Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
5.Thedevelopmentoforal-formulaicstudiesfromthe1970s
25
dofulljusticetomanyaspectsofstyleofthediscussedtexts.Thebest
examplewhyFewster’sstudymighthavebenefitedfromadoptingmore
oftheoral-formulaicframeworkisthecomparisonoftherepetitivesyntactic
structuresbetweenAmisandAmilounandGuyofWarwick–anothertail-
rhymeromancecomingalsofromtheAuchinleckmanuscript(cf.Fewster
1987:60-66).
Havingcitedtheformulaicparallelsexistingbetweenthetwopoems
Fewstercontinueswiththeconclusionthatthefirstpoemusesphrases
fromthesecond.Thisassumptionisneversupportedwithanyproofother
thantheunpremeditatedimpressionthatifthemuchlongerGuyusedall
thediscussedformulaefromAmis,aswellasmanyothersnotusedinAmis,
itmusthavebeenthesourcefortheAmispoet.Itwillbeeasytonotice
theweaknessofthisargumentforanyonemorethancasuallyfamiliarwith
themethodologybehindoral-formulaicstudies,andwhenfinallythecritic
encountersthepredictableproblemthattheformulaetakenasevidence
oftheAmisromanceindebtedness,orflcross-reference”,toGuy,arein
factusedinothertail-rhymeromancesaswell,shesaysthatflAmisquotes
linesnotuniquetoGuybutsharedacrosstheromance”(cf.Fewster1987:
65).Thusonearrivesatamostbizarrenotionofalludingtoaspecific
poembyquotingmaterialwhichisnotspecifictothispoem,andthe
obviouslogicalslipintheargumentismostevident.
Thislittlepointisagoodtestimonytohowvitalandusefuloral-
formulaicmethodologyisforromancestudiesandhowalackofsensitivity
towardsitmaycompromiseeventhemostimpressiveworkinthefield,
ofwhichFewster’sstudyisdefinitelyanexample.
Ingeneral,onemaysaythatbythe1980sthemedievaloral-formulaic
studieshadgrownintoanautonomousacademicdisciplinewithinwhich
avarietyofcriticalapproachesdevelopedinthecontextofvariousspecific
issues.Thuspossiblythemostdivisiveproblemfacingscholarswasthe
validityoftheapplicationofthetermfloral”tothemedievalcontext,issue
beingfrequentlyseenaspartofastillbiggerproblemofdealingwithother,
includingcontemporary,examplesofliterarycompositioninwhichorality
playsapart,butwhichdonotfitthepreciseramificationsoftheclassic
LordandParrytheory.
Thetwoconceptsbehindthisdivisionhavesometimesbeenreferred
toastheflweakthesis”andtheflstrongthesis”.Thechiefadvocateofthe
latterremainedAlbertB.Lord,whostaunchlyopposedapplyingtheterm
floral”toanyliterarycompositionwhichoriginatedincontactwiththe
literatecultureatanyotherstagethancopyingdownapurelyoralperform-
