Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
16
I.TheMethodologicalBackground
Althougheachoftheabovementionedscholarsdidcontributeawealth
oforiginalthoughtandimpressivescholarshiptothesubjectoftheirstudy
andtheycannotbereducedtoasinglenarrowlyconceivedcriticalschool,
itmaybesaid,withthehindsightaffordedbythecontemporaryperspec-
tive,thatsomebasicassumptionsabouttheissueoforalcompositionand
transmissionweremoreorlessuniformlysharedbyallthecriticsandthese
differentiatethemfromthenextgenerationofscholars.Thustheone
commonfeatureinthecritics’approachtotheromancewasthetreatment
ofthegenreasbasicallywrittenliterature,differinginthatrespectfrom
themodernnovelonlyintheimperfectnatureofthemanuscriptsources.
Thisimperfectnaturewasexplainedbyeitherthenegligenceofthescribe,
orthedeteriorationoftheoriginalversion,composedintheliterateway,
intheprocessoforaltransmission.Whatisimportantisthattheoralmode
oftransmissionwasusuallyassumedtobecapableofexertingonlyanega-
tiveinfluenceconsistingincorruptingthewrittenmaterial(cf.Ker1957:
144-149)andalltheblameforinadequaciesofthepoems’stylewere
routinelyputonthisphenomenon.
Indeed,indiscussingtheissueoforalityProf.Mehldismisseswhathe
callstheflminstreltheory”byarguingthatstylisticfeatureslikedirect
addressestotheaudiencearedecorativeclichéswhichmaybetakenas
evidencethat,asmanyotherMiddleEnglishgenres,theverseromances
weremeanttobereadaloud.Mehlargues,however,thatthepoemswould
havetobereadfromthemanuscriptdirectlyandthat,whiletheminstrels
wouldhaveentertainedtheiraudienceswithmemorizedstories,theexisting
textsoftheromancescouldnothavebeentakendownfromoralrecita-
tion,duetothembeingtoolongandsophisticatedtobedeliveredorally
withthepossiblehelpofimprovisation(cf.Mehl1968:8-13).Tohisgreat
creditMehlstresses,however,thefactthatastrictdistinctionbetween
oralityandliteracycomparabletotheoneexistinginthemodernworld
couldnotbeapplicabletothemedievalsituation.
Similarly,EugèneVinaver,duringhisfinediscussionofsuchstylistic
featuresoftheromanceastheinterlacementandthelaissestechnique,
treatsthegenreasapredominantlyliterateone(cf.Vinaver1971:4)and
hisbasichalf-consciousassumptionabouttheoralmodeofcomposition
anddelivery,articulatedthroughoutthestudy,isthatanyevidenceof
whateverkindofliterarysophisticationautomaticallyrulesoutthepossi-
bilityoftheromanceshavinganythingtodowithoralculturealthough
thecriticis,forinstance,awareofthesimilaritiesbetweentheromance’s
methodsofnarrationandthoseofthefolkballad(cf.Vinaver1971:8).
