# Translation into English

Marco Nievergelt

► To cite this version:

Marco Nievergelt. Translation into English. The Oxford History of Poetry in English, Volume 3: Poetry in English: 1400-1500, edited by Julia Boffey and A. S. G. Edwards, 1, Oxford University PressOxford, pp.46-60, 2023, 9780198839682. 10.1093/oso/9780198839682.003.0004. hal-04295434

HAL Id: hal-04295434

https://hal.science/hal-04295434

Submitted on 22 Mar 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# CHAPTER 4

## TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH

### MARCO NIEVERGELT

The medieval understanding of translation is notoriously fluid and capacious, and includes a range of textual activities that modern readers would likely define as instances of adaptation, creative emulation, or rewriting, as opposed to ‘translation’ in the narrow sense.¹ This makes it difficult to categorise a large group of texts that are not translations in the strict, modern sense. In the case of specifically *literary* translation, such difficulties also highlight the discrepancy between modern and medieval literary aesthetics, and divergent attitudes towards authorship, notions of literary invention, and originality of thought and expression. Any discussion of the perceived ‘literary value’ of late medieval verse translations will necessarily have to take such problems into account.²¹

This fluid and nebulous nature of medieval ideas of translation, however, also highlights its central importance in fifteenth-century textual, literary, and intellectual culture. The present chapter therefore pursues two rather different aims. On the one hand, it is intended to provide a balanced descriptive survey of the thematic, generic, formal, and expressive range of fifteenth-century poetic translations into English, within their specific cultural, literary, and socio-political contexts. On the other hand the chapter also aims to shed light on the more elusive, but imaginatively central importance of the *idea* of translation for the development of fifteenth-century English poetry, poetics, and literary culture. It is not coincidental that some of the most influential fifteenth-century English poets such as Thomas Hoccleve and John Lydgate were also engaged in several major translation projects throughout their respective careers (see further Chapters 24 and 25). Like many other fifteenth-century poets, Hoccleve and Lydgate engaged in translation not so much as an alternative to producing original poetic compositions, but rather as an active means to forge their own, distinctive poetic style in English. As much as involving a simple ‘transfer’ of texts from one language into another, then, *translatio* was a habit of mind that infused poetic activity as a whole during the fifteenth century, and enabled a dialogic, critical,
# CHAPTER 4

## TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH

### MARCO NIEVERGELT

The medieval understanding of translation is notoriously fluid and capacious, and includes a range of textual activities that modern readers would likely define as instances of adaptation, creative emulation, or rewriting, as opposed to ‘translation’ in the narrow sense.¹ This makes it difficult to categorise a large group of texts that are not translations in the strict, modern sense. In the case of specifically *literary* translation, such difficulties also highlight the discrepancy between modern and medieval literary aesthetics, and divergent attitudes towards authorship, notions of literary invention, and originality of thought and expression. Any discussion of the perceived ‘literary value’ of late medieval verse translations will necessarily have to take such problems into account.²¹

This fluid and nebulous nature of medieval ideas of translation, however, also highlights its central importance in fifteenth-century textual, literary, and intellectual culture. The present chapter therefore pursues two rather different aims. On the one hand, it is intended to provide a balanced descriptive survey of the thematic, generic, formal, and expressive range of fifteenth-century poetic translations into English, within their specific cultural, literary, and socio-political contexts. On the other hand the chapter also aims to shed light on the more elusive, but imaginatively central importance of the *idea* of translation for the development of fifteenth-century English poetry, poetics, and literary culture. It is not coincidental that some of the most influential fifteenth-century English poets such as Thomas Hoccleve and John Lydgate were also engaged in several major translation projects throughout their respective careers (see further Chapters 24 and 25). Like many other fifteenth-century poets, Hoccleve and Lydgate engaged in translation not so much as an alternative to producing original poetic compositions, but rather as an active means to forge their own, distinctive poetic style in English. As much as involving a simple ‘transfer’ of texts from one language into another, then, *translatio* was a habit of mind that infused poetic activity as a whole during the fifteenth century, and enabled a dialogic, critical,
appropriative, or confrontational engagement with various kinds of cultural
difference.

Translation and Cultural Transition, c 1380–1425

Like much else in the history of fifteenth-century English literature, the evolution of
translation was substantially shaped by developments occurring during the final
decades of the fourteenth century. The period between c 1380 and 1425 saw ‘a
previously unparalleled increase in the production of translations’ from both Latin and
French.iii A variety of factors contributed to this rapid acceleration, and for the
purposes of the present analysis it will be useful to identify five different ones. Firstly,
the history of fifteenth-century translation was deeply shaped by the production of the
Wycliffite Bible, in English prose, from the 1380s onwards. While there was nothing
intrinsically heterodox or subversive in Bible translation as such at the close of the
fourteenth century,iv the condemnations of John Wycliff and his followers created a
climate of pervasive suspicion, triggering an extended and acrimonious debate over
the legitimacy of vernacular translations of biblical, religious, theological, and
ecclesiological texts in early fifteenth-century Oxford.v This clearly had an adverse
effect on the development of translations of religious texts,vi although official policy
largely failed in its attempt to curb the circulation of the Wycliffite Bible itself, which
survives in about 250 manuscripts, making it the most widely read translation of the
fifteenth century as a whole.

Secondly, during the 1380s and 90s John Trevisa undertook the first extensive
programme of translation into English in post-conquest Britain, at the behest of his
patron, Thomas, Lord Berkeley (X-REF OHOPE Vol II ??).vii Moving in the same
circles as the scholars responsible for the ‘Wycliffite’ Bible, Trevisa chose prose as
his medium, emphasising its greater truth-value. As is declared by his semi-fictional
patron figure in the *Dialogue between a Lord and a Clerk*, in the prologue to
Trevisa’s translation of Ranulph Higden’s *Polychronicon* (1387): ‘for comynliche
prose is more clere than ryme, more easy and more pleyn to know and to
understonde’.viii Observations of this kind eventually led to the establishment of prose
as the dominant medium for translations during the fifteenth century.

As a third factor, political, dynastic, and administrative developments equally
facilitated the unprecedented increase in translation activity during the period between
c 1380 and 1425. Translations into English were encouraged, and later actively
appropriative, or confrontational engagement with various kinds of cultural
difference.

Translation and Cultural Transition, c 1380–1425

Like much else in the history of fifteenth-century English literature, the evolution of
translation was substantially shaped by developments occurring during the final
decades of the fourteenth century. The period between c 1380 and 1425 saw ‘a
previously unparalleled increase in the production of translations’ from both Latin and
French.iii A variety of factors contributed to this rapid acceleration, and for the
purposes of the present analysis it will be useful to identify five different ones. Firstly,
the history of fifteenth-century translation was deeply shaped by the production of the
Wycliffite Bible, in English prose, from the 1380s onwards. While there was nothing
intrinsically heterodox or subversive in Bible translation as such at the close of the
fourteenth century,iv the condemnations of John Wycliff and his followers created a
climate of pervasive suspicion, triggering an extended and acrimonious debate over
the legitimacy of vernacular translations of biblical, religious, theological, and
ecclesiological texts in early fifteenth-century Oxford.v This clearly had an adverse
effect on the development of translations of religious texts,vi although official policy
largely failed in its attempt to curb the circulation of the Wycliffite Bible itself, which
survives in about 250 manuscripts, making it the most widely read translation of the
fifteenth century as a whole.

Secondly, during the 1380s and 90s John Trevisa undertook the first extensive
programme of translation into English in post-conquest Britain, at the behest of his
patron, Thomas, Lord Berkeley (X-REF OHOPE Vol II ??).vii Moving in the same
circles as the scholars responsible for the ‘Wycliffite’ Bible, Trevisa chose prose as
his medium, emphasising its greater truth-value. As is declared by his semi-fictional
patron figure in the *Dialogue between a Lord and a Clerk*, in the prologue to
Trevisa’s translation of Ranulph Higden’s *Polychronicon* (1387): ‘for comynliche
prose is more clere than ryme, more easy and more pleyn to know and to
understonde’.viii Observations of this kind eventually led to the establishment of prose
as the dominant medium for translations during the fifteenth century.

As a third factor, political, dynastic, and administrative developments equally
facilitated the unprecedented increase in translation activity during the period between
c 1380 and 1425. Translations into English were encouraged, and later actively
promoted, by the Ricardian and early Lancastrian courts. Although English rulers
never pursued a systematic programme of vernacularisation that could rival that of
Charles V of France (reigning 1364–80),<sup>ix</sup> in the context of early Lancastrian efforts
of dynastic legitimation it becomes possible to speak of an actual language policy.<sup>x</sup>
Beyond this, the development of English as a language in regular administrative use,
eventually leading to the rise of ‘Chancery English’,<sup>xi</sup> equally heightened the prestige
of the vernacular and facilitated intensified translation activity throughout the
fifteenth century.

Fourthly, the history of translation during the fifteenth century was also
shaped by broader political circumstances, particularly the protracted war with
France. The modern tendency to view linguistic choices through the prism of national
identity, however, is misleading on many counts in this case. <sup>xii</sup> Since the Hundred
Years War itself had been triggered by an English king’s claim to the French crown,
all English kings from Edward III to Henry VI continued to represent themselves as
Kings of France. This created opportunities for a range of complex processes of
cultural appropriation and accommodation,<sup>xiii</sup> and many translations from French into
English produced during the first quarter of the century – a time of spectacular
English military successes in France – therefore participate in a larger effort of
political legitimation on the part of the new Lancastrian dynasty. In parallel,
francophone and specifically Parisian literary fashions continued to dominate English
court culture throughout the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The influence of
francophone culture persisted into the Tudor period, albeit in mutated form, sustained
by a complex web of Anglo-continental relations and alliances, particularly with
important figures linked to the Duchy of Burgundy.<sup>xiv</sup>

A final, strictly literary factor that helped to accelerate the emergence of
English as a literary language was the legacy of Geoffrey Chaucer. Crucially, early
readers viewed Chaucer as an eminent translator – a ‘grant translateur’, as Eustache
Deschamps put it in 1385<sup>xv</sup> – and this shaped the subsequent evolution of literary
translation into English. Translations by Hoccleve and Lydgate are famously explicit
about their debts to their master,<sup>xvi</sup> but Chaucerian features also characterise a much
wider range of verse translations, as will be seen below. Chaucer’s trademark verse
form, the seven-line rhyme royal stanza (*ababbcc*), proved particularly popular.

Religious and Devotional Poetry
promoted, by the Ricardian and early Lancastrian courts. Although English rulers
never pursued a systematic programme of vernacularisation that could rival that of
Charles V of France (reigning 1364–80),<sup>ix</sup> in the context of early Lancastrian efforts
of dynastic legitimation it becomes possible to speak of an actual language policy.<sup>x</sup>
Beyond this, the development of English as a language in regular administrative use,
eventually leading to the rise of ‘Chancery English’,<sup>xi</sup> equally heightened the prestige
of the vernacular and facilitated intensified translation activity throughout the
fifteenth century.

Fourthly, the history of translation during the fifteenth century was also
shaped by broader political circumstances, particularly the protracted war with
France. The modern tendency to view linguistic choices through the prism of national
identity, however, is misleading on many counts in this case. <sup>xii</sup> Since the Hundred
Years War itself had been triggered by an English king’s claim to the French crown,
all English kings from Edward III to Henry VI continued to represent themselves as
Kings of France. This created opportunities for a range of complex processes of
cultural appropriation and accommodation,<sup>xiii</sup> and many translations from French into
English produced during the first quarter of the century – a time of spectacular
English military successes in France – therefore participate in a larger effort of
political legitimation on the part of the new Lancastrian dynasty. In parallel,
francophone and specifically Parisian literary fashions continued to dominate English
court culture throughout the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The influence of
francophone culture persisted into the Tudor period, albeit in mutated form, sustained
by a complex web of Anglo-continental relations and alliances, particularly with
important figures linked to the Duchy of Burgundy.<sup>xiv</sup>

A final, strictly literary factor that helped to accelerate the emergence of
English as a literary language was the legacy of Geoffrey Chaucer. Crucially, early
readers viewed Chaucer as an eminent translator – a ‘grant translateur’, as Eustache
Deschamps put it in 1385<sup>xv</sup> – and this shaped the subsequent evolution of literary
translation into English. Translations by Hoccleve and Lydgate are famously explicit
about their debts to their master,<sup>xvi</sup> but Chaucerian features also characterise a much
wider range of verse translations, as will be seen below. Chaucer’s trademark verse
form, the seven-line rhyme royal stanza (*ababbcc*), proved particularly popular.

Religious and Devotional Poetry
The repression of religious heterodoxy by the authorities, together with the Oxford translation debate, made the translation of religious materials a hazardous undertaking in the period. Furthermore, the gradual rise of prose as the preferred vehicle for religious instruction had an adverse effect on the translation of religious verse during this period: not only the ‘Wycliffite’ Bible was written in prose, but so were many of the most popular state-sponsored religious classics of the century intended to supplant it, such as Nicholas Love’s translation of the pseudo-Bonaventuran *Mirror of the Life of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ*.<sup>xvii</sup>

The smaller number of religious verse translations that were produced at the time often seized on older and more traditional sources that were immune to potential accusations of heresy. Saints’ lives, many of which were redacted in verse, became particularly popular around the middle of the century (see further Chapter 12). Many of these focused on female saints and were written for female patrons and female readers.<sup>xviii</sup> John Lydgate played a particularly important role in popularising the genre, beginning with the widely circulated *Life of our Lady* (1409–22?; NIMEV 2574), running to around 6000 lines, and the much shorter *Life of St Margaret* (1426; NIMEV 439), both in rhyme royal.<sup>xix</sup> While not translations in the strict sense, but rather adaptations of traditional narratives compiling a range of sources, both poems are characterised by an interest in specifically feminine saintly qualities. This ideal of feminised sainthood also served as a foundation to construct a new, distinctive ideal of poetic inspiration.<sup>xx</sup> Lydgate’s female saints’ lives thus helped to popularise a new form of self-consciously literary religious poetry in English, using verse to render an affectively powerful hagiographical narrative and to promote orthodox devotional practices and reading habits.<sup>xxi</sup>

These and other popular saints' lives by Lydgate helped to spark a wider trend for the genre that was particularly pronounced in East Anglia (see further Chapter 12). Among the most notable translations in this later tradition it is worth signalling those of John Capgrave and Osbern Bokenham. Both were Augustinian friars, and both benefited from the patronage of members of the East Anglian gentry and aristocracy, particularly women. Bokenham is responsible for a remarkable collection of female saints' lives in verse, the *Legendys of Hooly Wummen* (1443–7), written in a mixture of different Chaucerian verse forms, alternating rhyme royal and the eight-line stanza form of the ‘Monk’s Tale’,<sup>xxii</sup> as well as a much larger, recently rediscovered collection of saints lives in a mixture of verse and prose.<sup>xxiii</sup>
The repression of religious heterodoxy by the authorities, together with the Oxford translation debate, made the translation of religious materials a hazardous undertaking in the period. Furthermore, the gradual rise of prose as the preferred vehicle for religious instruction had an adverse effect on the translation of religious verse during this period: not only the ‘Wycliffite’ Bible was written in prose, but so were many of the most popular state-sponsored religious classics of the century intended to supplant it, such as Nicholas Love’s translation of the pseudo-Bonaventuran *Mirror of the Life of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ*.<sup>xvii</sup>

The smaller number of religious verse translations that were produced at the time often seized on older and more traditional sources that were immune to potential accusations of heresy. Saints’ lives, many of which were redacted in verse, became particularly popular around the middle of the century (see further Chapter 12). Many of these focused on female saints and were written for female patrons and female readers.<sup>xviii</sup> John Lydgate played a particularly important role in popularising the genre, beginning with the widely circulated *Life of our Lady* (1409–22?; NIMEV 2574), running to around 6000 lines, and the much shorter *Life of St Margaret* (1426; NIMEV 439), both in rhyme royal.<sup>xix</sup> While not translations in the strict sense, but rather adaptations of traditional narratives compiling a range of sources, both poems are characterised by an interest in specifically feminine saintly qualities. This ideal of feminised sainthood also served as a foundation to construct a new, distinctive ideal of poetic inspiration.<sup>xx</sup> Lydgate’s female saints’ lives thus helped to popularise a new form of self-consciously literary religious poetry in English, using verse to render an affectively powerful hagiographical narrative and to promote orthodox devotional practices and reading habits.<sup>xxi</sup>

These and other popular saints' lives by Lydgate helped to spark a wider trend for the genre that was particularly pronounced in East Anglia (see further Chapter 12). Among the most notable translations in this later tradition it is worth signalling those of John Capgrave and Osbern Bokenham. Both were Augustinian friars, and both benefited from the patronage of members of the East Anglian gentry and aristocracy, particularly women. Bokenham is responsible for a remarkable collection of female saints' lives in verse, the *Legendys of Hooly Wummen* (1443–7), written in a mixture of different Chaucerian verse forms, alternating rhyme royal and the eight-line stanza form of the ‘Monk’s Tale’,<sup>xxii</sup> as well as a much larger, recently rediscovered collection of saints lives in a mixture of verse and prose.<sup>xxiii</sup>
John Capgrave translated a total of four saints' lives into English, two of which are in verse, produced during an earlier phase of his prolific writing career. The *Life of St Norbert* (1420–40; NIMEV 1805) runs to 4109 lines in rhyme royal,xxxiv while the *Life of St Katharine* (mid- to late 1440s; NIMEV 6) adopts the same verse form but stretches to some 8000 lines organised into five books, perhaps in imitation of Chaucer's *Troilus and Criseyde* or some of Lydgate's saints' lives. xxv Katharine is in many ways a poem of epic proportions, not only for its length, intricacy, and ambition, but also because of the breadth of its subject matter, its continuously shifting register, its abundant use of popular romance tradition, and its multivalent understanding of the principle of *translatio*.xxvi Both the verse lives of Katharine and Norbert also provide further examples of how the new vogue of verse hagiography sought to establish its literary credentials by adopting an unmistakably Chaucerian aesthetic. xxvii

Alongside such extended lives of individual saints, religious verse of very different kinds continued to be translated. Much religious poetry in translation consists of shorter, often occasional and anecdotal verses included within larger works or miscellanies. Among such shorter works we find a large corpus of short verses, couplets, or tags embedded in preaching manuals and sermons,xxviii and an even larger number of translations of short devotional lyrics, from Passion and Annunciation lyrics to prayers or complaints. xxix Many of these translations adopted the aureate poetic style popularised by Lydgate, which gradually became the dominant stylistic register for religious poetry in the fifteenth century. But the adoption of an aureate style in this period was far more than a strictly aesthetic and stylistic choice, and often signalled a desire to buttress the authority of the official ecclesiastical establishment and its spiritual prerogatives by using a heavily latinate register and deliberately convoluted syntax, as in this anonymous fifteenth-century Marian lyric (NIMEV 3391), added to an older MS, London, BL Add. 20059 (fols 99a-100a):

By the spectable splendure of hir fulgent face
My sprete was ravesshed and in my body sprent;
Inflamed was my hert with gret solace
Of the luciant corruscall resplendent.
Then this curious cumpany incontynent
John Capgrave translated a total of four saints' lives into English, two of which are in verse, produced during an earlier phase of his prolific writing career. The *Life of St Norbert* (1420–40; NIMEV 1805) runs to 4109 lines in rhyme royal,xxxiv while the *Life of St Katharine* (mid- to late 1440s; NIMEV 6) adopts the same verse form but stretches to some 8000 lines organised into five books, perhaps in imitation of Chaucer's *Troilus and Criseyde* or some of Lydgate's saints' lives. xxv Katharine is in many ways a poem of epic proportions, not only for its length, intricacy, and ambition, but also because of the breadth of its subject matter, its continuously shifting register, its abundant use of popular romance tradition, and its multivalent understanding of the principle of *translatio*.xxvi Both the verse lives of Katharine and Norbert also provide further examples of how the new vogue of verse hagiography sought to establish its literary credentials by adopting an unmistakably Chaucerian aesthetic. xxvii

Alongside such extended lives of individual saints, religious verse of very different kinds continued to be translated. Much religious poetry in translation consists of shorter, often occasional and anecdotal verses included within larger works or miscellanies. Among such shorter works we find a large corpus of short verses, couplets, or tags embedded in preaching manuals and sermons,xxviii and an even larger number of translations of short devotional lyrics, from Passion and Annunciation lyrics to prayers or complaints. xxix Many of these translations adopted the aureate poetic style popularised by Lydgate, which gradually became the dominant stylistic register for religious poetry in the fifteenth century. But the adoption of an aureate style in this period was far more than a strictly aesthetic and stylistic choice, and often signalled a desire to buttress the authority of the official ecclesiastical establishment and its spiritual prerogatives by using a heavily latinate register and deliberately convoluted syntax, as in this anonymous fifteenth-century Marian lyric (NIMEV 3391), added to an older MS, London, BL Add. 20059 (fols 99a-100a):

By the spectable splendure of hir fulgent face
My sprete was ravesshed and in my body sprent;
Inflamed was my hert with gret solace
Of the luciant corruscall resplendent.
Then this curious cumpany incontynent
Withe the seraphynnes in their solemnyté

Solemly sang this subsequent:

*Ecce virgo, radix Jesse.*<sup>xxx</sup>

By creating a high degree of verbal complexity and conceptual density, the aureate
style was thus used to signal the rarefied nature of the religious experience itself,
often suggesting that a doctrinally appropriate understanding of spiritual rapture was
dependent on effective clerical guidance, mediation, and exposition.<sup>xxxii</sup> John Audely
makes precisely this point in *Marcolf and Solomon* (NIMEV 947), in a passage that
describes an ecstatic vision of the Trinity while reminding readers of their dependence
on the clarifications of a ‘clerke':

I se, sothlé, in the sune knyt thre maner kynde,

His clerté and his clerenes, what clerke can declare [i.e. ‘explain, expound’]

Bohold the hete in thi hert, and have hit in mynd;<sup>xxxii</sup>

The vast majority of these materials, often short and anonymous, survive in
miscellanies, and are often difficult to place in a precise context, exemplifying the
challenges involved in mapping religious translations not associated with major
individual authors or prominent patrons. But some major authors too were involved in
producing such shorter occasional verse, a case in point being Thomas Hoccleve's
translation of the 'Lament of the Virgin' (NIMEV 2428) from a French source, one of
the popular allegorical *Pèlerinage*-poems by the French Cistercian Guillaume de
Deguileville, active between 1331 and c 1358–60.<sup>xxxiii</sup> Recent work has highlighted
the complex transmission history of Hoccleve's translation, symptomatic for the
wider difficulty of tracing the circulation and reception for this kind of religious
verse.<sup>xxxiv</sup>

Moral, Allegorical, and Courtly Verse.

The complex transmission history of Hoccleve’s ‘Lament’ needs to be placed within
the wider context of the English reception of Deguileville’s *Pèlerinages*. The
popularity of the *Pèlerinages*-trilogy is in turn part of a wider surge of interest in
allegorical poetry during the period between c 1380–1440, presenting moral and
didactic instruction in the form of extended fictional verse narratives. The earliest
Withe the seraphynnes in their solemnyté

Solemly sang this subsequent:

*Ecce virgo, radix Jesse.*<sup>xxx</sup>

By creating a high degree of verbal complexity and conceptual density, the aureate style was thus used to signal the rarefied nature of the religious experience itself, often suggesting that a doctrinally appropriate understanding of spiritual rapture was dependent on effective clerical guidance, mediation, and exposition.<sup>xxxii</sup> John Audely makes precisely this point in *Marcolf and Solomon* (NIMEV 947), in a passage that describes an ecstatic vision of the Trinity while reminding readers of their dependence on the clarifications of a ‘clerke’:

> I se, sothlé, in the sune knyt thre maner kynde,
> His clerté and his clerenes, what clerke can declare [i.e. ‘explain, expound’]
> Bohold the hete in thi hert, and have hit in mynd;<sup>xxxii</sup>

The vast majority of these materials, often short and anonymous, survive in miscellanies, and are often difficult to place in a precise context, exemplifying the challenges involved in mapping religious translations not associated with major individual authors or prominent patrons. But some major authors too were involved in producing such shorter occasional verse, a case in point being Thomas Hoccleve’s translation of the ‘Lament of the Virgin’ (NIMEV 2428) from a French source, one of the popular allegorical *Pèlerinage*-poems by the French Cistercian Guillaume de Deguileville, active between 1331 and c 1358–60.<sup>xxxiii</sup> Recent work has highlighted the complex transmission history of Hoccleve’s translation, symptomatic for the wider difficulty of tracing the circulation and reception for this kind of religious verse.<sup>xxxiv</sup>

**Moral, Allegorical, and Courtly Verse.**

The complex transmission history of Hoccleve’s ‘Lament’ needs to be placed within the wider context of the English reception of Deguileville’s *Pèlerinages*. The popularity of the *Pèlerinages*-trilogy is in turn part of a wider surge of interest in allegorical poetry during the period between c 1380–1440, presenting moral and didactic instruction in the form of extended fictional verse narratives. The earliest
Deguileville translation in English was Chaucer’s rendering of the ‘ABC prayer’ (NIMEV 239), an embedded lyric from the earliest poem in Deguileville’s allegorical trilogy, the *Pèlerinage de Vie Humaine* (two versions, 1331 and 1355 respectively), and possibly produced for Blanche of Lancaster. xxxv Chaucer’s translation is found inserted into a later, complete prose translation of the first version of the *Pèlerinage de Vie Humaine* by an anonymous translator, *The Pilgrimage of the life of the Manhode*, usually dated to the first third of the fifteenth century. xxxvi

Chaucer’s prayer is also conspicuous through its ‘absent presence’ in a later verse translation of the second, much expanded redaction of Deguileville’s *Pèlerinage de Vie Humaine* (c 1355),xxxvii John Lydgate’s *Pilgrimage of the Life of Man* (1426; NIMEV 4265).xxxviii Although Lydgate explicitly celebrates the literary merits of Chaucer’s prayer in this section of his translation, the two complete manuscripts of Lydgate’s *Pilgrimage of the Life of Man* both feature an extended gap that was designed to accommodate Chaucer’s ABC but was never filled. Beyond its unmistakable Chaucerian affiliations, Lydgate’s *Pilgrimage of the Life of Man* is also shaped by a set of larger, broadly propagandist agendas – religious, cultural, and political. On the one hand, it has been argued that Lydgate harnessed the powerfully visual quality of Deguileville’s pilgrimage allegory to elaborate a sophisticated theory about the legitimate use religious imagery. xxxix On the other hand, Lydgate’s translation of Deguileville’s pious moral allegory must also be seen in a more strictly political context, as part of Anglo-French hostilities. As is suggested by the extended, heavily militaristic dedication to the commander of the English forces in France, Thomas Montague (lines 122–79),

> . . . my lord
> Of Salysbvry, the noble manly knyght
> Wych in Fravnce, for the kynges Ryht,
> In the werre hath meny day contunyd,
> Whom God & grace han ful wel ffortunyd,
> In thenpryses which he hath vndertake (lines 123–7)

Lydgate’s translation participates in a larger Lancastrian attempt to affirm its hold on francophone literary culture, supplementing military aggression with a project of cultural and linguistic appropriation.

The vogue for this kind of francophone allegorical poetry in England more broadly was ultimately triggered by the hugely influential and ever-controversial
Deguileville translation in English was Chaucer’s rendering of the ‘ABC prayer’ (NIMEV 239), an embedded lyric from the earliest poem in Deguileville’s allegorical trilogy, the *Pèlerinage de Vie Humaine* (two versions, 1331 and 1355 respectively), and possibly produced for Blanche of Lancaster. xxxv Chaucer’s translation is found inserted into a later, complete prose translation of the first version of the *Pèlerinage de Vie Humaine* by an anonymous translator, *The Pilgrimage of the life of the Manhode*, usually dated to the first third of the fifteenth century. xxxvi

Chaucer’s prayer is also conspicuous through its ‘absent presence’ in a later verse translation of the second, much expanded redaction of Deguileville’s *Pèlerinage de Vie Humaine* (c 1355),xxxvii John Lydgate’s *Pilgrimage of the Life of Man* (1426; NIMEV 4265).xxxviii Although Lydgate explicitly celebrates the literary merits of Chaucer’s prayer in this section of his translation, the two complete manuscripts of Lydgate’s *Pilgrimage of the Life of Man* both feature an extended gap that was designed to accommodate Chaucer’s ABC but was never filled. Beyond its unmistakable Chaucerian affiliations, Lydgate’s *Pilgrimage of the Life of Man* is also shaped by a set of larger, broadly propagandist agendas – religious, cultural, and political. On the one hand, it has been argued that Lydgate harnessed the powerfully visual quality of Deguileville’s pilgrimage allegory to elaborate a sophisticated theory about the legitimate use religious imagery. xxxix On the other hand, Lydgate’s translation of Deguileville’s pious moral allegory must also be seen in a more strictly political context, as part of Anglo-French hostilities. As is suggested by the extended, heavily militaristic dedication to the commander of the English forces in France, Thomas Montague (lines 122–79),

> . . . my lord
> Of Salysbvry, the noble manly knyght
> Wych in Fravnce, for the kynges Ryht,
> In the werre hath meny day contunyd,
> Whom God & grace han ful wel ffortunyd,
> In thenpryses which he hath vndertake (lines 123–7)

Lydgate’s translation participates in a larger Lancastrian attempt to affirm its hold on francophone literary culture, supplementing military aggression with a project of cultural and linguistic appropriation.

The vogue for this kind of francophone allegorical poetry in England more broadly was ultimately triggered by the hugely influential and ever-controversial
*Roman de la Rose*, completed by Jean de Meun in the 1270s, and partially translated by Geoffrey Chaucer roughly a century later (NIMEV 2092).<sup>xl</sup> Because of its perceived misogyny, at the start of the fifteenth century the *Rose* also came to be at the heart of a sustained literary controversy involving Christine de Pizan, Jean Gerson, the Col brothers and Jean de Meontreuil (1401–3).<sup>xli</sup> Christine de Pizan had already begun confronting the underlying antifeminism of the courtly tradition before the beginning of the *quérelle* proper, notably with the *Epistre au dieu d’Amours* (1399), a fictional letter ostensibly authored by Cupid himself. Christine’s poem was translated into English rhyme royal as *The Letter of Cupid* by Thomas Hoccleve in 1402 (NIMEV 666), making it Hoccleve’s earliest datable work.<sup>xlii</sup> The translation is revealing in terms of Hoccleve’s early literary aspirations, which are both distinctly Francophile and strongly Chaucerian, echoing Chaucer’s defence of virtuous female heroines in the *Legend of Good Women* and elsewhere in his *oeuvre*. But Hoccleve’s handling of the gender politics in the poem appears awkward and inconclusive: where Christine confidently occupies her authorial position to denounce the latent antifeminism of the courtly tradition, Hoccleve’s letter lacks a clearly identifiable authorial position, referring to a wide range of discordant viewpoints, and even relapsing into conventional misogynist stereotypes.<sup>xliii</sup>

A similar discomfort with Christine's strong female authorial persona and with her unmistakable feminist agenda can be discerned in a later English translation of her *Epistre Othéa a Hector* (1400) by Stephen Scrope, as the *Epistle of Othea* (c 1440; NIMEV 2766), rendering the verse portion in rhyming couplets, accompanied by extensive allegorical interpretations in prose as in Christine's original.<sup>xliv</sup> Spoken in the voice of Othea herself – goddess of female wisdom and prudence – Christine's poem consists in an extended fictional letter sent to a teenage Hector, comprising an extended selection of short didactic narratives drawn from classical mythology and allegorised with the assistance of scripture, the church fathers, and pagan philosophers. Scrope offers a close, meticulous translation, but clearly obscures the role of Christine as a female author, and reduces Christine's emphasis on women as wise counsellors and advisers in her exemplary allegorical stories.<sup>xlv</sup> Christine de Pizan's works continued to enjoy considerable popularity well into the sixteenth century, when several were printed.<sup>xlvi</sup>

Among further allegorical poems of substantial length it is worth signalling *Reson and Sensuallyte* (c 1408–12; NIMEV 3746), an incomplete poem of some 7000
*Roman de la Rose*, completed by Jean de Meun in the 1270s, and partially translated by Geoffrey Chaucer roughly a century later (NIMEV 2092).<sup>xl</sup> Because of its perceived misogyny, at the start of the fifteenth century the *Rose* also came to be at the heart of a sustained literary controversy involving Christine de Pizan, Jean Gerson, the Col brothers and Jean de Meontreuil (1401–3).<sup>xli</sup> Christine de Pizan had already begun confronting the underlying antifeminism of the courtly tradition before the beginning of the *quérelle* proper, notably with the *Epistre au dieu d’Amours* (1399), a fictional letter ostensibly authored by Cupid himself. Christine’s poem was translated into English rhyme royal as *The Letter of Cupid* by Thomas Hoccleve in 1402 (NIMEV 666), making it Hoccleve’s earliest datable work.<sup>xlii</sup> The translation is revealing in terms of Hoccleve’s early literary aspirations, which are both distinctly Francophile and strongly Chaucerian, echoing Chaucer’s defence of virtuous female heroines in the *Legend of Good Women* and elsewhere in his *oeuvre*. But Hoccleve’s handling of the gender politics in the poem appears awkward and inconclusive: where Christine confidently occupies her authorial position to denounce the latent antifeminism of the courtly tradition, Hoccleve’s letter lacks a clearly identifiable authorial position, referring to a wide range of discordant viewpoints, and even relapsing into conventional misogynist stereotypes.<sup>xliii</sup>

A similar discomfort with Christine's strong female authorial persona and with her unmistakable feminist agenda can be discerned in a later English translation of her *Epistre Othéa a Hector* (1400) by Stephen Scrope, as the *Epistle of Othea* (c 1440; NIMEV 2766), rendering the verse portion in rhyming couplets, accompanied by extensive allegorical interpretations in prose as in Christine's original.<sup>xliv</sup> Spoken in the voice of Othea herself – goddess of female wisdom and prudence – Christine's poem consists in an extended fictional letter sent to a teenage Hector, comprising an extended selection of short didactic narratives drawn from classical mythology and allegorised with the assistance of scripture, the church fathers, and pagan philosophers. Scrope offers a close, meticulous translation, but clearly obscures the role of Christine as a female author, and reduces Christine's emphasis on women as wise counsellors and advisers in her exemplary allegorical stories.<sup>xlv</sup> Christine de Pizan's works continued to enjoy considerable popularity well into the sixteenth century, when several were printed.<sup>xlvi</sup>

Among further allegorical poems of substantial length it is worth signalling *Reson and Sensuallyte* (c 1408–12; NIMEV 3746), an incomplete poem of some 7000
lines in rhyming couplets, whose manuscript attribution to Lydgate is highly
dubious.⁴⁹vii The poem is a translation of Évrart de Conty’s *Eschéz Amoureux* (1375–
8),⁴⁹viii another direct response to the *Roman de la Rose* that takes the form of an
allegorised chess game. In pitching the rational intellect squarely against sensual
pleasure, Conty had sought to convey a much stronger moral message in his response
to the slippery, playful, and ultimately evasive *Rose*. The English translation, by
contrast, eschews any such schematic imbalance, transforming the poem from a moral
allegory into a more ambitious philosophical speculation whose overall tenor remains
to be more fully explored. Almost completely neglected by modern critics, the poem
has recently been read as an exploration of the natural potentialities of the higher,
immaterial intellect, but also as a poem that highlights the productive affinity between
irrational sensual pleasure and poetic creativity.⁴⁹ix

The philosophical concerns of *Reson and Sensuallyte* fit within the larger
interest in self-knowledge and introspection that underpins much allegorical poetry of
the period, often shaped by the lasting influence of Boethius *Consolation of
Philosophy*.¹ Such Boethian concerns also provide the context for John Walton’s
translation of the *Consolation of Philosophy* (1410; NIMEV 1597), a version that
survives in twenty-three manuscripts and several extracts, and thus circulated more
widely than Chaucer’s own prose *Boece* (see further Chapter 15). The translation,
likely produced at the behest of Elizabeth Berkeley – daughter of Trevisa’s patron
Thomas Berkeley – is poetically skilful and elegant, and switches from the eight-line
stanza borrowed from Chaucer’s ‘Monk’s Tale’, used in the first three books, to
rhyme royal for books IV and V, underscoring the tonal transition to loftier subject
matter for the two final books.li Walton’s translation is notable also for the wide and
diverse range of responses in its manuscripts, including some meticulous close
commentary, topical as well as allegorical interpretations, occasional humanist
marginal references, and the presence of several extracts in other manuscripts.lii

Alain Chartier’s incomplete *Traité de l’espérance* (1430) also participates in
this Boethian wave, as does his *Quadriloge Invectif* (1422).liii Both were translated
into English prose, and Chartier’s work remained popular with English readers
throughout the century.liv In the present context the most significant English rendering
of Chartier’s work is undoubtedly Richard Roos’s translation of the *Belle Dame Sans
Merci* (BDSM, c 1424, NIMEV 1086).lv Chartier’s original is again part of the
tradition of Jean de Meun’s *Roman de la Rose*, and circulated so widely throughout
lines in rhyming couplets, whose manuscript attribution to Lydgate is highly
dubious.⁴⁹vii The poem is a translation of Évrart de Conty’s *Eschéz Amoureux* (1375–
8),⁴⁹viii another direct response to the *Roman de la Rose* that takes the form of an
allegorised chess game. In pitching the rational intellect squarely against sensual
pleasure, Conty had sought to convey a much stronger moral message in his response
to the slippery, playful, and ultimately evasive *Rose*. The English translation, by
contrast, eschews any such schematic imbalance, transforming the poem from a moral
allegory into a more ambitious philosophical speculation whose overall tenor remains
to be more fully explored. Almost completely neglected by modern critics, the poem
has recently been read as an exploration of the natural potentialities of the higher,
immaterial intellect, but also as a poem that highlights the productive affinity between
irrational sensual pleasure and poetic creativity.⁴⁹ix

The philosophical concerns of *Reson and Sensuallyte* fit within the larger
interest in self-knowledge and introspection that underpins much allegorical poetry of
the period, often shaped by the lasting influence of Boethius *Consolation of
Philosophy*.¹ Such Boethian concerns also provide the context for John Walton’s
translation of the *Consolation of Philosophy* (1410; NIMEV 1597), a version that
survives in twenty-three manuscripts and several extracts, and thus circulated more
widely than Chaucer’s own prose *Boece* (see further Chapter 15). The translation,
likely produced at the behest of Elizabeth Berkeley – daughter of Trevisa’s patron
Thomas Berkeley – is poetically skilful and elegant, and switches from the eight-line
stanza borrowed from Chaucer’s ‘Monk’s Tale’, used in the first three books, to
rhyme royal for books IV and V, underscoring the tonal transition to loftier subject
matter for the two final books.li Walton’s translation is notable also for the wide and
diverse range of responses in its manuscripts, including some meticulous close
commentary, topical as well as allegorical interpretations, occasional humanist
marginal references, and the presence of several extracts in other manuscripts.lii

Alain Chartier’s incomplete *Traité de l’espérance* (1430) also participates in
this Boethian wave, as does his *Quadriloge Invectif* (1422).liii Both were translated
into English prose, and Chartier’s work remained popular with English readers
throughout the century.liv In the present context the most significant English rendering
of Chartier’s work is undoubtedly Richard Roos’s translation of the *Belle Dame Sans
Merci* (BDSM, c 1424, NIMEV 1086).lv Chartier’s original is again part of the
tradition of Jean de Meun’s *Roman de la Rose*, and circulated so widely throughout
Europe that it has been called ‘the most important single poem of its century’.lvi
Stretching to some 856 lines and organising the narrative into one hundred separate
stanzas of *huitains* (eight-line stanzas), the *BDSM* managed to combine the narrative
element of allegory with the more static and meditative tone of the first-person love
lyric. Chartier’s *BDSM* effectively traces the lover’s futile efforts to woo the lady, and
ends with the lover’s death, an event that may or may not be meant ironically. The
fact of the lover’s death and the presumed cruelty of the ‘merciless’ lady (*sans merci*,
i.e. ‘without mercy’) became the object of an extended literary debate among readers
and imitators, whose creative responses were often appended to manuscripts of the
*BDSM*, developing into a fully-fledged literary *quérelle* that echoes and explicitly
references the earlier *Quérelle de la Rose* (1401–3).lvii

Strikingly, Richard Roos decided to reproduce Chartier’s formal choices in his
translation of the *BDSM*: not only did he maintain the structure of one hundred eight-
line stanzas – albeit extending his lines from tetrameter to the more current
pentameter – but he managed to produce a poem whose fluidity and elegance truly
lives up to its original. Yet Roos also supplements the poem with a more self-
consciously ‘English’ prologue and epilogue, both written in Chaucerian rhyme royal.
This alternation of quintessentially French and English stanza forms is symptomatic
for Roos’s complex aims in translating the poem, combining a tribute to the leading
courtly poet of fifteenth-century France with the desire to transplant his fine poetic art
to a very different, more conservative cultural climate in England, while also
affirming the newly found literary dignity of the English language. The result is a
poem that maintains the grace and elegance of the original, but moderates the darker
and more subversive implications of Chartier’s version, celebrating courtly aesthetics
instead of interrogating them through subtle and at times bitter irony, and thus
affirming the high cultural value of francophone courtly traditions in an English
context. lviii

A similarly complex interlacing of French and English literary sensibilities is
found in Charles d'Orléans's poetic output, which includes poetry in both languages,
and is more fully discussed elsewhere in this volume (see chapter 17). Produced
during an extended period of captivity in England, between 1415 and 1440, the corpus
of Charles's poetry is gathered in two separate manuscripts, both commissioned by
Charles himself in the late 1430s. Most but not all of Charles's English poems in
London, BL MS Harley 682 are adaptations of the French poems preserved in Paris,
Europe that it has been called ‘the most important single poem of its century’.lvi
Stretching to some 856 lines and organising the narrative into one hundred separate
stanzas of *huitains* (eight-line stanzas), the *BDSM* managed to combine the narrative
element of allegory with the more static and meditative tone of the first-person love
lyric. Chartier’s *BDSM* effectively traces the lover’s futile efforts to woo the lady, and
ends with the lover’s death, an event that may or may not be meant ironically. The
fact of the lover’s death and the presumed cruelty of the ‘merciless’ lady (*sans merci*,
i.e. ‘without mercy’) became the object of an extended literary debate among readers
and imitators, whose creative responses were often appended to manuscripts of the
*BDSM*, developing into a fully-fledged literary *quérelle* that echoes and explicitly
references the earlier *Quérelle de la Rose* (1401–3).lvii

Strikingly, Richard Roos decided to reproduce Chartier’s formal choices in his
translation of the *BDSM*: not only did he maintain the structure of one hundred eight-
line stanzas – albeit extending his lines from tetrameter to the more current
pentameter – but he managed to produce a poem whose fluidity and elegance truly
lives up to its original. Yet Roos also supplements the poem with a more self-
consciously ‘English’ prologue and epilogue, both written in Chaucerian rhyme royal.
This alternation of quintessentially French and English stanza forms is symptomatic
for Roos’s complex aims in translating the poem, combining a tribute to the leading
courtly poet of fifteenth-century France with the desire to transplant his fine poetic art
to a very different, more conservative cultural climate in England, while also
affirming the newly found literary dignity of the English language. The result is a
poem that maintains the grace and elegance of the original, but moderates the darker
and more subversive implications of Chartier’s version, celebrating courtly aesthetics
instead of interrogating them through subtle and at times bitter irony, and thus
affirming the high cultural value of francophone courtly traditions in an English
context. lviii

A similarly complex interlacing of French and English literary sensibilities is
found in Charles d'Orléans's poetic output, which includes poetry in both languages,
and is more fully discussed elsewhere in this volume (see chapter 17). Produced
during an extended period of captivity in England, between 1415 and 1440, the corpus
of Charles's poetry is gathered in two separate manuscripts, both commissioned by
Charles himself in the late 1430s. Most but not all of Charles's English poems in
London, BL MS Harley 682 are adaptations of the French poems preserved in Paris,
BnF MS fr. 25458, making this a rare, indeed unique case of 'self-translation', although the exact details and chronology of Charles's composition-and-translation process remain unclear.¹ix Despite its uniqueness, Charles's work shares many characteristics with Roos's translation of the *BDSM*: we again find a combination of lyric poetry and narrative allegory; an emotionally powerful account of a personal experience of amorous disappointment and disillusion with the courtly ethos; and a movement between quintessentially French, strictly codified poetic forms (*formes fixes*) and freer English courtly verse. Where the French collection is discontinuous and open-ended, leaving the door open to further possibilities of continuation and reconfiguration after Charles's return to France, the English collection strives to attain formal and narrative closure, as if to signal the completion of an important major phase in the life of its culturally and linguistically mobile author.¹x

## Romance, Exemplary History, and Statecraft

Romance too was a quintessentially French literary form, originally designating little more than a text written in 'romauns' language – i.e. in French. Insular Britain provided a particularly fruitful ground for the growth and development of the romance genre, ever since the days of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Especially insular sources in Anglo-Norman French were frequently translated into English throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and translation activity carried on throughout the fifteenth century and into Tudor times. The fifteenth century was the great age of the prose romance, culminating with Caxton's printing of a range of chivalric classics including several romances, but the translation of romances into English verse also continued, albeit in attenuated form, and declining more rapidly after the middle of the century.¹xi

Many verse romances discussed more fully elsewhere in this volume are in fact translations of one kind or another (see further Chapters 19, 20, 21). This included a spate of Charlemagne romances in verse adapted from French and Latin sources, produced across the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century. Difficult to date and contextualise, such translations of French *chansons de geste* lack any strictly literary ambition, but provide precious indications of contemporary popular attitudes to cultural difference and national identity, particularly in the context of ongoing Anglo-French hostilities and the renewed, if fitful, crusading enthusiasm in this period (see further Chapter 21).¹xii Crusading ideals are indeed conspicuous in many verse
BnF MS fr. 25458, making this a rare, indeed unique case of 'self-translation', although the exact details and chronology of Charles's composition-and-translation process remain unclear.¹ix Despite its uniqueness, Charles's work shares many characteristics with Roos's translation of the *BDSM*: we again find a combination of lyric poetry and narrative allegory; an emotionally powerful account of a personal experience of amorous disappointment and disillusion with the courtly ethos; and a movement between quintessentially French, strictly codified poetic forms (*formes fixes*) and freer English courtly verse. Where the French collection is discontinuous and open-ended, leaving the door open to further possibilities of continuation and reconfiguration after Charles's return to France, the English collection strives to attain formal and narrative closure, as if to signal the completion of an important major phase in the life of its culturally and linguistically mobile author.¹x

## Romance, Exemplary History, and Statecraft

Romance too was a quintessentially French literary form, originally designating little more than a text written in 'romauns' language – i.e. in French. Insular Britain provided a particularly fruitful ground for the growth and development of the romance genre, ever since the days of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Especially insular sources in Anglo-Norman French were frequently translated into English throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and translation activity carried on throughout the fifteenth century and into Tudor times. The fifteenth century was the great age of the prose romance, culminating with Caxton's printing of a range of chivalric classics including several romances, but the translation of romances into English verse also continued, albeit in attenuated form, and declining more rapidly after the middle of the century.¹xi

Many verse romances discussed more fully elsewhere in this volume are in fact translations of one kind or another (see further Chapters 19, 20, 21). This included a spate of Charlemagne romances in verse adapted from French and Latin sources, produced across the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century. Difficult to date and contextualise, such translations of French *chansons de geste* lack any strictly literary ambition, but provide precious indications of contemporary popular attitudes to cultural difference and national identity, particularly in the context of ongoing Anglo-French hostilities and the renewed, if fitful, crusading enthusiasm in this period (see further Chapter 21).¹xii Crusading ideals are indeed conspicuous in many verse
romances copied during the period, notably those included in two remarkable manuscripts produced by Robert Thornton during the 1430s (see further Chapter 8), although many of these items were first translated or composed in the previous century.

English verse translations of Arthurian materials were comparatively rare, and only achieved very limited circulation. They include Henry Lovelich's monumental *History of the Holy Grail* and *Merlin* (c 1450–75; NIMEV 842.5 and 2312), jointly running to almost 50.000 lines of rhyming couplets, surviving in a single manuscript and based on the French prose *Estoire del Saint Graal*, but replacing the source's focus on mystical contemplation with a new emphasis on warfare against the infidel;¹xiii and the incomplete couplet *Lancelot of the Laik* in Middle Scots (NIMEV 3466)¹xiv – a rare insular retelling of the amorous intrigue as recounted in the French prose *Lancelot* – the only comparable Arthurian translation into English being the Stanzaic *Morte Arthure*, dating from c 1400 (NIMEV 1994; see further Chapter 20).¹xv We also find several non-cyclical romances translated from francophone sources, many of which display ‘Chaucerian’ features of one kind or another, such as the rhyme royal *Romans of Partenay* (1500?, NIMEV 819.5),¹xvi *Partonope of Blois* (c 1420, NIMEV 4132),¹xvii in octosyllabic couplets and with a conspicuously Chaucerian narrator,¹xviii or the couplet *Lyfe of Ipomydon* (NIMEV 2142) based on Hugh de Rotelande’s twelfth-century Anglo-Norman romance.¹lxix

Romances of antiquity proved particularly popular at the start of the century, and are discussed more fully elsewhere (see Chapter 19). It is worth stressing, however, that many of the most popular works in these genres were in fact ‘translations’. This included both Lydgate’s popular *Troy Book* (between 1412 and 1420, NIMEV 2516),¹xx based upon Guido delle Colonne’s *Historia Destructionis Troiae*,¹xxi and his *Fall of Princes* (1431–38; NIMEV 1168),¹xxii a translation of Boccaccio’s *De Casibus Virorum Illustrium* via Laurent de Premierfait’s earlier French translation, *Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes* from 1409,¹xxiii as well as Thomas Hoccleve’s *Regement of Princes* (1410–12, NIMEV 2229),¹xxiv ‘translating’ three main sources: Giles of Rome’s *De Regimine Principum*;¹xxv Jacob de Cessolis’s moralised *Book of Chess*;¹xxvi and the hugely popular *Secretum Secretorum*¹xxvii (see further Chapters 24 and 25). Many of these translated romances of antiquity emphasise the historical and exemplary significance of events from the pagan past, as
romances copied during the period, notably those included in two remarkable manuscripts produced by Robert Thornton during the 1430s (see further Chapter 8), although many of these items were first translated or composed in the previous century.

English verse translations of Arthurian materials were comparatively rare, and only achieved very limited circulation. They include Henry Lovelich's monumental *History of the Holy Grail* and *Merlin* (c 1450–75; NIMEV 842.5 and 2312), jointly running to almost 50.000 lines of rhyming couplets, surviving in a single manuscript and based on the French prose *Estoire del Saint Graal*, but replacing the source's focus on mystical contemplation with a new emphasis on warfare against the infidel;¹xiii and the incomplete couplet *Lancelot of the Laik* in Middle Scots (NIMEV 3466)¹xiv – a rare insular retelling of the amorous intrigue as recounted in the French prose *Lancelot* – the only comparable Arthurian translation into English being the Stanzaic *Morte Arthure*, dating from c 1400 (NIMEV 1994; see further Chapter 20).¹xv We also find several non-cyclical romances translated from francophone sources, many of which display ‘Chaucerian’ features of one kind or another, such as the rhyme royal *Romans of Partenay* (1500?, NIMEV 819.5),¹xvi *Partonope of Blois* (c 1420, NIMEV 4132),¹xvii in octosyllabic couplets and with a conspicuously Chaucerian narrator,¹xviii or the couplet *Lyfe of Ipomydon* (NIMEV 2142) based on Hugh de Rotelande’s twelfth-century Anglo-Norman romance.¹lxix

Romances of antiquity proved particularly popular at the start of the century, and are discussed more fully elsewhere (see Chapter 19). It is worth stressing, however, that many of the most popular works in these genres were in fact ‘translations’. This included both Lydgate’s popular *Troy Book* (between 1412 and 1420, NIMEV 2516),¹xx based upon Guido delle Colonne’s *Historia Destructionis Troiae*,¹xxi and his *Fall of Princes* (1431–38; NIMEV 1168),¹xxii a translation of Boccaccio’s *De Casibus Virorum Illustrium* via Laurent de Premierfait’s earlier French translation, *Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes* from 1409,¹xxiii as well as Thomas Hoccleve’s *Regement of Princes* (1410–12, NIMEV 2229),¹xxiv ‘translating’ three main sources: Giles of Rome’s *De Regimine Principum*;¹xxv Jacob de Cessolis’s moralised *Book of Chess*;¹xxvi and the hugely popular *Secretum Secretorum*¹xxvii (see further Chapters 24 and 25). Many of these translated romances of antiquity emphasise the historical and exemplary significance of events from the pagan past, as
opposed to their legendary, romantic, or supernatural elements, and are thus best
viewed as works of ‘history’.lxxviii

These classical romances fit within the larger trend that saw the growth in
popularity of broadly didactic literature on chivalry, kingship, governance, and
domestic conduct (see further Chapter 16). This tradition in turn included several
translations, such as the *Secrees of Old Philisoffres* (NIMEV 935), a verse translation
of the hugely popular *Secretum Secretorum* in rhyme royal, and by far the most
successful of its many English adaptations with twenty-two surviving witnesses. lxxix
The translation was begun by Lydgate in the late 1440s at the behest of Henry VI, and
was completed by his self-appointed disciple Benedict Burgh after Lydgate’s death.
Rivalling the pan-European success of the *Secretum*, we find Vegetius’s *De Re
Militari*,lxxx surviving in two fifteenth-century English translations: one into prose,
produced in 1408 for Thomas Berkeley; lxxxii and a second translation into rhyme royal,
*Of Knyghthode and Bataile* (NIMEV 3185), characterised by its distinctly classicising
interests. lxxxii Another avatar of the *Secretum* is Caxton’s *The Book of Feats of Arms
and of Chivalry* (London, 1489), a prose translation of Christine de Pizan’s *Livre des
faits et d’armes et de chevalerie*, lxxxiii which had rendered extended portions of
Vegetius’s treatise in French. lxxxiv

Humanist Translations and Italian Poets

Humanism is widely understood as a cultural programme hinging on the recovery of
original Greek and Latin texts from antiquity, and it may seem counterintuitive to
view late medieval vernacular translations as somehow contributing to the growth of
humanism in the strict sense. Nonetheless, there is substantial evidence to suggest that
Britain's fifteenth-century 'humanists' had more than a passing interest in
contemporary translations into English, even as they reinterpreted rather different,
er earlier forms of classicism found in the generation of Geoffrey Chaucer and John
Walton. lxxxv

Frequently invoked as the father of English humanism, Humphrey Duke of
Gloucester, youngest brother of King Henry V, was heavily invested in the ideal of
cultural translatio, and was the dedicatee of numerous translations during the second
quarter of the fifteenth century, some of which he personally commissioned (see
further Chapter 2 ??). lxxxvi The majority of these translations, however, rendered
Greek or Italian texts into Latin, and only two were translations into English, both in
opposed to their legendary, romantic, or supernatural elements, and are thus best
viewed as works of ‘history’.lxxviii

These classical romances fit within the larger trend that saw the growth in
popularity of broadly didactic literature on chivalry, kingship, governance, and
domestic conduct (see further Chapter 16). This tradition in turn included several
translations, such as the *Secrees of Old Philisoffres* (NIMEV 935), a verse translation
of the hugely popular *Secretum Secretorum* in rhyme royal, and by far the most
successful of its many English adaptations with twenty-two surviving witnesses. lxxix
The translation was begun by Lydgate in the late 1440s at the behest of Henry VI, and
was completed by his self-appointed disciple Benedict Burgh after Lydgate’s death.
Rivalling the pan-European success of the *Secretum*, we find Vegetius’s *De Re
Militari*,lxxx surviving in two fifteenth-century English translations: one into prose,
produced in 1408 for Thomas Berkeley; lxxxi and a second translation into rhyme royal,
*Of Knyghthode and Bataile* (NIMEV 3185), characterised by its distinctly classicising
interests. lxxxii Another avatar of the *Secretum* is Caxton’s *The Book of Feats of Arms
and of Chivalry* (London, 1489), a prose translation of Christine de Pizan’s *Livre des
faits et d’armes et de chevalerie*, lxxxiii which had rendered extended portions of
Vegetius’s treatise in French. lxxxiv

Humanist Translations and Italian Poets

Humanism is widely understood as a cultural programme hinging on the recovery of
original Greek and Latin texts from antiquity, and it may seem counterintuitive to
view late medieval vernacular translations as somehow contributing to the growth of
humanism in the strict sense. Nonetheless, there is substantial evidence to suggest that
Britain's fifteenth-century 'humanists' had more than a passing interest in
contemporary translations into English, even as they reinterpreted rather different,
er earlier forms of classicism found in the generation of Geoffrey Chaucer and John
Walton. lxxxv

Frequently invoked as the father of English humanism, Humphrey Duke of
Gloucester, youngest brother of King Henry V, was heavily invested in the ideal of
cultural translatio, and was the dedicatee of numerous translations during the second
quarter of the fifteenth century, some of which he personally commissioned (see
further Chapter 2 ??). lxxxvi The majority of these translations, however, rendered
Greek or Italian texts into Latin, and only two were translations into English, both in
verse. They were Lydgate’s translation of Boccaccio’s *De Casibus* as the *Fall of Princes*, already discussed; and *On Husbandrie* (c 1442–3; NIMEV 654), a translation of Palladius’s widely read prose treatise on agriculture, the *Opus Agriculturae* or *De Re Rustica*.lxxxvii The translation has been variously read as a practical guide to agriculture; a self-consciously humanist exercise in classicising scholarship; a reflection of Humphrey’s own desire for a retreat from the active life to a world of ‘georgic’ culture and agriculture; and a meditation on political governance, stability, and power, figured as a process of carefully managed agricultural growth (see further Chapter 15).lxxxviii

The work of another a major classical author, Claudian’s *De Consulato Stilichonis*, is the source of a selective translation into unrhymed English verse, internally dated to 1445 (NIMEV 1526).lxxxix The original is a panegyric on Claudian’s patron, Stilicho, congratulating the latter on his appointment as consul, and the relevant extracts of the original Latin are included on facing pages in the single surviving manuscript of the English translation. The dedication to Richard, Duke of York, suggests that the latter’s achievements ought to be viewed as broadly analogous with those of the Roman general, although the text does not elaborate on the details of the implied analogy. The question of authorship remains disputed: Osbern Bokenham is a likely candidate, but the work has also been attributed to the author of the *De Re Rustica* translation, and it has been suggested that the same author may also be responsible for *Knyghthode and Bataile*, already mentioned.xc Regardless of the question of authorship, all three translations display a distinctively humanist interest in classical authors, marking an important moment in the slow metamorphosis of classicising interests during the fifteenth century.

Given the modern reputation of Francis Petrarch, together with Dante and Boccaccio, as one of Italy’s three most eminent vernacular poets from the Middle Ages, it may appear surprising that early English translators were attracted almost exclusively by his Latin *oeuvre*.xci Petrarch’s seminal collection of love lyrics in the vernacular – the *Rime Sparse* or *Rerum Vulgarium Fragmenta*, often known more simply as the *Canzoniere*xcii – helped to spark the European vogue for Petrarchan sonnet sequences during the sixteenth century, but appears to have been largely ignored by English readers until the time of Thomas Wyatt, with the notable exception of Chaucer’s precocious – and unacknowledged – translation of a single sonnet as the ‘Canticus Troili’ in his *Troilus and Criseyde* (I. 400–420, cf. *Canzoniere*
verse. They were Lydgate’s translation of Boccaccio’s *De Casibus* as the *Fall of Princes*, already discussed; and *On Husbandrie* (c 1442–3; NIMEV 654), a translation of Palladius’s widely read prose treatise on agriculture, the *Opus Agriculturae* or *De Re Rustica*.lxxxvii The translation has been variously read as a practical guide to agriculture; a self-consciously humanist exercise in classicising scholarship; a reflection of Humphrey’s own desire for a retreat from the active life to a world of ‘georgic’ culture and agriculture; and a meditation on political governance, stability, and power, figured as a process of carefully managed agricultural growth (see further Chapter 15).lxxxviii

The work of another a major classical author, Claudian’s *De Consulato Stilichonis*, is the source of a selective translation into unrhymed English verse, internally dated to 1445 (NIMEV 1526).lxxxix The original is a panegyric on Claudian’s patron, Stilicho, congratulating the latter on his appointment as consul, and the relevant extracts of the original Latin are included on facing pages in the single surviving manuscript of the English translation. The dedication to Richard, Duke of York, suggests that the latter’s achievements ought to be viewed as broadly analogous with those of the Roman general, although the text does not elaborate on the details of the implied analogy. The question of authorship remains disputed: Osbern Bokenham is a likely candidate, but the work has also been attributed to the author of the *De Re Rustica* translation, and it has been suggested that the same author may also be responsible for *Knyghthode and Bataile*, already mentioned.xc Regardless of the question of authorship, all three translations display a distinctively humanist interest in classical authors, marking an important moment in the slow metamorphosis of classicising interests during the fifteenth century.

Given the modern reputation of Francis Petrarch, together with Dante and Boccaccio, as one of Italy’s three most eminent vernacular poets from the Middle Ages, it may appear surprising that early English translators were attracted almost exclusively by his Latin *oeuvre*.xci Petrarch’s seminal collection of love lyrics in the vernacular – the *Rime Sparse* or *Rerum Vulgarium Fragmenta*, often known more simply as the *Canzoniere*xcii – helped to spark the European vogue for Petrarchan sonnet sequences during the sixteenth century, but appears to have been largely ignored by English readers until the time of Thomas Wyatt, with the notable exception of Chaucer’s precocious – and unacknowledged – translation of a single sonnet as the ‘Canticus Troili’ in his *Troilus and Criseyde* (I. 400–420, cf. *Canzoniere*
132). This interest in Petrarch as a Latinist, however, is consonant with the wider patterns of early European responses to Petrarch's *oeuvre* as that of a pioneering humanist intellectual.xciii Two substantial English Petrarch translations were produced during the fifteenth century, both of which are dialogues and survive in single manuscripts. The first is a prose *Dialogue Between Reason and Adversity*, an abridgement of the *De Remediis Utriusque Fortunae*.xciv More relevant in the present context is the second, later translation into English verse (c 1477–87; DIMEV 2129) of Petrarch's *Secretum*.xcv The *Secretum* is an introspective spiritual dialogue between the author/narrator-figure, Franciscus, and St Augustine of Hippo, moderated by Truth personified (*Veritas*). The English translator turns Petrarch's prose into rhyming couplets, but only the first of the original three days of the dialogue has come down to us in the single surviving manuscript. The translation encapsulates the transitional and hybrid nature of much early English humanism: while the poem is clearly marked by a new kind of classicising aesthetic and a conspicuously aureate diction, it also draws inspiration from far more traditional forms of moral didacticism, Boethian dialogue, and the introspective spiritual monologue in the tradition of St Augustine.

Boccaccio has already featured in the preceding account, providing the ultimate source for Lydgate's *Fall of Princes* with the *De Casibus Virorum Illustrium*. Boccaccio's companion piece to the *De Casibus*, the *De Mulieribus Claris*,xcvi which rehearses lives of noble women, was also translated into English rhyme royal stanzas, albeit much reduced in size (from 106 to 21 lives), around the middle of the fifteenth century (NIMEV 2642).xcvii Although the translation is in many ways derivative and heavily Lydgatean in style, it survives in a single manuscript witness characterised by a striking humanist *mise en page* that was highly unusual and precocious for vernacular texts in England.xcviii But also Boccaccio's Italian work – unlike Petrarch's – was translated into English, although this is far from being indicative of broader trends: only a single one of Boccaccio's one hundred tales from the *Decameron* – The Tale of Tancredi, Ghismunda, and Guiscardo (*Decameron* IV.1) – was translated into English rhyme royal on two occasions, and continued to increase in popularity during the following century.xcix But the popularity of the tale in England is part of a wider, pan-European phenomenon,ᶜ and once more highlights the nearly total lack of any direct engagement with Italian literature by English translators in the generations between Chaucer and Thomas Wyatt.cɪ It is also symptomatic that both translations were made at one or even two removes from Boccaccio's original, via Leonardo
132). This interest in Petrarch as a Latinist, however, is consonant with the wider patterns of early European responses to Petrarch's *oeuvre* as that of a pioneering humanist intellectual.xciii Two substantial English Petrarch translations were produced during the fifteenth century, both of which are dialogues and survive in single manuscripts. The first is a prose *Dialogue Between Reason and Adversity*, an abridgement of the *De Remediis Utriusque Fortunae*.xciv More relevant in the present context is the second, later translation into English verse (c 1477–87; DIMEV 2129) of Petrarch's *Secretum*.xcv The *Secretum* is an introspective spiritual dialogue between the author/narrator-figure, Franciscus, and St Augustine of Hippo, moderated by Truth personified (*Veritas*). The English translator turns Petrarch's prose into rhyming couplets, but only the first of the original three days of the dialogue has come down to us in the single surviving manuscript. The translation encapsulates the transitional and hybrid nature of much early English humanism: while the poem is clearly marked by a new kind of classicising aesthetic and a conspicuously aureate diction, it also draws inspiration from far more traditional forms of moral didacticism, Boethian dialogue, and the introspective spiritual monologue in the tradition of St Augustine.

Boccaccio has already featured in the preceding account, providing the ultimate source for Lydgate's *Fall of Princes* with the *De Casibus Virorum Illustrium*. Boccaccio's companion piece to the *De Casibus*, the *De Mulieribus Claris*,xcvi which rehearses lives of noble women, was also translated into English rhyme royal stanzas, albeit much reduced in size (from 106 to 21 lives), around the middle of the fifteenth century (NIMEV 2642).xcvii Although the translation is in many ways derivative and heavily Lydgatean in style, it survives in a single manuscript witness characterised by a striking humanist *mise en page* that was highly unusual and precocious for vernacular texts in England.xcviii But also Boccaccio's Italian work – unlike Petrarch's – was translated into English, although this is far from being indicative of broader trends: only a single one of Boccaccio's one hundred tales from the *Decameron* – The Tale of Tancredi, Ghismunda, and Guiscardo (*Decameron* IV.1) – was translated into English rhyme royal on two occasions, and continued to increase in popularity during the following century.xcix But the popularity of the tale in England is part of a wider, pan-European phenomenon,ᶜ and once more highlights the nearly total lack of any direct engagement with Italian literature by English translators in the generations between Chaucer and Thomas Wyatt.cii It is also symptomatic that both translations were made at one or even two removes from Boccaccio's original, via Leonardo
Bruni’s Latin prose *Fabula Tancredi* (*c* 1436–8),cii possibly along with a French
adaptation of the *Decameron*, although the exact relation among these different
versions remains debated.ciii The cultural distance from Boccaccio’s original is also
reflected in the rather different ideological affinities of the English translations.
Banester’s slightly earlier version (*c* 1472?; NIMEV 4082) provides a telling
illustration of the difficulty of transplanting Boccaccio’s early humanist values and
ideals to English soil: instead of affirming the priority of acquired nobility of spirit
over inherited nobility, as the original had done, Banester’s translation turns the story
into a cautionary tale about the dangers of unbridled youthful passion and
generational conflict. The later version (NIMEV 3258), by contrast, attempts to
balance Banester’s moralising approach with the humanist emphasis on personal
virtue found in Boccaccio’s original.

As is well exemplified by these last few examples, then, translation during the
fifteenth century served wide range of cultural and intellectual ends that reach far
beyond the desire to merely reproduce foreign texts in a native idiom. By pushing
both readers and translators to engage not only in textual interpretation and re-
interpretation, but also prompting them to consider and reconsider ethical, spiritual,
political, and cultural ideals – past and present, foreign and domestic – the very act of
*translatio* plays a fundamental role in enabling the construction of English language,
poetry, cultural identity, and political self-understanding throughout the fifteenth
century. Translation therefore becomes the means to forge an expanding network of
cultural, intellectual, and emotional connections between authors, readers, and
historical subjects across time and space, and between multiple languages and very
different, often conflicting forms of discourse and textuality.

<footnote>i Among seminal discussions of medieval translation, see especially Roger Ellis (ed.), *The Medieval
*Translator: The Theory and Practice of Translation in the Middle Ages* (Cambridge, 1989); and Rita
Copeland, *Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages* (Cambridge, 1991).</footnote>

<footnote>ii For a detailed overview of literary translation into English until 1550, see especially Roger Ellis (ed.), *Oxford History of Literary Translation into English. Vol. 1: to 1550* (Oxford, 2008), henceforth cited as Ellis, *OHLTE*.</footnote>

<footnote>iii Roger Ellis, ‘The Translator: Introduction’, in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 95–7 (96).</footnote>

<footnote>iv David Lawton, ‘The Bible’, in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 193–233 (199–202, 217–24).</footnote>
Bruni’s Latin prose *Fabula Tancredi* (*c* 1436–8),cii possibly along with a French
adaptation of the *Decameron*, although the exact relation among these different
versions remains debated.ciii The cultural distance from Boccaccio’s original is also
reflected in the rather different ideological affinities of the English translations.
Banester’s slightly earlier version (*c* 1472?; NIMEV 4082) provides a telling
illustration of the difficulty of transplanting Boccaccio’s early humanist values and
ideals to English soil: instead of affirming the priority of acquired nobility of spirit
over inherited nobility, as the original had done, Banester’s translation turns the story
into a cautionary tale about the dangers of unbridled youthful passion and
generational conflict. The later version (NIMEV 3258), by contrast, attempts to
balance Banester’s moralising approach with the humanist emphasis on personal
virtue found in Boccaccio’s original.

As is well exemplified by these last few examples, then, translation during the
fifteenth century served wide range of cultural and intellectual ends that reach far
beyond the desire to merely reproduce foreign texts in a native idiom. By pushing
both readers and translators to engage not only in textual interpretation and re-
interpretation, but also prompting them to consider and reconsider ethical, spiritual,
political, and cultural ideals – past and present, foreign and domestic – the very act of
*translatio* plays a fundamental role in enabling the construction of English language,
poetry, cultural identity, and political self-understanding throughout the fifteenth
century. Translation therefore becomes the means to forge an expanding network of
cultural, intellectual, and emotional connections between authors, readers, and
historical subjects across time and space, and between multiple languages and very
different, often conflicting forms of discourse and textuality.

<footnote>i Among seminal discussions of medieval translation, see especially Roger Ellis (ed.), *The Medieval
*Translator: The Theory and Practice of Translation in the Middle Ages* (Cambridge, 1989); and Rita
Copeland, *Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages* (Cambridge, 1991).</footnote>

<footnote>ii For a detailed overview of literary translation into English until 1550, see especially Roger Ellis (ed.), *Oxford History of Literary Translation into English. Vol. 1: to 1550* (Oxford, 2008), henceforth cited as Ellis, *OHLTE*.</footnote>

<footnote>iii Roger Ellis, ‘The Translator: Introduction’, in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 95–7 (96).</footnote>

<footnote>iv David Lawton, ‘The Bible’, in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 193–233 (199–202, 217–24).</footnote>
v See further Anne Hudson, ‘The Debate on Bible Translation, Oxford 1401’, *English Historical Review*, 90 (1975), 1–18; Nicholas Watson, ‘Censorship and Cultural Change in Late-Medieval England: Vernacular Theology, the Oxford Translation Debate, and Arundel’s Constitutions of 1409’, *Speculum*, 70 (1995), 822–64.

vi For a detailed discussion of the long-term effects of this culture of censorship, see Kantik Ghosh and Vincent Gillespie (eds), *After Arundel: Religious Writing in Fifteenth-Century England* (Turnhout, 2011).

vii Traugott Lawler, ‘On the Properties of John Trevisa’s Major Translations’, *Viator*, 14 (1983), 267–88; David Fowler, *The Life and Times of John Trevisa, Medieval Scholar* (Seattle, WA, 1995); John Trevisa, in Ronald Waldron (ed.), ‘Trevisa’s Original Prefaces on Translation: A Critical Edition’, in Edward D. Kennedy *et al*. (eds), *Medieval English Studies Presented to George Kane* (Wolfeboro, NH, 1988), 285–95.

viii In Jocelyn Wogan-Browne *et al*. (eds), *The Idea of the Vernacular: An Anthology of Middle English Literary Theory, 1280-1520* (Philadelphia, PA, 1999), 130–8 (134).

ix For a useful discussion of differences in literary and cultural sponsorship of the French and English courts in the period, with particular attention to translation and commentary, see Alastair J. Minnis, *Translations of Authority in Middle English Literature: Valuing the Vernacular* (Cambridge, 2009), 1–4, 17–37.

x John H. Fisher, ‘A Language Policy for Lancastrian England’, *Publications of the Modern Language Association of America*, 107 (1992), 1168–80; Derek Pearsall, ‘The Idea of Englishness in the Fifteenth Century’, in Helen Cooney (ed.), *Nation, Court and Culture: New Essays on Fifteenth-Century Poetry* (Dublin, 2001), 15–27.

xi See John H. Fisher, ‘Chancery and the Emergence of Standard Written English in the Fifteenth Century’, *Speculum*, 52 (1977), 870–99; and Malcolm Richardson, ‘Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English’, *Speculum*, 55 (1980), 726–50; Seth Lerer, ‘Chancery, Caxton, and the Making of English Prose’, in his *Inventing English: A Portable History of the Language* (New York, 2007), 115–28. The term ‘Chancery English’ remains problematic and disputed.

xii Pearsall, ‘The Idea of Englishness in the Fifteenth Century’.

xiii See especially Ardis Butterfield, *The Familiar Enemy: Chaucer, Language, and Nation in the Hundred Years War* (Oxford, 2009); and Joanna Bellis, *The Hundred Year War in Literature, 1337–1600* (Cambridge, 2016).

xiv Marie-Rose Thielmans, *Bourgogne et Angleterre, relations politiques et économiques entre les Pays-Bas bourguignons et l'Angleterre 1435-1467* (Brussels, 1966); Gordon Kipling. *The Triumph of Honour: Burgundian Origins of the Elizabethan Renaissance* (Leiden, 1977). Specifically on translations from French see A. E. B. Coldiron, ‘Translation’s challenge to critical categories: Verses from French in the early English Renaissance’, *The Yale Journal of Criticism*, 16.2 (2003), 315–44; ibid. ‘A Survey of Verse Translations from French Printed Between Caxton and Tottel’, in Ian F. Moulton (ed.), *Reading and Literacy: in the Middle Ages and Renaissance* (Turnhout, 2004), 63–84.

xv See Barry Windeatt, ‘Geoffrey Chaucer’, in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 137–48.
v See further Anne Hudson, ‘The Debate on Bible Translation, Oxford 1401’, *English Historical Review*, 90 (1975), 1–18; Nicholas Watson, ‘Censorship and Cultural Change in Late-Medieval England: Vernacular Theology, the Oxford Translation Debate, and Arundel’s Constitutions of 1409’, *Speculum*, 70 (1995), 822–64.

vi For a detailed discussion of the long-term effects of this culture of censorship, see Kantik Ghosh and Vincent Gillespie (eds), *After Arundel: Religious Writing in Fifteenth-Century England* (Turnhout, 2011).

vii Traugott Lawler, ‘On the Properties of John Trevisa’s Major Translations’, *Viator*, 14 (1983), 267–88; David Fowler, *The Life and Times of John Trevisa, Medieval Scholar* (Seattle, WA, 1995); John Trevisa, in Ronald Waldron (ed.), ‘Trevisa’s Original Prefaces on Translation: A Critical Edition’, in Edward D. Kennedy *et al*. (eds), *Medieval English Studies Presented to George Kane* (Wolfeboro, NH, 1988), 285–95.

viii In Jocelyn Wogan-Browne *et al*. (eds), *The Idea of the Vernacular: An Anthology of Middle English Literary Theory, 1280-1520* (Philadelphia, PA, 1999), 130–8 (134).

ix For a useful discussion of differences in literary and cultural sponsorship of the French and English courts in the period, with particular attention to translation and commentary, see Alastair J. Minnis, *Translations of Authority in Middle English Literature: Valuing the Vernacular* (Cambridge, 2009), 1–4, 17–37.

x John H. Fisher, ‘A Language Policy for Lancastrian England’, *Publications of the Modern Language Association of America*, 107 (1992), 1168–80; Derek Pearsall, ‘The Idea of Englishness in the Fifteenth Century’, in Helen Cooney (ed.), *Nation, Court and Culture: New Essays on Fifteenth-Century Poetry* (Dublin, 2001), 15–27.

xi See John H. Fisher, ‘Chancery and the Emergence of Standard Written English in the Fifteenth Century’, *Speculum*, 52 (1977), 870–99; and Malcolm Richardson, ‘Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English’, *Speculum*, 55 (1980), 726–50; Seth Lerer, ‘Chancery, Caxton, and the Making of English Prose’, in his *Inventing English: A Portable History of the Language* (New York, 2007), 115–28. The term ‘Chancery English’ remains problematic and disputed.

xii Pearsall, ‘The Idea of Englishness in the Fifteenth Century’.

xiii See especially Ardis Butterfield, *The Familiar Enemy: Chaucer, Language, and Nation in the Hundred Years War* (Oxford, 2009); and Joanna Bellis, *The Hundred Year War in Literature, 1337–1600* (Cambridge, 2016).

xiv Marie-Rose Thielmans, *Bourgogne et Angleterre, relations politiques et économiques entre les Pays-Bas bourguignons et l'Angleterre 1435-1467* (Brussels, 1966); Gordon Kipling. *The Triumph of Honour: Burgundian Origins of the Elizabethan Renaissance* (Leiden, 1977). Specifically on translations from French see A. E. B. Coldiron, ‘Translation’s challenge to critical categories: Verses from French in the early English Renaissance’, *The Yale Journal of Criticism*, 16.2 (2003), 315–44; ibid. ‘A Survey of Verse Translations from French Printed Between Caxton and Tottel’, in Ian F. Moulton (ed.), *Reading and Literacy: in the Middle Ages and Renaissance* (Turnhout, 2004), 63–84.

xv See Barry Windeatt, ‘Geoffrey Chaucer’, in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 137–48.
<footnote>xvi See further e.g. David R. Carlson, 'The Chronology of Lydgate's Chaucer References', *The Chaucer Review*, 38.3 (2004), 246–54; and John M. Bowers, 'Thomas Hoccleve and the Politics of Tradition', *The Chaucer Review*, 36.4 (2002), 352–69.</footnote>

<footnote>xvii Michael G. Sargent (ed.), *Nicholas Love's Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ: a Critical Edition* (New York, 1992). A useful list of didactic prose treatises is provided as an Appendix in Watson, 'Censorship and Cultural Change'.</footnote>

<footnote>xviii A. S. G. Edwards, 'Fifteenth-Century English Collections of Female Saints' Lives', *The Yearbook of English Studies*, 33 (2003), 131–41.</footnote>

<footnote>xix See respectively John Lydgate, in Joseph A. Lauritis, Vernon F. Gallagher, and Ralph A. Klinefelter (eds), *A Critical Edition of John Lydgate's Life of Our Lady* (Pittsburgh, PA, 1961); and Henry Noble MacCracken (ed.), *The Minor Poems of John Lydgate: Part I, the Religious Poems*, EETS 107 (London, 1911), 173–92.</footnote>

<footnote>xx Amanda Walling, 'Feminizing Aureation in Lydgate’s *Life of Our Lady* and *Life of Saint Margaret*', *Neophilologus*, 101.2 (2017), 321–36</footnote>

<footnote>xxi See further Robert Meyer-Lee, ‘The Emergence of the Literary in John Lydgate’s *Life of Our Lady*’, *Journal of English and Germanic Philology*, 109.3 (2010), 322–34; Katherine K. O’Sullivan, ‘John Lydgate’s *Lyf of Our Lady*: Translation and Authority in Fifteenth-Century England’, *Mediaevalia*, 26 (2005), 169–201.</footnote>

<footnote>xxii Osbern Bokenham, in Mary S. Serjeantson (ed.), *Legendys of Hooly Wummen*. EETS OS 206 (London, 1938).</footnote>

<footnote>xxiii Simon Horobin, ‘A Manuscript Found in the Library of Abbotsford House and the Lost Legendary of Osbern Bokenham’, *English Manuscript Studies 1100-1700*, 14 (2008), 132–62. For the first volume of the edition, in progress, see Osbern Bokenham, in Simon Horobin (ed.), *Lives of the Saints. Vol. I*. EETS OS 356 (Oxford, 2020).</footnote>

<footnote>xxiv John Capgrave, in Cyril Smetana (ed.), *The Life of St Norbert* (Toronto, 1977).</footnote>

<footnote>xxv John Capgrave, in Carl Horstmann (ed.), *The Life of St Katharine of Alexandria*. EETS OS 100 (London, 1893).</footnote>

<footnote>xxvi Nicholas Watson, 'Theories of Translation', in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 76–8.</footnote>

<footnote>xxvii See further Karen A. Winstead, ‘John Capgrave and the Chaucer Tradition’, *Chaucer Review*, 30 (1996), 389–400.</footnote>

<footnote>xxviii On sermons see especially Angus J. Fletcher, *Preaching, Politics and Poetry in Late-Medieval England* (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998); ibid., ‘The Lyric in Sermon’, in Thomas G. Duncan (ed.), *A Companion to the Middle English Lyric* (Cambridge, 2005), 189–209.</footnote>

<footnote>xxix For an indicative overview, including many translations, see Peter Revell, *Fifteenth-Century English Prayers and Meditations: A Descriptive List of Manuscripts in the British Library* (New York, 1975).</footnote>

<footnote>xxx Edited in Karen Saupe (ed.), *Middle English Marian Lyrics* (Kalamazoo, MI, 1997), 113–15, lines 41–8.</footnote>
<footnote>xvi See further e.g. David R. Carlson, 'The Chronology of Lydgate's Chaucer References', *The Chaucer Review*, 38.3 (2004), 246–54; and John M. Bowers, 'Thomas Hoccleve and the Politics of Tradition', *The Chaucer Review*, 36.4 (2002), 352–69.</footnote>

<footnote>xvii Michael G. Sargent (ed.), *Nicholas Love's Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ: a Critical Edition* (New York, 1992). A useful list of didactic prose treatises is provided as an Appendix in Watson, 'Censorship and Cultural Change'.</footnote>

<footnote>xviii A. S. G. Edwards, 'Fifteenth-Century English Collections of Female Saints' Lives', *The Yearbook of English Studies*, 33 (2003), 131–41.</footnote>

<footnote>xix See respectively John Lydgate, in Joseph A. Lauritis, Vernon F. Gallagher, and Ralph A. Klinefelter (eds), *A Critical Edition of John Lydgate's Life of Our Lady* (Pittsburgh, PA, 1961); and Henry Noble MacCracken (ed.), *The Minor Poems of John Lydgate: Part I, the Religious Poems*, EETS 107 (London, 1911), 173–92.</footnote>

<footnote>xx Amanda Walling, 'Feminizing Aureation in Lydgate’s *Life of Our Lady* and *Life of Saint Margaret*', *Neophilologus*, 101.2 (2017), 321–36</footnote>

<footnote>xxi See further Robert Meyer-Lee, ‘The Emergence of the Literary in John Lydgate’s *Life of Our Lady*’, *Journal of English and Germanic Philology*, 109.3 (2010), 322–34; Katherine K. O’Sullivan, ‘John Lydgate’s *Lyf of Our Lady*: Translation and Authority in Fifteenth-Century England’, *Mediaevalia*, 26 (2005), 169–201.</footnote>

<footnote>xxii Osbern Bokenham, in Mary S. Serjeantson (ed.), *Legendys of Hooly Wummen*. EETS OS 206 (London, 1938).</footnote>

<footnote>xxiii Simon Horobin, ‘A Manuscript Found in the Library of Abbotsford House and the Lost Legendary of Osbern Bokenham’, *English Manuscript Studies 1100-1700*, 14 (2008), 132–62. For the first volume of the edition, in progress, see Osbern Bokenham, in Simon Horobin (ed.), *Lives of the Saints. Vol. I*. EETS OS 356 (Oxford, 2020).</footnote>

<footnote>xxiv John Capgrave, in Cyril Smetana (ed.), *The Life of St Norbert* (Toronto, 1977).</footnote>

<footnote>xxv John Capgrave, in Carl Horstmann (ed.), *The Life of St Katharine of Alexandria*. EETS OS 100 (London, 1893).</footnote>

<footnote>xxvi Nicholas Watson, 'Theories of Translation', in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 76–8.</footnote>

<footnote>xxvii See further Karen A. Winstead, ‘John Capgrave and the Chaucer Tradition’, *Chaucer Review*, 30 (1996), 389–400.</footnote>

<footnote>xxviii On sermons see especially Angus J. Fletcher, *Preaching, Politics and Poetry in Late-Medieval England* (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998); ibid., ‘The Lyric in Sermon’, in Thomas G. Duncan (ed.), *A Companion to the Middle English Lyric* (Cambridge, 2005), 189–209.</footnote>

<footnote>xxix For an indicative overview, including many translations, see Peter Revell, *Fifteenth-Century English Prayers and Meditations: A Descriptive List of Manuscripts in the British Library* (New York, 1975).</footnote>

<footnote>xxx Edited in Karen Saupe (ed.), *Middle English Marian Lyrics* (Kalamazoo, MI, 1997), 113–15, lines 41–8.</footnote>
xxx¹ See Christiania Whitehead, 'The Middle English Religious Lyric', in Duncan, *A Companion to the Middle English Lyric*, 96–119 (117–19); Gillespie 'Religious Writing', in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 234–83 (254).

xxxii John Audelay, ‘Marcolf and Solomon’, in Susanna Fein (ed.), *Poems and Carols (Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Douce 302)* (Kalamazoo, MI, 2009), lines 858–60. While the poem is generally treated as an original composition featuring alliterative diction and Audelay’s trademark thirteen-line stanza, the relation of Audelay’s poem to the wider oral tradition of Solomon and Marcolf dialogues and any potential written sources remains to be more closely examined. For further discussion of Audely’s poetry, see Chapter 13.

xxxiii Guillaume de Deguileville, in J. J. Stürzinger (ed.), *Le pèlerinage de vie humaine* (London, 1893); ibid., in J. J. Stürzinger (ed.), *Le pèlerinage de l’âme* (London, 1895); ibid., in J. J. Stürzinger (ed.), *Le pèlerinage Jhésucrist* (London, 1897).

xxxiv Josephine Houghton ‘Deguileville and Hoccleve Again’, *Medium Ævum*, 82.2 (2013), 260–68.

xxxv Helen Phillips, ‘Chaucer and Deguileville: The ABC in Context’, *Medium Ævum*, 62 (1993), 1–19.
Kathryn L. Lynch, ‘ Dating Chaucer ’, *Chaucer Review*, 42.1 (2007), 1–22.

xxxvi Avril Henry (ed.), *The Pilgrimage of the Lyfe of the Manhode*, 2 vols. EETS OS 288 and 292 (Oxford, 1985 and 1988).

xxxvii Guillaume de Deguileville, in Graham R. Edwards and Philippe Maupeu (eds and trans.), *Le livre du pèlerin de vie humaine* (Paris, 2015).

xxxviii In Frederick J. Furnivall and Katharine B. Locock (eds), *The Pilgrimage of the Life of Man*, 3 vols. EETS OS 78, 83 and 92 (London, 1899–1904).

xxxix Shannon Gayk, *Image, Text, and Religious reform in Fifteenth-Century England* (Cambridge, 2010), 87–95.

xl Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, in Félix Lecoy (ed.), *Le Roman de la Rose*, 3 vols (Paris, 1965–70); *The Romaunt of the Rose by Geoffrey Chaucer*. Variorum Chaucer Series vol. VII (Norman, OK, 1999). On the reception of the *Rose* and its tradition in England see Julia Boffey, ‘English Dream Poems of the Fifteenth Century and Their French Connections’, in Donald Maddox and Sara Sturm-Maddox (eds), *Literary Aspects of Courtly Culture: Selected Papers from the Seventh Triennial Congress of the International Courtly Literature Society* (Cambridge, 1994), 113–21; and the forthcoming study by Philip Knox, *The Roman de la Rose and Fourteenth-Century English Poetry* (Oxford, 2021).

xli Christine de Pizan, et al., in David F. Hult (ed. and trans.), *The Debate of the “Romance of the Rose”* (Chicago, 2010).

xlii Both Christine’s original and Hoccleve’s translation are edited in Thelma S. Fenster and Mary C. Erler (eds), *Poems of Cupid, God of Love: Christine de Pizan’s Epistre au dieu d’Amours and Dit de la Rose; Thomas Hoccleve’s The Letter of Cupid* (Leiden, 1990).

xliii Catherine Batt, ‘The *Epistre au dieu d’Amours* and *The Letter of Cupid*: Christine de Pizan, Thomas Hoccleve, and Vernacular Poetics’, in Catherine Batt, Jonathan Hsy, and René Tixier (eds), ‘Booldly bot meekly’: *Essays on the Theory and Practice of Translation in the Middle Ages in Honour of Roger Ellis* (Turnhout, 2018), 427–44; Rory G. Critten, ‘Imagining the Author in Late Medieval England and
xxx¹ See Christiania Whitehead, 'The Middle English Religious Lyric', in Duncan, *A Companion to the Middle English Lyric*, 96–119 (117–19); Gillespie 'Religious Writing', in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 234–83 (254).

xxxii John Audelay, ‘Marcolf and Solomon’, in Susanna Fein (ed.), *Poems and Carols (Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Douce 302)* (Kalamazoo, MI, 2009), lines 858–60. While the poem is generally treated as an original composition featuring alliterative diction and Audelay’s trademark thirteen-line stanza, the relation of Audelay’s poem to the wider oral tradition of Solomon and Marcolf dialogues and any potential written sources remains to be more closely examined. For further discussion of Audely’s poetry, see Chapter 13.

xxxiii Guillaume de Deguileville, in J. J. Stürzinger (ed.), *Le pèlerinage de vie humaine* (London, 1893); ibid., in J. J. Stürzinger (ed.), *Le pèlerinage de l’âme* (London, 1895); ibid., in J. J. Stürzinger (ed.), *Le pèlerinage Jhésucrist* (London, 1897).

xxxiv Josephine Houghton ‘Deguileville and Hoccleve Again’, *Medium Ævum*, 82.2 (2013), 260–68.

xxxv Helen Phillips, ‘Chaucer and Deguileville: The ABC in Context’, *Medium Ævum*, 62 (1993), 1–19.
Kathryn L. Lynch, ‘ Dating Chaucer ’, *Chaucer Review*, 42.1 (2007), 1–22.

xxxvi Avril Henry (ed.), *The Pilgrimage of the Lyfe of the Manhode*, 2 vols. EETS OS 288 and 292 (Oxford, 1985 and 1988).

xxxvii Guillaume de Deguileville, in Graham R. Edwards and Philippe Maupeu (eds and trans.), *Le livre du pèlerin de vie humaine* (Paris, 2015).

xxxviii In Frederick J. Furnivall and Katharine B. Locock (eds), *The Pilgrimage of the Life of Man*, 3 vols. EETS OS 78, 83 and 92 (London, 1899–1904).

xxxix Shannon Gayk, *Image, Text, and Religious reform in Fifteenth-Century England* (Cambridge, 2010), 87–95.

xl Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, in Félix Lecoy (ed.), *Le Roman de la Rose*, 3 vols (Paris, 1965–70); *The Romaunt of the Rose by Geoffrey Chaucer*. Variorum Chaucer Series vol. VII (Norman, OK, 1999). On the reception of the *Rose* and its tradition in England see Julia Boffey, ‘English Dream Poems of the Fifteenth Century and Their French Connections’, in Donald Maddox and Sara Sturm-Maddox (eds), *Literary Aspects of Courtly Culture: Selected Papers from the Seventh Triennial Congress of the International Courtly Literature Society* (Cambridge, 1994), 113–21; and the forthcoming study by Philip Knox, *The Roman de la Rose and Fourteenth-Century English Poetry* (Oxford, 2021).

xli Christine de Pizan, et al., in David F. Hult (ed. and trans.), *The Debate of the “Romance of the Rose”* (Chicago, 2010).

xlii Both Christine’s original and Hoccleve’s translation are edited in Thelma S. Fenster and Mary C. Erler (eds), *Poems of Cupid, God of Love: Christine de Pizan’s Epistre au dieu d’Amours and Dit de la Rose; Thomas Hoccleve’s The Letter of Cupid* (Leiden, 1990).

xliii Catherine Batt, ‘The *Epistre au dieu d’Amours* and *The Letter of Cupid*: Christine de Pizan, Thomas Hoccleve, and Vernacular Poetics’, in Catherine Batt, Jonathan Hsy, and René Tixier (eds), ‘Booldly bot meekly’: *Essays on the Theory and Practice of Translation in the Middle Ages in Honour of Roger Ellis* (Turnhout, 2018), 427–44; Rory G. Critten, ‘Imagining the Author in Late Medieval England and
France: The Transmission and Reception of Christine de Pizan's *Epistre au dieu d'Amours* and Thomas Hoccleve's *Letter of Cupid*, *Studies in Philology*, 112.4 (2015), 680–97.

xliv See Christine de Pizan, in Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski and Earl Jeffrey Richards (eds and trans.), *Othea's Letter to Hector* (Toronto, 2017). Stephen Scrope, In Curt F. Bühler (ed.), *The Epistle of Othea*. EETS OS 264 (Oxford, 1970).

xlv For more details on the context and significance of this translation, produced in the circle of Sir John Fastolf, Stephen Scrope, and William Worcester, see further Daniel Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature 1430–1530* (Oxford, 2007), 93–125.

xlvii Danielle Buschinger, ‘*Le Livre des faits d’armes et de chevalerie de Christine de Pizan et ses adaptations anglaise et haut-alémanique*’, *Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres*, 155.2 (2011), 1073–92.

xlvii John Lydgate [?], in Ernst Sieper (ed.), *Reson and Sensuallyte*, 2 vols. EETS OS 84, 89 (London, 1901).

xlviii [Évrart de Conty], in Gregory Heyworth and Daniel E. O’Sullivan, with Frank Coulson (eds), *Les Eschéz d’Amours: A Critical Edition of the Poem and its Latin Glosses* (Leiden, 2013).

xlix See respectively Kellie Robertson, *Nature Speaks: Medieval Literature and Aristotelian Philosophy* (Philadelphia, 2017), 295–310; and Samuel F. McMillan, ‘Trailing an Unreasonable Rose: Authorship in John Lydgate’s *Reson and Sensuallyte*’, *Modern Philology*, 116.2 (2018), 95–120.

¹ Boethius, in H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand, and S. J. Tester (eds and trans.), *Theological Tractates*, Loeb Classical Library 74 (Cambridge, MA, 1973), 130–435.

li John Walton, in Mark Science (ed.), *Boethius ‘De Consolatione Philosophiae’*. EETS OS 170 (London, 1927); Ian R. Johnson, ‘Walton’s Sapient Orpheus’, in Alastair J. Minnis (ed.), *The Medieval Boethius: Studies in the Vernacular Translations of ‘De Consolatione Philosophiae’* (Cambridge, 1987), 139–68.

lii Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature*, 9–16; A. S. G. Edwards, ‘Reading John Walton’s Boethius in the 15th and 16th Centuries’, in Mary Flannery and Carrie Griffin (eds), *Spaces for Reading in Late Medieval England* (London, 2016), 35–49.

liii J. C. Laidlaw (ed.), *The Poetical Works of Alain Chartier* (Cambridge, 1974).

liv See M. S. Blayney (ed.), *Fifteenth-Century English Translations of Alain Chartier's Le Traite de l'Esperance and Le Quadrilogue Invectif*, 2 vols. EETS OS 270, 281 (Oxford, 1974 and 1980). On the fortunes of Chartier in England see Julia Boffey, ‘The Early Reception of Chartier’s Works in England and Scotland’; and Catherine Nall, ‘William Worcester reads Alain Chartier: *Le Quadrilogue invectif* and its English readers’, both in Emma Cayley and Ashby Kinch (eds), *Chartier in Europe* (Cambridge, 2008), 105–118 and 135–48 respectively.

lv For an edition see Dana M. Symons (ed.), *Chaucerian Dream Visions and Complaints* (Kalamazoo, 2004), 201–74.

lvi William Calin, *The French Tradition and the Literature of Medieval England* (Toronto, 1994), 250. On the European reception of Chartier’s work see further Ashby Kinch, ‘Chartier’s European Influence’, and Joan McRae, ‘A Community of Readers: The Quarrel of the *Belle Dame Sans Mercy*’
France: The Transmission and Reception of Christine de Pizan's *Epistre au dieu d'Amours* and Thomas Hoccleve's *Letter of Cupid*, *Studies in Philology*, 112.4 (2015), 680–97.

xliv See Christine de Pizan, in Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski and Earl Jeffrey Richards (eds and trans.), *Othea's Letter to Hector* (Toronto, 2017). Stephen Scrope, In Curt F. Bühler (ed.), *The Epistle of Othea*. EETS OS 264 (Oxford, 1970).

xlv For more details on the context and significance of this translation, produced in the circle of Sir John Fastolf, Stephen Scrope, and William Worcester, see further Daniel Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature 1430–1530* (Oxford, 2007), 93–125.

xlvii Danielle Buschinger, ‘*Le Livre des faits d’armes et de chevalerie de Christine de Pizan et ses adaptations anglaise et haut-alémanique*’, *Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres*, 155.2 (2011), 1073–92.

xlvii John Lydgate [?], in Ernst Sieper (ed.), *Reson and Sensuallyte*, 2 vols. EETS ES 84, 89 (London, 1901).

xlviii [Évrart de Conty], in Gregory Heyworth and Daniel E. O’Sullivan, with Frank Coulson (eds), *Les Eschéz d’Amours: A Critical Edition of the Poem and its Latin Glosses* (Leiden, 2013).

xlix See respectively Kellie Robertson, *Nature Speaks: Medieval Literature and Aristotelian Philosophy* (Philadelphia, 2017), 295–310; and Samuel F. McMillan, ‘Trailing an Unreasonable Rose: Authorship in John Lydgate’s *Reson and Sensuallyte*’, *Modern Philology*, 116.2 (2018), 95–120.

¹ Boethius, in H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand, and S. J. Tester (eds and trans.), *Theological Tractates*, Loeb Classical Library 74 (Cambridge, MA, 1973), 130–435.

li John Walton, in Mark Science (ed.), *Boethius ‘De Consolatione Philosophiae’*. EETS OS 170 (London, 1927); Ian R. Johnson, ‘Walton’s Sapient Orpheus’, in Alastair J. Minnis (ed.), *The Medieval Boethius: Studies in the Vernacular Translations of ‘De Consolatione Philosophiae’* (Cambridge, 1987), 139–68.

lii Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature*, 9–16; A. S. G. Edwards, ‘Reading John Walton’s Boethius in the 15th and 16th Centuries’, in Mary Flannery and Carrie Griffin (eds), *Spaces for Reading in Late Medieval England* (London, 2016), 35–49.

liii J. C. Laidlaw (ed.), *The Poetical Works of Alain Chartier* (Cambridge, 1974).

liv See M. S. Blayney (ed.), *Fifteenth-Century English Translations of Alain Chartier's Le Traite de l'Esperance and Le Quadrilogue Invectif*, 2 vols. EETS OS 270, 281 (Oxford, 1974 and 1980). On the fortunes of Chartier in England see Julia Boffey, ‘The Early Reception of Chartier’s Works in England and Scotland’; and Catherine Nall, ‘William Worcester reads Alain Chartier: *Le Quadrilogue invectif* and its English readers’, both in Emma Cayley and Ashby Kinch (eds), *Chartier in Europe* (Cambridge, 2008), 105–118 and 135–48 respectively.

lv For an edition see Dana M. Symons (ed.), *Chaucerian Dream Visions and Complaints* (Kalamazoo, 2004), 201–74.

lvi William Calin, *The French Tradition and the Literature of Medieval England* (Toronto, 1994), 250. On the European reception of Chartier’s work see further Ashby Kinch, ‘Chartier’s European Influence’, and Joan McRae, ‘A Community of Readers: The Quarrel of the *Belle Dame Sans Mercy*’
in Daisy Delogu, Emma Cayley, and Joan E. McRae (eds), *A Companion to Alain Chartier (c. 1385-1430): Father of French Eloquence* (Leiden, 2015), 279-302; 200-222.

lvii Joan E. McRae (ed.), *Alain Chartier: The Quarrel of the Belle Dame Sans Mercy* (London, 2004); ibid. ‘A Community of Readers’.

lviii On the political and cultural context of the translations, see further Ashby Kinch, ‘A Naked Roos: Translation and Subjection in the Middle English “La Belle Dame Sans Mercy”’, *The Journal of English and Germanic Philology*, 105.3 (2006), 415-45.

lx Charles D'Orléans, in Jean-Claude Mühlethaler (ed.), *Ballades et rondeaux* (Paris, 1996); ibid., in Mary-Jo Arn (ed.), *Fortunes Stabilnes: Charles of Orleans's English Book of Love* (Binghamton, NY, 1994).

lx See further Mary-Jo Arn (ed.), *Charles d'Orléans in England* (Cambridge, 2000), and more recently Rory Critten, ‘Locating Charles d'Orléans: In France, England and out of Europe’, *New Medieval Literatures*, 20 (2020), 174-215.

lxi Helen Cooper, ‘Romance after 1400’, in David Wallace (ed.), *The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature* (Cambridge, 1999), 690-719; Rosalind Field, ‘Romance’, in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 296-331 (323-7).

lxii Phillipa Hardman and Marianne Ailes (eds), *The Legend of Charlemagne in Medieval England: The Matter of France in Middle English and Anglo-Norman Literature* (Cambridge, 2017).

lxiii In Frederick J. Furnivall (ed.), *The History of the Holy Grail by Henry Lovelich*, 5 vols. EETS ES 20, 24, 28, 30, 95 (London, 1874-1905); E. A. Kock (ed.), *Henry Lovelich's Merlin*, 3 vols. EETS ES 93, 112, and OS 185 (London, 1904, 1913, 1932).

lxiv Alan Lupack (ed.), *Lancelot of the Laik and Sir Tristrem* (Kalamazoo, MI, 1994).

lxv P. F. Hissiger (ed.), *Le Morte Arthur: A Critical Edition* (The Hague, 1975).

lxvi W. W. Skeat (ed.), *The Romans of Partenay or of Lusignen*. EETS OS 22 (London, 1866).

lxvii A.T. Bödtker (ed.), *The Middle English Versions of Partonope of Blois*. EETS ES 109 (London, 1912).

lxviii See further Barry Windeatt. ‘Chaucer and Fifteenth-Century Romance: *Partenope of Blois*’, in Ruth Morse and Windeatt (eds), *Chaucer Traditions* (Cambridge: 1990), 62–80; Brenda Hosington, ‘Partonopeu de Blois and its Fifteenth-Century English Translation: a Medieval Translator at Work’, in Roger Ellis (ed.), *The Medieval Translator: Volume II* (London, 1991), 231–52.

lxix In Eugen Kölbing (ed.), *Ipomedon, in drei englischen Bearbeitungen* (Breslau, 1889). See further Jordi Sánchez-Martí, ‘Reading Romance in Late Medieval England: The Case of the Middle English Ipomedon’, *Philological Quarterly*, 83.1 (2004), 13–39.

lxx In Henry Bergen (ed.), *Lydgate's Troy Book*, 4 vols. EETS ES 97, 103, 106, 126 (London, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1935).

lxxi For an English translation see Guido delle Colonne, in Mary Elizabeth Meek (trans.), *Historia destructionis Troiae* (Bloomington, IN, 1974).

lxxii Henry Bergen (ed.), *Lydgate's Fall of Princes*, 4 vols. EETS ES 121-4 (London, 1924-27).
in Daisy Delogu, Emma Cayley, and Joan E. McRae (eds), *A Companion to Alain Chartier (c. 1385-1430): Father of French Eloquence* (Leiden, 2015), 279–302; 200–222.

lvii Joan E. McRae (ed.), *Alain Chartier: The Quarrel of the Belle Dame Sans Mercy* (London, 2004); ibid. ‘A Community of Readers’.

lviii On the political and cultural context of the translations, see further Ashby Kinch, ‘A Naked Roos: Translation and Subjection in the Middle English “La Belle Dame Sans Mercy”’, *The Journal of English and Germanic Philology*, 105.3 (2006), 415–45.

lx Charles D'Orléans, in Jean-Claude Mühlethaler (ed.), *Ballades et rondeaux* (Paris, 1996); ibid., in Mary-Jo Arn (ed.), *Fortunes Stabilnes: Charles of Orleans's English Book of Love* (Binghamton, NY, 1994).

lx See further Mary-Jo Arn (ed.), *Charles d'Orléans in England* (Cambridge, 2000), and more recently Rory Critten, ‘Locating Charles d'Orléans: In France, England and out of Europe’, *New Medieval Literatures*, 20 (2020), 174–215.

lxi Helen Cooper, ‘Romance after 1400’, in David Wallace (ed.), *The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature* (Cambridge, 1999), 690–719; Rosalind Field, ‘Romance’, in Ellis, *OHLTE*, 296–331 (323–7).

lxii Phillipa Hardman and Marianne Ailes (eds), *The Legend of Charlemagne in Medieval England: The Matter of France in Middle English and Anglo-Norman Literature* (Cambridge, 2017).

lxiii In Frederick J. Furnivall (ed.), *The History of the Holy Grail by Henry Lovelich*, 5 vols. EETS ES 20, 24, 28, 30, 95 (London, 1874–1905); E. A. Kock (ed.), *Henry Lovelich's Merlin*, 3 vols. EETS ES 93, 112, and OS 185 (London, 1904, 1913, 1932).

lxiv Alan Lupack (ed.), *Lancelot of the Laik and Sir Tristrem* (Kalamazoo, MI, 1994).

lxv P. F. Hissiger (ed.), *Le Morte Arthur: A Critical Edition* (The Hague, 1975).

lxvi W. W. Skeat (ed.), *The Romans of Partenay or of Lusignen*. EETS OS 22 (London, 1866).

lxvii A.T. Bödtker (ed.), *The Middle English Versions of Partonope of Blois*. EETS ES 109 (London, 1912).

lxviii See further Barry Windeatt. ‘Chaucer and Fifteenth-Century Romance: *Partenope of Blois*’, in Ruth Morse and Windeatt (eds), *Chaucer Traditions* (Cambridge: 1990), 62–80; Brenda Hosington, ‘Partonopeu de Blois and its Fifteenth-Century English Translation: a Medieval Translator at Work’, in Roger Ellis (ed.), *The Medieval Translator: Volume II* (London, 1991), 231–52.

lxix In Eugen Kölbing (ed.), *Ipomedon, in drei englischen Bearbeitungen* (Breslau, 1889). See further Jordi Sánchez-Martí, ‘Reading Romance in Late Medieval England: The Case of the Middle English Ipomedon’, *Philological Quarterly*, 83.1 (2004), 13–39.

lxx In Henry Bergen (ed.), *Lydgate's Troy Book*, 4 vols. EETS ES 97, 103, 106, 126 (London, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1935).

lxxi For an English translation see Guido delle Colonne, in Mary Elizabeth Meek (trans.), *Historia destructionis Troiae* (Bloomington, IN, 1974).

lxxii Henry Bergen (ed.), *Lydgate's Fall of Princes*, 4 vols. EETS ES 121–4 (London, 1924–27).
lxxiii Giovanni Boccaccio, in Vittore Branca (ed.), *Tutte le opere di Giovanni Boccaccio*, 10 vols (Milan, 1964-1998), vol. 9: *De Casibus Virorum Illustrium*; Patricia M. Gathercole (ed.), *Laurent de Premierfait's 'Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes': Book I, translated from Boccaccio. A critical edition based on 6 manuscripts*, (Chapel Hill, NC, 1968)

lxxiv In Frederick J. Furnivall (ed.), *Hoccleve's Works: The Regement of Princes and fourteen minor poems*. EETS ES 72 (London, 1897).

lxxv No full critical edition is available. For an edition of Trevisa's Middle English prose translation, see David C. Fowler, Charles F. Briggs, and Paul G. Remley (eds), *The Governance of Kings and Princes: John Trevisa's Middle English Translation of the 'De Regimine Principum' of Aegidius Romanus* (New York, 1997).

lxxvi No full critical edition is available, but see Jacob de Cessolis, in W.H. Williams (ed. and trans.), *Book of Chess* (New York, 2008).

lxxvii Multiple Latin versions available, on which see Catherine Gaullier-Bougassas, Margaret Bridges, and Jean-Yves Tilliette (eds), *Trajectoires européennes du 'Secretum secretorum' du Pseudo-Aristote (XIIIe-XVIe siècle)* (Turnhout, 2015).

lxxviii Field, 'Romances', in Ellis, *OHLTE*, esp. 315–19.

lxxix R. Steele (ed.), *Lydgate and Burgh's Secrees of Old Philisoffres*. EETS ES 66 (London, 1894). For other versions, see Mahmoud Manzalaoui (ed.), *Secretum Secretorum: Nine English Versions*, EETS OS 276 (Oxford, 1977).

lxxx Vegetius, in M. D. Reeve (ed.), *Epitoma Rei Militaris* (Oxford, 2004).

lxxxi Geoffrey Lester (ed.), *The Earliest English Translation of Vegetius' 'De re militari'* (Heidelberg, 1988).

lxxxii R. Dyboski and Z. M. Arend (eds), *Knyghthode and Bataile: A XVth Century Verse Paraphrase of Flavius Vegetius Renatus' Treatise 'De re militari'*. EETS OS 201 (London, 1935). See further Daniel Wakelin, 'The occasion, author and readers of *Knyghthode and bataile*', *Medium Aevum*, 73 (2004), 260–72; and ibid, *Humanism, Reading and English Literature*, 19–22.

lxxxiii Christine de Pizan, in Sumner Willard and Charity Cannon Willard (eds), *The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry* (University Park, PA, 1999).

lxxxiv See further Christopher Allmand, 'Translations', in *The De Re Militari of Vegetius: The Reception, Transmission and Legacy of a Roman Text in the Middle Ages* (Cambridge, 2011), 148–96 (185–93).

lxxxv Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature*, 1–22.

lxxxvi Alessandra Petrina, *Cultural Politics in Fifteenth-Century England: The Case of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester* (Leiden, 2004).

lxxxvii Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus, in Robert H. Rodgers (ed.), *Opera* (Leipzig, 1975).

lxxxviii Mark Liddell (ed.), *The Middle English Translation of Palladius' De Re Rustica* (Berlin, 1896). See further Alessandra Petrina, 'The Middle English translation of Palladius's *De Agricultura*', in René Tixier, et al. (eds), *The Medieval Translator 8* (Turnhout, 2003), 317–28; ibid., *Cultural Politics in Fifteenth-Century England*; and A. S. G., Edwards 'Duke Humfrey's Middle English Palladius
lxxiii Giovanni Boccaccio, in Vittore Branca (ed.), *Tutte le opere di Giovanni Boccaccio*, 10 vols (Milan, 1964-1998), vol. 9: *De Casibus Virorum Illustrium*; Patricia M. Gathercole (ed.), *Laurent de Premierfait's 'Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes': Book I, translated from Boccaccio. A critical edition based on 6 manuscripts*, (Chapel Hill, NC, 1968)

lxxiv In Frederick J. Furnivall (ed.), *Hoccleve's Works: The Regement of Princes and fourteen minor poems*. EETS ES 72 (London, 1897).

lxxv No full critical edition is available. For an edition of Trevisa's Middle English prose translation, see David C. Fowler, Charles F. Briggs, and Paul G. Remley (eds), *The Governance of Kings and Princes: John Trevisa's Middle English Translation of the 'De Regimine Principum' of Aegidius Romanus* (New York, 1997).

lxxvi No full critical edition is available, but see Jacob de Cessolis, in W.H. Williams (ed. and trans.), *Book of Chess* (New York, 2008).

lxxvii Multiple Latin versions available, on which see Catherine Gaullier-Bougassas, Margaret Bridges, and Jean-Yves Tilliette (eds), *Trajectoires européennes du 'Secretum secretorum' du Pseudo-Aristote (XIIIe-XVIe siècle)* (Turnhout, 2015).

lxxviii Field, 'Romances', in Ellis, *OHLTE*, esp. 315–19.

lxxix R. Steele (ed.), *Lydgate and Burgh's Secrees of Old Philisoffres*. EETS ES 66 (London, 1894). For other versions, see Mahmoud Manzalaoui (ed.), *Secretum Secretorum: Nine English Versions*, EETS OS 276 (Oxford, 1977).

lxxx Vegetius, in M. D. Reeve (ed.), *Epitoma Rei Militaris* (Oxford, 2004).

lxxxi Geoffrey Lester (ed.), *The Earliest English Translation of Vegetius' 'De re militari'* (Heidelberg, 1988).

lxxxii R. Dyboski and Z. M. Arend (eds), *Knyghthode and Bataile: A XVth Century Verse Paraphrase of Flavius Vegetius Renatus' Treatise 'De re militari'*. EETS OS 201 (London, 1935). See further Daniel Wakelin, 'The occasion, author and readers of *Knyghthode and bataile*', *Medium Aevum*, 73 (2004), 260–72; and ibid, *Humanism, Reading and English Literature*, 19–22.

lxxxiii Christine de Pizan, in Sumner Willard and Charity Cannon Willard (eds), *The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry* (University Park, PA, 1999).

lxxxiv See further Christopher Allmand, 'Translations', in *The De Re Militari of Vegetius: The Reception, Transmission and Legacy of a Roman Text in the Middle Ages* (Cambridge, 2011), 148–96 (185–93).

lxxxv Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature*, 1–22.

lxxxvi Alessandra Petrina, *Cultural Politics in Fifteenth-Century England: The Case of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester* (Leiden, 2004).

lxxxvii Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus, in Robert H. Rodgers (ed.), *Opera* (Leipzig, 1975).

lxxxviii Mark Liddell (ed.), *The Middle English Translation of Palladius' De Re Rustica* (Berlin, 1896). See further Alessandra Petrina, 'The Middle English translation of Palladius's De Agricultura', in René Tixier, et al. (eds), *The Medieval Translator 8* (Turnhout, 2003), 317–28; ibid., *Cultural Politics in Fifteenth-Century England*; and A. S. G., Edwards 'Duke Humfrey's Middle English Palladius
Manuscript', in Jenny Stratford (ed.), *The Lancastrian Court: Proceedings of the 2001 Harlaxton Symposium* (Donington, 2003), 68–78.

lxxxix E. Flügel, ‘Eine mittelenglische Claudian-Übersetzung (1445) (Brit. Mus. Add. Ms. 11814)’, *Anglia*, 28 (1905), 255-99, 421-38.

xc A.S.G. Edwards, ‘The Middle English Translation of Claudian’s *De Consulatu Stilichonis*’, in Alastair J. Minnis, *Middle English Poetry: Texts and Traditions: Essays in Honour of Derek Pearsall* (York, 2001), 267–78; Livia Visser-Fuchs, “‘Honour is the Reward of Virtue”: The Claudian Translation Made for Richard, Duke of York, in 1445”, *The Ricardian*, 18 (2008), 66–82; Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature*, 70–80.

xci On English translations of their work, see more broadly Karla Taylor, ‘Writers of the Italian Renaissance’, in *OHLTE*, 390–406.

xcii Mark Musa (ed. and trans.), *Petrarch: The Canzoniere, or Rerum vulgarium fragmenta* (Bloomington, IN, 1999).

xciii Alessandra Petrina, ‘The Humanist Petrarch in Medieval and Early Modern England’, *Journal of Anglo-Italian Studies*, 12 (2013), 45–62.

xciv F.N.M. Diekstra (ed.), *A Dialogue Between Reason and Adversity: A Late Middle English Version of Petrarch’s De Remediis* (Assen, 1968).

xcv Edward Wilson and Daniel Wakelin (eds), *A Middle English Translation from Petrarch's Secretum*. EETS OS 351 (Oxford, 2018).

xcvi Giovanni Boccaccio, in Virginia Brown (ed. and trans.), *Famous Women* (Cambridge, MA, 2001).

xcvii Janet Cowen (ed.), *On Famous Women: The Middle English Translation of Boccaccio's 'De Mulieribus Claris'. Edited from London, British Library, MS Additional 10304* (Heidelberg, 2015); Gustav Schleich (ed.), *Die mittelenglische Umdichtung von Boccaccios 'De claris mulieribus'* (Leipzig, 1924).

xcviii Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature*, 60–61.

xcix Herbert G. Wright (ed.), *Early English versions of the tales of Guiscardo and Ghismonda and Titus Gisippus from the Decameron*. EETS OS 205 (London, 1937). See also Herbert G. Wright, *Boccaccio in England: From Chaucer to Tennyson* (London, 1957), 123–33.

c Federico Poletti, ‘Fortuna letteraria e figurativa della “Ghismonda”’ (*Dec*. IV, 1) fra Umanesimo e Rinascimento’, in *Studi sul Boccaccio*, 32 (2004), 101–44.

ci Taylor, ‘Writers of the Italian Renaissance’.

cii Transcription available in Maria Luisa Doglio, *L'exemplum nella novella latina del Quattrocento* (Turin, 1975), 150–63.

ciii Alessandra Petrina, ‘Boccaccio in Kent: le peregrinazioni di Guiscardo e Ghismonda’, in Giuseppe Sertoli, Carla Vaglio Marengo, Chiara Lombardi (eds), *Comparatistica e intertestualità: Studi in onore di Franco Marengo* (Alessandria, 2010), 217–26.
Manuscript', in Jenny Stratford (ed.), *The Lancastrian Court: Proceedings of the 2001 Harlaxton Symposium* (Donington, 2003), 68–78.

lxxxix E. Flügel, ‘Eine mittelenglische Claudian-Übersetzung (1445) (Brit. Mus. Add. Ms. 11814)’, *Anglia*, 28 (1905), 255-99, 421-38.

xc A.S.G. Edwards, ‘The Middle English Translation of Claudian’s *De Consulatu Stilichonis*’, in Alastair J. Minnis, *Middle English Poetry: Texts and Traditions: Essays in Honour of Derek Pearsall* (York, 2001), 267–78; Livia Visser-Fuchs, “‘Honour is the Reward of Virtue”: The Claudian Translation Made for Richard, Duke of York, in 1445”, *The Ricardian*, 18 (2008), 66–82; Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature*, 70–80.

xci On English translations of their work, see more broadly Karla Taylor, ‘Writers of the Italian Renaissance’, in *OHLTE*, 390–406.

xcii Mark Musa (ed. and trans.), *Petrarch: The Canzoniere, or Rerum vulgarium fragmenta* (Bloomington, IN, 1999).

xciii Alessandra Petrina, ‘The Humanist Petrarch in Medieval and Early Modern England’, *Journal of Anglo-Italian Studies*, 12 (2013), 45–62.

xciv F.N.M. Diekstra (ed.), *A Dialogue Between Reason and Adversity: A Late Middle English Version of Petrarch’s De Remediis* (Assen, 1968).

xcv Edward Wilson and Daniel Wakelin (eds), *A Middle English Translation from Petrarch's Secretum*. EETS OS 351 (Oxford, 2018).

xcvi Giovanni Boccaccio, in Virginia Brown (ed. and trans.), *Famous Women* (Cambridge, MA, 2001).

xcvii Janet Cowen (ed.), *On Famous Women: The Middle English Translation of Boccaccio's 'De Mulieribus Claris'. Edited from London, British Library, MS Additional 10304* (Heidelberg, 2015); Gustav Schleich (ed.), *Die mittelenglische Umdichtung von Boccaccios 'De claris mulieribus'* (Leipzig, 1924).

xcviii Wakelin, *Humanism, Reading, and English Literature*, 60–61.

xcix Herbert G. Wright (ed.), *Early English versions of the tales of Guiscardo and Ghismonda and Titus Gisippus from the Decameron*. EETS OS 205 (London, 1937). See also Herbert G. Wright, *Boccaccio in England: From Chaucer to Tennyson* (London, 1957), 123–33.

c Federico Poletti, ‘Fortuna letteraria e figurativa della “Ghismonda”’ (*Dec*. IV, 1) fra Umanesimo e Rinascimento’, in *Studi sul Boccaccio*, 32 (2004), 101–44.

ci Taylor, ‘Writers of the Italian Renaissance’.

cii Transcription available in Maria Luisa Doglio, *L'exemplum nella novella latina del Quattrocento* (Turin, 1975), 150–63.

ciii Alessandra Petrina, ‘Boccaccio in Kent: le peregrinazioni di Guiscardo e Ghismonda’, in Giuseppe Sertoli, Carla Vaglio Marengo, Chiara Lombardi (eds), *Comparatistica e intertestualità: Studi in onore di Franco Marengo* (Alessandria, 2010), 217–26.