (1959). 440-453. The pattern, however, is quite different since these are individual combats between clearly medieval knights. ”See below, pp. 98-100. 169 170 131 have not included citations of line numbers from the poem Since this becomes impossibly unwieldy for, in particular, the extended and interrupted battles with Darius and Porus. l4In Wars the brevity of this episode precludes its consid- eration as a "major" battle. I have included it here, however, for the sake of parallel. 15This early demand for tribute really belongs to no par- ticular battle; it is therefore kept separate here. 16The count here includes 42 lines of catalogue of the con- quered peOple in Kyng Alisaunder and 15 lines in Wars. 17See below, pp. 123-133. 18This battle is by no means the most complex of those in Kyng Alisaunder. 19Aspects of the Novel, (New York, 1927), pp. 67-68. 2OSes below, pp. 128-130. 21Line numbers followed by an asterisk follow Skeat's con- vention of marking lines interpolated from the Dublin manuscript. 22See, for example, 2293-96, 2485-86. 23see also pp. 122-123. 24For example, 635-636. 25"Rifte" is an Obvious error; the word Should be "riste" or "reste. " 261748-51, 1935, 2690, 2775. 273457. 28568 also 3245-56. 29566 also 1838, 2415, 2463, 2721, 2756. 3OSee also 3375-77, 4212, 4570. 3lsee also 3762, 4690. 3ZAlthough Alexander gratefully receives Philip's dying acknowledgement of him as his son (960-975), nothing is ever made of a possible conflict in Alexander over his illegitimate birth. 171 33For a discussion of the mutation of the Alexander-Dindi- mus debate see George Cary, "A Note on the Mediaeval History Of the Collatio Alexandri cum Dindimo, " Classica et Mediaevalia, XV (1954), 124-129. 34Oakden, 1.154-155. 35Heinrich Steffens, "Versbau und Sprache des Mitteleng- lishchen Stabreimenden Gedichtes 'The Wars Of Alexander', " Bonner BEitrage Zur Anglistic, Heft IX (1901), 1-104. 36"Strophische Gliederung in der Mittelenglischen Rein Alliterierenden Dichtung, " Engl_ische Studien, XVI (1892), 169-180. 37 Duggan, pp. 58-64. 38Passus 4-8, 11-13, 15-18, 24-26. It is worth noting, how- ever, that even those passus which are not multiples of 24 all miss it by no mo re than two lines. 39"StrOphic Division in Middle English Alliterative Verse, " Englische Studien, LXVI (1932), 248. 40.1. R. Hulbert, "Quatrains in Middle English Alliterative Poems, " Modern Philology, XLVIII (1950), 76-77. 41 Nothing, other than the traditional form of the Middle Eng- lish alliterative line which tends to be a single unit and end- stopped, prevents a combination such as 1 1/2-2 1/2. In fact, late in the poem, the poet works with this type of division. 42 These have not been selected completely at random. Pas- sus l and 2 and 25 and 26 are Obvious choices, since they begin and end the poem. (Passus 27 is easily eliminated by its incompleteness). The choices of Passus 10 and 17, however, was first prompted by the desire to select two passus which were spread across the middle of the poem. I excluded 8, 19, 20, and 21 because they were entirely letters, 6 and 9 because of their extreme length, 16 because of its brevity and 14 because of its great concentration on description (also a factor in rejecting 16). I therefore decided to count inward from the beginning and end Of the poem, an equal number in each direction. On the basis of those ruled out, I was forced to count in either 10 or 12 passus from either direc- tion. (To select a higher number would nullify the desire to span the mid-section of the poem). Since Passus 15 is not representative of the mid-portion of the poem, but rather reverts to the opening form, I opted for a count of 10, thus selecting Pas sus 10 and 17. 43 The subtraction is not incorrect here. This passage con- tains an interpolated line from the Dublin manuscript which is not re- flected in Skeat's numbering of the lines. 4“'The episode break comes in the middle of the line. 172 45The catalogue is simply a series of names; thus no line division is evident. 46This form of abbreviation is to be read as: Passus l, "Smaller Unit," (11). 47p 1.3, P 1.4, P 1.5, P 1.12, P 2.2. 48p 10.5 (2 instances), P 10.7 (2 instances), P 10.9, P 10.13, P 10.14 (2 instances),P 10.15 (3 instances), P 10.16, P 17.2, P 17. 3 (2 instances), P 17.4 (2 instances), P 17. 5 (3 instances), P 17.7, P 17. 8 (2 instances), P17. 10, P 17.11, P 17.12, P 17.16. 49p 10.4, P 10.15, P 10.17, P 10.19, P 17.9, P 17.16. 50P 10.4, P 10.6, P 10.10, P 17.2. 51P 10.4, P 10.19. P 17.1. 52Seven: P 17. 2; eight: P 10.17. 53For example, Passus 1, 210—213; Passus 2, 214-217; Passus 5, 1117-20. 54Although Skeat, Wars, p. 288, and Duggan, p. 300, both point out the difficulty of l. 125, Duggan agrees with Skeat that the line is meant to suggest the poet's contempt. CHAPTER IV ALEXANDER A AND ALEXANDER B The two other Middle English alliterative Alexander poems-- Alexander A and Alexander B1--have attracted more attention as his- torical documents than as literature. A number of factors have contri- buted to this justifiable Specialization. Believed to have been composed E between 1340 and 1370 in or near Gloucestershire, 2 Alexander A and Alexander B stand very near the beginning of the alliterative revival. Magoun's edition of the poems was thus prompted not by literary con- cerns3 but by the interest expressed in Skeat's comment on Alexander _A_: "It may fairly claim to be the Oldest existing Specimen Of English alliterative verse, unmixed with rime, and of the usual type, Since the Conquest."4 It is not surprising, then, that Oakden devotes a good deal of attention to these fragments, pointing out the Simplicity of the alliterative patterns employed and emphasizing elements of continuity with the Old English tradition, while also stressing its differences from V233, a poem written near the end of the alliterative movement. 5 CorreSpondence in date and provenance, certain Similarities in style and vocabulary, and, naturally, the fact that both fragments deal with the Alexander legend have occasioned an understandable free- for-all on the question of common authorship. Although the argument has probably not been settled, Magoun's position, while based on the always less-than-conclusive criteria of style and language, seems 173 174 most sound and offers something of a compromise: . . . in diction . . . style . . . and in allitera- tive practice, the technique diSplayed in the two poems seems incompatible with a single author. . . . While it is entirely possible that we have to do with two separate and distinct poems, com- posed independently by poets unaware of one an- other's undertaking, an alternate theory of com- position may by proposed, namely, that Alexan- n der B is part of a continuation of the no longer '8 extant poem of which Alexander A is the be gin- ning. Such a continuator woufdarcourse be more or less intimate with the work of his prede- cessor and in reading over his predecessor's work would have caught from him such turns of phrase as might be illustrated by the above- mentioned recurring words and lines. 1 One might suggest, however, that the author of Alexander A might very well be the "continuator. " Alexander A deals with the tra- ditional episodes of Alexander's conception, birth, and early life, break- ing off just before he reaches adulthood. But almost half of the frag- ment treats Alexander's ancestors, in particular the conquests of King Philip. This historical material, based on Paulus Ororosius' Histori- 7 arum aduersum Paganos, is an exceptional inclusion in the English Alexander romance. The Alexander-Dindimus debate, the focal point of Alexander B, on the other hand, appears at length in both Wars and the Prose Life and is known to have circulated as an independent epi- sode. 8 Moreover, the means by which the Alexander B fragment has been preserved testifies to the widespread popularity Of this episode and the belief, at least on the part of one scribe, that the Alexander- Dindirnus correspondence formed an essential part of the romance. The English scribe, who was c0pying the French Li Romans d'Alexandre by Lambert Li Tors and Alixandre de Bernay, inserted a note in the midst of his text explaining that a "prossesse" or episode was missing from 175 the French and was to be found "at be end of bis bok ywrete in engelyche ryme."9 It thus (seems equally probable, if not more so, that the A: poet was expanding a romance of which Alexander B is a part. That the i—poet is less adept in handling the alliterative line10 of course proves nothing. What tends to justify scholarly concentration on historical aspects such as these, to the exclusion of more literary considerations, is the incompleteness of the poems. The fragments are relatively long, as fragments go--1247 lines to Alexander A and 1139 lines to Alexan- der B--although Alexander A is often interrupted by missing lines; yet the fragments present only small portions of the legend. The content Of Alexander A has already been noted. Alexander B deals primarily with the Alexander-Dindilnus debate but also includes Alexander's meeting with the GymnOSOphists and a brief description of the marvel- ous trees which grow during the day and disappear at night. It is therefore hardly possible to pass judgment on the poets' overall plans or structures. Nonetheless, the poems have some interesting features, and some Observations of a literary nature are relevant in light of comments made by Oakden, Skeat, and Magoun. Alexander A opens with a ten-line Prologue in which the poet Specifies the controlling elements in his treatment of the Alexander le- gend. His purpose is not to entertain, but to instruct; the "deedes" (9) of Alexander are to serve as a model for "lordes and oober, / Beurnes or bachelers" (1-2). But the Christian moralism which permeates the didacticism of Kyng Alisaunder and, to a lesser extent, Wars is not primary in Alexander A. The system of values basic to the didacticism of this poet is the more primitive Germanic heroic code. Alexander's m...- an” .- baa-sus- 176 life will provide "ensaumples" (8) for those who wish to live "wightly" (3), gain "loose in hur lifetime" (4), and prove themselves in "deedes Of armes" (5). Alexander stands as the norm for such men since he is one of the "boldest beurn . . . That ever steede bestrode or sterne was holden" (9-10). The fundamental morality of Alexander A, then, is that which underlies Beowulf, "The Wanderer," and "The Seafarer. " At i one point the poet links the heroic morality to the Christian (40-44), '.' i but this connection receives no further mention. 1 Since the poem breaks off before we see many of the brave l w..- L, “'1 deeds of Alexander himself, we can hardly tell if the poet will carry his poem through in this mode. But the heroic frame of reference outlined in the Prologue does partially eXplain, if not justify, certain troubling aspects of the poem, particularly the characterization of Philip. A full discussion of this point requires prior consideration of a few other matters. The inclusion of what at least purports to be historical back- ground material, that is, certain Of the deeds of the hero's ancestors, is a time-honored convention. Whether it is included to supply a prop- er context or contrast for the hero himself, add the element of veracity or seriousness, or simply provide an appropriate introduction or build- up for the appearance of the hero depends on the individual work; but such material can be found in the epic--Beowulf, for example--in pseudo-history such as Layamon's 31112, and the romance--Wolfram's Parzival. Skeat has suggested that in introducing the material from OrosiuS' Historiarum aduersum Paganos the poet was engaging in the last of these--providing the proper introduction or buildup for the great hero--and there seems no conclusive reason to Object to his judgment. 177 The poet, however, may have intended more. The use of historical material, however modified to conform to the heroic mode, tends to historicize or deromanticize Alexander. It seems possible that such was also the poet's intention: to treat Alex- ander not SO much as a romantic character, as a great historical fig- ure.12 Even when he has turned from Orosius to the traditional legend- ary mate rial, the poet states, in the manner Of the historian, that he wishes he could give Neptanabus' geneology (456-458). Such a view coincides with the poet's tendency to "demarvelize" as much as he can, even though the rationalization of miraculous events Often characterizes medieval English romancers. The poet carefully points out that Olym- pias' first dream of Amon is not really a dream; Amon/Neptanabus is really present although Olympias, asleep, believes she has dreamed it (715-729). Neptanabus seems only to be arrayed as Amon (710), not really transformed into the god, when he visits Olympias on this occa- sion. On the other hand, marvels enough exist. Neptanabus, by his necromancy (981), does appear to actually transform himself into a dragon on several occasions (780 ff. , 681 ff. , 980 ff. ), although the poet uses the ambiguous "deraide" (883) and "attires" (981) for two Of these, and the latter term is not required by the alliteration. Not quite in the same category, but also of interest, is the poet's attempt to keep Olympias somewhat believable, that is, not overly blind, naive, or prescient. The poet adds an explanation for Olympias' fear concerning Philip's future actions toward her (656-674). Neptanabus explains to Olympias that the dragon will appear only in a dream (765) and then will Show himself as a man. She should, moreover, not be surprised that the transformed dragon will look very much like Neptanabus 178 (766-767). The poet, through these events and explanations, insures that the audience knows that Neptanabus is Alexander's father; he does not leave that point to be finally clarified only in a revelation scene be- tween Alexander and Neptanabus at the time of Neptanabus' death, as does his source.13 Actually it appears that Alexander knows of his parentage some time before Neptanabus' death Since the topic never comes up when Alexander kills Neptanabus (1072-94). If the poet added the material from Orosius only to provide a properintroduction for Alexander, his source is hardly compatible with F31... _ his estimation of Alexander. Orosius unequivocally condemns not only Alexander's progenitors, especially Philip, but Alexander himself: "Quibus diebus etiam Alexander Magnus, uere ille gurges miseriarum atque atrocissimus turbo totius Orientis, est natus. "14 If, on the other hand, the poet wishes to add historical veracity, as seems possible, or set up a contrast between Philip and Alexander, his use of Orosius as a basis for Philip's adventures and character poses no real problems. The fragmentary nature of Alexander A precludes a definitive judgment on the possibility that such a contrast is being developed. We can note, however, that the poem breaks off shortly after Alexander has asked to be allowed to prove himself as a "prince in pres" (1198) and while Philip is besieging Byzantium with little success. It may be that Alexander will secure the victory, thereby providing a contrast with the impotent Philip, at least on this point. Also, if the poet continued to follow the traditional story, Alexander would be reconquering many of those lands and cities subdued by Philip in the Orosius interpolations. The more respectable methods and motivations of Alexander, again as given even in the traditional legend, would supply, in places, a contrast to Philip's 179 underhanded approach. The A_-poet does not accept 3235.189 the unflattering picture of Philip painted by Orosius. He both softens and increases the condem- nation. This would suggest a certain inconsistency; yet the basis upon which the changes are made remains consistent. The poet develops motivation, only generally given in Orosius, in accord with the heroic mold and then judges Philip by the implicit standards of the heroic code. Moreover, the alterations or additions made by the poet in matters not directly related to Philip are, with a few exceptions, the results of an attempt to bring them into line with the heroic framework set up in the Prologue. Support for these statements can only be Offered through a detailed comparison of Orosius and Alexander A. I must, therefore, deviate from my previously stated principle of not engaging in source studies. More than one factor has influenced the decision. First, Orosius, clearly the source used by the poet, is readily available and, more irnportantly, the content of the Historiarum aduersum Paganos does not differ very appreciably from MS to MS as does the other source of Alexander A--the IZ version of the Historia de Preliis. Secondly, Magoun's discussion of the poet's handling of Orosius does not do justice to the changes effected by the poet. Magoun points out, correctly, that the major departures from Orosius are the account of Philip's accession to the throne (56-99) and the two extremely conventional and colorless battle descriptions during the attack on Methone (256-275, 287-310), 15 although one should also include the description of Olympias (178-199) which Magoun treats only in a brief note. 16 Magoun generally denigrates these additions as the fumbling 180 attempts of a school-book rhetorician and poet Of inexplicable motives. 17 Such a judgment may be warranted for the description of Olympias. It carefully follows the prescribed head-to-toe pattern and includes, be- sides the repetitious, vague assertions that she is "well-shaped," such traditional details as hair like "gold-wire" (180), grey eys, and white Skin. But the description is not a completely superfluous inclusion. It sets the stage for Philip's decision to have this woman, however he must get her (209), even though one must admit that the portrait is diS- prOportionately long in comparison to the lines devoted to Philip's at- traction and consequent love (201-202). The poem, at this point, is rather a pastiche of the courtly and the heroic. While the two battle descriptions may also have been included for the sake of convention, they do seem functional within the heroic framework which controls the poem. Finally, the account Of Philip's accession to the throne, which Magoun attributes to the poet's desire to reintroduce, at all costs, Epaminondas, the Theban king, 18 befits a poem in the heroic mode. Not only is a struggle for the throne more interesting than the peaceful accession briefly described in Orosius, 19 it enables the poet to introduce two brief battle scenes (84-86, 94-97). This episode also prepares the way for Philip's desire to amass an army once he has become king (133-139); it was his lack of trOOps which forced him to Seek the aid of Epaminondas. The fact that Philip turns to Epaminondas rather than someone else indicates that the poet has some sense of narrative continuity. Epaminondas had raised Philip in his court (45-53), quite in line with medieval, and earlier, prac- tice. Philip later reciprocates the assistance given him by the Thebans when he leads them to victory against the Lacedemonians and 181 Phocians (400-451). The poet here, keeping in mind the basis of the re- lationship between Philip and the Thebans (329-332), omits Orosius' sug- gestion that Philip has fostered this diSpute to gain power. 20 He further removes Orosius' condemnation of the Thebans: that their unrestrained despotism ("immoderate Thebanorurn dominatio”)21 lay behind the enor- mous fines levied against the Phocians and Lacedemonians (351-377). Unfortunately, then, when Philip turns his forces against the Thebans, venting on them the anger engendered by his inability to defeat the Athenians (910-938), Philip seems particularly despicable. The poet's tone and language suggest that he accepts Philip's actions as an expres- sion of the inexplicable but normal wrath of kings. 22 He simbly follows Orosius at this point, omitting only the historian's direct reference to Philip's razing of Theban temples. 23 At least he does not worsen the Situation by mentioning Philip's early years in the Theban court. Magoun implies that these three additions are the only truly noteworthy changes made by the _A_-poet: Besides those already discussed, there are . . . a number of passages in which one may readily de- tect minor elaborations and occasional rearrange- ments of Orosian material. These are d'scussed paSSim in the notes to the English text. Since Magoun fails to mention many of the elaborations and alterations actually made by the poet, it seems desirable to note them, not so much to Show that the poet is "original" (a virtue quite foreign to the medieval mind), as to point out that his changes generally conform to the approach he has outlined in the Prologue. Many of the A-poet's adaptations of the Historiarum aduer- sum Paganos are designed to fit Philip into the heroic mold. Philip, under the tutelage of Epaminondas, a "full hardy" king (52), grows 182 "full weele and wyght of his deede, / For to abyde any beurn in battle or eles” (54-55). Orosius states only that Philip was educated (”eru- ditus est") by Epaminondas, "strenuissimum imperatorem et summum philosophulrn"25 When Philip gains the throne Of Macedonia, he begins waging war, not as in Orosius out of political necessity, 26 but because "swibe hardie is hee happes too fonde" (107); he wishes "too fonden his myght" (108). Once Philip has won a number of victories, the_A_-poet adds a summary (155-170) enumerating the cities conquered and elabora- ting upon Orosius' statement that Philip had formed an unsurpassable army. 27 The poet concludes the summary in particularly heroic terms: Philip for his ferse folke in fale Ober landes Doughtye men douten, for dreedfull he seemes. By every koste bat hee com kid was his might, For, when he medled him moste, be maistrie hee had. (167-170) Philip thus quickly gains the reputation for might and fierce- ness in battle. 28 The desire to maintain that esteem motivates some later actions: . . . lysten to more How Philip chases as cheefe chaunces to fonde, To bee adouted as deth in diverse londes. (245-247) This is the stated reason for Philip's attack on Comothonham (Methone), an attack not given any specific motivation in Orosius. 2'9 In this way the A-poet adapts Orosius, in these early section, to develOp Philip in heroic terms as he sets out to conquer not so much for the sake of pow- er as to prove his might and gain recognition as a warrior. 30 From one point of view, such a man would by nature fight everyone, friend and foe alike. His attack on Erubel, the father of Olympias, after an alliance has been made (215-244) could be explained in this way. Un- fortunately, the poet does not follow this possible line of reasoning. 183 Instead he relies on Orosius and condemns Philip for betraying the trust of Erubel (223) by "unfaithfully" seizing his father-in-law's castles and country (239). 31 The standards of the heroic code, coupled with the facts as given by Orosius, censure Philip. Actually, the A-poet makes Philip look worse. In Orosius, Erubel agrees to the alliance, based on the marriage of Olympias and Philip, in order to extend his 1.32 own empire: ". . . imperium sumn Se dilataturunl putaret. . . In Alexander A Erubel, knowing he cannot deny Philip, desires only to have Philip's help when he is in need and through and alliance with the mighty Macedonian king, discourage others from troubling the peace of his reign (216-222). In the long expansion of the battle of Methone ( 255 ff.) the poet introduces the traditional motif Of vengeance. As Magoun notes, 33 the poet stresses Philip's wrath over the loss of his eye, while Oro- sius mentions the wound only in passing. 34 But Magoun does not point out that the poet uses Philip's anger, and concommitant desire for revenge, to unify the episode. Philip is losing the battle when he is wounded (274-276); it is his implacable wrath which drives him to embolden his troops (281-290) and gain the victory. The poet attempts to carry through Philip's loss of an eye as his motivation for coming to the aid of the Thebans in their battle with the Lacedemonians and Phocians, but does not succeed. When Philip has defeated the enemies of the Thebans, the poet states that Lorde Of Lacedemoine was be lud banne, And Phocus by fin strokes freelich hee walte, And hathe all Grece at his graunte for his grete yie. (449-451) The poet, however, has failed to imply at any point in his account of this conflict (329-451) that Philip agrees to take the leadership of the Theban 184 forces and join the war because he is still angry over the injury. In fact, when Philip agrees to aid the Thebans (409) no reason is given for his action. Furthermore, the episode, as introduced, (329 ff.) seems totally unconnected with the battle of Comothonham, particular- ly since it does not immediately follow upon that battle but is preceded by an 18-line general description Of Philip's successes. The poet's treatment of the internecine warfare of the The- bans, Phocians, and Lacedemonians considerably expands, with heroic elements, the Orosian material. Alexander A develOps Orosius' sub- 35 ordinate statement recounting the Thebans' initial victory into a full- fledged fattle (339-352), a description at least as "lively"36 as those in the siege of Methone. The poet also ennobles the Lacedemonians and Phocians by developing, perhaps too extensively (365-386 passirn), the motivation behind Orosius' statement that because of the imposition Of exorbitant fines they were forced to take refuge in arms:37 For they kende be case and kneew eche one, But thei prestly payde that precious summe, bei Sholde leesen hur life bei bem lothe thought. As goode thought hem go till they grounde sought, To meete with hur fomen and manlich deie, AS bee cowardly killd for cateles want. (367 ff.) The victory of the Phocians and Lacedemonians is explained by the poet in the same terms: bei rought lite of hur life and laiden on hard. For fere ne fantasie faile they nolde, bei were SO hardie too harm, happes to fonde, tat bei bat stint at hur stroke stirred no more. (383-386) AS previously noted, the A-poet does not follow Orosius in mentioning Philip's trickery ("dolus")38 in fomenting disputes such as those between the Thebans, Phocians, and Lacedemonians. This is consistently the approach of Alexander A. When Philip conquers 185 Cappadocia, he accomplishes it through battle, and a difficult one at that (939-953). Orosius explains the victory in a different way: Post haec in Cappodociam transiit ibique bellurn pari perfidia gessit, captos per dolum finitimos reges interfecit totamque Cappadociam imperio Macedonia subdidit. 39 Perhaps the poet merely wishes to Simplify the episode, but it is rele- vant that trickery and wiliness are generally not admired in heroic poetry. The poet may not condone Philip's actions, particularly against the Thebans, but he does not debase him as thoroughly as Oro- sius. He reintroduces the acceptable, if not admirable, heroic quali- ties of wrath and desire for revenge to explain Philip's attack on Thebes (905-914). 40 He omits Orosius' mention of Philip's murder of his brothers. 41 The controlling force behind this omission is probably sim- plicity of narration; but is also seems possible that the poet is simply interested only in what Philip, a warrior-king, accomplishes by feats of arms. The effect Of this omission, however, is to elevate Philip from the baseness of the Orosian portrait. Finally, Philip attacks Byzantium not because, as Orosius states, he needs its wealth to carry on his looting Of other cities and intends to use the city as a base of Operations for piracy. 4‘2 Instead, the Philip of Alexander A wants that "holde" For too keepe in that kith cumlich and riche All his tresour ytryed; for, in tresoun or gyle, That none robbed be rink of be riche thynges. (1230-32) The A-poet has Obviously taken his cue from Orosius in working with the idea of treasure, but Philip's motives are altered for the better. The desire to amass wealth, as previously noted, 43 is a vice in the 186 medieval romance and earlier epic heroes are likewise never seen grubbing for riches. AS a poet writing in the heroic mode, the author seems will- ing enough to adapt Orosius' treatment of Philip to fit that mold, in the process masking or removing most of Orosius' condemnations of the king. Yet, in the final analysis, the good effects he achieves through the heroic framework are diminished by the inconsistency that frame- work causes in the portrait of Philip. Viewing himself as something of a historian, the poet feels compelled to include certain facts presented by OrosiuS--namely the betrayal of Erubel and the Thebans. But these actions, Since they are treated in heroic terms and implicitly judged against the heroic standard already set up, force the poet to condemn Philip--who is in all other situations the conventional fierce warrior possessing the conventional admirable qualities--according to the same standard. The poet's handling of the legendary material--the introduc- tion of Neptanabus, Alexander's conception, birth, and early years--is generally unremarkable; however, he demonstrates noticable skill in weaving the historical material from Orosius into the legendary materi- al, eSpecially when he blends the flying dragon who assists Philip in battle with the historical battle against the Phocians and Lacedemoni- ans (875-899). Oakden quite rightly states that the poet proceeds rap- idly, introducing no digressions. 4‘4 The heroic element generally fades into the background after Neptanabus' speech to his Warden (487-523). Alexander's academic rather than soldierly achievements receive em- phasis in the brief account of his education (1146-51), and he rides Bu- cephalus not because he is fearless but because the horse becomes as 187 meek as a lamb or faithful dog in Alexander's presence (1177-81). The comparison of Bucephalus to a gentle god, incidentally, is the only dis- tinctive use Of figurative language in the fragment. It would appear, however, that the heroic will be revived; Alexander, Shortly before the poem breaks off, asks for the Opportunity to prove himself in battle. One element stands out in Neptanabus' death scene (1072-94). The poet considerably expands and changes the emphasis of the Latin source as printed by Magoun. 45 The poem seemingly subtracts all dis- cussion of Alexander's parentage from the scene, 46 thus allowing the emphasis to fall on Alexander's long condemnation Of Neptanabus for seeking to know things not proper to man. In the light of other ver- sions, it is possible that the poet is preparing, ironically, for Alexan- der's own attempt to challenge God and for his consequent death. Oakden, in his study of the alliterative line in Middle Eng- lish, and Magoun, in his edition of Alexander A and Alexander B, Ob- serve that both of these poems are particularly Simple in the allitera- tive patterns they employ: an overwhelming number of lines follow the aa/ax form. 47 They also note that the two poets often violate the natu- ral stress for the sake of alliteration, permitting the alliteration to fall on an unstressed word or syllable. 48 The latter fact is one of Oakden's bases for judging the A-poet "unpractised. "49 While one cannot quibble with Oakden's conclusions and judgment, a re-examina- tion of the material indicates that the poet has less than "considerable difficulty in writing alliterative verse"50 when handling certain ma- terial; his results are well-nigh disastrous when dealing with other material. This is not to say that his language ever achieves much more than limited colorlessness or ever escapes the extensive use of 188 tags, only that, at times, the A—poet can write metrically adequate alliterative poetry. Since Oakden gives only a few examples of the lines in which alliteration falls on normally unstressed words or syllables, 51 i. e. . prefixes, pronouns, auxiliaries, prepositions, and the second element of a compound, I print below a complete list. Those lines which occur in direct Speech are marked "8. " Some provide clearer examples than others. A number of lines could be equally explained as following the xa/ax pattern or some other (for example, 439, 576), with the un- stressed alliterating syllable not functional. Magoun prefers to ex- plain many Of the lines in this manner, 52 but it seems more probable that the poet, who follows the aa/ax pattern with such diligence, felt that these lines, which are so prevalent, would fit his favorite pattern. I have not included the quite numerous lines where extra, purely orna- mental alliteration occurs, that is, lines where a naturally unstressed word alliterates but does not carry stress. 53 23 34 52 61 63 88 107 117 124 156 312 327 355 375 396 406 407 439 446 457 469 487 508$ 5128 527 529 536 189 And Sir Philip forsoothe his frobroder hight. 54 Eurydice hue hight, unkinde of her deedes;55 Epaminondas hee hyght, full hardy to meete. 55 Men to holden of hym bat hed was of all. TO receiven his right and reigne on his londes; For hee bat reigneth in rhyght res heveth troth. And swibe hardie is hee happes to fonde. What he had SO them hollich ifenked, Or deraine it with dintes and deedes of armes. And many mightfull menne may with hym leade. And be menne of bat marche misproude were; To be holden of hym holly the raigne, That amounted more than they might paye To meete with hur fomen and manlich deie, 56 3if bei ne have none help hem to avenge. bei to holden of hym, be hye and the lowe, With bat hee wolde with hem wend in an haste, But Philip with his wight men be werre gan 3eme, Of Phocus be ferse men forthoughten hem all In no buke bat I bed when I beganne here And tolde this tydyng to be kyng soone, What hee had bat happe hollich awaited, bat is take too bee truly too 3eme. With all be might of hur maine mee too distroie; Hee wraught shippes Of wax and rain-water hentes; Hee helde hard in his bond and his art kibes. 57 Bee bihelde how be god bat heried was in Barbre 543 555 5655 573 576 605 6088 618 625 629 632 636 648 6515 6538 656 684$ 686$ 689$ 692$ 6995 709 730 751 7675 791 793 190 His berd-heire and his hedde hett he to schave; What his menskfull menne might nought fynde Hee shall hye hym againe and help you faire In mynde that mo folke myght it arede. TOO looke on Olympias be onorable queene, When hee bese tales her till had tolde soone, What thing thurlude thy thought bo bou mee bihelde? In this blisfull borde beholde men myght Was craftely conteined be course of be sonne; bat wraught was of ivory wonderly faire; be bern couth berby boldely tell Many thinges of man myght hee showe, All be burth of be bern by his art one, 57 "Maister, " saide bat menskfull, "mee likes to knowe Wil wirch by mee; for weieS mee tolde For yee ne have noght iherd holly be wrath, When Philip be ferefull forsake mee thynkes, TOO make hym maugre his menne mee for tOO take Shall busk too thy borde bed by bee too ligge "Which dereworthe dright desires mee to have?" With here on his hedde and his berd also. 57 Farre fro be paleis hee fares all alone ben was Amon ywis of worship alosed be queene tolde hym till be tales too be ende, Mich liche too mee by mark of my face. bis rink or be sonnerist romes a-morrowe And far-forthe on be daye, whan be faire burde 807 811 831 840 848$ 855$ 869$ 871$ 8735 883 884 903 929 931 958 959 9645 969$ 9708 988 9965 1005 10318 1034 10355 10505 10655 191 Danne ferd Nectanabus forthe from bat place, ban fetches hee a sea-fouls, faire of his wynges, be cast of be sonne-course was corve berin; And what it might bee too meane be menne gan hee ask. As mich amounteth to meane, as I may tell, And right to be sonnerist his raigne Shall last; a How hue conceived had be help Of hur teene, bat is wisly too witte hee will you defend Of this mirie meting well may bou lyke, Deraide as a dragoun dreedfull in fight, Hee wendes too be wer re with Philip too holde;57 bei wern ware of his comme and his waie stoppes. And all went too wo bat they with mett. Whan he fought for bem and Phocus distriede, Of hym be queene was ware and wendes with joye And romed right too be rink, received him faire. bou hast medled amis, methynk by thy chere. I had minde on my slepe by meting of sweven; A3aines mee and all men bat may thee biholde And hee holdes his hed right in hur lappe bat I was holpe by hym hem to distrie. " Philip wondred was of this work quainte Or hee may too his marche with his maine wende Of hym bat hight Alisaunder holly be birth "Master, on molde what may mee befall ? "Father, wherfore is bat- -farly too tell-- And I Shall wend thee with when be well lykes. 1095 1141 1163 1177 1181 1189 1193 192 Alisaunder annone-ryght armed in he rt, That on his bedsyde satt and bis sawe tolde: Hee layed be neck oute-along and lycked his handes But meeke was of maneres without mischance. ben was be blonk to be beurn bat hym bistint. And his blonk behelde abated of wrath, Iche had mynde in my slepe, by metyng fownde: 193 A Simple count of these lines establishes the poet's weakest area. Of the 88 lines which violate natural stress for the sake of alli- teration, 26 appear in direct Speech--either monologue or dialogue. The other 63 lines occur in description or straight narrative. Thus, while only approximately one-fifth of the poem (254 lines) is devoted to direct Speech, more than one-third of the unacceptable lines fall into this area. The most noticeably defective dialogue is that between Nep- tanabus and Olympias (675-706) where six lines violate natural stress. The poet is least practiced in rendering speech in alliterative form. Determining the poet's strongest area also presents few prob- lems. In those sections Of the poem where he has very freely expanded or originally added to Orosius the poet has, with one exception, only minor difficulties in aligning stress and alliteration. The description Of Olympias (177-199), the Comothonham episode (255-310), the battle between the Thebans, Lacedemonians, and Phocians (337-352), and, less Significantly, the poet's Prologue (1-10) are all exempt from vio- lations of natural stress. In fact, the entire episode of the war between the Lacedemonians, Phocians, and Thebans (329-392), which is a very free handling of Orosius, contains only two defective lines. The first conclusion suggested by the preceding is that the poet, when working on his own rather than attempting to follow closely a given text, manages the alliterative line with relative success. This conclusion, however, requires modification. The poet's narration Of Philip's accession to the throne of Macedonia (47-107), another addition to Orosius, contains five faulty lines. This is little better than the only comparable episode in the poem58 where he follows the 12 Historia de Preliis quite closely: Alexander's taming of Bucephalus (1138-99). 194 In fact, it is somewhat less effective than a passage which follows Oro- sius quite closely (900-953). In the 62 lines of the Bucephalus episode 6 of the lines handle the alliteration poorly. 59 Narrative is not nec- essarily his strong point. All Of this data indicates that the poet's forte is actually de- scription, but only description of a particular kind. An examination of a distinctly non-heroic description--that of Neptanabus' astrological implements (614-637)--uncovers five lines which violate stress to achieve alliteration. On the other hand, in those passages which are primarily or entirely devoted to descriptions of battle, even within the relatively unsuccessful narration of Philip's accession, no violations occur (77-86, 89-99, 255-310, 337-352). The portrait of Olympias is also free of awkward lines. The conclusion is obvious. When the poet presents conventional descriptions, where he most probably has avail- able to him a set of formulas, he has no difficulty with the metrics of the alliterative line. When handling material outside this area, that is, material in most cases outside the heroic tradition, he is forced back on his own devices and does not do as well. This also explains why his treatment Of Philip's attack on Thebes and Cappadocia (900-953), quite indebted to Orosius, is better than his treatment of Philip's accession (47-107), his ownaddition, and Alexander's taming Of Bucephalus (1138-99), which follows the Historia de Preliis. How much he owes to his source has little to do with his success; the Significant factor is that lines 900-953 deal with more conventional heroic material than the other two episodes. To generalize, then, the poet is often more adept at conjoin- ing alliteration and stress when presenting material he himself has 195 added to his sources. But he is consistently better only when he prob- ably has at hand a store of formulas, particularly for heroic descrip- tions, though also for the conventional portrait of Olympias, to fall back on. Alexander B is even less amenable to literary consideration than Alexander A. The _B_:fragment, relating events from the middle of Alexander's career, is singularly free of auctorial comment, direct or indirect, which might provide a clue to the poet's intentions. Also, con- cerning the poet's interpretation of Alexander's life, we of course have no indication of where he has been or where he is going. The poet sim- ply narrates Alexander's encounters with the Gymnosophists, the dis- appearing trees protected by flaming birds, and Dindimus, king of the Brahmins. The fragment, then, presents a series of three episodes but a well-unified, balanced narration results: the magical trees func tion as an interlude between the face-to-face debate of Alexander and the GymnOSOphistS and the epistolatory debate of Alexander and Dindi- mus. Furthermore, each of the three sections is surrounded by a few lines in which Alexander, who is accused by both his opponents of being a narrowly worldly man, is seen "riding forth" from land to land. It comes as no surprise, then, that the scribe who inserted what we now call Alexander B into the French Li Roman d'Alixandre himself viewed it as a "prossesse" of Single episode. 60 Thematic content also unifies the fragment, but not on the basis advanced by one commentator: All three episodes Of this fragment are concerned with nature. Dindimus argues for nature, Alex- ander for the active man's pleasure in change Of seasons, bright clear weather. 196 While this explanation would also take care of the magical trees and the life led by the GymnOSOphists as well as the Brahmins, it hardly fo- cusses on the thrust of the arguments presented by the representatives Of these two peOpleS. Alexander, moreover, hardy confines his re- buttals of Dindimus to lyrical revelling in the joys Of the weather, and he never mentions nature, except metaphorically, in Speaking to the GymnOSOphists. It is true that all three episodes have connections with the natural, but the natural is continually connected with or defined by the supernatural. The GymnOSOphists, Alexander, and Dindimus all take the position that their mode of life is justified by supernatural goals or injunctions. The marvelous trees are supernatural in two senses: on the one hand, they are literally supernatural in that they are beyond the natural; on the other hand--and analogous tO the arguments proffered in the other episodes--their activity is protected by a supernatural power: And Siben sent was a vois sone fro hevene, bat non trinde be tres last bei taried were. (131-132) The Gymnosophists, like the Brahmins, lead a purely natur- al life: We ben sengle Of ussilf and semen ful bare, Nouht welde we now but naked we wende; And bat we happili her haven of kynde May no man but God maken us tine. (33-36) In answer to Alexander's "cortais" (64) offer to give them whatever boon they desire, the GymnOSOphists ironically ask for eternal life up- on earth. When Alexander explains that such lies beyond his power, for he has "no lordschipe of life to lengbe. . . daies" (76) even his own, the GymnOSOphists clarify the reasons behind their mode Of life: Seg . . . syn bou so knowist bat be is demed be deb to dure nouth longe, 197 Whi farest bou so fihtinge folk to distroie, And for to winne be word wendest so romme? HOW mi3ht bou kepe be of sckabe with skile and with troube A3eins ryht to bireve rengnusof kingus? (77-82) Not only is Alexander gOing ”a3eins ryht" in conquering other nations, he is misusing his time, storing up things of this world instead of pre- paring for the next. Alexander counters in the same terms. While he would prefer to cease his conquests and return home (92-94), to do SO would "wrabede Drihten" (88) who has ordained that he be emperor of the world (85-90) and from whom he receives all that he has (84). Alexander uses a metaphor from nature to explain his condition; he is like the sea which would remain calm but is stirred by the winds (91-98). Alexander further justifies his life by arguing that it is also a "natural" one, completely in accord with the design of God. If God had made all men equal, then men could live without a ruler. But God has chosen some men to be masters over "mene peple" (108), those given less "wordlich wisdame and wittus" (102). Alexander has been "marked to be most of all obure" (109), and in fulfilling this destiny he acts only as a "servaunt hende" (100). His actions are thus endorsed, indeed commanded, by the divine plan, and his "natural life" is cor- rect when seen in terms of the supernatural. The arguments of Dindimus are, in essence, a detailed ex- pansion of those presented by the GymnoSOphistS. Alexander, on the other hand, shifts his focus. Although the basis of his defense continues to be the principle Of following God's decrees, he no longer concentrates on justifying his own actions; his defense broadens to vindicate the way of life Of the Greeks, that is, the life 0: action. On the basis of "unnaturalness" he directly attacks the life of the Brahmins, as he had 198 not done earlier with the Gymnosophists. Dindimus' arguments constantly revert to the supernatural: We bredde breburne in God, Bragmanus pore, Leden clanliche our life and libben as simple. We ne wilne in bis world to wolde no more, But as we simpleliche our life sostaine mowe. (287-290) What so we worchen in bis worlde or waken or slepe, Or in erbeliche ese eten Obur drinke For His sake bat it sente soble we worchin, To sustaine His servantis as Himsilf likus. We hOpen have be lif bat come schal heraftur, And derely wiboute deb dure schal evere. (359-364) For be he burn Obur burde bat hure bodi hihten Obirwise ban it was in bis word schape, bey gaynsain hure Saviour bat hem so made And ben aschamed of His schap and schewen hem ellus. (418-421) Sin we ben breberen of brod brouht into bis worde, Alle corven of a king bat kid is in blisse, Whi scholde any schalk bat God schop on erbe Have maistrie of men more ban anobir? (430-433) Godus worbliche Word, as we wel trowen, IS Sone sobliche Of Man bat in Himsilf dwelleb, By which molde is ymaad and man upon erbe And a1 bat weihes in bis word scholde wib fare; Al bestur berby bat lif bere mowe Ben sobliche isustained as Himsilf likus; bat ilke worbliche Word we worschipen alle, And Hit lelliche loven as our lif likus. God is Spedful in Speche and a spryt clene, Bobe blessed and blybe bat blendeb alle sorwe. He clameb nouht but clennesse and clepeb to is joie Clene-mindede men bat meke ben founde. (615-626) We do be, mankoube king, to keene and to here bat in bis wastinge word we ne wone nouht evere; For erbe is nouht our eritage bat evere schal laste, Ne we ne ben nouht ibor to abide berinne. (979-982) The natural life of the Brahmins is the only prOper one because it re- flects the will Of God, enables them to avoid Sin, and gains its ad- herents everlasting bliss as a reward for a life free from worldly concerns. The Brahmins are the Biblical lilies of the field. 199 Dindimus condemns Alexander and the Greeks on precisely this same principle, a supernatural one. Their lives, directed to- ward subduing the things Of this world, take no cognizance of the next life: For sake of 3oure Savyour 3e ne soffre no paine But liven in 3oure likinge and luburlie wirchen. 3e waken for wikkedness and wirchen but ille. (784-786) For 3e ben covaitouse kid and kunne nouht blinne, But evere wenden to winne wordliche godus, And a1 is, burnus, aboute 3our body for to fede. 62 (803-805) Although the Greeks' worship of many gods is wrong on theoretical grounds for it denies the existence of only one true God (641-642), it is still more to be condemned because it leads to the unnatural sacri- fice of living beings (540-543, 607-608) and draws the Greeks into all possible sins: As many mihtelese godus as 3e on mold serven, As fale painus in fir 3our fallus to drie; For 3our ydil idolus don 3ou ille wirche: Summe to lechorous lust 3our likinge turneb, Summe 3our strenkben to strive and straiten 3our minde, And somme eggen in ese to eten and to drinke. 63 (752-756) This "unnatural" life will result in eternal punishment: banne [after death] schulle 3e for 3our sinne soffre paine. (635) But, burnus, be 3e ful sur, bo bostful dedes, -- Wherfor 3e hold 3ou her hiest on erbe, -- Schal 3ou procre to pryde and to no profit elluS, But skabe for 3oure unskile whan 3e skapen hennus. (1017-20) Although Alexander is angered because Dindimus has attacked his gods (814-815), he answers the Brahmin ruler in Brahmin terms. It is the Brahmin's life which is "unnatural," against the decree of God: Forby us kenneb our kinde to accorde in trowbe, 200 In swiche lawus to live bat longen to Gode, For to sowe and to sette in be sad erthe And Obur wordliche werk wisly to founde. (910-913) The Brahmins, by not sowing, hunting, and generally enjoying the pos- sible gifts of the earth, are the ones who actually "gaynsain" (418) God: And 3if 3e wonde of bat won to winne 3our fode, 3e schulle be demed bat 3e don dispit to bo kindus. banne schewe 3e to hur Schappere schame for His sondus. . . . (957-9591 Indeed, the fact that they live in poverty indicates God's diSpleasure with them (960-966, 1120-21). Alexander also incorporates a more humanistic approach into his arguments. The Brahmins live unnaturally in the sense that they fare no better than beasts (858-867) and make no attempt to improve their lot (872-875). Yet, they can be "exkused" (851) Since they have no iron to make tools and thus must live a life of "wante and . . . nede" (850-857). Even this line of reasoning takes a supernatural turn. Be- cause a life of poverty is forced upon them, they Should not believe that God will praise them for it, especially since they revel in their sorrow- ful life (876-879). Similarly, their freedom from Sin, in particular lust, does not redound to their credit; their poor food makes them chaste. Since no free will is involved, their sinlessness deserves no commendation (882-895). Alexander, in stressing free will here and elsewhere (930-944), anticipates Dindimus' argument that the Brahmins have chosen the better way of life (996-1004). Alexander summarizes and forcefully sets forth his point of view as he concludes his last letter: But lawe lereb us and skile bat 3e ben lebur alle And mow for 3oure mischef no mede have; For it comeb 3ou Of kinde in care to libbe-- 201 Sin 3e wonen in bat won bere wante is of goodus-- banne, seggus, semeb hit nouht bat 3e so wirchen For sake of be same God bat Sittus in blisse. berefor to wo bat is wers wenden 3e schulle Whanne 3e parten fro bis paine bat pinncheb 3ou here. banne be 3e men upon molde most to bewepe, bat here to schame ben schape and ay schulle aftur. (1100-09) Mede mow 3e of God in no manere fonge. 3e ben unblessed of lif; for, burnus, y warne bat 3e holden so her holsome dedes Gret wante is of wo and wikkede paine, be which be heie godus haten and hure hole peple. (1123-27) Alexander's arguments reflect the parable of the talents and the Biblical injunction to go forth and subdue the earth. His defense is as super- naturally oriented as Dindimus' attack. While some Of the individual points made by Alexander and Dindimus are at times confused and self-contradictory, probably be- cause of miSplaced lines, 64 the arguments as a whole are quite cogent. The correspondence between the two men is certainly more successful as a debate than the parallel on in Wars Since they answer'each other's claims from a logical or theological point of reference. This is particu— larly true of Alexander who, in contrast to the Alexander Of Wars, does not engage in condescension, name-calling, and purely petulant out- bursts. While he employs a bit of sarcasm (828-839), so does Dindi- mus (255-286). Because the two Opponents, and their arguments, are quite evenly balanced, it seems reasonable to view at least this portion of the fragment as belonging to the debate tradition, rather than as func- tioning in a purely didactic manner. Both positions have had prOponentS. Wells states that this section of the poem is "contention literature" and that "Without doubt the original intention was to instruct. "65 Certainly, in essence, the material in the Alexander-Dindimus exchange is didac- tic, but the balanced method of presentation suggests that Skeat's 202 Opinion on the intention of the author is the more correct one: There are two leading ideas in it. The former is, the common and favourite contrast between the Ac- tive Life and the Contemplative Life, which so Of- ten meets us in mediaeval literature; and the latter, the contrast between the Christian life and that of the heathen worshippers of idols. The arguments are so managed that the bias of one counteracts that of the other . . . . The author of this ingenious ar- rangement strove rather for oratorical effect than sought to inculcate a lesson. To regard the various arguments in this light is to regard them rightly. It is merely a qbuestion of seeing what can be said on both sides. 6 With regard to metrics, Oakden finds Alexander B more accomplished than Alexander A, although on the basis of alliterative patternS--primarily the extensive use of the aa/ax type--and stress patterns he concludes that they are the work of the same author. 67 He evidently does not consider the great difference in the frequency of the aaa/ax pattern—-eighty times in Alexander A versus twenty- eight times in Alexander B--a stylistic characteristic Significant 68 enough to suggest different authorship. In technique ithlexander B]is superior to Alex- ander A. There is a greater control over the metre and less use of tags to fill out the lines; there are fewer otiose adjectives and the epithets are in general not SO vague and colourless. One finds no reason to quibble with most of Oakden's judgments, but the subject matter--logical moral or theological argument--militates against tags and ineffective adjectives, and simply produces fewer epi- thets. On the other hand, a re-examination of Alexander B shows that in terms of the violation of natural streSS--the main basis for judging Alexander A unpracticed--the poet of Alexander B fares little better. There are seventy-one instances in 1139 lines (6. 2 percent) where the poet alliterates on normally unstressed words and syllables, almost 203 exactly comparable to the eighty—eight cases in 1247 lines of Alexander A; The only possible significant difference is that while the_A_-poet seems less adept at rendering Speech (twenty-six instances in 254 lines or 10. 2 percent) than narrative (Sixty-two instances in 933 lines or 6. 2 percent), 70 the E-poet handles them about equally well: sixty- one cases in 981 lines of Speech (6. 3 percent)71 and ten cases in 158 lines Of narrative (6. 2 percent). In Alexander B, however, the lines devoted to narrative do not provide a good sample since about half are brief, quite repetitive preludes and conclusions to the debates. There is, however, a passage of some Sixty-four lines (111-174)--the epi- sode of the magical trees and Alexander's entry into the land of the Brahmins--which is uninterrupted narrative. In this passage there are some six cases of alliteration on unaccented words (9. 4 percent). 72' One might suggest, from this very scanty evidence, that the A; and _B_- poets are more adept at what they do most, respectively, narrative and Speech, although, as noted above, 73 other factors are relevant for judging the A-poet's work. Ultimately no hard and fast statements can be made about Alexander A and Alexander B. We have only small portions of what must have been an extremely long poem (or poems) upon which to judge. AS they stand, these fragments are not very remarkable as poetry. They remain of interest as minor monuments to the wide- Spread popularity of the Alexander legend in medieval England. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV 1The fragments are preserved in unique MSS of the Bodleian library; Alexander A in MS. Greaves 60 and Alexander B in MS. Bod- ley 264. Alexander B is sometimes known as Alexander and Dindimus. ZMagoun, pp. 78, 100-101; Skeat, William of Palerne, Early English Text Society, E.S. 1 (London, 1867), p. xxx; Skeat, Alexander and Dindimus, pp. xx, xxix. 3Magoun, p. vii. 4Skeat, Alexander and Dindimus, p. xxx. While it may EJ- Seem that Skeat has Forgotten Layamon'STSrut (c. 1200), his qualifica- ‘ tionS--"unmixed with rime" and "of the usual-type"--do fairly exclude that poem since it employs rhyme in places and contains a number of half-lines with three or even four stresses. Hulbert, "Quatrains," p. 81, also remarks on the Significance of the early date of composition for Alexander A and Alexander B. 5Oakden, I, 131-182 passim; 11, 24-28. 6Magoun, pp. 112-113. Skeat, in his edition of Alexander A, argued for common authorship with William of Palerne, pp. xxx-xxxiii. In his edition of Alexander and Dindimus. however, he rejected that theory in favor of common authorship For the two Alexander fragments, following M. Trautmann, Uber verfasser und entstehungszeit einiger alliterierender gedichte des Eltenglischen (Halle, 1876), pp. 3-17. Oakden, I, 248 takes the same position, while Cary, Alexander, p. 49, follows Magoun. 7Magoun, p. 18, gives evidence that Orosius was indeed the source. 8Cary, Alexander, pp. 13-14, 91-92. 9Magoun, pp. 12-13. For a further discussion of the pres- ervation Of the MS see Magoun, pp. 11-13 and Skeat, Alexander and Dindimus, pp. vii-x. 10Such is the judgment of Oakden, II, 28 and Magoun, pp. 110-111. 11Skeat, Alexander and Dindimus, p. 239. lankden, II, 24 notes the poet's historical outlook but does not develop it. 204 205 13See the I2 Historia de Preliis as printed by Magoun, p. 163. As Magoun notes, p. 116, thfiis, however, not the MS used by the poet. 14Paulus Orosius, Historiarum Adversum Paganos, ed. Carolus Zangemeister (VindoFonae, 1882), III, 7. 5. (In those days, also, Alexander the Great, truly that whirl- pool of afflictions and most cruel eddy in all the East, was born.) 15Magoun, pp. 20- 21. 16Magoun, p. 221. l7Magoun, pp. 20-21 and notes passim. .. '1 18Magoun, p. 20. 1glpso autem Alexandro scelere Eurydices matris occiso, quamuis ea iam commisso adulterio et altero primum filio interfecto filiaque viduata generi nuptias mariti morte pepigisset, conpulsus a populo regnum, quod paruo occisi fratris filio tuebatur, suscepit. Orosius, III, 12.3. (Moreover, when Alexander the brother of Philip and ruler of Macedonia before Philip himself had been killed through the wickedness of his mother Eurydice--although, after She had already committed adultery and had first killed one son and had made her daughter a widow, she had contracted marriage with her cousin on the death of her husband-- Philip, being forced to do so by the peOple, took over the kingdom which he was guarding for the son of his murdered brother. ) 2OQuarum dum insanas conuersationes Phillippus ueluti e Specula Obseruat auxiliumque semper inferioribus suggerendo conten- tiones, bellorum fomites, callidus doli artifex fouet, uictos sibi pari- ter uictoresque subiecit. Orosius, 111, 12.11. (While Philip, as from a watchtower Observed their foolish associations and always, as a skillful contriver of trickery, favored the weaker by fostering diSputes, the kindling wood of war, he subjected to himself both the conquered and the conquerors alike. ) ZIOrosius, 111, 12.12. 22See above pp. 47-48. 23. . . templa quoque uniuersa subuertit spoliauitque. . . . Orosius, 111, 12.17. 206 24Magoun, p. 21 25Orosius, III, 12.2. (. . . a most vigorous general and a very distinguished philosopher. . . ) 26Qui cum foris concursu exsurgentium undique hostium, domi autem deprehensarum saepe insidiarurn metu fatigaretur, primum bellum cum Atheniensibus gessit. Orosius, III, 12.4. the enemy arising on all Sides and at home by fear of plots which he Often detected, waged war first with the Athenians.) (He, Since he was harrassed from without by the attack of P1 27Ita Thessalis ex inprouiso praeoccupatis atque in potesta- tum redactic, iungendo equitum peditumque fortissirnas turmaS et COpi- as inuictissimum fecit exerciturn. Orosius, III, 12.7. (Thus, after taking the Thessalians by surprise and reduc- ing them under his power, he formed an invincible army by joining the strongest divisions and forces Of their cavalry and infantry. ) 28see 115-116, 201, 217, 323-324, 400-401. Z9Deinde Philippus, cum Methonam urbem oppOgnaret, ictu sagittae oculum perdidit. Orosius, III, 12.9. (Then Philip, when he was besieging the city of Methone, was struck by an arrow and lost an eye.) 30See also 939-942. 31Qui Aruba cum per hoc, quod societatem Macedonum ad- finitate regis paciscebatur, imperium suurn se dilataturum putaret, per hoc deceptus amisit priuatusque in exilio consenuit. Orosius, III, 12. 8. (This Arubas, although he thought by this action--namely, making an alliance with the Macedonians through his martial relationship with the king-~that he would extend his own empire, was deceived and failed in this, and spent his old age as a private citizen in exile.) 32Orosius, III, 12.8. 33’Magoun, p. 21. 34See n. 29 above. 35Huic autem ad Obtinendam totius Graeciae dominationem 207 immoderata Thebanorum dorninatio facultatem dedit, qui vuictos Lace- daemonios ac Phocenses, caedibus etiam rapinisque confectos, cum insuper in communi Graeciae concilio tanta pecuniae multa onerauis- sent, quantam illi soluere nullo mOdO possent, ad arma confugere coegerunt. Orosius, III, 12.12. (Moreover, the unrestrained despotism of the Thebans gave Philip the Opportunity to Obtain power over all Greece; for after conquering the Lacedaemonians and the Phoceans, who were already crushed by slaughter and rapine, in addition the Thebans, in the common council of Greece, had burdened them with such a great pecuniary fine as they were in no way able to pay, that they forced the Lacedaemonians and Phoceans to take refuge in arms.) 36Magoun, p. 21. 37See n. 35 above. 38Orosius, III, 12.11. See above, p. 205, n. 20. 39orosius, 111, 12.18. (After these accomplishments, Philip crossed over into Cappadocia and there carried on war with equal perfidy. Through trickery, he captured the neighboring kings and killed them, and brought Cappadocia under the rule of MacedOnia. ) 4OOrosius offers no clear motivation for the attack. 411nde post caedes incendia depraedationesque in sociis urbibus gestas parricidia in fratres conuertit, quos patri ex nouerca genitos cum coheredes regni uereretur, interficere adgressus est. Eum autem unum ex hic occidisset, euo in Olynthum confugerunt: quam mox Philippus hostiliter adgressus urbem antiquissimam et florentissirnam, caedibus ac sanguine repletam Opibus hominisbus- que uacuauit, abstractos etiam fratres supplico et neci dedit. Orosius, III, 12.19. (Then, after carrying on slaughters, conflagrations, and plunderings in the cities of the allies, he turned murder upon his brother whom, since he feared them as co-heirs of his kingdom (for they were born to his father from his stepmother), he attempted to kill. But when he had killed one of these, two fled to Olynthus, which Philip at once approached with hostile intent. After felling this most ancient and flourishing city with slaughter and blood, he emptied it of its resources and population; and he also carried off his brothers and gave them over to torture and death. ) 208 42Sed haec cum per alizuantas Graeciae ciuitates exerciusset et tamen omnes metu premeret, coniciens ex praeda paucorum Opes om- nium, ad perficiendam aequalem in uniuersis uastationem utili emolumen- to necessariam maritimam urbem ratus, Byzantium, nobilem ciuitate, aptissinlam iudicauit, ut receptaculurn sibi terra marique fieret, eam- que obsistentem ilico obsidione cinxit. Orosius, III, 13.1 (When he had carried on these operations in a goodly number of Greek cities and nevertheless was pressing them all with fear, estimating the wealth of all from the booty of a few and thinking that a maritime city of profitable wealth was neces- sary to carry out a similar devastation in all the cities, he judged Byzantium--that noble and endowed city--to be the most suitable base for his Operations by land and sea; and, when it resisted, he immediately surrounded it with a Siege. ) 43See above, pp. 44-45. 44Oakden states that the poet "tells the story with gusto and zest nowhere pausing to moralise," II, 25. There is, however, one very brief moralizing comment: WhOSO weldes a wrong, be worsse hym betides, For hee bat reigneth in ryght resheveth troth. (87-88) 45Magoun, p. 163. Once again it is necessary to remark that the source actually used by the poet may have differed. 4'é’There is a break in the fragment at this point, but it seems to fall at a point where such discussion would not be included. 47Oakden, I, 182; Magoun, pp. 96-97. 480akden, 1, 178, 248; II, 27; Magoun, p. 98. 490akden, II, 27. Magoun, p. 96, refuses to pass judgment. 500akden, II, 27. 510akden, I, 178-179. 52A few lines, noted in the text, are explained by Magoun, pp. 96-97, as having no connecting alliteration in the second half-line. One can agree that this is as possible as adding an extra weighted sylla- ble to the second half-line, but in either case the line is faulty. I have preferred the latter course, again on the basis of the poet's fondness for the aa/ax pattern. 53For example, 309, 410, 535. 54In all cases (8. g. 278) the poet, properly, alliterates on the "S" of "forsoothe. " 209 55The poet normally alliterates "h" only with "h"; for ex- ample, 61, 117, 119. 56Compare 97. 57Magoun, p. 97, prefers to see this line as having no allit- eration in the second half-line. 58It is comparable in the sense that it is the only single epi- sode of approximately the same length not riddled with speech or de- scription, although some speech does occur. 59Although twelve of the lines are devoted to Speech, only one of the lines which strain stress--l l93--appears in the speech section. 60See above, pp. 174-175. 61Flynn, pp. 144-145. 6ZSee also 1007-20, 1054-63. 63See also 550-567, 631-636, 645-706. 64Magoun, pp. 234-240 passim. 65John Edwin Wells, A Manual of the Writings in Middle English (New Haven, 1916-1952), p. 10?. 668keat, Alexander and Dindimus, p. xviii; cf. Oakden, II, 28. 67Oakden, I, 247-248. 68Oakden, 1, 181-182. 690akden, II, 28. 1. 701 have included passages of description as part of the 993 ines. 71"Speech" includes the letter. 72128, 133, 148, 155 (the poet always alliterates "h" with "h"; for example, 51, 863), 163. 73See above, pp. l93-l95. CHAPT ER V THE PROSE LIFE OF ALEXANDER The only major non-poetic Middle English Alexander ro- mance is The Prose Life of Alexander, sometimes referred to as the Thornton Alexander because of its unique preservation in the Thornton Manuscript, A. 5. 2. 1 Composed about 1425 in the North Of England, possibly East Yorkshire, 2 the Prose Life shares a common source with the alliterative Wars of Alexander: the 13, or possibly I33, ver- sion of the Historia de Preliis. While the Prose Life follows its Latin source quite faithfully4--a cause for criticism by some5--a num- ber of details are changed and some additions and deletions made;6 but, more importantly, the author renders his original into clear, ef- fective Middle English prose. Scholarship, of any kind, on the Prose Life is negligible. Until Marjorie Neeson's as yet unpublished critical edition of 1970, which includes a thorough study of structure and style, the work had been ignored, except for passing mention in surveys Of Middle English literature or studies of the Alexander tradition in literature. This neglect may be attributable to the fact that no complete critical edition existed before Neeson. J. S. Westlake edited the text for the EETS in 1913, but the proposed introduction and notes, in fact all apparatus, were never completed. Cary's statements summarize well the gener- al consensus of Opinion on the Prose Life and explain why no one, for 210 211 some fifty years, felt inclined to complete Westlake's work. In Cary's view, the Prose Life is "an uninteresting translation of the 13a Historia de Preliis . . . . it is close to its original, and there is little indica- 7 tion of imagination or originality on the part of the translator. " Neeson's summary, supported by intensive critical examination, 8 shows the wrong-headedness of such a judgment based, as it is, on the very non-medieval requirement of originality: The prose is simple, direct, and stamped with a masculinity in both its diction and rhythm. Though , "1' virtually unadorned, it is by no means monotonous L} or unartistic; it is rhythmical without accidentally ' " slipping into verse forms. It belongs to that long tradition of English prose depicted by R. W. Chambers in his famous essay and thus reflects the style that fashioned prose that went before it . . . . It avoids those prevalent weaknesses that mar the prose of the period, i. e. , the faults result- ing from an elementary and often hurried approach and a tendency to treat each clausal unit separately. It is a prose that is balanced and decorative without becoming precious or overworked. It is a clean clear style, sturdy and strong in character. It is a prose that is weighty enough to support the grandeur of its imperial subject, yet flexible enough to hold the reader's attention while an excellent narrative is told and an exciting yarn is spun. 9 The Thornton MS. is a miscellany, containing primarily ro- mances, short English and Latin poems which are mainly religious in 10 nature, saints' lives, moral treatises, charms, and medical remedies. The Prose Life, the first selection in the MS, seems to have been con- sidered of a kind with the other romances included--The Morte Arthure, The Romance of Octavian, The Romance of Sir Isambrace, The Ro- mance of Diocletian, Sir Degrevant, Sir Eglamour, The Awntyers of Arthur, and The Romance of Sir Percival--since these all appear at at the beginning of the MS, with only a few scribblings and five very short selections interrupting the sequence; no romances are found after 212 this group ends. Moreover, with the exception of Sir Isambrace, the romances immediately following the Prose Life all deal with major "historical" figures--Arthur, Octavian, and Diocletian. This latter grouping lends indirect scribal support to the most noticeable feature of the Prose Life; while modern scholars classify it as a romance, the author's handling of Alexander and his adventures is altogether more in the mode of biography and history. Such is not surprising. Both the history and the usage of the terms "roman" and ”romance" in the Middle Ages indicate that no great weight was consistently placed on a distinction between biographical, historical, and purely "romantic" subject matter and treatment. The opening of the Prose Life--up to the point that Alexan- der pushes Neptanabus into the ditch to kill him-~is missing. Conse- quently we have no "title" or prologue which might suggest the author's explicit intention and approach. We do, however, have the conclusion: Alexander was a man bot of a comon stature, wit a lange nekke, Faire eghne 8t glad, his chekes ruddy, and all be remenant of his lymmes ware faire 8: semely & lyke vn-till a lorde. He ouercome all men & neuer was ouercomen. The lenthe of his lyffe was xxxij 3ere, twa 8: thritty 3ere 8.: seuen monethes. Fra be twentyd 3ere of his birthe he gaffe hym to werre, and in twelue 3ere he conquered all be werlde, and made subiect un- till hym alkyn nacyonns. Seuen monethes he ristede hym. He was borne on be vij kl of January, and dyed on be vij kl of August. He byggid- also in his lyfe xij grete citee3 bat hider-to-warde3 bene enhabyt, and bis are baire names. First Alexander bat es called yprysilicas, be secund Alexander es called Bepyporum, be thrid Alexander es callede Sithia, be ferthe Alex- ander es called Bicontristi, be fifte Alexander es called Daraucton, be sext Alexander es called Bucti- phalon, be seuent es called vnder be ryuer of Tygre, be aghtend New Babiloyne, be nyend Aptreadam, be tend Messagetes, be elleuend Ypsyacon, be twelfed es called Egipt. Explicit vita Alexandry magni conquestoris. Here ende3 be lyf of gret Alexander conquerour Of all be worlde. (PP. 114_115)11 213 These concluding words have the ring of historical biography and re- mind one strongly of the Old English Chronicles. No suggestion that the Prose Life is historical and biographi- cal in approach should be taken to mean that the author has excluded romance material. He retains those elements which have come to be considered necessary parts of the romance: marvelous, exotic events and descriptions, wondrous feats and adventures, and the setting in a remote, or at least non-realistic, land. 12 In fact, the Prose Life, in content, differs in no significant way from the other two major Mid- dle English Alexander romances, Kyng Alisaunder and Wars. 13 We follow, from the point that the MS takes up, the early adventures of Alexander and his ascension to the throne of Macedonia, his several meetings with or dreams of various gods, his campaigns against Darius and Porus, his various encounters with the strange animals and peOple of the East--particularly Dindimus, leader of the Brahmins-- and finally his death by poisoning, which has been pr0phesized from the very beginning of his career. The treatment of his death includes Alexander's attempt to drown himself in the Euphrates, his last will and testament, and his Splendid burial in Alexandria by his heart-bro- ken, loyal, and now leaderless and therefore doomed followers. All that differs is the mode of handling this material. While the marvelous, miraculous, and exotic are not deleted, the focus of the work falls on recording the life of a great man; but Alexander does not become, as he does in Vials, an epic superman. He is brave, magnanimous, loyal, and wise, yet he remains just a man and is treated as such. He has been selected by Providence to accomplish great things; in that way the prophecies, dreams, visions, and omens are all relevant and functional. Zl4 Nonetheless, Alexander does not apprOpriate to himself more than the normal abilities of a great man. The author keeps his portrayal on the. realistic level and, furthermore, emphasizes one particular, practical aspect of Alexander: his great leadership and the qualities which lie behind it. Although the author of the Prose Life retains the "predestina- tion" of Alexander, both to be conqueror of the world and to die an early death, this element of the legend is somewhat de-emphasized. There are no fewer meetings with gods, no fewer omens, no fewer dreams than in Wars; but the ever-present comments of leaders and peOples in Wars, to the effect that to stand against Alexander would be foolhardy because he is destined to conquer all nations, are missing from the Prose Life. 14 Moreover, the author does not in any consistent fashion apply the theme of pride and Fortune, which forms the basis for the Darius, Porus and, to a lesser extent, Dindimus sections, to Alexan- der himself and his fated early death. The author commits himself to no moral comment on this topic, even when Alexander decides to ex- plore the sky.15 Many of the suggestions, also found in Wars, that Alexander has fallen prey to pride appear here, but no overt pattern develops. Undoubtedly a medieval audience would recognize the chal- lenge to divine prerogative offered by certain actions of Alexander, but the author allows the irony to remain latent. In fact, by differing in some details from M, the moralistic interpretation and condemna- tion of Alexander fades into the background. Such is the effect of the poet's offering no comments on Alexander's investigation of sky and sea, having Candace send presents to Amon instead of simply denying the need for either Alexander or herself to sacrifice to higher powers 215 (p. 97), toning down the inscriptions on pillars erected by Alexander to make them seem less boastful, and omitting entirely Aristotle's am- biguous letter to Alexander. The conclusion of the poem, with its in- sistence on the bond between Alexander and his men, suggests that the author's real interest lies not in the moral ramifications of Alexander's deeds but in the more practical, humanisitic sphere of Alexander's abilities as a leader of men. All the major departures of the Prose Life from Wars are in details. Although Flynn states that the author of the Prose Life tends to condense his source while the poet of Wars eXpands it,16 this is not always the case. In a number of places the Prose Life, perhaps sim- ply because it has the freedom of prose rather than the confining form of alliterative poetry, enlarges upon the source, at least further than Wars. The Prose Life thereby clarifies some points which remain puzzling in the alliterative poem. Thus we are given Lesyas' actual insult to fully explain Alexander's mortal attack on him (p. 10). We learn that Jaudas of Jerusalem refuses to send Alexander the requested provisions because he cannot break his solemn oath to Darius (p. 16). Alexander meets the god Senochosis in a cave for that is where the gods eat and take council; further, this god rebukes Alexander for failing to build a temple to him not merely because he deserves it as a god but because it has been through his power, as divine ruler of earth, that Alexander has conquered the world (p. 102). But the added, or in some cases modified, details function in a more important way. They lend the aura of factual, historical recording. In doing so, they illuminate the attitude of the writer; he serves not only as biOgrapher, but historian, and, to a certain extent, 216 geographer. Neeson points out that the author's history and geography are confused?"7 yet that is hardly the point. However faulty his infor- mation, he strives to be accurate and detailed whether dealing with a battle, a journey, a country, or a person. Consequently he often names peOple and places which remain anonymous in the other English romances. Arttes is named as the messenger to Alexander who reports the difficul- ties of Melager and the trOOps, after the death of Sampson, during the Foraging of Gadirs (p. 16); the identification of these two peers is like- wise peculiar to this work. The Prose Life Specifies that Primus and Antyochus are the lords Darius asks for help to fend off Alexander (p. 25). The minstrel who sings for the salvation of Thebes is called Hismon (p. 30), and Darius's murderers acquire individual identity by being named (p. 53). Geographical locations are also often Specified. Darius as- cends the mountain Taurisius to prepare for battle with Alexander (p. 41). Whenever Alexander camps by a river, its name is given. The author also seems desirous of keeping his audience aware of directions and movement. At times Alexander may only, rather vaguely, travel in a certain direction for a specific number of days; but often we are in- formed that, for example, he has traveled inland for forty days until he reaches the Red Sea (p. 105) or that he has reached a wilderness between the Red Sea and Arabia (p. 107). For a portion of the narrative, the author uses a single geo- graphical location as a point of reference for Alexander's wanderings. After crossing a mountain, in the process undergoing a number of ad- ventures, Alexander and his army enter "a grete playne of whilke be erthe was wonder rede" (p. 91). They march through the plain for 217 forty days, finally reaching a point at which they must turn East or West. Alexander selects the eastern passage, goes as far as possible, and then returns to take the western route. After traveling in this di- rection for fifteen days, he finally meets the sun-god and hears the predictions of the trees of the sun and moon. The sun-god will not permit Alexander to proceed further, and thus, after a march of fif- teen days, he returns to the red plain (p. 95). Here he erects the pil- lar which instructs those who follow to go West, since the eastern route is impassable. Finally, the author notes once again that Alexander now leaves the red plain to march toward Macedonia (p. 96). Whether or not such a place exists, the Prose Life gives its readers a sense of direction and continuity by using the plain as a jumping-off point; Alex- ander's movements, moreover, seem purposeful, more than a series of aimless, confused wanderings. The author's itemizing of days spent marching or camping,18 or, in other situations, the number of men in an army, 19 the length of a battle, 20 or the number of menkilled in a battle‘?'1 demonstrate his desire for precision and, to some degree, verisimilitude. He often alters his Latin source to shorten the length of a march or changes the number of men killed to bring these figures into line with his estimate of what should be, taking into account that Alexander leads this army. The attempt at verisimilitude, clarity, and accuracy extends further. When the trees of the sun and moon Speak, the author first records their words in Latin and then translates them into English, since these trees, as Alexander has been informed, Speak in Latin. The entire history of the nations of Gog and Magog is related, albeit briefly, to make clear the reason for their enclosure (pp. 104-105). In 218 fact, Spelling out the reasons behind actions is generally important to the author. When Alexander falls sick after bathing in the river Mociona, we learn not merely that his men are afraid but specifically why: they fear that Darius, knowing that Alexander cannot lead his troops, will attack (p. 39). Alexander's men are not simply afraid of crossing the Euphrates; they fear that the bridge Alexander has constructed will break (p. 39). Candeolus extends the invitation to the disguised Alex- ander to visit his mother Candace because she will want to reward Alexander for rescuing Candeolus' wife (p. 99). As far as possible, the Prose Life leaves nothing unexplained, particularly when dealing with explicable human actions or reactions. This eye for detail, also present in treating the character of Alexander, adds a depth often lack- ing in the other English romances, particularly Wars. It should be noted, however, that auctorial interest lies mainly in the human element. The author is distinctly the ”rationalist.“ He liberally describes the wondrous works of man-l-palaces, cities, thrones--but seems less concerned, or perhaps more skeptical, about strange beasts. These are described, but only briefly. The focus of attention continually centers on the human: what man can achieve or build. Yet, as with the adorning of Jerusalem (p. 19) or the allegorical description of Darius' throne (p. 57)--both of which are more briefly presented than the correSponding episodes in Wars--the author does not allow the description to get out of hand or halt the movement of his narrative. In fact, the writer seldom bogs down in details; they are not important solely for their own sake. Ultimately, he includes de- tails only insofar as they assist him in presenting his main theme-- the 1ife and travels of the great leader, Alexander. 2.19 The main thrust of the work, then, particularly in terms of the portrait of Alexander, is to delineate the qualities which make him a successful leader. It is the concentration on this a3pect which uni- fies all the traditional virtues of Alexander--his nobility, largesse, bravery, and loyalty to his men, While Alexander's philosophical bent is in evidence during his debates with Darius, Porus, the Gymno- sophists, and Dindimus, his wisdom and quickness of mind, like his other virtues, are mainly directed toward the practical business of leading men in the conquest of the world. Alexander does not stand out as the heroic superman. Natu- rally he is an extremely good warrior, as his early individual effort against Nicholas makes clear, but his feats of arms never progress beyond the readily believable. Unlike Wars, during the Foraging of Gadirs Alexander does not mow down innumerable men, single-handedly saving his beleaguered forces. Instead, upon his arrival at the valley of Josaphat, the Prose Life states simply that Alexander "fand his men ri3te harde by-stadde wit baire enemys. And he and his Ost vmbylapped alle baire enemys, and daunge bam doun & slew bam ilke a moder son" (p. 17). Although Alexander's trOOps note his love for war and the deeds of war (p. 60), Alexander's actual participation in combat is secondary, a means rather than an end. Alexander consist- ently leads his forces into battle, not because he seeks personal glory or desires to prove his bravery, but because such is the proper role of the leader. Darius' counsellor, in setting up the traditional contrast between Darius and Alexander in the respective absence and presence at the frontline during a battle, makes this very point. His comparison of the two leaders is not meant, as in Wars, to emphasize the difference 220 in their relative bravery, but to indicate that Alexander's presence at the head of his troops accounts for the continuing victories of the Greek army (p. 37). In the same vein, Alexander's heartening of his men becomes a prominent element, much more noticeable than in Wars. Alexander always steps forward to give the necessary encouragement. His words either calm the fears of his men when they are confronted with the boasts of Darius and Porus or spur them on to victory during a diffi- cult battle. Certain metaphors added by the author support this em- phasis, especially the comparison of troops to sheep: Wate 3e n03te wele that thare na gouernour es be folke are Sparpled be-lyfe als schepe tat ere wit-owtten ane hirde. (p. 72) In a number of situations Alexander performs courageous deeds, but mainly as a means of encouraging or instructing his army. He crosses the Euphrates first, as an example to his terror-struck men (p. 39). When water is not to be found, Alexander simply and reasonably states that they must move to a better place rather than attempt to subdue, by force, and unfriendly castle (p. 69). Wisdom is the better part of valor; as Alexander points out, physical strength is common to beasts; men who trust not in reason cannot overcome (p. 61). When Alexander and his forces are attacked by dragons, against whom normal methods of fighting are useless, Alexander devises a net and shows his men how to ensnare and kill the beasts. They are apt pu- pils, quickly mastering the new art of warfare (p. 70). Not only reason but caution characterizes Alexander's ac- tions and commands. In traveling through dangerous country, he warns his men to arm themselves fully, even though this increases their 221 suffering from the intense heat (p. 68). When the deadly basilisk must be destroyed, Alexander's preparations for "combat" receive detailed attention. He carefully surveys the situation and constructs not only the mirror to destroy the ugly monster, but a huge shield to protect himself. Because the episode typifies the approach of the author, I quote at length: Alexander went bi hym ane vppon an heghe cragge, where he myghte see on ferrome fra hym. And ban he saw this pestellencius beste be Basilisc lygg slepande in myddes of be pas- sage . . . . When Alexander had sene hym, Be lyfe he went dounne of be cragge, and gart sett a merk bat na man sulde passe. And ban he gart a pavysee be made seuen cubites of (convex shield) lengthe & foure on brede; and on be vtter syde bareoffe he gart sett a grete Mirroure, And a large. And at be nethir ende of be pavisse he gart nayle a burde be lenthe of a cubit for to couere wit his legges, and his fete, so bat na party of hym my3te be sene. And ban Alexander tuk bis pavisse in his handis, and went to- warde this Basilisc, and warned his men bat nan of bam sulde passe his termes. And when he come nere be basilisc, be basilisc 0pynde his eghne. And of be refleccion of be bemes of his sighte strykande appon hym-self Sudan- ly he was dede. And when Alexander knewe wele bat he was dede, he called till his knyghtis; And bad barn come see hym bat slewe baire felawes. And when bay come till hym, bay saw be Basilisc dede. And ban bay comended &prayssed gretly his hardynesse and his hye witt, And went 8: brynede be Basi- lisc at be commandement of Alexander. (PP- 91-92) The actual "battle receives least consideration. The author's concen- tration, in every encounter, focusses on the events which precede and follow the battles themselves. The physical asbects or battle scenes 222 are generally described only to the extent necessary to indicate the means used to defeat the enemy. Tyre's geographical placement, for example, is given in detail, thereby explaining Alexander's building of gigantic towered barges by means of which the city may be success- fully attacked and subdued. The actual fighting takes very little time (pp. 16-18). The same is true at Lacedemonia (p. 35), although here Alexander's warnings and comments after victory, pointing out the foolishness of trying to withstand one wiser and greater, receive full treatment. Emphasis thus falls continually on the wit and wisdom of the leader Alexander, not on the physical force possessed or expended by either Alexander or his men. A number of Alexander's actions, left unmotivated or unex- plained in Wars, are clarified, in these same terms, in the Prose Life. Alexander moves his trOOps to Susa in order to survey the territory as a possible battle site for a final encounter with Darius (p. 45). Alexan- der goes disguised as a messenger to issue a challenge to Darius and discover the reason for Darius' delay in proposing battle (p. 45). While Wars similarly states that he goes as a messenger, what‘mes- sage he carries is never explained and, consequently, the expedition seems motivated only by a desire to prove his personal bravery. Alexander does not devote his powers of leadership simply to achieving a victory. He remains a leader after subduing a foe. Un- like the Alexander of Wars, he shows concern for those whom he has conquered. After the defeat of the Persians, for example, the Prose- Alexander captures and punishes the murderers of Darius, just as does the Alexander of Wars and Kyng Alisaunder. The prose episode fol- lows the same pattern as that of the poems and leaves unchanged 223 Alexander's primary motive--to revenge Darius, as he had promised the dying emperor. But more emphasis falls onto the new emperor's desire to care for the Persian peOple. He knows that the Persians, still devoted to Darius, long for the punishment of the traitors. Moreover, he explains that these men must be destroyed "For bay bat slaes baire awenn lorde it es a taken bat bat will hafe na conscience to sla anober man" (p. 59). Perhaps Alexander merely wishes to prevent difficulties and win the peOple to his side, yet this action corresponds to other noble and generous gestures. He consistently rewards messengers very lib- erally, gives conquered nations their autonomy as long as they recognize his supremacy, allows conquered princes to keep their prOperty, and often fulfills the will of conquered peOple in choosing their immediate governor. Whatever Alexander's ultimate motives, and no base designs are ever hinted at, he succeeds in securing the love and admiration of those he has conquered and, at the same time, leaves order and peace in his wake. While most of these actions might still be judged as self- serving, others clearly indicate that Alexander's leadership is founded on justice. His refusal to allow Darius' men to turn against their own leader is presented in more detail in the Prose Life than in Wars or Kyng Alisaunder (p. 23). But the episode involving Scrassageras pro- vides the most striking example (pp. 32-34). In Wars this prince and governor simply falls before Alexander, deprived of his lands because it is so fated. In the Prose Life Alexander removes him from his po- sition because, as Alexander and others point out, Scrassageras has ruled unjustly and traitorously. In a different context, Alexander's sense of justice overrides 224 his traditional maternal loyalty. He berates Philip for taking Cle0patra as his new queen, for such action is "unleful" (p. 10). Yet he also maintains that Olympias must share some of the blame because of her relationship with Neptanabus: "Be no3te ferde , , , ne be n03te heuy to my fader, for if alle thi treSpas be preuee, 8: n03te knawen, neuer—be— lesse bou erte in party to blame" (p. 11). The single point at which Alexander appears less than just is in his burning of Thebes (p. 30). Since the author omits the song of the minstrel and the accusations of the surrounding peoples concerning the Sins of the Thebans, Alexander's razing of the city seems wanton, vin- dictive destruction. Alexander, finally, functions as a leader even of those he does not directly command or rule. Concerned for others, he erects a monument to give directions to those who might follow after him. Although the inscription also serves to remind others of his conquests, the context suggests that he is not so much boasting as adding weight to the advice he offers: I, Alexander, Phillipp son of Macedoyne, sett thir pelers here, after be dedd of Darius kyng of Perse and of Porus kynge of Inde. What man so will passe forber late hym tourne one be lefte hand. For wha so tourne3 one be ri3te hande he sall fynde many obstacle3 & greuance3 bat sall perauenture lett his agayne- commynge. (pp. 95-96) The emphasis on Alexander's leadership culminates in the extensively develOped death scene. The author focusses on the extent to which his successful leadership is, and has been, based on true con- cern and compassion for his followers. After being poisoned, Alexan- der attempts to fulfill the external role of leader by at first suffering in 225 silence and then trying to reassure his knights (pp. llO-ll). As the scene continues, the internal qualities of the great leader evince them- selves. In many ways this episode echoes the earlier death scene of Darius. The father-son relationship which climaxes the final meeting between Darius and Alexander (p. 53) is here paralleled in the human affection displayed between Alexander and Roxana (p. 111) and the surro- gate father-son relationship between Alexander and his soon-to-be- leaderless princes who seek final guidance from their king (pp. 111, 113). Just as Darius left a last testament, willing all earthly powers and possessions to Alexander, so Alexander, in greater detail, di- vides his kingdom and settles the fortunes of his wife and children. Yet the ultimate difference between the two scenes lies in the fact that, unlike Darius, Alexander has no one of equal ability to pass his power to. If Alexander's death has a tragic dimension, it rests not in his early death, but in the fact that a nation, because of his passing, must fall into dissolution. Hence the pathetic attempt of Alexander to calm and guide the Macedonians by asking them to keep peace with each other and allowing them to select the man who will rule them (pp. 112-13 ). Nonetheless, as Alexander knows, nothing can prevent their decline. His lament, repeated by his knights, becomes the final refrain for this scene: A, A, my dere Macedoynes . . . fra this tym forwarde sall neuer 3our name hafe lordchipe ouer be Barbarenes. (p. 113) Without the shepherd, the sheep cannot survive: Waa es vs wreches! whatt schall we now do after be ded of oure lorde Alexander? Whedir sall we now gaa or whate partye may we now chese ? Whare schall we now get any help till oure lyfelade ? (p. 114) 226 The death scene is also of interest in that the predestination of Alexander--either as conqueror of the world or as a man fated to die young--never receives mention. The attention of the audience re- mains focussed on the loss of a great leader and on an overview of his accomplishments. Nor is it more than fleetingly suggested that, as in Kyng Alisaunder, Alexander's rashness or, more particularly here, a violent temper--in other words, some human defect--has brought this downfall. It is true that Jacobas agrees to his father Antipater's scheme to poison Alexander because once, in anger, Alexander struck the loyal, admiring Jacobas. But the author only mentions this fact in passing (p. 110), and Antipater's hatred for Alexander is given no foundation in any action of Alexander. Nor is Alexander's death connected with the punishment by Fortune, instrument of God, for pride, with the vagaries of Fortune in earthly existence, or with the inexorable law of mutability. In this sense, the author of the Prose Life prefers to leave Alexander's death unexplained and unmotivated. The author is not a moralist, as the total lack of commentary in the work indicates. He is recorder-- biographer and historian. Just as his interest has been concentrated, throughout the narration of Alexander's career, on the achievements of leadership, at the conclusion of the work his emphasis falls on the consequences of the loss of leadership. His artistic stance remains humanistic and practical. Alexander himself is thus presented as having no real flaws or submitting to any decisive human or superhuman weaknesses, except unmotivated anger when he burns Thebes and strikes Jacobas and incau- tious trust when Candace entraps him. Yet these are all quickly passed over without much notice. This almost unequivocally positive portrait 227 results in a certain flatness, but other factors more than redeem the work. The author never allows his hero to descend into pomposity. The clear, rapid, engaging narrative, enlivened at times by: homely, down-to-earth metaphors, stresses the variations, rather than the monotonous similarities, in Alexander's conquests. Somewhat para- doxically, the author also achieves a greater depth in his portrait of Alexander. Alexander is not the stock heroic figure, nor even the stock semi-chivalric king, but, most essentially, but humane and hu- man. He exhibits emotion, more vividly and compellingly presented than in the other English Alexander romances. The author manages to convey Alexander's compassion for his wife, his "fathers," his princes, and his foot soldiers. Alexander's expressions of sorrow and concern never seem only a required and hollow kingly gesture. Moreover, Alexander's sincere expressions of affection for his succession of fathers, until finally he himself is the recipient of the same affection, provides a motif which nicely structures the life of Alexander. Neeson maintains that the pr0phecies, omens, and miracles, which appear before every important event, serve as primary struc- turing elements in the Prose Life. 22 Most abundant before Alexander's birth and death, they provide a framework for the events of his life as well as signaling the high points within the narrative. The poet also proficiently structures smaller units and ties them to the larger uni- fying elements of the work. The Darius-Alexander confrontation is unified not only by the discussion of pride, but by Darius' insistence on calling Alexander a "thief" and, more often, a "child."23 This "child- hood" motif, mentioned only once or twice in the other romances, is here carried through with persistent emphasis, until Darius and 228 Alexander meet at the time of Darius' death. Ironically, at this point, they embrace as father and son. Thus the "child" motif becomes a part of the larger structure Of father-son relationships. The thief metaphor, drOpped quite early by Darius, is picked up by Porus; the similarity in outlook between Porus and Alexander's earlier Opponent is thereby underscored. The author Of the Prose Life, in fact, stresses the likenesses between Porus and Darius more than the other romancers. Darius insists more emphatically on his own divinity in this work, 24 while Porus follows the traditional pattern in constantly asserting his divine powers. Darius and Porus are thus brought closer together by their demonstrations of vain pride. Since the difference between them in terms of their Opposition to Alexander-- reSpectively philOSOphical and physical--is maintained, this tightening of the parallelism is quite effective. Structural continuity, coupling repetition with variation, is - thus not the least virtue of the Prose Life. Whether we ultimately classify it as romance or biography-history, the author manages to construct, upon this framework, a well-paced narrative in clear and straight-forward prose. While the relation of the deeds Of Alexander must, in the last analysis, remain episodic, the Prose Life counters the Sprawling tendencies Of its material by viewing Alexander's career from a single vantage point, not unconnected with its structural move- ment of father-son relationships: a humanistic and practical presenta- tion of the qualities which made Alexander the Great first a leader Of men and, consequently, conqueror of the world. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER V 1 Deposited in the Cathedral Library at Lincoln, England; for a history Of the MS and its ownership by the Thornton family see Marjorie Neeson, pp. 19-26. 2Neeson, pp. 90-91; Magoun, p. 56, and Ross, Alexander Historiatus, p. 65, date it only as from the fifteenth century and Cary, AIexander, p. 56, places it in the first half of that century. 3 See above, p. 4. 4 The exact MS or version has not been found. 55ee below, p. 211. 6Neeson points out most of the alterations in her notes, pp. 344-499 passim. 7Cary, Alexander, pp. 56, 243. 8Neeson, pp. 48-68. 9Neeson, p. 68. 10For a complete list see Neeson, pp. 1-17. 11 Although Neeson provides a better text, all citations, for reasons Of accessibility, will be taken from J. S. Westlake's The Prose Life of Alexander. leverett, pp. 98-121 passim. 13The conclusion to Wars is no longer extant; thus no real judgment can be made for this portion. 14See above, pp. 120-121. 15Cf. Wars, 1. 5513. 16Flynn, p. 106. 1"’Neeson, p. 28. 18For example, p. 89. 19For example, p. 49. 229 230 2‘OFor example, p. 64. 21For example, pp. 70. 91, 104. ZZNeeson, p. 36. 23For the "thief" metaphor see pp. 21, 36, 61. For the "child" metaphor see pp. 21, 25, 36, 53. 24See especially pp. 21, 26. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION Any attempt, however tentative, at an evaluation of the Mid- dle English Alexander romances must acknowledge certain general problems. NO matter how deeply we submerge ourselves in medieval life and thought, we cannot escape the fact that the approaches and con- centrations of modern literature have conditioned the taste of at least the sophisticated reader. The situation is further complicated because the matter dealt with in these romances takes us into the realm of his- tory and historical biography. Here, too, modern preoccupations and theory influence our expectations of these genres. The medieval approach to history, Often emphasizing the role of Divine Providence in human affairs and concomitantly relying on the "supernatural" as an explanation for the ways of the world--even the juggling or insertion of "facts" to support the principle of a divine plan-- actually Offe rs only a momentary stumbling block, at least in the ab- stract. In fact, we can find ourselves intrigued by this very attitude and its philOSOphical implications. But once we extract ourselves from a consideration of medieval historical theory and begin to focus on a medieval work which, whether it purports to be history, historical bio- graphy, or romance, deals with a historical personage, our modern expectations intervene. Yet the falsification of facts still proves tO be the least bothersome problem. 231 232 Without attempting to be exhaustive, it seems worthwhile to note the most fundamental, and most bothersome, Of these modern ex- pectations. Even a cursory examination Of the criticism of medieval literature demonstrates that we ultimately fall back, consciously or unconsciously, on modern predilictions in discussing and assessing these works. Our expectations of literature, moreover, have parallels with those of history and historical biography so that we can for prac- tical purposes view the two areas together. (History, unlike literature, of course, demands precise and accurate data upon which to build, but only on the most elementary level do we pursue history or historical biography solely for the unadulterated facts they offer). We prefer, if not expect, that history, historical biography, and narrative fiction which revolve around a single character will prO- vide something of internal analysis. The medieval writer, when con- cerned with character at all, approaches it abstractly by noting the presence or absence of a virtue or vice, often assigning a label such as "noble, " "courteous, " or "proud. " To the modern reader this is overly simplistic labeling. We shy away from the broad sketch and look for the detailed etching: a delineation Of the attitudes, beliefs, de- sires, and conflicts which make up the naturally complex man. Of course, in a work--historical or fictional-~where the intellectual framework as- sumes utmost importance, detailed character portrayal may be disre- garded. We are satisfied that characters and events function as vehicles for philosophical Observations, for the presentation of a complex or challenging view of life and the forces involved in human existence. In another category, while the modern reader perhaps prefers a unified plot based on the causal connection between events, the episodic 233 is acceptable, provided some unifying force, framework, or "theme" exists. The comparable provision in history is the hypothesis which attempts to unify or clarify a chain of events. The historical biography, in modern times, can hardly escape from a reliance on personality as the unifying element. We demand a continuity of traits or, if change is evident, some underlying consistent force, internal or external. Given an adequate style, the modern reader derives emo- tional and/or intellectual enjoyment from works which follow these pat- terns and fulfill these expectations. And, in fact, it is upon such bases or presuppositions that the modern critic approaches and judges medie- val literature. We enjoy and praise the finely textured portraits of The Canterbury Tales, are engaged by the philOSOphical implications--as well as the complexity of characterization--in Troilus and Criseyde, find ourselves intrigued by the humanistic debate of The Owl and the Nightingale, question the guilt and humanity of Sir Gawain's struggle with himself, honor, and the Green Knight, attempt to define the con- flict of Arthur's Round Table as Malory follows it to its inexorable tragedy, puzzle over the theological implications and structure of Piers Plowman or The Pearl. Interestingly, in none of these are we confronted with a truly historical figure, as we are with. Alexander; but that does not necessarily simplify the issue, as the continuing enjoyment Of ShakesPeare's history plays makes clear. If we face the situation realistically, we find it difficult to enjoy--emotionally or intellectually--the Alexander romances. They do not contain the qualities we expect from modern literature, history, or historical biography, the qualities we also discover in the other medieval works noted above. The Prose Life of Alexander, most 234 historical in approach, also provides the most internalized portrait of Alexander. The author conveys, in more than a few places, the humani- ty of the conqueror through his relationships with his "fathers, " his wife, and his "sons"--his peers, knights, and foot soldiers. Further, the author provides a structuring theoretical principle based on this humanity: Alexander's abilities and accomplishments as a leader, a continuing theme that has served well in modern historical biography. Consequently, the Prose Life, the most neglected Of all the major medieval Alexander romances, proves to be quite successful in engag- ing the reader emotionally and intellectually. Kyng Alisaunder, while restricting itself to the external por- traiture of Alexander and thereby never eliciting an emotional reSponse, provides a certain philOSOphical complexity. In viewing Alexander as both ideal and human, inhabiting a world which exhibits the same duali- ty, but eventually doomed to be destroyed by the laws Of mutability which govern everything which participates in the natural, the poem evokes something Of an intellectual response. Yet because Alexander remains so distant and because the poet's _s_e_r_i_s_, a basically simple one, is not develOped, except in the headpieces, with the vigor and sensiti- vity such a theme requires, we appreciate his well-structured, stylistic- ally adept poem more than we become involved in it. The technique is there-~thus an aesthetic response--but the profundity and humanity are lacking--thus no deep emotional or intellectual enjoyment. The Wars of Alexander elicits only grudging aesthetic approv- al as we watch the poet gradually master the quatrain form and, second- arily, the alliterative line, putting them at the service Of his narrative rather than vice versa. Appreciation Of his possible skills as a poet and 235 sometimes of his ability to present ironic parallels between characters and episodes is all we can muster. Even such half-hearted appreciation must be denied the two alliterative fragments, Alexander A and Alexander B. One even doubts that something might have been achieved in the complete poem or poems. There exists a kind of unity in each of the fragments: the heroic mode f?! of Alexander A and the thematic contrast and juxtaposition Of the natural and supernatural in Alexander B. But we find ourselves grasping for glimmers of talent in poets who never seem to have mastered the allit- . J erative line. In deSperation we note a metaphor or successful inter- 5.! lacing of sources in Alexander A, the ability to present a balanced debate in Alexander B. ' One is tempted to believe that a sophisticated audience of the Middle Ages would react not so very differently. The Alexander romances and other works indicate that they enjoyed certain elements we no longer find intriguing, such as descriptions of marvels and the allegorical cataloguing of precious stones or pagan gods, for they seem to have expected a more "encyclopedic" approach in the narrative, at least as embellishment. But it is difficult to believe that, fundamen- tally, they would assess the works of Chaucer, Malory, Langland, and the Earl-poet on principles totally foreign to us. Two implications suggest themselves. First, that the authors of the Prose Life, Kyng Alisaunder, and--primarily because of his attempt at a somewhat complex poetic form--Wars intended their works for a sophisticated audience. Secondly, that Alexander A and Alexander B were com- posed for a much less critical audience or are simply the fumbling attempts of inept poets. 236 But whatever might have been the judgment of the medieval audience, re-examination of the Middle English Alexander romances suggests that while none of them ranks with the great literature of the middle ages, Kyng Alisaunder and The Prose Life of Alexander de- serve recognition as well-structured, unified, stylistically competent, sophisticated treatments of the Alexander legend. The rest, for the modern audience at least, are best forgotten. APPENDIX Wax-rm- .1 . . V“. t I APPENDDi Below are printed, in interlinear fashion, transcriptions of the life of Alexander in prose from the Dublin MS. (D) as edited by Skeat in The Wars of Alexander and the corresponding portion of Anthony Woodvile, Earl Rivers' The Dictes and Sayings of the Philos- ophers taken from a facsimile reproduction of Caxton's first edition (R). (D) Alexander the grete, be sone of philip king of (R) Alexander the grete was sone to phelip king of (D) macedon, which philip regned vij 3ere, and be said (R) macedone which Phelip regned vii year And the said (D) alexander began to regne in the xviij 3ere of hys age. (R) Alexander began to regne in the xviij yer Of his cage (D) And he said to hys peple in bis wise: "Fair lordez, I (R) And he said to his peple in this wyse fayr lordes I (D) will in no wise be contrarye to your willes, ne to your (R) will in no wyse be contrarye to your wylles ne to your (D) dedes. But I schewe to you bat I hate frawdez 8: (R) dedes But I Sheue to you thatI hate fraudes 8: (D) maleces, 8: as I haue loued you durying my faders lyff, (R) malices 8: as I have louid you durying my faders lyf 237 (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 238 so will I do in tyme Commyng. And I bothe councell SO wil I doo in tyme comyng And I bothe counceylle 8: pray you that 3e drede god, obeye hym as souerayn 8: pray you that ye drede god obeye him as souerayn of all, And chese hym for king; 8: be most obeys siant of all And chese him for king 8: be most obeys sant to hym bat shall best purvay for be gude astate of hys to him that shal best pouruye for the good astate of his people, 8: bat shall be most debonar 8: merciful] to peple 8: that shal be most debonayr 8: mercyful to pure folkez bat beste woll kepe iustice 8: be right Of poure folkes that beste shal kepe Justice 8: the right Of be feble ayenst the mighty; hym also that shall best the feble ayenst the myghty him also that shal best dispoyse for be publyke wele 8: for no dilectacion of dispose for the publyke wele 8: for no delectacion Of wordly plesaunce shall not be slowefull to kepe 8: worldly plesances shal not be slowfull to kepe 8: defende you, and by whom 3e shall be defendytt, 8: all defende you and by whom ye shal be defended 8: all euell 8: harmez by be meane of hys goode dedes shall evill 8: harmed by the meane Of his good dedes shal (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 239 be distroyed; And he bat most hardly Shall put hym be destroyed and him that most hardyly shal put him in devour to distroy your enmys; for suche ought to forth for to destroye your ennemies for suche ought to be chosen kyng and none other. " be chosen kyng and none other And whan hys peOple had herd hys reasons aboue- 8: whan his peOple had herd the reasons aboue - said, 8: knowen his grete discrecion, witte, 8: under- sayd and knowen his grete discrecion wytte and under - stondyng, thei wer gretly amerveld, and answered to standing they were gretly ameruaylled and answered to hym bus: "We haue herd 8: vnderstand thy grete him thus we haue herde and understand th y grete reasons, And haue resseyued 8: resseyue thy good reasons and have resseyued and resseyve thy good Councell, and theirfor we will 8: byseche the that bou counceyll and therfor we wole and byseche the that thou regne vppon vs 8: haue be lordship vppon vs. Duryng reygne and haue the lordship upon us duryng bi lyf we hOpe ber is none that hase so wele thy lyf We hope that ther is none that hath so wele (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 240 deseruyd to be our kyng. " And bus bai chese hym to deseruid to be our kyng And thus they chese him to be bair king, Coroned hym, 8: yaff ther king and to their lord and coroned him 8: yaf hym bair blessyngez, And prayd to god that he wold him their blessinges and praid to god that he wold blesse 8: mayntene hym. To whom he said: "I herd blesse 8: mayntene him To whom he sayd I haue herde be prayer that 3e haue made for me, besechyng the prayer that ye haue made for me beseching to god bat he wol stedfast be loue of me in your hertes that he wol stedefaste the loue Of me in your hertes 8: coragez, And bat by no maner Of the delectacion 8: corages And that by no maner of the delectacion he suffre me do bat thyng bat is ayen your profectez he suffre me to do thing ayen your proffites ne to my disworship. " ne to my disworship And sone after he send letters to all hys princez 8: 8: sone after he sente lettres to all the princes and good townez of all hys Royaurne. And when he hed good townes Of his royaume and when he had (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 240 deseruyd to be our kyng. " And bus bai chese hym to deseruid to be our kyng And thus they chese him to be bair king, Coroned hym, 8: yaff ther king and to their lord and coroned him 8: yaf hym bair blessyngez, And prayd to god that he wold him their blessinges and praid to god that he wold blesse 8: mayntene hym. To whom he said: "I herd blesse 8: mayntene him TO whom he sayd I haue herde be prayer that 3e haue made for me, besechyng the prayer that ye haue made for me beseching to god bat he wol stedfast be loue of me in your hertes that he wol stedefaste the loue Of me in your hertes 8: coragez, And bat by no maner of the delectacion 8: corages And that by no maner Of the delectacion he suffre me do bat thyng bat is ayen your profectez he suffre me to do thing ayen your proffites ne to my disworship. " ne to my disworship And sone after he send letters to all hys princez 8: 8: sone after he sente lettres to all the princes and good townez of all hys Royauxne. And when he hed good townes Of his royaume and when he had 241 (D) sent hys letters, one Dary, king of perce 8: of medy, (R) sent his lettres One daire king of perce and of mede, (D) sent to alexander for tribute like as he hed of hys (R) sente to Alexandre for tribute like as he had of his (D) fadre. And he sent hym word at be henne bat layde (R) fader And he sente him word that the henne that leyd (D) be gret egge was deyde. And after bis alexandre (R) that egge is dede And after this Alexander (D) made grette conquestes, And conquerd Inde, (R) made grete conquestis and whan he had conquered Inde (D) he went to a cuntree called Bragman; the which when (R) be wente to a contre callid bragman the whyche whan (D) bai wist of hys Comyng, bai sent mony wise men to (R) they wiste his coming they sente many wyse men to (D) hym, whiche salute hym 8: sayd: "Sir alexander, bou (R) him which salewed him8: saide sir alexander thou (D) hast no cause to werre vppon us, ne t0 euill willyng; (R) hast no cause to werre upon us ne to be evil willing (D) For we be both meke 8: poure, 8: we haue nO-bing bott (R) for we ben both poure 8: meke 8: we haue nothing but (D) sapience, the which if you will haue, pray (R) only sapience the which if thou wolt haue pray to (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 242 god bat he wyll gyff hir the; for by batayll bou god that he W01 yeue her to the for by batayll thou shalt neuer hafe hir. " And when alexander herd hym shalt not haue her And whan alexander herd hem say so, he made all hys oste to tarye, 8: with few saye so he made a1 hi8 oste to tarye 8: with fewe of hys knyghtez went within be sayd cuntree, for to of his knyghtes wente within the said contre for ten enquere further of be trouth. And when he entred quere further Of the trouthe And whan he entred within be same ground he found mony poore folkez, within the same ground he fond many poure folkes women 8: chyldre all naked, gadderyng herbis in be women 8: chylderen a1 naked gadring herbes in the feldez. And he asked of baim mony questions, to whiche feldes And he askid Of them many questions to whiche bai answerd wisely. And ban he bad baim aske they ansuerd right wysely and than he bad hem ask of hym some bing bat might do baim good 8: to all of him somme thing that myght dOO hem good 8: to alle bair people, and he wold gyff baim it gladly. And their peple 8: he wolde yeuen it hem gladdy And (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 243 ben bai said: "Sir, we aixe be none other bing thenne they saide Sir we ask the none other thing bot at bou wol gyff vs euerlasting lyfe. " Thenne but that thou wilt gyve us euerlasting lyf Thenne alexander answerd 8: said: "howe might a man make other Alexander ansuerd 8: said how might aman make other mennes liues euerlastyng whan he may not lennthe hys mennes liues euerlasting whan he maye not lengthe his awne life one houre? And bat 3e axie of me is in no owen lyf an oure And that ye aske Of me is in no mannez power bat leueth. " Thenne bai said to hym: mannes power that lyueth Than they said to hym ”Seth bou hase good knowlegh therof, wher Syth thou hast goode knowleche therof wherfore trayvelles bou bi-self to distroye all the worlde trauaylle st thou thy self to destroye all the world and gadre all be wordly tresours, And wotte not and to gadre alle the worldly tresours and wost not when bou must lefe baim?" Then Alexander said to whan thou must leue hem Thenne Alexander said to hym: "I do nott all bis at 3e saye as of hem I do not alle these thinges that ye saye Of 244 (D) my-self. Butt god hath sent me thrugh all be (R) myself But god hath sente me thrugh alle the (D) world for texalte and magnifye hys lawe and (R) worlde for texalte and magnifye hys lawe and to (D) distroy all bem bat beleue not in hym" (R) destroye them that bileue not in hym (D) And some tyme Alexander wente disgysed visityng (R) And somtyme Alexander wente dysguysed visyting (D) hys lordez 8: enquiryng of bair dedes. And on (R) his lordes and enquerying of her dedes And upon (D) a tyme he Come in-to a towne of his awne, And sawe (R) atyme he came in to a towne Of his owne And saw (D) two men of be same towne bifore a iuge pletyng, of (R) two men of the same toune bifore a Juge pleting of (D) on said to be luge: "Sir, I haue boght on house (R) one said to the juge Sir Juge I haue bought an hous (D) of thys man; And, long after, I haue founde in it (R) Of this man And longe after I haue founde within (D) a tresour vnder be erthe, which is nott myne. (R) the same a tresour within therthe whiche is not myn (D) And I haue Offerd to deliuer it to hym: And he hath (R) And I haue offred to diliuere it to hym And he hath (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 245 refusyd it; wherfore, Sir, I beseche the he be refused it Wherfor Sir I biseche the that he be compellyd to take it, for also moche as he knoweth it compelled to take it for as moche as he knoweth it is not myne; for I haue no right berto. " Thenne the r1 is not myne for I haue no right therto Thenne the H Iuge commaund hys aduersarie parte to answere to be Juge comanded his aduerse partie tansuere to the _ E same. And ben he sayd: "sir Iuge, that same tresour same and thenne he said Sir Juge that same tresour was neuer myne; but he hath edyfyed in bat place that was neuer myn but he hath edyfyed in that place that was byfore comyn to all boo that wold haue edyfyed was byfore comyn to alle tho that wolde haue edyfyed ther-in. And berfore I haue no right to take it. " the rin And therfore I haue no right to take it And ben bai both required be Iuge that he wold And thenne they both required the Juge that he wolde take it to hym-self; to qwom he answerd 8: sayd: take it to him self to whom he answered and said "sithen it is so that ye say that ye haue no right sithen it is so that ye saye that ye haue no right (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 246 herto, ne he hath no right to whom be herytage hath to whom the heretage hath longed and yet bylongeth whar be tresour was founden, longed and yet longeth where the tresour was founde how shuld I haue ony right berto, that am bot a hou Sholde I haue ony right therto that am but a straunger in that caas, And neuer afore herd speke strannger in that caas and neuer a fore herde speke berof? And ye wold excuse yow berof 8: yeue me therof ye wolde excuse you therof and giue me be charge of be tresoure; which is euyll done." the charge Of the tresour that is euill doo Thenne he askyd Of baim bat hed founde be tresour, Thenne he axid of him that had founde the tresour whether thay had ony children? and be tone answerd whether he had ony childeren which ansuerd 8: sayd, he hed a son: and he asked bat other in he had a some and he axide that other in like wyse, 8: he sayd, he bed a doghter. And ben like wise 8: he said he had a doughter Thenne be Iuge comaundyd to make a maryage the Juge said 8: Juged that a mariage Sholde be made (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 247 bitwene baim two, And at bai shuld haue be bitwene them and that they shold haue the tresour by bat meane. And when Alexander herd bis tresour by that meane And whan Alexandre herde this Iugement, he hed gret mervayle therof, and sayd bus Jugement he had grete meruayll therof and said thus to be Iuge: "I trowe ber is nott in all be to the Juge I trowe that ther is not in al the world so rightwise a Iuge as bou art. " world so rightwise ne so trewe a Juge as thou art And the Iuge, bat knew hym nott, sayd 8: asked of And the Juge that knewe him not saide and axid of hym whether ony Iuge in hys cuntree wold haue done him whether ony Juge wold have don otherwyse: "ye, certanly," sayd alexander, "in many other wyse Ye certaynly said Alexander in many landez." Thenne be Iuge, hauyng grete mervayll londes Thenne the Juge hauyng grete meruayll berof, asked of hym whether it rayned and be sone therof axid of him whether it rayned and the sonne dyd shyne in tho landez; as he wold haue sayd dide shyne in tho landes as though he wold haue sayd (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 248 that it was mervayll bat god shuld send ony light that it was meruayll that god shuld sende ony light or rayne or other goode thyngez to them that do nott or rayne or other good thinges to them that doo not right 8: trew Iugement. And therfore Alexander had ryght 8: trewe Justice And therof Alexander had gretter meruayll than byfore, And said, ber gretter meruaylle than byfore and said that ther was bott few suche peOple vpon erth as bai were were but fewe suche peple upon erthe as they were in bat land. in that lande And as Alexander went owt of bat land, he passyd And as Alexander wente out of that lande he passed thurgh a cite in be which all be housez of bat Cyte thurgh a cite in whiche all the houses of that cyte were of one hight, 8: byfore be dure of euery hous were of one heighte 8: byfore the dore of euery hous was a grete pitte or graue; in which cite ber was no was a grete pytte or graue in whiche cyte ther was no Iuge, wherof he had gret mervayll; and asked of Juge wherof he had grete meruaylle And axed of (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 249 be inhabitantis therin wherof such thyngez shuld the inhabytauntis therin wherfore suche thingis shold serue. The which answerd hym 8: sayd: "First, for be serue The whiche ansuerd him 8: sayd first for the outragez hight of housez, loue 8: Iustice can nott outrageous height of houses loue 8: Justice can not be long a towne emong be peOple." And bai sayd, be longe in a town among the peple And they sayde that be pittez 8: grauez wer bair awne housez, to be the pittes or graues were their owne houses to whiche bat bai shuld sone go to, 8: ber dwelle vnto which they shold sone go to 8: there dwelle until be day of Iugement. And as tochyng that thai hed no the day Of Jugement And as touching that they had no Iuge, bai sayd, bai made good Iustice of bem-self, Juge they saide that they made good Justice of them self wherfore bai nede no Iuge. Thenne Alexander departed wherfore they neded no Juge Thenne Alexander departed from baim right well pleasyd. from them right wel plesed And afore hys deth, he wrote a letter vnto hys And afore his deth he wrote a lettre unto his (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) (D) (R) 250 moder, desering hir to make no sorow for hym. And moder desiring her to make no sorowe for him And sone aftir Alexander died 8: was putt in a coffre of gold, sone after Alexander died 8: was put in a Coffre of gold 8: buried in alexandria with grete and buried in Alisaundre 8: he was born theder with grete reuerence by princez 8: Ober grete lordez that reuerence by kinges princes 8: other grete lordes that keped 8: fulfillyd hys testament as he had ordeigned: kept 8: fulfilled his testament as he had ordeigned thenne stert vb one of be grettest lordez of baim Thenn stert up one of the gretest lordes of them that kept hym, and sayd bus: ”Thay bat neuer . . . . that kept him 8: said thus They that neuer BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED Abel, Armand. Le Roman d'Alexandre: Legendaire Medieval. Collections Lebegue et Nationafe, no. 112. Brussels, 1955. Andrew, S. O. "Wars of Alexander and the Destruction Of Troy," Review of English Studies, V (1929), 267-272. Baugh, Albert C. "Improvisation in the Middle English Romance," Proceedings of the American PhilOSOphical Society, CIII (1959), 418-454. Blades, William. The Life and Typography of William Caxton, Vol. II. London, 1861-1863. Bowra, C. M. "The Hero, " in The Hero in Literature, ed. Victor Brombert. New York, 1969, pp. 22-52. Brunner, Karl. Der Mittelen lische Versroman Uber Richard Lb'wen- herz. Wiener Beitrag zur Englischen Philologie, XEII (1913). Bilhler, Curt F. "The Dictes and Sayings of the PhilOSOphers, " The . Library, XV (1934f, 3I6-326. Biilbring, Karl D. "View Neue Alexanderbruchstiicke," Englische Studien, XIII (1889). 145-146. Cary, George. The Medieval Alexander, ed. D. J. A. Ross. Cam- bridge, 1956. "A Note on the Mediaeval History Of the Collatio Alexandri cum Dindimo," Classica et Mediaevalia, XV (I954), 124- 129. Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. F. N. Robinson. Boston, 1957. Crane, R. S. (ed. ). Critics and Criticism: Ancient and Modern. Chicago, 1952. . The Langua es of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry. Toronto, 19 . Creek, H. L. "Love in Mediaeval Romance, " Sewanee Review, XXIV (1916), 88-104. 251 252 Curtius, Ernst. EurOpean Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask. New York, 19537 Day, Mabel. "Strophic Division in Middle English Allite rative Verse, " Englische Studien, LXVI (1932), 245-248. Duggan, Hoyt N. "A Critical Edition of The Wars of Alexander-"Pas- sus I-XIV. " Unpublished dissertation, PrincetonTJniversity, 1969. Elliott, Ralph W. V. "Landscape and Rhetoric in Middle English Alliterative Poetry, ” Melbourne Critical Review, no. 4 (1961), 65-76. Enkvist, N. E. The Seasons of the Year: Chapters on a Motif from Beowulf to the Shepherd‘s CaTendar. Helsingfors, 1957. Everett, Dorothy. "A Characterisation of the English Medieval RO- mances, " Essays and Studies, XV (1929), 98-121. Flynn, Elizabeth. "The Marvellous Element in the Middle English Alexander Romances." Unpublished dissertation, Univer- sity of Wisconsin, 1968. Forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel. New York, 1927. Foster, Brian. ”The Roman de Toute Chevalerie: its date and author, " French Studies, IX (1955), 153-158. French, W. H. "Dialects and Forms in Three Romances," JECP, XLV (1946), 125-132. Hamilton, George L. "A New Redaction (J33) Of the Historia de Pre- liig and the Date of Redaction J3, " Speculum, II (1927), 113- 147. Heer, Friedrich. The Medieval World. New York, 1963. Hilka, Alfons. Der altfranz'dsische Prosa-Alexanderroman nebst dim lateinischen Original der Historia de Preliis (Recension 1‘). Halle , l 92 O. Hilka, Alfons and F. P. Magoun. "A List of Manuscripts Containing Texts Of the Historia de Preliis Alexandri Magni, " pecu- lum, D( (1934f 84-86. Hulbert, J. R. "Quatrains in Middle English Alliterative Poems, " Modern Philology, XLVHI (1950), 73-81. . "The West Midland Of the Romances," Modern Philology, XIX (1921), 1-16. 252 Curtius, Ernst. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask. New YoTk, 195?. Day, Mabel. ”Strophic Division in l\/fiddle English Allite rative Verse, " Englische Studien, LXVI (1932), 245-248. Duggan, Hoyt N. "A Critical Edition of The Wars of Alexander--Pas- sus I-XIV. " Unpublished dissertation, Princeton University, 1969. Elliott, Ralph W. V. "Landscape and Rhetoric in Middle English Alliterative Poetry, " Melbourne Critical Review, no. 4 (1961), 65-76. Enkvist, N. E. The Seasons of the Year: Chap_ters on a Motif from Beowulffo the Shflierdrs Calendar. Helsingfors, T957. Everett, Dorothy. "A Characterisation Of the English Medieval Ro- mances, " Essays and Studies, XV (1929), 98-121. Flynn, Elizabeth. "The Marvellous Element in the Middle English Alexander Romances." Unpublished dissertation, Univer- sity Of Wisconsin, 1968. Forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel. New York, 1927. Foster, Brian. "The Roman de Toute Chevalerie: its date and author, " French Studies, . - French, W. H. ”Dialects and Forms in Three Romances, " JEGP, XLV (1946), 125-132. Hamilton, George L. "A New Redaction (J33) of the Historia de Pre- liig and the Date Of Redaction J3, " peculum, II (192 7), 113- 147. Heer, Friedrich. The Medieval World. New York, 1963. Hilka, Alfons. Der altfranz'dsische Prosa-Alexanderroman nebst dem lateinischen Original der Historia de PreTiis (Recension 1‘). Halle , l 92 0. Hilka, Alfons and F. P. Magoun. "A List Of Manuscripts Containing Texts of the Historia de Preliis Alexandri Maggi, " pecu- Hulbert, J. R. "Quatrains in Middle English Alliterative Poems, " Modern Philology, XLVHI (1950), 73-81. "The West Midland of the Romances," Modern Philoloiy, 253 Kaluza, Max. "Strophische Gliederung in der Mittelenglischen Rein Alliterierenden Dichtung," Englische Studien, XVI (1892), 169-180. Kane, George. Middle English Literature: A Critical Study. London, 1951. Kb'lbing, Eugen (ed. ). Arthour and Merlin. Leipzig, 1890. Kratins, Ojars. "Treason in the Middle English Metrical Romances, " Philological Quarterly, XLV (1966), 668-687. Legge, M. Dominica. "Discussions 1: Thomas of Kent," French Studies, IX (1955), 348-349. Magoun, Francis P. , Jr. The Gests of King Alexander Of Macedon. Cambridge, Mass., 1929. Mathew, Gervase. "Ideals of Knighthood in Late-Fourteenth-Century England, " in Studies in Medieval History Presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt et a1. Oxford, 1948, pp. 354-362. Matthews, William, The Tragedy of Arthur. Berkeley, 1960. Mehl, Dieter. The Middle English Romances of the 13th and 14th Cen- turies. London, 1968. Merkelback, Reinhold. Die Quellen des Griechischen Alexanderro- mans. Munich, 1954. Meyer, Paul. Alexander le Grand dans la littérature francais du moyen age. 2 vols. Paris, 1885. Moorman, Frederick K. The Interpretation of Nature in English Poet- ry from Beowulfto Shakespeare. Strassburg, T905. Neeson, Marjorie. "The Prose Alexander: A Critical Edition." Un- published dissertation, University Of California at Loss Angeles, 1971. Oakden, James Parker. Alliterative Poetry in Middle English. 2 vols. Manchester, 1930, 1935. Orosius, Paulus. Historiarum Adversum Paganos libri VII, ed. Carolus Zingemeister. Corpus Scriptorurn EcHesiasti— corurn Latinorum, V. Vindobonae, 1882. Pearsall, Derek. "The Development Of Middle English Romance," Mediaeval Studies, XXVII (1965). 91-116. ' Pfister, Friedrich. Der Alexanderroman des Archipresbyter Leo. Sammlung MlttellatEinischer fixte, 6. Heidelberg, 1913. 254 . "Eine Neue Handschrift des Alexanderromans des Arch- presbyter Leo, " Classica et Mediaevalia, XXI (1960), 201-211. Ross, D. J. A. Alexander Historiatus: A Guide to Medieval Illustra- ted AlexandEr Uterature. Warburg Institute Surveys, 1. Ldeon, 1963. . ”The I3 Historia de Preliis and the Fuerre de Gadres, " Classica et Mediaevalia, XXII (l961fi 205-221. Schlauch, Margaret. English Medieval Literature and its Social Foundations. Warsaw, 1956. Severs, J. Burke (ed. ). A Manual of the Writings in Middle En lish 1050-1500. FasEfcule l: Romances. New Haven, 196 . Skeat, Walter W. (ed.). Alexander and Dindimus. EETS, ES, 31. London, 1878. . The Wars of Alexander. EETS, ES, 47. London, 1886. . William Of Palerne [and] A Fra ment of the Alliterative RO- mance of Alisaundér. EETSTE , 1. London, 1867. Smithers, G. V. (ed. ). Kyng Alisaunder. EETS, 227, 237. London, 1952, 1957. "Notes on Middle English Texts," in London Medieval Studies, ed. R. W. Chambers et al. Vol. 1, Pt. ii. Iondon, I;38. Pp. 208-220. Steffens, Heinrich. Versbau und Sprache des mittelenglischen stabreimenden Gedfchtes TThe Wars of Alexan er . Bonner Baitrage zur Anglistik, IX. Bonn, 1901. Trautmann, M. Uber verfasser und entstehungszeit einiger alliterier- ender gedichte des altenglischen. Halle, 1876. Tuve, Rosamond. Seasons and Months: Studies in a Tradition of Mid- dle Engli§h Poetry. _Paris, 1933. Vinaver, Eugene. "Critical Approaches to Medieval Romance, " in Literary History and Literary Criticism, ed. Leon Edel. New York, 1965. . Hommage a Be’dier. Manchester, 1942. Wells, John Edwin. A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050- 1400 and Suppl. 1-9. New Haven, 1916-1952. West, C. B. Courtoisie in Anglo-Norman Literature. Oxford, 1938. 255 Westlake, J. S. (ed. ). The Prose Life of Alexander. EETS, OS, 143. London, l9l3. Woodville, Anthony (Earl Rivers). The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers: A Facsimile Reproduction of the First Book Printed in England by William Caxton, in1477. IBndon, l877. 255 Westlake, J. S. (ed. ). The Prose Life of Alexander. EETS, OS, 143. London, 1913. Woodville, Anthony (Earl Rivers). The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers: A Facsimile Reprfluction Od'lhe FirsT ‘Fook Printed in England by William Caxton, in 1477. fOnéron, l877.