Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College,
MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered
Yuzuru Okumura

富山大学人文学部紀要第 64 号抜刷
２０１６年２月

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College,
MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered
Yuzuru Okumura
Middle English versions of Guy of Warwick are extant in five manuscripts; two ofthem, however, are only fragments, and the major authorities of the romance are
the following three manuscripts:
AU National Library of Scotland, Advocates’ MS 19.2.1 (c. 1330­-40; generally
called the Auchinleck Manuscript), ff. 108r-­ 175v;
GC Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176 (the 1470s), pp. 1­-271; andCF Cambridge University Library, MS Ff. 2.38 (the end of the 15th century or the
beginning of the 16th), ff. 161r-239v.1)
They are all thought to have been translated from the French original Gui deWarewic, but, as is often the case with medieval translations, their contents differ
considerably from each other. AU offers the only extant version of the romancethat consists of three definitely separate stories: the first story, cast in couplets,
describes Guy’s adventures before his marriage (AU [1]); the second, in stanzas,
focuses on the hero’s pilgrimage after his marriage (AU [2]); and the third,
also in stanzas, presents the story of Guy’s son Reinbrun. In CF, the portions
corresponding to AU [1] and AU [2] (CF [1] and CF [2], respectively) are united
into a single couplet romance, while the history of Reinbrun, also in couplets, is
set off as a separate item. GC also presents Guy’s adventures (GC [1]) and his
pilgrimage (GC [2]) as a single couplet romance, but it is quite unlike the otherversions in that it practically omits the story of Reinbrun.2)－ 247 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

Each of the three versions of the romance is thus characteristic in its own
way, but it is certainly GC that definitely stands apart from the others as far as
its textual contents are concerned. This is not simply because it lacks the story
of Reinbrun; GC [1] is characterised by its “considerable omissions” of contents
found in AU [1] and CF [1],3) while GC [2] contains lines which are not attested
in AU [2] and CF [2]. Extensive omissions in GC [1] are particularly noteworthy:
GC [1] has only 4416 lines as against 6947 lines in AU [1] and 6966 lines in
CF [1]—a fact which suggests that most of the omissions come not from sheer
chance such as scribal carelessness or damaged exemplars,4) but from deliberateattempts to present an edited version of the romance. This has recently been
confirmed by Wiggins, who has shown that GC is an outcome of editorial revisionof the source material aiming at “a less controversial portrait of Guy of Warwick
in which his actions are not morally problematized, the most sordid episodes
are removed, and his chivalric qualities are more prominent than in any otheraccount (“Makeover Story,” 485 and “Manuscripts and Texts,” 73-74).” Wiggins’s
argument is perfectly persuasive, and much has already been clarified about theeditorial principle adopted by the GC reviser. In GC, however, there still remainsome further signs of editorial revision which are yet to be fully discussed, andthe present article brings those signs into focus, seeking to show that a closer
scrutiny of them affords a better understanding of how Guy the hero is depicted inthis version of the romance. In what follows, I shall first draw attention to textual
omissions in GC which have not received due attention in previous studies; I
shall then go on to examine extra contents in GC, i.e. lines and passages which
are evidenced in GC but are unattested in AU and CF. Through a fresh analysisof these textual peculiarities of GC, I shall attempt to show that the GC editor did
not just trim away episodes of Guy’s morally problematic actions; rather, he, byrecasting the source material available to him, profoundly transformed the nature－ 248 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsideredof the hero and hence the nature of the romance as a whole.
GC [1] and GC [2] are copied by different scribes, and, though together
constituting a single story, can be traced back to sources from different lines oftextual transmission. As Zupitza points out, GC [1], copied by one scribe except
for its first two pages, follows the same version as AU [1], whereas GC [2],mostly allotted to the other scribe, is textually closer to CF [2], particularly in twolarge segments.5) Needless to say, however, this does not necessarily mean that
there is a direct relationship between GC [1] and AU [1] and between GC [2] andCF [2]. In my discussion of editorial revision in our text, therefore, I shall focus
on examples in which the GC readings are definitely different from those attested
in both AU and CF, assuming that the readings shared by two different versions
represent more closely, if not faithfully, what might be called the standard text of
this romance.
As Wiggins points out, the editorial principle followed by the GC reviser
is partly indicated by his tendency to omit details of relatively minor episodes in
Guy’s adventures (“Makeover Story,” 480-81 and “Manuscripts and Texts,” 72).
This is exemplified by the absence in GC [1] of the following lines which areattested in both AU [1] and CF [1]:AU 1835-89; CF 1431-966): Sadok fights with, and is killed by,
Segwyn.
AU 1971-88; CF 1641-58: Knights on Guy’s side fight with theEmperor of Germany.
AU 1955-807); CF 1731-60: On Otous’s advice, the Emperor ofGermany decides to attack Segwyn again.
AU 2717-54; CF 2631-68: Guy challenges Otous, but the Emperorof Germany forbids their fighting.
－ 249 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

AU 3031-64; CF 2917-56: Guy fights with Esclandar.
AU 3067-146; CF 2961-3020: The Emperor of Constantinople
offers Guy his daughter’s hand; Esclandar tells the
Soldan of Coyne about Guy’s valour and the Soldan
swears to take Constantinople; a spy tells this toGuy.
AU 3783-820; CF 3551-77: Tristor persuades the Emperor ofConstantinople not to send a messenger to theenemy.
AU 7215-80; CF 6881-944: Guy fights with the dragon.8)
These lines are miscellaneous in content, but it seems possible to say that our text
often leaves out details of combat scenes, particularly of Guy’s combats with his
personal enemies.
Not only details of combat scenes, passages concerning Guy’s friendshipwith Tirry are also extensively edited out. One of the major topics in the firsthalf of the romance is Guy’s involvement in Tirry’s love for Oisel, and all thethree versions devote a substantial number of lines to the description of how Guy
assisted Tirry, who was struggling to get married to Oisel despite discord between
Oisel’s father and himself and also despite interference by his rival Otous. It isnoteworthy, however, that the contents given in the following lines in AU [1] andCF [1], all related to this topic, are absent from GC [1]:AU 4957-80; CF 4749-76: A knight tells Guy and Tirry that Tirry’s
father has been besieged by Oisel’s father Loyere.
AU 5025-634; CF 4819-5348: In support of Tirry and his father,
Guy and Herhaud fight with Loyere and his men;
－ 250 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered

Otous urges Loyere to deceive Tirry and his father.
AU 5851-936; CF 5569-634: Otous, putting Tirry to prison, intends
to marry Oisel.
AU 6440-512; CF 6124-86: Berard, attemting to avenge the deathof Otous, fights with Guy; Guy rides away with
Oisel; and Berard buries the body of Otous in Pavia.
AU 6587-676; CF 6273-372: Loyere sends Herhaud to Guy andTirry, hoping to be reconciled with them.
AU 6681-710; CF 6373-402: Tirry is reconciled with Loyere andmarries Oisel.
AU 7055-104; CF 6743-84: Tirry persuades Guy to stay with him.9)
Through the omission of these episodes leading up to Tirry’s marriage to Oisel,
the romance is reorganised in GC [1] into a version which is more than 850 lines
shorter than AU [1] and CF [1]. Such extensive omissions, all focusing on thissingle topic, can hardly be taken as accidental. It is evident that the GC editor
sorted out the lines relevant to this particular topic and deleted a substantial
number of them from his text, perhaps regarding the treatment of the topic in his
source unduly detailed.
In some cases, it is possible to say more precisely what our editor aimed atby deletion. GC [1] is characteristic in that it lacks two fairly long passages, often
referred to as the “Clarice episode” and the “Florentine episode,” both of which
may considerably affect our interpretation of the hero’s character. These episodes
have already been fully discussed in foregoing studies,10) but let us briefly review
them here, as they are of close relevance to other examples of revision in GC
which will be analysed in detail below. The “Clarice episode,” as found in AU
4165-280 and CF 3925-4034, describes an incident which takes place during－ 251 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

Guy’s stay in Constantinople. Having successfully assisted the Emperor ofConstantinople in defeating the Saracens, Guy is urged by the Emperor to marryhis daughter Clarice and to inherit the whole empire. Situations like this are also
found elsewhere in the romance, and Guy’s behaviour in those situations remains
more or less identical throughout: when granted by his lord lavish gifts as a reward
for his service in battles, he politely refuses the offer or, if forced to accept thegifts, he readily hands them over to others;11) and when offered the hand of noble
ladies, he makes it a rule to decline it courteously but definitely, as is appropriate
to a knight who is in devoted service for his beloved Felice.12) In the episode now
in question, however, he shows himself to be capable of unsteadiness. According
to AU [1] and CF [1], Guy promptly accepts the Emperor’s offer; the date for thewedding is fixed quite abruptly; and on the arranged day the Emperor appoints
Guy as his inheritor before all those assembling to celebrate the occasion. Guy
thus seems to have forgotten all about Felice, but, when the Archbishop is about togive him a wedding ring, he thinks of her again and asks the marriage ceremony
to be postponed. Fluctuating between the two ladies, he feels almost lost and asks
his attendant Herhaud for advice, who replies that the marriage to the Emperor’sdaughter would bring to Guy far more wealth and power than the marriage toan earl’s daughter Felice. As if provoked by this suggestion of a marriage of
convenience, Guy reaffirms his commitment to Felice and decides to leave
Constantinople. AU [1] and CF [1] each contain more than 100 lines giving details
of Guy’s wavering attitude, but all those lines are condensed into just a couple oflines in GC [1],13) with the result that Guy is presented in this shortened version asa knight who declines the hand of the Emperor’s daughter without any hesitation.
It is reasonable to think that this revision stems from the editor’s intention not to
impair the hero’s image as an ideal chivalric knight who under any circumstances
maintains unshakable loyalty to his loved one.
－ 252 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered

The “Florentine episode,” which is also known to have been deleted fromGC [1], appears in AU 6711-7032 and CF 6403-720 as one of the importantelements of the whole story. After reconciled with Duke Loyere, Guy goes hunting
with the duke and others. He finds a boar in a forest and chases it a very long way,leaving the other hunters behind him; all alone, he inadvertently strays into Earl
Florentine’s forest, where he eventually secures the game. The earl’s son accuses
Guy for hunting the boar in his father’s territory without permission; finding thetrespasser unwilling to admit his fault, the young knight attacks Guy, only to bedelivered a counter blow and fatally injured. Not knowing what has happened tohis son, Florentine allows Guy to stay at his castle; but, on realising that his guest
is the very knight who has killed his son, the earl tries to avenge his son’s death,but Guy manages to defend himself, giving devastating damage to his host’s court.
The lines recounting this incident, which add up to more than 300 lines in AU [1]and CF [1], are all deleted from GC [1], and this deletion can also be taken as aresult of an editorial attempt to present the hero as a respectable knight. The deathof the earl’s son might be ascribed to a series of misfortunes, but it is still difficult
to claim that Guy has entire justice in his haphazard behaviour here,14) which has
resulted in such a tragic result.
Other examples of omission in GC [1] seem to have so far escaped
scholarly analysis, but some of them are definitely worth special mention, serving
as additional signs of the GC editor’s intention demonstrated by the deletion of
the “Clarice episode” and the “Florentine episode.” One of those examples canbe found in the deletion of a passage in which Guy takes the initiative in lying
ambush for the Emperor of Germany. While battling in support of Segwyn against
the Emperor, Guy and all the knights on his side are locked up in Segwyn’s home
town, completely besieged by their enemy. They find a clue to break the deadlock
when a spy brings to them the information that the Emperor would go hunting－ 253 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

privately, accompanied by only a small number of knights:
Gode tidinges y telle þe,Þat þemperour, sikerliche,
Wille huntte to morwe arliche
In his forest priuelicheWiþ litel folk & nouʒt wiþ miche,Wiþ also litel als he may.15)(AU 2464-69; corresponding to CF 2338-42)
Asked by Segwyn how to take advantage of this information, Guy promptly
suggests that they should lie in ambush for the Emperor in the forest and,surrounding him with a host of armed knights, should coerce him to accept apeace proposal from Segwyn:‘Þe best rede ichil þe telle:Kniʒtes we schul han a þousinde,& bi þe morwe, ʒif we him finde,
Ichil him bidde wiþ hert freÞat he wil acord wiþ þe,& þat he cum wiþ þe at ete;& ʒif he seyþ ouʒt wiþ hete,Þat he it wil graunt for no þing,Hider we schul bring þe king.
(AU 2490-98; corresponding to CF 2371-88)
Segwyn adopts this suggestion, and Guy, as planned, waits for the Emperor’s party－ 254 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsideredin the forest. The Emperor, when he finds himself caught in the trap, instantly
understands that he is in a serious plight and:[h]e seyd, ‘y-treyst we ben here:
Sir Tirri, mi frende dere,No sestow hou þat ʒonder rideKniʒtes? þai ben of gret pride.
On ich halue bisett we beþ,Nis her nouʒt bot þe deþ.
Felawes þai be þe douke Segyn,
Whom þat god ʒif iuel fin!
Gij of Warwike þer y sey,
Y-armed on his stede an hey.’(AU 2517-26; corresponding to CF 2417-30)
In the end Guy’s suggestion turns out to be a sensible one, successfully leading
the Emperor to accept the reconciliation and peacefully putting an end to the longsustained warfare. This episode, which occupies 110 lines in AU [1] (2449-558)
and 146 lines in CF [1] (2319-464), is completely removed from GC [1],16) andit appears that this removal is again intended to preserve Guy’s image as a noble
knight. Our editor was certainly aware that Guy in this episode meant to benefit
both sides of the conflict, but he nevertheless regarded the stratagem employed
here, which is explicitly referred to by the narrator as a “tresoun” in AU [1] (2450),
as something beneath chivalric decency, and chose to leave out this episode fromhis text in order to defend the honour of the hero who contrived it.
Proper attention should also be paid to the omission in GC [1] of a passage
describing Guy’s killing of a Lombard in Otous’s court.17) Knowing that Tirry has－ 255 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

been taken prisoner by Otous’s treachery, Guy tries to rescue him by deceiving
Otous. He approaches Otous, disguising himself so as not to be recognised byanyone and pretending to have come from a faraway country. He manages to win
Otous’s confidence as he claims that he himself hates Guy and Tirry, and becomesa gaoler to keep watch on the prisoner. He soon finds an opportunity to speak
to Tirry and promises to set him free; but their conversation is overheard by a
Lombard, one of Otous’s men, who then threatens to get them hanged:
Wiþ loude steuen he haþ him gred,‘Gij, þou hast wel iuel y-sped.
Boþe ʒe schul an-honged be,
Now ich ʒou boþe here y-se.’(AU 6227-30; corresponding to CF 5902-04)
In order to prevent the Lombard from telling his lord Otous what he has come toknow, Guy kills him before Otous’s eyes, knocking him on the crown. Asked by
Otous why he has killed the Lombard, Guy answers:
Into þe tour ich was y-gon,
For to se þe esters ichon;Þer ich fond þis feloun,& spac to Tirri in þe prisoun,& mete him brouʒt gret plente.
Þo ich it seye it of-þouʒt me.
Wiþ his fest he me smot,Þerfore ichim suwed, god it wot,
& smot him so þou miʒt se.
－ 256 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice ReconsideredÞe gilt, sir, for-ʒiue þou me.
Soþe to sigge in þis stede,For þine anour ich it dede,Þat oþer bi him y-warned be
To fede þi prisoun wiþ-outen þe.’(AU 6255-68; corresponding to CF 5933-50)
The lines describing how Guy is forced to kill the Lombard, and how he makes
up a false explanation for the killing, are all deleted from GC [1], saving about 90
lines present in each of AU [1] (6187-274) and CF [1] (5861-958). The reason forthis deletion is of course a matter of conjecture, but it is in all probability because
the editor judged this episode incompatible with the hero’s image he wishedto create. Trying to approach Otous, Guy uses a shrewd trick on his enemy; itappears that the editor did not find it necessary to erase this episode, presumably
regarding Guy’s behaviour here as a justifiable means of revenge, since it is
Otous who first practiced a deception on Guy and Tirry. But there is no suchjustification for Guy’s killing of the Lombard and his response to Otous’s demand
for an explanation. When the Lombard tries to tell Otous what he has overheard,
he is simply doing what is expected of a faithful member of Otous’s court. In a
desperate attempt to rescue Tirry, Guy has no choice but to kill him and, whenpressed by Otous to explain why he has done so, he replies that it is because
he had to defend himself against the attack from the Lombard who was caught
betraying Otous and offering special favours to Tirry. By this misrepresentationof the facts, Otous is deceived into believing that the Lombard, in reality one ofhis devoted subjects, is a traitor to him and to all of his court—a belief whichcauses irretrievably serious damage to the innocent Lombard’s honour. It is highly
likely that our editor thought that Guy’s conduct in this episode would tarnish the－ 257 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

hero’s image as a noble knight, and decided to remove the episode from his text
altogether.
Precisely as the “Clarice episode” and the “Florentine episode,” Guy’s
ambush for the Emperor and his killing of the Lombard are both excised fromGC [1], and this further confirms that GC [1] is not a text produced by randomly
trimming component episodes of the story. Passages indicating that the hero is
not always a perfect knight are drastically abridged or deleted altogether fromthis version, while other passages are largely left intact. It is thus evident thatits editor, after having fully grasped what he found in his source, decided which
episode should be included in his edited text and which should be excluded fromit.
Let us now turn to GC [2], the second half of our text, and compare it with
the AU and the CF counterparts, AU [2] and CF [2]. Omissions of lines evidenced
in AU [2] and CF [2] are again frequent in GC [2], though our editor in thissegment typically left his traces in a less conspicuous manner, omitting at a time
only a very limited stretch of text. Soon after his marriage, Guy confesses to hiswife that he has committed many grave offences in order to earn her love. In AU[2], he says:Seþþen y þe seyʒe first wiþ ayn(“Allas þe while,” y may sayn)
Þi loue me haþ so y-bounde,Þat neuer seþþen no dede y gode,
Bot in wer schadde mannes blodeWiþ mani a griseli wounde.
(AU 24/4-918); corresponding to CF 7157-61)－ 258 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered

In CF [2], he even adds:
Farre in many a dyuers cuntre
I haue many a man slane,
Abbeys brente and cytees tane:(CF 7162-64)
GC [2] quotes Guy’s confession in a slightly abridged form, deleting a few lines
existing in AU [2] and CF [2]. As a result, Guy in this version only gives somefaint hints of what he has done, withholding details of his wrongdoings:
Sithe that y first loued the
In grete sorowe y haue bee:Than y haue for the doo
Wrought moche sorowe and woo.
(GC 7415-18)
Guy then declares his determination to go on a pilgrimage in penance for his sins.
This scene is recounted in much the same way in all the three versions; in GC [2],for instance, he says:
And if y had doon so well,
Withoute more the haluen dell
Hadde for goddes loue wroughte,
That in so moche honour had me broughte,
In heuen, for sothe, y were,In blisse for euere angellis fere.
－ 259 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

And for him did y neuere nought;
Therfor y am purposed in thought
In goddis seruyse now to goo,
To acquite some-what that y haue mysdoo;
And of all the goodnesse that y doo shall,
I graunte the euere haluendell;(GC 7419-30; corresponding to AU 25/1-26/12 and CF 7171-84)
Our editor’s intervention in this episode is thus minimal, deleting just a number ofminor details of the conversation, but the result is by no means negligible. In AU [2]and CF [2], as the lines quoted above show, Guy painfully repents of what he has
done: having killed many a knight, even having sacked cities and burnt abbeys; inGC [2], on the other hand, details of Guy’s past offences are all deleted, and thestory is consequently presented as one in which Guy regrets what he has neglected
to do, that is, his failure to thank God who has been assisting him throughout
his adventures. This seemingly slight modification of the text in GC [2] can,therefore, be taken to indicate that the same editorial principle as we have noted
in GC [1] is here still at work. Guy’s past wrongdoings might be approved of assigns of his valour, but our editor decided to purge them out, probably regarding
them as inappropriate to the hero whom he intended to depict as a flawless
Christian knight.
This episode is directly followed by another noticeable example ofomission, which might be regarded as an exceptional one in GC [2] because theomission here affects a fairly large portion of the text. In AU [2] and CF [2],Felice, when told that her husband is determined to begin a pilgrimage, reproaches
him, saying that he is betraying her:

－ 260 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered‘Syr,’ quod sche tho full tyte,‘Have ye me now in soche dyspyte?
Well y wot, so god me redde,
Ye haue a lemman in odur stedde,
And now ye wyll vnto hur fareAnd come ageyne neuyr mare.
Allas,’ quod sche, ‘that y was borne.’(CF 7185-91; corresponding to AU 27/1-12)
She then tries to dissuade him from going by suggesting an alternative form of
atonement:
Abbeyes, syr, let thou make,And so schall y for thy sake:
Holy men schall for the pray
Wyth þer myght bothe nyght and day.
Thus may yow saue yow fro paryle:
Why wyll yow wende in exsyle?’(CF 7213-18; corresponding to AU 28/7-12)
But her suggestion is promptly rejected by her husband, who reaffirms his
determination:‘Lemman,’ he seyde, ‘let be thy fare:Speke thou therof no mare.
Thou louyste lytull þyn own prowe,
Yf þou make me to breke my vowe:－ 261 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

That y haue wyth my body wroght,
And wyth my body hyt shall be boght.’(CF 7219-24; corresponding to AU 29/1-12)
Felice’s unrestrained display of opposition to her husband and Guy’s adherence
to his determination are fully detailed in AU 27/1-29/12 and CF 7185-224,
each assigning nearly 40 lines to this episode.19) But the GC editor apparently
disapproved of Felice’s self-assertion here and also of her proposal of analternative means of penance; he removed this entire episode from his text,
leading us to regard Felice as a wife who is always willing to obey her husband.
It seems that our editor, just as he depicted Guy as a knight absolutely free from
vice, sought to offer a retouched portrait of Felice, wiping out her words which hejudged unbecoming to Guy’s wife.20)
In our discussion so far, GC has been treated as an abridged version of
the romance produced by deleting many passages attested in AU and CF. It might
be argued against this view that the passages absent from GC were not existentin the archetypal Middle English translation of the romance; if this argument iscorrect, we should regard GC as a more accurate reproduction of the archetype,taking AU and CF as expanded versions with many additions to the original
story. This, however, is certainly a less likely possibility because it requires adubious assumption that AU [1] and CF [1], while belonging to different lines oftextual transmission, share such a huge number of unauthentic lines introduced
into the archetypal text. It is equally unlikely that AU [2] and CF [2], which
are mutually distinctive in textual affiliation and even in verse form, inserted
substantially identical passages precisely at the same places in the developing
story. Furthermore, some of the neighbouring passages in GC are very awkwardly
juxtaposed due to the absence of linking episodes,21) and this also supports the－ 262 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsideredview that the text is a shortened version of the romance.
Our examination of textual deletion in GC [1] and GC [2] has shown thatboth Guy and Felice are depicted in GC as far more decent figures than they are in
AU and CF. The inclination towards omission, however, is not the only distinctive
feature of GC; there are cases in which GC contains lines and passages which
are not attested in AU and CF. Those extra contents in GC also seem to havesignificantly modified the nature of the hero and the heroine, and the remaining
sections of this article examine them in some detail. Inclusion of episodes
unique to GC is particularly noticeable in the final section of the romance,
which describes Guy’s funeral. After a long separation Felice meets Guy in his
hermitage, only to know that he is on the point of death. When he dies, she kisses
him on the mouth, the hands and the feet; and, according to GC [2], so do manyothers there present:
So dyd many an other man.
All that with her commyn were
Mad mornyng and sorry chere.
All they yode that corse to kysse:(GC 10954-57)
But GC [2] is the only version among the three that makes it explicit that Felice’s
deep sorrow is shared by all those who witness Guy’s death. Neither AU [2]nor CF [2] contains any lines referring to this episode and, consequently, these
versions tend to direct our attention exclusively to Felice, keeping all the otherpeople present at the scene in the background. Whether these lines were added
to GC [2] or were deleted from AU [2] and CF [2] is difficult to decide, but it
is in any case evident that the presence of these lines alters the nature of Guy’s－ 263 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

funeral and therefore the nature of the hero himself. While AU [2] and CF [2]both treat Guy’s death rather as a private matter between husband and wife,22)
GC [2] emphasises that Guy is loved and respected by many and that his death isuniversally lamented as a loss to society at large.
Another episode exclusive to GC [2] can be found in the section
immediately following the lines just quoted. Among those who gather to mournover Guy’s death is Athelstan, King of England, who gives a memorial address
before “all hys barons euery-chone (GC 10975).” The king classifies Guy’s
chivalric achievements into four categories, and his address accordingly seems
to consist of four component sections. Interestingly, he begins his speech by
paying tribute to Guy’s final achievement in his knightly career, his victory
over Colbrand, a champion of the Danish King who was threatening to conquer
England:He faught for me worthylye
At wynchester, ye all hyt sye,
And slow for Englondis ryʒt
Of all the world the strengest knyʒt.
(GC 10978-81)
He then thanks Guy for killing the dragon which was causing tremendous damage
to Northumberland, concluding the first section of his address by saying that Guy
thus saved England twice:
Also he slow here in Englond
A dragon, for-soth, as I vndyrstond,
Full fer in the north contree:－ 264 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered

All ye hyt know that here be;
So that twyse this blessyd knyʒtHath savyd Englond with hys myʒt.
(GC 10982-87)
In the second section, Athelstan refers to Guy’s refusal to inherit the empire ofConstantinople:
This gentyll knyʒt that lyeth here,
Yf he had coveyted honoure,
He myʒt have bene an Emperoure.
The Emperoure hym bad hys douʒter dereWith all hys landys ferre and nere
For hys douʒtynes of hondeThat he provyd in hys londe.
(GC 10989-95)
The king then goes on to the third section, in which he applauds Guy as “thefloure” of “Christendom” (GC 11003), firstly mentioning Guy’s defeat of the
Sultan who was attempting to conquer Constantinople:
Of all the world the grettest lord
With the Emperoure was a dyscorde,
Of babylon the hyʒe sowdan:
Thrytty kyngis hym omage done.
Sir Gye hym slow at hys bord:
All they ne durst speke on word.
－ 265 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

He brought hys hed to the Emperoure.
(GC 10996-1002)
He also praises Guy for vanquishing Amoraunt, a Saracen giant, so as to deliver
Christian knights from the hands of the Saracen king Triamour:
He slow ameraunt, the bold paynym:
All the world was a-drad of hym.
(GC 11004-05)
In the fourth section of his address, Athelstan briefly touches upon Guy’s victory
over his personal enemies:
He slow the Duke Otown of pavy
For hys treason and hys trechery,
And sethen berrard after hym:
He was a Geaunt styffe and gryme.
(GC 11006-09)
The king then confirms that Guy was a true knight, whose exceptional valour wassolely displayed in correcting injustice:This gentyll Gye, of whome I talke,
Thorough all the world hath he hys walke.
All falshed and trechory
Euer-more he wold dystroye.
I may well hyt avow ryght,－ 266 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice ReconsideredThat he was a trew knyʒt.
(GC 11010-15)
Athelstan’s memorial address runs to 47 lines in GC [2], but none of thelines relevant to this episode can be found in AU [2] and CF [2]. We should nothastily conclude that our editor invented a passage of such a length by himself; amore likely assumption would be that this episode had descended directly fromone of the archetypal readings, which our editor retained in his version as his
predecessors had done. Even so, it is certain that the editor here did not admit
the passage into his text uncritically; he made a conscious decision to preserve it,
fully aware that it would help to establish Guy’s image which he tried to build up
in his text. As Wiggins says, Athelstan in his address gives a “summary” of Guy’slife as a valiant warrior (“Makeover Story,” 485 and “Manuscripts and Texts,”
74), but it is important to note that he does not enumerate the hero’s adventuresin a chronological order. As is outlined above, the four sections of his speech
are arranged in the following order: Guy saved England; Guy declined to inherit
Constantinople; Guy saved Christendom; and Guy corrected injustice. The factthat Athelstan first of all refers to Guy as the saviour of England is significant
because it strongly suggests that the king regards Guy’s contribution to thedefence of his kingdom as the hero’s most important chivalric achievement. Guy’s
refusal of the offer from the Emperor of Constantinople is rightly mentioned in thesecond section: Guy turned down Clarice and thus reaffirmed his loyalty to Felice;
but, more importantly, his decision not to inherit the empire of Constantinople
indicates that Guy here decided, despite all the wealth and power he would gainas the emperor, to hold on to his identity as an English knight. In the third section,
Guy is applauded for defending Christian knights against the Saracens twice,once defeating the Sultan and then Amoraunt. The king skips most of the conflicts－ 267 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

between Guy and his personal enemies, though he briefly mentions Guy’s defeatof Otous and Berard in the final section of his address. By rearranging the orderof these episodes in this way, Athelstan makes it explicit that Guy is an iconic
English knight who should be remembered for many years to come as the saviourof England and all Christendom. Precisely as in the “kissing” episode discussed
above, therefore, GC [2] here presents Guy’s funeral in an idiosyncratic manner:
AU [2] and CF [2] again describe the funeral primarily as a private occasion,
without King Athelstan among the mourners; they are in sharp contrast to GC [2],in which the king attends the funeral in person and publicly declares Guy’s death
to be a distinct loss to the whole of his nation and the Christian world.
GC [2], which is characterised by its relatively moderate editorial
omission and by its inclusion of a few unique episodes in its story, might seemto be somewhat unlike GC [1], which distinguishes itself by its marked tendency
towards large-scale omission. It has become clear, however, that one and thesame editorial principle is maintained throughout GC: in GC [1], passages whichmight hurt Guy’s honour are relentlessly removed; and, also in GC [2], the story
is rendered into one depicting the hero as a knight who, for his unparalleled featsof valour and high sense of morality, is widely loved and respected as a national
hero. Presumably, the editor did not primarily aim at a shortened version of theromance; but his determination to achieve his goal led him to delete substantial
portions of his source material, and hence a radically abridged version of theromance.
Rouse has argued that our romance depicts Guy’s life as a process throughwhich the hero, taking on “multiple yet complementary identities,” undergoes“a progressive development towards a religious and national ideal” (109).23) He
is certainly right as he intends to present an interpretation of the major flow of
episodes shared by the three versions of the romance. If, however, differences－ 268 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered

in textual details between these versions are taken into consideration, thischaracterisation should be judged somewhat oversimplified. Rouse primarily
bases his argument on AU readings, referring to GC only when AU is textually
deficient; but it is disputable whether his characterisation of the romance can bereadily applicable to the version he mainly used. In AU and CF, Guy, who begins
his knightly career as a chivalric lover seeking for Felice’s love, demonstrates
his valour in a series of combats against his deadly enemies, thereby defending
England and Christendom. But in the final section of the narrative, the focus isagain shifted to Guy and Felice, now as a knight on the point of death and his wife
attending him on his deathbed. GC largely follows the same narrative flow, but itreaches quite a characteristic ending: Felice is virtually kept in the background at
Guy’s funeral, and brought to the fore instead is King Athelstan, who delivers amourning address celebrating Guy as a national hero. The GC editor’s adoption ofthis unique ending, combined with his deletion of several episodes, has radicallyaltered the nature of the hero and consequently the nature of the romance asa whole. In AU and CF, the romance begins as a story of Guy and Felice and,despite various episodes of the hero’s bravery, eventually ends as a story of thesame couple. On the other hand, GC, also starting as a story of a young courtly
lover and his lady, is in the end turned into a story of Guy as a public figure,an iconic hero of England and all Christendom. It can therefore be said that
Rouse’s conclusion, though mostly drawn from his analysis of AU readings, ismore appropriate as a characterisation of the GC version. The GC editor foundit necessary to create a highly glamorised image of Guy precisely because heintended to present the hero as “a religious and national ideal,” not simply as an
outstanding embodiment of knightly virtues.
Rouse’s characterisation of the romance further prompts us to ask: does
Guy, through the process of his “progressive development” into a heroic warrior,－ 269 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

develop internally as well, i.e. develop into a knight of higher morality? It appears
that GC again provides a unique answer to this question. As we have seen, anumber of episodes in AU [1] and CF [1] reveal that Guy, even after establishing
his fame as a valiant warrior, is capable of morally questionable decisions andbehaviours. As the narrative proceeds, however, he comes to show signs of moral
maturity: he repents of having committed many serious offences in his adventures;also, in his pilgrimage to atone for those offences, he does not take spur-of-themoment measures as he sometimes did in his earlier adventures. In GC, with all
those controversial episodes edited out, Guy is turned into a knight who neverfails to behave morally throughout his chivalric career.24) In terms of whether
the hero develops internally or not, therefore, Guy’s life as depicted in GC is
fundamentally different from that in the other versions. In AU and CF, along withhis “progressive development” into a more experienced warrior, he also develops
into a knight with an increasingly mature sense of morality. GC, on the other
hand, provides no positive indications of Guy’s internal development,25) portraying
the hero as a figure who is from the beginning endowed with a strong inclinationto act exactly as prescribed by the chivalric code of conduct.
Our discussion has shown that GC is distinct from the other versions inthat it places an intense focus on one particular aspect of Guy’s multi-layered
identity. The GC editor did not aim at a shortened version of the romance, nor did
he simply intend to “sanitize”26) the hero; rather he, by deleting some passages
and also by adding others, transformed his source material into a story which puts
peculiarly heavy emphasis on Guy’s evolution into a national and religious hero.
Obviously, the editor ventured such a drastic revision because he had good reason
to believe that his version of the romance would satisfy the taste and interestof a certain type of contemporary readership. Recent findings have shown thatmedieval romance, while primarily serving as reading material for entertainment,－ 270 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsidered

was also exploited as a tool for fostering local and national group identity.27) With
this in mind, it is tempting to think that our editor was commissioned the taskof revising the romance by a patron who wished to assert, and perhaps publicise
widely, that Guy, a knight from Warwick, saved England in its hour of need andthereby evolved into a national hero and an icon of English national identity.
The GC editor’s intervention does not always prove to be successful. As is said
above, he not infrequently deleted scenes which would effectively act as bridges
between the preceding and the following scenes. More importantly, his endeavour
to present Guy and Felice as a flawless couple has deprived them of somethingthat would make them look real: in AU and CF, Guy sometimes makes mistakes
and Felice can defy her husband’s will; but, in GC, their unseemly words andbehaviours are all filtered out and the couple are consequently recast into nothing
more than the stereotypes of a noble knight and his obedient wife. Yet, it shouldstill be admitted that GC serves as a unique source of information on how an oldromance, while being transmitted from generation to generation, was reshaped andrefreshed so as to meet the expectations from the audience of the period in which
it was produced.

Notes1) Facsimile editions of AU are available in Pearsall and Cunningham (1977) (print) and Burnley and
Wiggins (2003 and 2004) (online). CF is also available as a facsimile in McSparran and Robinson(1979). Fragments of Middle English versions of the romance are found in British Library, Sloane
MS 1044, no. 625, f. 345r-v and British Library, Additional MS 14408, ff. 74r-77v. The romance also
survives in printed editions published by: Wynkyn de Worde (Westminster, 1497?; one leaf) (STC
2nd ed. 12541), Richard Pynson (London?, 1500?; three leaves) (STC 2nd ed. 12540), and William
Copland (London, c. 1553?) (STC 2nd ed. 12541.5).
2) An overview of the extant Middle English versions of the romance is given in Zupitza, Second or
15th-century Version, v-viii.
3) Zupitza, Second or 15th-century Version, vi.
4) Mills implies that GC is based on a damaged exemplar (215, note 7).

－ 271 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

5) Zupitza, Second or 15th-century Version, vi and viii.
6) References are to the line numbers given in Zupitza’s editions (Guy of Warwick and Second or 15thcentury Version). In his one-volume edition of AU and GC, the two versions are cross-referenced byassigning the same line number to the substantially corresponding lines; thus, Zupitza’s line numbers
are not those determined simply by counting the lines attested in each of the texts.
7) The line numbers 1905-2006 are allotted to two different portions of AU in Zupitza’s edition (Guy of
Warwick, 108-12 and 114-18). For easy reference, however, Zupitza’s line numbers are quoted here.
8) Of these passages deleted from GC [1], the following are already mentioned by Wiggins (“Makeover
Story,” 476-81 and 484-85, notes 28 and 29 and “Manuscripts and Texts,” 72-74, notes 36 and 37):
AU 1955-80, CF 1731-60; AU 1971-88, CF 1641-58; AU 2717-54, CF 2631-68; AU 3031-64, CF
2917-56; AU 3067-146, CF 2961-3020; and AU 7215-80, CF 6881-944. Wiggins states that the GC
reviser tends to omit “static, repetitive, or descriptive sections of the narrative” as well as “battles
and scenes of violence” (“Makeover Story,” 480 and “Manuscripts and Texts,” 72).
9) Of these passages deleted from GC [1], the following are already mentioned by Wiggins (“Makeover
Story,” 476 and 484-85, notes 28 and 29 and “Manuscripts and Texts,” 73, notes 36 and 37): AU
5025-634, CF 4819-5348; AU 6440-512, CF 6124-86; and AU 6587-676, CF 6273-372.
10) See, for instance, Fewster (89-93), Price (108-09) and Wiggins (“Makeover Story,” 484-85 and“Manuscripts and Texts,” 73-74).
11) See, for instance: GC 995-1054 (corresponding to AU 995-1052 and to CF 679-736); GC 8586-95(corresponding to AU 136/1-12 and to CF 8327-34); GC 8630-45 (corresponding to AU 139/4-140/9
and to CF 8367-87); and GC 10790-805 (corresponding to AU 271/6-272/6 and to CF 10385-90).
12) See, for instance, GC 1699-702 (corresponding to AU 1699-702 and to CF 1305-10).
13) GC 4235-36.
14) Guy’s behaviour in this episode provides a striking contrast to Earl Florentine’s chivalrous attitude
to him described in AU 6945-51 and CF 6634-40: despite his deep sorrow, the earl, allowing Guy toleave the castle on his steed, tells his knights to avenge his son’s death only after Guy gets out of thecastle gate.
15) All Guy of Warwick quotations hereafter are from Zupitza’s editions.
16) Wiggins mentions the omission of this episode in GC. She, however, does not discuss it within thecontext of other omissions in the version, simply treating it as an instance where “an excision has
resulted in an awkward transition” in the narrative (“Makeover Story,” 480, note 16 and “Manuscripts
and Texts,” 72, note 31).
17) The omission of this episode is noted by Wiggins (“Makeover Story,” 485, note 29 and “Manuscripts
and Texts,” 73, note 37), but, again, is not fully analysed.
18) References are to the stanza and line numbers given in Zupitza’s edition: thus, 24/4-9 here refers tostanza 24, lines 4-9.
19) Rouse says that “in the Middle English versions of the romance, Felice takes an active role in theaffirmation of Guy’s newly chosen path in life” (103). Our discussion, however, has shown that thisis not necessarily the case with AU and CF.
20) Driver says that, in the fifteenth-century versions of the romance, Felice’s character was “edited
perhaps to suit an audience of noble female readers” (135).
21) See, for instance, GC’s omission of the lines equivalent to: AU 5025-634 (corresponding to CF 48195348); AU 5851-936 (corresponding to CF 5569-634); AU 6587-676 (corresponding to CF 6273372); and AU 6681-710 (corresponding to CF 6373-402).
22) CF, in particular, presents the funeral strictly as a private occasion, as is evident from the following－ 272 －

Guy of Warwick in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 107/176: its Editorial Practice Reconsideredlines describing Guy’s reunion with Felice:
Vp he loked anon ryʒt
And clepyd Felyce, as he myght,
And helde vp boþe hys handys
Before þat lady, as sche standys,
In tokenyng hur mercy for to cryeOf þe sorowe, sche dud for hym drye.
Hedde to hedde þere lay they thoo:
Swetely eyther kyssed other also.
(CF 10659-66)
23) Fewster, discussing AU and CF, also argues that “Guy’s status changes from that of a young romancelover and hero, to that of national hero and eventual hermit” (89). See also Turville-Petre, 114-20.
24) An isolated example of Guy’s impulsive (and possibly controversial) act can be found in thefollowing description of his single combat with Colbrond. The giant, having broken Guy’s sword,
threatens to kill Guy; but Guy, defying the threat, cunningly puts Colbrond off his guard and seizes
the giant’s battle-axe:‘No forse,’ quod Gye, ‘wylt thou so done:
I wyll haue wepon well sone.
Lo where commyth on be-hynd theThat bryngyth me wepon plente!’
Colbrond lokyd be-hynd hym tho:He thought well what he wold do;
He sterte forth, or he wold stynte,
And a good axe in hys hand he hend.
(GC 10732-39)
Interestingly, this scene is absent in AU and CF.
25) Guy’s recognition of his failure to thank God (GC 7419-25, quoted above) might be taken as a single
exception to this, indicating his development into a mature Christian knight.
26) Wiggins, “Makeover Story,” 485 and “Manuscripts and Texts,” 74.
27) See, for instance, Turville-Petre, 108-41 (Chapter 4).

References
Burnley, David, and Alison Wiggins, eds. 2003, 2004. The Auchinleck Manuscript. Edinburgh: National
Library of Scotland. (Version 1, 5 July 2003; Version 1.1, 15 March 2004) <http://auchinleck.nls.
uk/>.
Driver, Martha W. 2007. “‘In her owne persone semly and bewteus’: Representing Women in Stories of
Guy of Warwick,” in Alison Wiggins and Rosalind Field (eds.), Guy of Warwick: Icon and Ancestor(Cambridge: D. S. Brewer), 133-53.
Fewster, Carol. 1987. Traditionality and Genre in Middle English Romance. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
McSparran, Frances, and P. R. Robinson, eds. 1979. Cambridge University Library, MS Ff. 2.38. London:
Scolar Press.
Mills, Maldwyn. 1991. “Techniques of Translation in the Middle English Versions of Guy of Warwick,”－ 273 －

富山大学人文学部紀要

in Roger Ellis (ed.), The Medieval Translator II (London: Centre for Medieval Studies, Queen Maryand Westfield College, University of London), 209-29.
Pearsall, Derek, and I. C. Cunningham, eds. 1977. The Auchinleck Manuscript: National Library of
Scotland, Advocates’ MS. 19.2.1. London: Scolar Press.
Price, Paul. 2000. “Confessions of a Godless Killer: Guy of Warwick and Comprehensive
Entertainment,” in Judith Weiss, Jennifer Fellows, and Morgan Dickson (eds.), Medieval Insular
Romance: Translation and Innovation (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer), 93-110.
Rouse, Robert Allen. 2007. “An Exemplary Life: Guy of Warwick as Medieval Culture-Hero,” in Alison
Wiggins and Rosalind Field (eds.), Guy of Warwick: Icon and Ancestor (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer),
94-109.
Turville-Petre, Thorlac. 1996. England the Nation: Language, Literature, and National Identity, 12901340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiggins, Alison. 2007. “A Makeover Story: The Caius Manuscript Copy of Guy of Warwick,” Studies in
Philology 104 (4), 471-500.
_____. 2007. “The Manuscripts and Texts of the Middle English Guy of Warwick,” in Alison Wiggins
and Rosalind Field (eds.), Guy of Warwick: Icon and Ancestor (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer), 61-80.
Zupitza, Julius, ed. 1966. The Romance of Guy of Warwick, EETS. es. 42, 49 and 59. Rpt. as one volume.
London: Oxford University Press.
_____, ed. 1966. The Romance of Guy of Warwick: The Second or 15th-century Version, EETS. es. 25
and 26. Rpt. as one volume. London: Oxford University Press.

－ 274 －