Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
4.Theimpactoftheclassicoralformulaictheoryonmedievalstudies...
17
Itappearsthattheratherdisparagingviewsheldbysomeofthegreatest
scholarsoftheerawerecausedbythesubconsciouslyassumedequation
betweenthenotionsofliteracyandoralityontheonehandandthehigh
andpopularcultureontheotherasthetwolatterconceptswereunder-
stoodinthenineteenthcentury.Thuswhiletheirworkonsomeofthe
stylisticaspectsofthepoems’compositionwaslaterassumedtobemost
relevantandindeedindispensabletotheoral-formulaicstudies,thecritics’
reluctancetoacceptthattheoralmodeofcompositionortransmission
mighthaveresultedinthefinepoeticqualityofaparticularpieceseems
tohavecomefromthemisconceptionsrelatingtotheunderstandingof
thetermflminstrel”orfljongleur”,whichappeartohavesuggestedsome
unwelcomeflpopular”association.Thusaverystronganddeeplyrooted
culturalprejudiceproducedinthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies
maybesaidtohavemadeitmoredifficultevenforgreatscholarstocome
togripswiththisparticularareaofmedievalstudies.8
Thus,althoughneitherMehlnorVinaverintendedtodealdirectlywith
theinterrelationbetweenoralityandliteracyduringthemedievalperiod,
withthehindsightofferedbythedevelopmentoforal-formulaicstudies
sincethemid-twentiethcenturyitispossibletoobservethatsuchstudies
couldofferamoreinsightfulperspectiveintoanydiscussionoftheques-
tionofmedievalpoeticcomposition.
Despitethis,somecriticsinthe1950sandG60sdevelopedamore
sympatheticviewasregardstheuniquenatureoforalculture.Indeedwhen
Mehlqualifieshisrelativelydismissiveviewaboutoralmodesofcomposi-
tionhereferstotheworkofAlbertC.Baugh,whosecontemporaneous
studieslikeImprovisationintheMiddleEnglishRomance(1959)seemto
alreadypointinadifferentdirection.Baughstatestherethatflpoetsand
versifierswrotewithoralpresentationinmind,adoptingastyle,ł,natural
tolivepresentation”(Baugh1959:9).
Thisformulationoftherelationshipbetweentherespectivemodesof
oralityandliteracyhaspreparedthegroundfortheoral-formulaicstudies
ofromanceanditthusformulatesoneoftheprincipalunderlyingassump-
tionsbehindthepresentstudyaswell.
SimilarviewswerepresentedinthepublicationsofcriticslikeJ.Speirs
(1957),andlaterdevelopedbyscholarslikeDerekPearsall(1965)and
M.T.Clanchy(1979),whoallsoughttoaccountfortheuniquecharacter
8ForasimilarviewseealsoBowden(2001:3-4)andZumthor(1983:23-26).
