The Lawrence J. Schoenberg Studies in Manuscript Culture VOLUME 2 Series Editors William G, Noel Dorothy Porter Lynn Ransom Taxonomies of Knowledge Information and Order in Medieval Manuscripts Emily Steiner and Lynn Ransom ‘the Schoenberg Institute for Manuscript Stuc rane of Pooernian Ga Distrituted by University of Pennsylvania Prest | Philadelphia6 | Inraopverton decisions clearly reflecting her intention to create a series of life lessons and models of behavior for nuns who were coming from a variety of back- ‘grounds, In chis way, moreover, Fybin invented new taxonomies of faith cout of hagiographical material in order to mold che experience of the nuns centering the conve The six essays is volume are testimony to the productive relation- -xts and medieval taxonomies. At stake in this re~ inary medieval studies, these essays show, the systems and objects through which a culeure trans- es. Thus, in .nsmission of knowledge means to today’s gate thoroughly the technologies of the ts collective knowledge have their own complex ‘order to understand what the information age, we must past, |, The Book: A History of he evidence, de ations on papyras scrolls to the sal lamned book we know today as the Bible. He demonstrates catfc Texte from Arabi,” was presented a the Fist Annual Schoenberg Sym- posium on Manusc ‘Age, “Oa the Nature of Things: Modern Persp Manuscripts” held October 25-26, 2008, in rnership with the Chemical 1 the University of Pennsylvania cage Foundation. CHAPTER 1 ‘The Poems of “Ch” ‘Taxonomizing’ Literary Tradition, ELIZAVETA STRAKHOV cet’ earliest literary productions may have been in French. Chaucer’s familiarity with the French formes fives Iyeie gence is undeniable: in Damian composes May a love leer I: ‘He Lave savers, Rossll Hope Robbins suggested chat Cha- / Songes, compleintes, roundels, vcelayes” (l. 947-48). Mose important, ‘when Aleeste intercedes for Chaucer before the God of Love in the Prologue to the Legend of Good Women, she reminds the God of Love that Chaucer hhas written “many an hympne for your halydayes, / That highten balades, ayes” (F. 422-23; G, 410-10), while, in his Retraction, “Chau hhaving composed “many a song and many a leccherous lay” ‘would be surprising, Robbins argued, ifa poet with a Franco- phone wife, working in a Francophone court, and extensively f with contemporary Francophone poetry had never writen something in French, when his English contemporary and friend John Gower, for example, wrote ‘wo whole cycles of ballades as wel as an extended narrative poem, all in French, Robbins therefore suggested chat “scholars might start looking for texts of anonymous French poems of che late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries... or possible Chaucerian items.”! ‘When James Wimsatt came across a late medieval manuscript of un- known provenance with fifteen lyrics mysteriously marked “Ch,” he saw Robbins’ suggestion as an enticing possibilty. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania MS Codex 902 (formerly French 15), a 101-oi decothree scribes ies, contains 310 from other manu- ed manuscript of unknown provenance, copied works en authored by Guillaume de Mach , Oron de Granson, ve de Vi sanuseripe? Ta par- contains fifieen scattered. s, chansons royaux, and one rondeat on themes—unrequited ed love, bereavem sayal’ There is no known attribw- The random placing of the markings—sometimes next to rubric, sometimes next co the f we, and sometimes between the rubric ad the first line—further suggests that che markings were 1 designed As James Wimsatt has argued, the contents of this anthology suggest its compiler’s possible interest in, or even pot Francophone culeure of England.’ TI al connection with, the reach poetry there.’ Th nin the Hai between some of the “Chi as Antigone’s so é tresses clere” fer the chanson royal,"Venes voir qu’ a sa MS Codex 902, f. 8.‘Taxonomies oP KNOWLEDGE Wimsat a different conte ory of French cal history of Chaucer” Yer Wimsat’ suggestion is also making an a proc Organization feature of this col- eibution of author occupies che core of the manuscripr, framed by two discrete sets of lyric Positioning Machaut, the reigning master of the formes fixes authorship~as his col however, repeatedly the author-centered he Penn manuscript seems ons, A lyric by Granson, on fols, 8v-10r, for example, nesses but ofa shepherd and ‘and Le Mote names ia its eubrics, whereas its other manu . 3343, makes sure to identify both poets. Instead, indicate to which specific formes fixes lade, rondeau, chanson royal, et) Ithough reading “Ch” as Chaucer does provide a neat and pro- comes up against two significant characteristics of jonship cowacd authorship as its predilection for labeling lyric jon for 1¢ shadowy evocations of England in fifteen “Ch” lyrics, I approach them instead with attention to paleographi- The Poems of *Ch* cal, codicological, and formal det they appear in the manuscript. I suggest that “Ch,” whatever it means, is ly to stand for Chaucer because the lyrics’ authorship—even if they were all written by the same person—is not the erterion governing thie Inclusion and emphasis im this anthology. Alchough we know next to nothing about the its pages ce- veals a keen awareness ofa significant development within che formes fixes ‘genre that had taken place from the mid-fourteenth to early fifteent argue that the “Ch” lyrics are singled out in che Penn manuscript because they constitute an integral element in this manuscripts orinatic, which seeks to represent this significane development within formas fees turn, the Pena anthology’s emphasis on developments within formes fixes lyric suggests that, in its quest for an Author, our approach tothe study of {ate medieval anthologies may be overlooking the alternative intentions that ‘motivated compilers of that period to ereate lytic anthologies, It is the task of this chapter to delineate a few of these alternatives. Scribal Features of the Copying’ of the “Ch” Lyrics ‘The “Ch” lyrics are concentrated within quires 10 and 11 (fols. 75v to 864) of the twelve-quire codex, and they are the only Iyics to be singled ouc by smarginalia in the whole manuscrie, In the abseace of shared content or ro see what exactly motivated the empha- ne immediately arresting phenomenon is that some of them seem incomplete or miscopied, in stark contrast to the other 295 lyrics in che collection. Thus, for example, “Ch” lyric “Venez veoir qua fait Pymalion” (Figure 1.2). “Ch” lyric, “Entre les biens que creature humainne” on fol ‘75v, a chanson royal, is missing the fifth line of ts final stanza (as evidentigure 2. Verso of Figure showing added ins Pennsylvania MS Codex 902, 0.82 delphia, University of The Poems of Ch" | 13 from the chyme scheme), and its envoy has only ewo lines, as opposed to the ‘more typical four- or five-line envoy usually found in a chanson royal. For instance, Eustache Deschamps prescribes a four- to five-line envoy for the chanson royal in his ars poeta, Lért de dictier (1382), and the examples of chansons royaux elsewhere in the Penn manuscrip ae all atleast four lines long." Similarly, “Ch” lyric “Je euide et eroy quen tous les jeux jours” on fol. 76v has a half line scratched out and rewritten in what might be the same hand as the one doing the “Ch” markings.” Furcher, the envoy in the next “Ch” lyric, the chanson royal “Aux dames joie & aux amans plaisance,” has only one line, and in “Ch” lyric “Humble Hester, courtose, gracieuse” on fl. 78, rwo lines have been scratched out and rewritten in darker ink in the same hand that made the previous correction.” That hand reappears to make corzections in another chanson royal, “Ch” lyric “Pour les hauls biens L. 79x, where che envoy again has only two lines Lastly, “Ch” lyric “Mort le vy dire et se ni avoit ame" on fals. 85-¥, a bal- lade, is also missin its final two lines, as evident from the rhyme scheme. Thus, of the fifteen three are missing lines, one ‘was left substantially unfinished and completed by another hand, and three ‘moze were miscopied and corrected by yet a third hand that may be the same as the one making the “Ch” markings. This situation gives rise to sev- «ral explanations, The simplest one is that, for whatever reason, the main scribe was doing a rushed job on this seetion, and, indeed, his hand is abit smessie in these quires than it sin his work elsewhere in the manuscript. ‘Yet none of the other twenty-six lyrics found alongside and between the “Ch” lyrics are missing any of their line is skipped in this sect 1s. In the one other instance where a in che anonymous “Dames de pris qui amez vostze honnour” on fol. Sir, the scribe writes it into che margin. Of the ‘other 295 works in the manuscript, there are only three others with miss- ing lines; in all instances chose lacunae occur in the middle of stanzas and are most likely che result of eye-skip." Missing final lines are unique to the “Ch” Irie. A second possibilty is that “Ch” could be some kind of abbreviation indicaring an error in che copied text in need of resolution, something lke “changer.” This seems unlikely, since eight ofthe “Ch” lyrics have no evident16 | Taxonomies oF KeowLrpce in the main scribes section there Ihave been gone over ere was something incomplete for the lyrics matked “Ch.” Significantly, sme back and write ia the missing saving by thi should have frains, and oddly shore envoys. His decision to leave no room for extra lines probably indicates that he was reproducing his exemplar faithfully and had y to acquire better one. od of an imperfect exemplar for these lyrics is supported by an instance of extensive correction, the only one in the entire manuscript, which takes place in the “Ch” section. As noted above, a diferent hand adds naa, and an envoy t0 the unfinished “Ch” lyric “Venez this emendation perfectly fs the metres and ehyme scheme of the Iyei, bu it hardly matches the content ofthe actual p Come see what Pygmalion has made; Con amie de Jason; Come see Jason's beloved; Come se the small mouths at appearance; ‘Venez veoir bouche & poy’ fa bonte; Venez veoir de Judith la beaute; Vener veoir les doula yeulz Dame Helainne; Vener oir doulee voix Venea veoir de F de Serainne Venea veoie Polixene la blonde; Come see blonde Polyxena. Venez veoir de plaisance la plaine, Qui sla de tour pareille De son gent corps a joieuse ceseatures Aviser bien s le hur Avie bens simple galt; ‘Avie bien comment de bins ext plain; ‘Aviser bins fiturehautain; Avie bien comment elle suronde En meurs, en sens autant que dame humaine Quis vant a ce jour en ie ‘Yonaginer humble condicion Qui la maintient en parfuite Siquen ele a de tour bel & rout bon, Aurane que dame ow prent cure. ‘Yinaginen sa gracieuse ‘Yenaginea son sens amodere; Yinaginen lexcellence hautainne De son estat que Leesee a bie maine, Er vous direz, “Vela dame, ou hhabonde The Poems of “Ch Come see her wh of pleasure, Who has among all no equal nor second, Observe well her lovely disp Observe well her confident manne Observe well the image Of her lovely body of delightful Observe well her joyful humility; goodness; Observe well her superior form; Observe well how she abounds In self conduct and in reason as much as any mortal lady ‘Who might be living today in this world, Consider the humble condition Which maintains her in perfect ‘moderation, So that in her d and good ‘As much as in a lady governed by things noble Cons ee graces Consider her moderate good sense; Consider the supreme excellence Of her state, which Joy guides towards good, ‘And you will say, “Here is lady in ‘whom aboundsTaxonomias oF KNowLapes ‘Honnour, savoir, avis, jie bonte 8 beaure pure; (Cest mon espoi suains biens en qui je iche vuer de long temps ‘Amon doulx ressort, ma dame onde, De qui Penser venant du droit demaine De Loyaute que Leese aronde Dame que faim, flour de perf Rowse en may, soleil qui touatis dure, Flan de doleour a cu comparoison Diautre dame belle ne Samesur, ‘Si vrayement que mi bien sont ente En vous du to it de vous loineainne onor, wisdom, judgment, earthly Reason, innocence, goodness and ‘awless beauty.” my lady from whom I await reward; amy comfort; thi though; ‘This is my hope; ths isthe provision Of the highest goods in which I Thi y only My powerful yearning, long For my sweet remedy, my sovereign From the joyous and deeply loving tide, -h Thought coming from 3 true dor Of Loyalty that increases Delight Lady that Hove, flower of perfetion, Dew in May, everlasting un, With no other beaut lady could ever measure In terms of neither my yearning nor my desire, ‘So sruly my good is grafted Completely unto you. May Pity for me not be to whom comparison ‘The Poems of Ci ‘Pie pour may, donner gartonsanne, Fa fam you giving sound proction, Car topserot ma tritrace parfonde For my radnen would be oo profeund tot de wstre cur prockainne, If Pity were not near your beat, Fuiant Dangier que Borne Amour Fleeing Danger which destroys Good confonde. Love. Lenwoy ‘The Envey Princes de pu, savex vous gui Prince of the puy, do you know who demainne incites ‘Mea dame en bien a joieue faconde My lady in goadnes to joyous eloquence, ce quille et? De deduitchievetainne, And what she i? Mistres of de pala voir ls cuers de vices monde So that, upom seeing ber, tbe beart of vce cleans * then “ymagines” in the third and fourth stanzas. The frst four staneas, moreover te pocm of praise for one’s beloved. The final stanza, added by the second seri ing an unrequi ‘thematic turn within a formes fixe Iyric, whee the final stanza becomes an apostrophe to the beloved, bu the suddenness of the turn, combined with anaphoric structure, sugges the line with which the second scribe comm unfinished fourth stanza does not work gram: the lady and begs her for pity, suggese- lly with the rest of the lyric because it fils to contribute a main verb for the final clause: (Cest celle aussi, qui tous les jours She its also who every day offers Delajoicuse et tesumoureuse onde From the joyous and deeply lov18 | Taxonomies oF KowLence De qui Penser venant du droit From which Thought coming. domain eases Delight demaine De Loyaute, que Lesceareonde Of Loyal ‘The envoy, moreover, makes little grammatical sense, particularly in its as if fe might also be unfinished. Some kind of flawed exemplar cally for the lyrics marked “Ch” would explain why the second seribe's ly but does not quite seem to match the themes or structure ofthe original lyric. Formal Features of the “Ch” Lyrics This of the ing to 2 shared, flawed exemplar for just under half cen lyries suggest lyrics might, in fact, cons discrete corpus, but it doe explain why they are singled out and ‘grouped a this poi closer look at those ofthe “Ch” Iysics thae are ballades, however, reveals a specific congruence between them. Of the ten "Ch one has a stanza that is cight lines long; the other eight have longer ten-line in the manuser lades, each of which contains three stanzas, only cout, lyrics wi suggests the work of a poet who was scholars such as Da 1 Poition and James sw, among others, have shown that the ten-line stanza is extremely rare in the corpus of Machaut cor Froissart, who both favored the seven- and eight-line stanza, but that is commonly found in the work o Charter, Guillebert de Lannoy, and Jean de Garancies. ‘These “Ch” ballades, moreover, all have the same rhyme scheme, ababbccded. Though a variety of other rhyme schemes for ballades with ten- Tine stanzas was available inthis period, 1 yyme scheme is the very one prescribed by Deschamps in the Dicrier for 2 ballade of this structure, tes- ‘The Poems of Ch" | 19 ing to its popularity specifically toward the end of the fourteenth centu- 1y:" Machaut for example, uses this chyme scheme only twice in his whole corpus, and Froissare uses it only eight times, whereas Deschamps uses it 542 times, or in a striking 45.5% of his lyrics. It is also frequently found jn the work of Granson, inthe Livre de cent ballade, in che 1404 poetic ex- change of Lannoy and Jean de Werchin, and in the work of Garanciére,”” ‘The structure of the “Ch” ballades thus suggests chat they may have been in che laver fourteenth or ealyfifeench century, precisely around ‘the time thatthe manuscript was compiled, making them some of the mst recent work to have been included in the anthology. ‘The positioning of chese lyrics in the collection now appears to be re- Alective of their cheonological relationship to the rest of the manuscripts content. Only four other ballades that contain ten-line stanzas and use t ‘thyme scheme occur in the manuscript before che appearance of the “Ch’ lyties: three of them are by Granson, whose work also appears intercalated among the “Ch” lyrics, and the last one is Jean de le Mote's response to Philippe de Vitey However, afier the first appearance of the “Ch” lyrics, such longer ballades occur in the manusceipe with greater eequency and se grouped close together inthe very lst pages of the manus fols. S4r and 92v; all of these are unattributed and extant only. of them, moreover, have eavoys, dating them definitively to the later four- ‘teenth to caty iftenth centuries. Entirely missing ftom Machaut’s corpus, ‘the envoy is presentin over two-thirds of Deschamps’ ballades, as 2 substantial number of those by Granson. Deschamps prescribes its use for ballades in his rede icter in 1392, noting there that adding an envoy is a flnly recent practice.” Only three other ballades with envoys occur earlier in the manuscript; Granson's aforementioned “Salus assez,” located all the ‘ay back on fls.10r-, as well as two more the anonymous “De la douleur que mon triste cuer sent” and “Vrey diew d'amour, plase toy secouris? found on fols. 72-73, where they almost immediately precede the frst ap~ pearance of “Ch” in the manuscript. Chaucer's authorship ofthe “Ch” lyrics remains « possiblity. After al these lyrics were wokten later than the manuscripts other items, and the ibe’ exemplar for them was lawed in some unrecoverable manner, a ation that geographic distance from the original source might well explain, berween » Four20 | Taxoxonss oF Kwowsenos I contend, however, that the inclusion of these lyrics serves a very different the middle third of che compilation, This selection of Machaue’s formes {fixe lytic begins with works taken from the Loange des dames, proceeds ina selection from the lyrics that Machauc set to music, and ends with a of lyrics excised from Machaut’s longer narrative work, Le lore du Voir offers a sophisti- cated statement concerning historical formal developments in the formes fixes gence, a statement in which the “Ch” lyrics turn out to play a vital role. ‘The Penn Manuscript’s Machaut Section: Reorganizing the Loange des dames smackedly stable internal organization across all major manus aut’ collected works. In fact, of the Loange’s twelve exta tnesses, only the Penn manuscript offers a radically alternate organizational schema. The co the Loange lyrics in a manner that does ‘making Machaut the centerpiece of the anthology, and the sheer ion makes it indubitable that the compiler was od project. ‘At fist glance, che Machaut lyrics in the Penn codex seem to be ran- domly ordered, but they curn out to be subordinated to a larger structure The Poems of “Ch” | 21 focused on producing intricate formal arrangements. The manusct Loange section opens with a set of lyrics (nos. 81-92 which alternates ballades with rondeaux (Table 1.1)2* Immediately fol- lowing, Iyrics nos, 93105 regularly alternate chansons royaux and rondeaux (Table 1.2). The next consecutive set of lyrics, nos. 106-113, provides three ‘omplaintes and one ballade, again alternating with a set of rondeaux (Table 1.3), The major Machaut manuscripts already demonstrate some attention to organizing the Loange by its different lyric forms. For example, they all separate the complaintes into a separate section following the Loange; Paris, Bibliothéque nationale de France (hereafter BaF), MS frangais 1584 Table 1.1 Sequence of Rondeaux and Ballades in Penn's Loange des dames Fot. xo. ForM Nb INCIPIT 2 81 Rondeau “Doulee dame, quant vers vous fausseray” —Machaut 29 $2 Ballade, “Dame plaisan, neree & pure”—Machaut 83 Rondeau “Mon cuer,qui mis en vous son desc 2"—Machaut 84 Ballade, “Tl nest doleu, desconfort, ne trstece’—Machaut 30r 85 Rondeau “Cuer, corps, desir, povir, ve 8 usage’—Machaut 86 Ballade, “Trop est erueu 87 Rondeau, “Blanche com vermeille’—Machaue le mal de jalousie’—Machaut , plus que rose Sv 88 Ballade, “Doulee dame, vo manier ole"—Machaut 8 Rondeau, “Dame, je muir pour vous compris’—Machaut 90 Ballade, “Nulz homs ne puet en amours prouffcer”—Machaut 91 Rondeau, “Partuer moy a Fouvrir de vos yeulx”—Machaut Bir 92 Ballade, “Je me suis pas de tel valoue”—Machaue22 | Taxonomies oF KvowtepGs Table 1.2 Sequence of Chansons Royaux and Rondeausin Penn's Loange des dames For. No. FORM AND INcrPIT The Poems of "Ch" | 23 Table 1.3 Sequence of Complaintes and Rondeau in Penn's Loange des dames Sir 98 Chan yal, “Onques mais nul sama si folement’—Machaut 3lv 94 Rondeau, "Par souhaidier est mes corps avec vous"—Machaut 95 Rondeau, “Trop est mauvais mes cuers qu’ pare’—Machaut 96 Chanson eoyal, “Amours me fait desirer loyaumene"—Machaue 32r 97 Rondeau, “Sans cuer dolans je vous departiray’"—Machaut 98 Chanson royal, “Cuers ou merey fait et cruauter yydure"—Machau 32v 99 Rondeau “Quant madame ne ma recongneu"—Machaut Je eroy que nult fors moy. Rondeau, “De plus en plus ma grief dolour ‘empite”—-Machaut 102 Chanson royal, “Se trestuit cil qui soat et ont cste—Machaut 33v 103-Rondeau, “Pour dieu, frans cuers, soiey mes advo 104 Chanson royal, “Se loyautex et vertus, ne puissance”—Machaut Machat 34105 Rondeau, *Certes mon oeil rchement visa bel"—Machaut Sr 106 hoses sont qui me font a 34v 107 Rondeau, “Doulce dame, tant com vivray’—Machaut 108 ns congie aus dames, a amouss"—Macheut 109 Se tenis veulz le droit chemin onneur—Machaut 35 CComplainte, “Amours, eu mas tant este dure"—Machaut 3 Rondeau, “Se vo courroux me dure longuement”—Machaut “Mon cuer, mamour, ma dame souveraine’”—Machaut 3a 3 Rondeau, “Je ne pourroye en servant desservir"—Machaut places the chansons royaux in with the separated complaices in flbeit notin the actual manuscript contents}; and BuF, MS fas another separate section for the Loange's rondeaux.™ But these carly glimmerings of subdivision of the Loange by form in the Machaut ‘manuscripts become the Penn manuscript’ driving force. Its version of the Loange transforms into 2 meticulously heterogeneous collection, emerging, to borrow Hiéléne Basso's formulation, as “des exemples d'un maximum de techniques de Pécricure, de ‘manié (examples of a maximum array of ing the rondeau or the ballade).” ‘The care with whiel lont composer rondeau, ou ballade” fing techniques, of “ways” of compos- ese formal sequences are arranged suggests an astonishing degree of sophistication behind the organization of the Penn manuscript, whi does this re-articulation achieve, and what kind of reception and under- in turn, bespeaks 2 profound intentionality. But what24 | Taxonomies oF Kwownsnoe standing of Machaut does which che Pes afford? The Loange des dames collection, in 1's point de chs or the works “non ‘The manuses the privately owned Fer story index and fol. 177), and the aforementioned BaF ft. 9221 (prefatory index). These Machaut codices are important witnesses within the manu 1584 were copied within Machaur’ lifetime in the 1370s, and BnF fr 1584 contains the famous index headed by the line “Vesci Vordenance que G. de Mach- ” (here is the order that G. de Machaut wants the firmest evidence we have of Machaut’s personal collected-works manusct ‘The Loange is in other sen by Machaut, which are expressly words, a smal nonmusical and nor intended, as 2 whole, ever to be set vo music, Machaut lection of I set a second, different his major colleted-works manuscripts regularly copy t with musical nota tion—and separately from the Loange. In fac, in almost all of the major Machaue manuscript, che Leange and chis second lyric cycle set to music occur on opposite ends ofthe codex— BaF, MS feangais 1585 sibly supervised by Machauc; and the of the very manuscripts that take nonnausical quality of the Loange, as w In the Pena manuscript, however, the reorganized Iyries taken from the Loange des dames are immediately followed by lycics taken from among those that Machaut see co musi. This juxtaposition, which places owo radi= cally diffeene types of Machaut' formes fses lyric side by si be unique among late medieval anthologies excerpting, Machaut of formes ices lyrics co a in its copy, 10 have been pos- cer BuF fr 9221— namely, in theee ins to underscore in their rubrics the in a fourth appears to (Of the lyrics taken from the musical section, moreover, only the texts are copied into the Penn manuscript, 1d the compiler leaves no space for music con the page. In this way, Machaut’s two vastly diferent lyric cyles—one The Poems of ‘Ch’ | 25 identically in the Penn manus for per Of course, the conjoining of these two distinct eycles ‘manuscript could be raken as mere accident: the co wanted ro gather as many of Machaut’s forms fixes lyrics as possible, so he started with the Loange and proceeded with the Iyrics set to music. The potentially arbitrary nature of this juxta belied by the intricate ordinatio of the Loange sequence in the Pena manuscript, which thermore, the way in which the Penn manuscript manages the transition between the two cycles of lyrics plainly demonstrates that this juxtaposi- tion is intentional. As will become cleaser below, the compiler of the Penn ‘manuscript appears not only to be acutely aware of the Loange’s nonmusical Loange through. his presentation of Machaue ‘The Penn Manuscript’s Machaut Section: Adding to the Loange des dames As we have just seen, the Penn manuscript’ compiler arranges Iycics from Machaue's Loange in precise sequences: the first alternates ballades and ron eaux, the next alternates chansons royaux and rondeaux, the third al- ternates complaintes and rondeaux, and a fourth alternates ballades with rondeaux again, ending on fo. 39. Another discrete sequence occupies the ‘next four folios, consisting of unattributed ballades that alternate with vi “telaysand two rondeaux, organized just as precisely as the preceding Loange section (Table 1.4). ‘This new sequence is then followed by a set of just 5, anonymous. The Penn manuscript’ reorganized selection the Loange thas concludes with a virelay-ballade sequence and a set of 8, not written by Machaut. This whole arrangement is then followed26 | Taxonomies o KNowtence by four more Machaut lyrics Jore the quite (and first book to Machaue on the last page of ofthe second booklet, makes a strong case against viewing this anonymous sequence simply as an effort o fill the end of a booklet with whatever he had ‘om hand, Rather, the sequence eme aut himself included only one vieelay in the Loange, and a rendering this insertion in the Penn manvseript rather than on the first page virelays were set co mi cof unattributed virelays, meaning works not by Mache tive2® This section thus clearly reflects the compiler’s some kind of taxonomy: having arranged careful sequences of ballad chansons royaux, and complainte rondeaux, our comp apparently felt like he nceded to continue with the one remaining formes genre not yer represented—the vi “Loange, he looked for them elsewhere. has the effect, then, ofa kind of supplement to Machaut, rounding out his ‘own vicelay-less Loange with someone else's lyrics, ‘This insertion of unattributed work creates, moreover, a bridging effect al Loange se f which an overwhelming number have been taken and rondeaux. Impor ly by Machaut bur cont ‘now unknown auchors in a manner that suddenly fragments the 's presentation of Macha’ formes feces lyric ceuvre.” Virelays, furthermore, ce conspicuously absent from this “musical” section of lyric by Machaue (as well as by others) until several folios from the end of the Machaut-dominated middle portion of the Penn manuscript. In these con- cluding folios, we get a sudden profusion of virelays—sixteen out of the most of which are now taken from a different If the Loange section seemed to require . structure, suddenly proffers us a veritable bou~ The Poems of Ch" | 27 Table 1.4 Sequence of Virelais and Ballades at the Conclusion of Penn's Loange des dames, Fo. No. Form anp Incterr 40v 121 Virelay, “Fin cuer, resdoulz a mon vi "anonymous ‘ir 122 Ballade, “Espris d’amours, auit & jour me 123 Virelay, “Douls regare pa subi atrait"—anonymous ‘lv 124 Ronda, “Revien espois, consort ae party"—anonymous 125 Rondeau, “Espoir me faut a mon plusgrant besoin—anonymous 126 Vireay, "Par un tour seul escondire"-~anoaymous 4a 127 de, “Un chastel say es deo fen de 128 a 9 130 Vieelay “Sans faire el _Virelay, 132 Ballade, “Larriereban de mortle douloue’—anonymous 43133 Vitehy, “Je me doing avo Virelay,*Vostre oeil par fine doucour"—anonymous “Beaute flourist & jeunesce verdoye""—anonymous anonymous bonte et doucour"—anonymous Tigement”—anonymous 134 Ballade, “Quiconques se complaigne de forcune 7 anonymous Mic 135 _Virelay, “Onques Narcisus en la clere fontaine’—anonymous uct ofvirclays by Machaut, a if repaying the vielays debe of the opening, Laarge section. Tn rounding out che Loange wich those “missing” virelays, then, the an manuscripts compiler has fundamentally altered che program of ¢ Loange by adding a form that seems to have been, a last for Mach- expressly musical. By adding virelays writen by someone else to the28 | Taxonomiss oF Kwowzenor _Loange, and by then immediately continuing wi Penn's compiler overwrites Mi lyrics never set of concerns, in which poetic form, particularly in its relation ro mu- sic, assumes center stage. Here the virelay serves as a point of negotiation between lyric as text and Iytic as music in a manuscript seems to be acutely aware of the musical as selection as a veritable Jing presence on the pages of Lyrics for Singing Versus Lyrics {for Reading’ ing ori tive potentials explored by Machaut in his own engagement with the formes intended to be read and the lyric intended to be way, the manuscript mn of Machaut Iyrie g—Deschamps’ famous hus cleverly highlights the ewo main performa- jcate organi ." Deschamps means what we ly refer to as music, namely the work of producing melodic sound by means of instruments and voice, By contrast he explains, is so called “pour ce qutlle ne peut estze aprinse a nu, se son “musique naturele,” propre couraige naturelement ne s'i applique” (because it cannot be taught ). He clarifies ‘o anyone ules that itis “une musique de bouche en proferant paroules met autrefoiz en balades, autrefois en rondeaula. baladees” (an oral music producing words in meter, sometimes in lays, other ‘imes in ballades, other times in rondeaux. . and in chansons baladées [vi- ined to nefoiz et set en chancons The Poems of “Ch” | 29 relays). Musique nacurle” i, in other words, formes fies lyric, Deschamps {oes on to specify how one isto perform this “musique naturele” before the publie: “Ex ja soit ce que. «es faiseurs de [musique naturele]ne saichent pas ne donner chant par art des notes a ce qui font, toutesvoies est appellee musique ceste science naturele pour ce que les di et chancons par eux ou les livees mete fice se lsent de oucke, et profrent par voix nom pas chantabe tant ‘que les douces paroles ainsis facts et recordees par voix plisant aux ‘escourans qui les oyent.* ‘communement la musique arti [And even though. know art 2 for what they make, nonetheless this natural scence is for dits and changons and books in meter are readout loud by them and are produced by a nonsinging voice such thatthe sweet words thus composed and repeated by she woice, are pleasing to those who hear therm} As this passage suggest, by the time Deschamps composed this treatise in 1392, the rupture between Iyris for reading and lyrics for singing, the : ngs of which are already evident in the Machauldian corpus and registered in ies manuscript transmission, was nearing completion. ‘The “Ch” lyrics come immediately after this Machaut section, in which the distinction between lyrics for reading and lyrics for singing is empha- sized with such virtuosity by an ordinasio that analyzes lyric form. The “Ch” Jyrics have, we recall lle thematic unity among chem, but they are linked by an identical formal structure characterized by the longer stanzas that ex- ‘mplified a literary turn away ffom music as outlined by Deschamps in his Dicter Teue, there are several scattered examples of ten-line stanza lyeies (without envoys) set to music in extant musical repertory manuscripts. Yet the form that unites the “Ch” lyrics heppens to be che form most prevalent ‘among those later medieval poets—Deschamps, Granson, the authors of the Livre de cent ballades and theie successors—who lack the musical back-30 | Taxonomies oF KNowiepcE ground of, even a8 chey draw inspiration ftom, che poct-composer Guil- Jaume de Machaut, Indeed, among all of Deschamps’ work, we know of only one lyric ever set vo music, fittingly, ‘on Machauts death, by Deschamps but rather by the late ® The development of the envoy the music for which was composed senth-century composer F. Andt ns of music composi ‘The dominant taxonomic principle behind the Pen , not authorshi ary forms. It is therefore hardly surprising that this his- nly a chronological axis but also a geographical point of the « England demonstrate breadth ofthe formes ‘which seem to have exerted an influence on Jean Frossart, who later lived To be sure, che manus in England, as well as ballades by Granson, whose peripat invested in England qua England. I propose, rather, that imply chosen to incorporate England withia a Francophone poetic ting enterprise to represent historical develop tons between nonmusical and mus ic forms, the "Ch" section marks The Poems of "Ch 4 decisive shift in the anthology toward col x, longer, and purely liverary formes fixes verse that mirrors chronological developments in the history ofthis lyric gence. As Jacqueline Cerquiglini-Toulet reminds us, “le terme recueil peut dési- gner un acte, celui @aceucilie puis de rec tion” can designate an act, that of co lecting, or a place: an object). Medieval compilations aze, she suggests, constituted by both the preliminary work of selecting material and the fin ished articulation of that process, vis selections in manuseript. The schol concerns. The presence of “Ch” eq Vice ofa literary history that tracks the evolution of formes fines Wric away fiom music to longer literary forms in the final decades of the fourteenth century. Whatever else “Ch might stand for, what i marks in che Pennsyl- ‘ania manuscript is, frst and foremost, change. tion of a new exer Schoenberg Symposium on Manse Studies atthe University of Pennsylvania in 2012, 1 Rossell Hope Robbins, “Geoffoi Poetry” Chaucer Review 13.2 2 On dating and provenance Guillaume de Machaut e di32 | Taxonontes oF KwowrEDGz ‘Wimsatt, Choucer and the Pooms of “C8” (Kalamatoo, Mls Medieval Institute ions, 2009), 3-4, 88-80, A digital fcsimile is available through the Uni- ‘versity of Peansyvanias Pena ip Hand website, My Ph.D dissertation (Univecsiry ‘of Pennsylvania, 2044) offers addtional evidence ro confcm the fate fourteenth= enth-century dating of the com lon and is posible provenance (of Charles VI and Isabeau of Bavaria as well as some suggestions 2 co its compilation and production. Tor an edition, see Wimeat, Cb, 16-45 It is equally plausible thac chere were multiple people involved in the planaing of the codex, bur cher i nor enough evidence to conclude defiikvely whether the manuscript i a single or collaborative endeavor; therefore, forthe sake of Twill ust use the singular see Arthur Piages, ton de Grandson: sa we pote (Las sanne: Libracie Payot, 1941), and, on his duel and death, Claude Berguerand, Le cul df Orbon de Grandson (1397) + mort di chevair-poeevaudos afin di ‘Moyen Age (Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 2008). On Granson’s influence ‘on and relationship with Chaucer, see Haldeen Brady, Chancer and the French Poet Graunson (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University ress, 1947); Wimsatt, Chaucer and Hs Franch Contemporaries Nasural Mute the Fourteenth Con ‘wry (Toronto: Universiy of Toronto Press, 1991), 210-41; and John Seatergood, “Chaucer's Complaint of Venus and the Curiosite’ of Graunson” Euayt in Crit nalsis, see Ernest Pognon, “Ballads mythologiques de Jean de Philippe de Vie, Jean Campion.” Hemant et Renieance 8.3 (1938) F. N. M, Diekstra, “The Poetic Exchange berween Philippe de Vity de le Mote: A New Edition,” Nerpiologus 70 (1986): 504-195 Wimsat, Ch, 65-79, and Contemporarin, 43-76; nd Andis Butecild, The Femilar En- my: Chaucer, Language, and Navin in the Hundred Years War (Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press, 2008), 114-30, See James Wimsatt, “Frossat, Chaucer and the Pastoureles ofthe Pennsylvania Manuscript,” SAC: Precedings 1 (1984): 69-79, and Contemporaries, 193-2095 nd William Kibler 2nd James Wimsat, "The Development of the Pastourele inthe Fourteenth Cencuey: An Badition of Fifeen Poeme with an Analysis” Medieval Studies 45 (1983): 22-78. Wimsact, Ob, 12-14, Adis Buteefield, “Chaucer's Fre Inheritance” in The Cambridge Companion 10 u The Poems of *Ch" | 33 0 Chace, ed, Piero Boi Press, 2003), 20-35, esp. 2. ‘The ocher witnesses are: Lausanne, Bibliotheque canronale et universitaire, MS 350, fos. 1181-1226; Pars, Bibliothéque nationale de France (heseafier (MS frangais 113, Barcelona, Biblioteca Catalunya, MS 8 991-1035; BaF, MS faneais 833, fos. 174-175y, Lausanne, tonale et universitaire, MS 4254, fle. 17r-2le, and C: -runicpale, MS 390, fls. 694-72. Bustache Deschamps, Lire de dice, ed. and tans. Deborah M, Sinneeich- Levi (East Lansing, MI: Colleagues Press, 1994), 78. CE. James C. Laidlaw, “*Liinnovation métrique chez Deschamps,” in dutour d Bunache Deschamps Actes hu Colloque du Cenered’Beades Miésales de V Université de Picarde-Jues Vern, Amiens, $8 Novem, 1998, e, Danielle Buschinges (Amiens: Prste de TUF. de Langues, 1995), 127-40, esp. 137: Machautsshorcese chanson royal envoy in his whole corpus sul thee line, while Deschamps fous, ‘The added line has a leter “h” with very similar open lobes ro and general shape asthe “h”in°Ch,” and the inks the same darker color. {In particular, the very broad“ looks stcikingly similar tothe" inthe previous corretion, and che ink i the same datker color ‘These are the unattributed lyre “Amour vraye en pax seurement” (ol, 252), Machaut’ "Dame, je mule pour vous compris” (fl. 309), and Machaut’s “Se qui sont et ont este” (ols. 33-1) fom the manuscript with silently expanded abbreviations and add- ‘d punctuation. Translation is my own, making as much sense of ungrammati- caliies as possible and Jill Mann (Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity entras, Bibliotheque ‘Wimsatt emends “venant” to “svient” in his edition to get around precisely this problem. Wimsste, Cb, 10. See the table in Daniel Poision, Le pode ele prince olson du ram curtis e Guillaume de Mackaut & Charles d’Ortons (Geneva: Slatkine, 1978), 314-75, and Laidlaw, “innovation” and “The Cont balader: The Marriage of Content fand Form,” in Christine de Pizan and Maesal French Lyric, ed. Earl Jefey Richards (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998), §3-42, exp. 58-6 Interestingly, neither Pitan nor Charles d'Orléans seems to favor the te stanza but keep instead, Pian especially, co the sevens eight and aine-line34 2 2 2% 25 2% n 2 | Taxonomtes oF Knowrepce sana ofthe cs st Machauldian tradition; cf. Laidlaw, "Cent blades” 65-66 Dien, 72-14 See Poiions table in Le pote, 385-87 ‘The Granson lyrics are “Salus asses par bonne entendion” (Bl 10 cuer 4. eul qui toudiz elle ol. 72. "These are "Voir ne vous puis, helas, ce pots Deschas fl 11), and “Je vous merey det be 840), *Pourquoy vireat fonques mes yeuls” (Fl. 86, “Vous me pover faire vivre ou mourir” (fl. 872), ‘bonte” (ol. 91), "A Teure que bergers leur pain” (fl. 921) and “Entre mon cuer ‘mes yeu grant descoet” (Fl 929. Deschamps, Dien, 7. (CE Lawrence Burp concordance forthe Loange iris acros its major witnesses, Including Penn, that efectively demonstrates the ove hele oder Jn the various Machaur cllected-works manuscripts and thie radial rearrange- ‘ment inthe Penn manuscript: Guillaume de Machour A Guide to Research (New York: Garland, 1995), 247-54, Rul table follow the ones used in the original manuseripe with silendly ‘expanded abbreviations and added punctuation. For ‘of content to all complete- and partial-works manuscepes of Machaut, sce Earp, Guid, 73-128, exp, for BaF,MS frais 9221, pp. 92-94, and, for the ena manuscript, pp. 115-18, See also Lawceace Earp, “Machaut the Production of Manuscripts of His Work,” Journal of ke American Muutcoogal Society 42.3 (Auta 1989): 461-508, on 482, on the differences between Bn? f 15845 index and actual contents, paticuaely with tepaed to the Laang’schan- sons roy, éléne Baso,“Présence de Machauc dans quelques recueils collec en bommaged Jacqueline Cerquigini Toler, le 24 janvier 2003, ed Yas Janssens and Jean-Yves Tillecte (Geneva: Deo, 2008), 15-27, esp 19. Alternatively knowa as the Vogie manuscript, or sometimes the Ferrell-Vogie ‘manuscript, this codex, formerly ofthe private Wildeastein collection in New “Yor, is ow privacely corned by James and Elisbeth Ferrell and ison loan o the Parker Library at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. "This kind of rubric also occur in BaF, MS francais 843, alate fourtenth-/ early fificenth-cencury copy representing 2 160s erage in the Machaut manuscript 3 2 8 M4 The Poems of “Ch” | 35 transmission; se Earp, Gulde, 95, 115-18, For each rubric exact wording, see Earp, Guide, 257-38 ‘The texe does read “wer” for, presumably, “vue In the manuscript, and this ‘reading is conventionally reproduced in Machaut schoatship. Oa d ‘of Machaut’s supervision of his manuscript, se, in particular, Sarah Jane Wil liams, “An Author's Role in Fourteenth Century Book Production: Guillaume de Machaut’s ‘Live ou je met toutes mes choses,” Romania 90 (1969): 483-54, and “Machaut SelF- Awareness as an Author and Prod Macha: World: rate Poetry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univesity Press, 1987); and Deborah McGrady, Conrallng Readers: Cullaume de Machaut and His Late Medial Audience (Toronto: University of Toronto Pees, 2006) For the order ofthe contents in Macha’ major collected-works manuscript, see Earp, Guide, 7-97. On the near absence ofvcelas i Loange cf Earp, Gude, 238-43, A derailed discussion of this fascinating section, the specifi Iyrics by other au- it contains, and its intriguing textual relationship to othe cral manuscripts of forma ie yc i, unforeanaely, beyond thes present chapter but will form the object of ure study Deschamps, Dictir, 62-64, emphasis added; translations are my own, On this striking classification of poetry as usc and Deschamps’ complex distinction of | poetry from rhetoric andthe possible sources for hie thought, see Robert Drag- nett, “La potsie... est musique naturele Essai dexégice dun passage de Ure de Dicties” in Fin de Moyen Age et Rensixance: Mélange de phiologiefroncise ffir: & Robert Guitte (Anwers: Nedelandische Boekbandel, 1961) 49-64 1.8 Laure, “Deschamps and the Lyric as Natural Music” Modern Language Review 594 (October 1964: 561-70; Kenneth Vary, “Deschamps! Art de Dien” rendh Studies 19.2 (Apel 1965}: 164-68; Glending Olson, “Deschampe’ Art de Dicer and Chaucer's Literary Environment,” Speculum 484 (October 1973): 74-23; sod Ludmilla Evdokimova, "Rhétorique et poésie dans Ilr de dicen” ia Autour 'Bxatache Deschamps, 93-102. For the provocative view that Deschamps! artcu- doesnot, in fact, constitute any radical departure fom previous musical tradition, se Joha Stevens, “The ‘Music’ of the Lyri: Machaut, Deschamps, (Chaucer in Meleval and Pade-Medival Literature, Piero Boitani and Anna36 | Taxonomies oF Kvownepgr CHAPTER 2 Worlds in Books ALFRED Hiarr 2-Nanerr, ed. Emmanuelle Baumgartner and Nicole Bouestee (Pa- ris; Centee de recherches du Dép, de frangais de Paris X-Nantrre, 1987), 313-25, ‘ow caw A300x contain the world? In the Middle Ages ewo inter~ H connec ees che ual hie ad the nowaped, sought vo answer that question.' Both genres had classical ante- ‘edents; both took distinctive medieval paths. To think about “worlds in books,” itis necessary to start with these genres and to consider the manner Jn which they stored knowledge. In particul sways in which chronicles and encycloped pcted the world image. How could and mountains of the worlé—in | ible within the codex? And coul butalso searchable? In the second decade of the fifth century Paulus Orosius made a deci- sion of lasting significance for the universal chronicle when he chose to begin his Historiae adversum paganas (Histories Against the Pagani) with a Aescription of the world. To appreciate the world’s history properly, Oosius thought, ic was not enough to attain knowledge of events and their times. ‘The student of history needed knowledge of places (sientia locorem) so that he might know not only when the disasters of human history—the vars, the plagues—had taken place, but also where. The approach Orosius ok wo describing the known world depended on a principe of contiguity. oking “as if from a warchtower” (¢specula),* Qrosius worked through the parses of the world—Asia, Europe, and Africo—and its islands, defin- es, important cities, and throwing in tory and culture. The description of provides a representative example: gions, seas, rivers, imension—be made leg- hat image be rendered not only legible,