A colophon concludes each of the extant ‘books’ of the translation. This closing formula refers to the author of the work (Jean Froissart) and thus alludes to the authority of the text. Additionally, the colophon provides the text with an indication of genre, i.e. a chronicle, which should refer to a historiographical and reliable source. Finally, each colophon explicitly mentions the name of the translator: Gerard Potter van der Loo.
In the context of the inquiry into the translation’s exemplar it is interesting that each colophon informs the reader of the specific place of the constituent parts (or physical volumes) in the whole of the text (the first book, the second book, etc.). For instance, the colophon of Le3-1 states that the manuscript contains the ‘first book of the second
volume’. This division into books and volumes will be the focus of this section.
Hier nimt einde dat eerste boeck vanden anderden volumene heren Jan Frossairts cronyke getranslateert uuten Franssoyse in Duytscher tale bij Gerijt Potter vander Loo
9
Notably: London, British Library, Additional mss. 38658–38659; Brussels Royal Library, II 88 Brussels, Royal Library, III 251; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, ms. Fr. 2649; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, ms. Fr. 2675. For a complete discussion, see: Croenen, Rouse and Rouse 2002, 268-275.
10
See: Ainsworth and Croenen 2007; See also: Croenen 2009b, 14-23; Villela-Petit, 2009; Croenen, Rouse and Rouse 2002 and Croenen’s introductory essay ‘Pierre de Liffol and the Manuscripts of Froissart’s Chronicles’ on the Online Froissart website.
(Here ends the first book of the second volume of sir Jean Froissart’s
Chronicle, translated from the French into the Dutch language by Gerard Potter vander Loo)
(Le3-1, fol. 167 r.)
The colophon of Le3-2 is partially damaged. Its counterpart in H21, however, is complete. The structure of the colophon is very similar to that at the end of Le3-1 and informs the
reader that he has reached the end of the second together with the end of the Fourth Book in Dutch.
Hier nimt eynde dat anderde volumene meyster Jan Frossairts cronyke getranslateert uuten Franssoyse in onser Duytscher tongen bij Gerijt Potter vander Loo ende is dat IIIIde boeke in Duytsche.
(H21, fol. 376 v.)
(Here ends the second volume of master John Froissart’s Chronicle
translated from the French into the Dutch language by Gerard Potter vander Loo and this is the Fourth Book in Dutch)
It is uncertain whether these colophons were formulated by the translator or should be considered as the work of a later scribe. Similar colophons in the Bes codices may indicate
that the former was the case.
Bes 1 (Book One):
Cy fine le premier volume des croniques sire Jehan Froissart
Bes 2 (Book Two-Three) :
Explicit le second volume des croniques maistre Jehan Froissart et le tiers aussi le quel commence en la fin de la guerre de Flanderes et de la chartre de la paix que le duc de Bourgoigne et de la duchesse donnerent, accorderent et seellerent a ceulx de Gand en la cité et ville de Tournay comme maistre Jehan Froissart meismes tesmoigne en ce livre au feuillet CCLXXVIIme et commence le tiers volume au feuillet CCIe
The assertion that the translator formulated these colophons is important for two reasons. Since these colophons offered Gerard Potter an additional opportunity to explicitly come forward as the translator of the Chroniques, they may tell us something about Gerard
Potter’s intentions.11 In the colophons, the translator could assure that his identity was recorded in each of the constituent volumes and subsequently also in the copies of these codices. As regards to scribal colophons E. Overgaauw has concluded:
In some respects, a scribe adding a colophon at the end of a manuscript he copied can be compared to an actor, who, once the play has ended, appears before his audience to receive acclamation and applause as a reward for his performance. At that very moment, the actor no longer plays his role, but he shows his real face, his own face, although the costume he is wearing is the one of his character in the play.
(E. Overgaauw 1999, 91)
The purpose of Gerard Potter’s colophon may have been very similar: after the completion of his labour, he presents himself as Froissart’s translator, with all the expertise and capacities that pertain to this role. In the context of his translation, he explicitly and confidently comes forward with his achievement, not unlike the actor who takes a bow, ready to reap the potential profits of his performance, which in the case of this translation were probably not limited to ‘acclamation and applause’ but rather included status among his peers and intended audience, quite possibly complemented by advanced professional opportunities.
Additionally, when we return to the division in volumes, it appears that the colophons hold information about the physical characteristics of the translator’s exemplar. Contrary to the colophons in the Dutch manuscripts, the term ‘volume’ in the French colophons explicitly refers to the Chroniques’ subdivision into Books. In the Bes set of
manuscripts, the first physical unit coincides with the textual unit of Book One (and Book Two, § 1-82, as in all manuscripts of Kervyn’s first redaction, first series, second class). The second physical volume comprises the text of Books Two (§ 83-499) and Three. The situation in the Middle Dutch manuscripts is different. Here, the division into volumes
11 Similarly, in the accounts that were copied by Gerard Potter he also explicitly presents himself – contary to convention – as the scribe. This can also be regarded as a call for recognition (in whatever form) GRRek. 140, fol. 104 v.; GRRek. 142, fol 109 v. The translator may also have revealed his name in a general prologue in the now lost volumes of Book One of the translation.
probably refers to the appearance of the exemplar.12 Two (physical) French volumes were divided into four (physical) books in Dutch. The prologue of Book Two bears witness to this situation. In a paraphrase of his French source-text, Gerard Potter addresses his readership:
Ghij hebt wael hier voir gehoirt inden anderden boeke des eersten volumens heren Jan Froissarts hoe die heren van Mucident hem keerde ende wert Franssoys
(You have heard before in the second book of the first volume of sir John Froissart how the lord of Mucident defected to the French)
(Le3-1, fol. 1 r.)
The Lord of Mucident defected to the French after the battle of Yemet on 1 September 1377 (SHF Book II § 8). In the Bes manuscript, this passage is situated towards the end of Book One. Therefore, Gerard Potter’s reference to the event as belonging to the second book of the first volume only makes sense if he divided Book One (complemented with § 1-82 of Book Two) into two more or less equal parts. This results in the following representation of the translation’s textual distribution relative to its French-language original.13
French exemplar Volume One (as Bes 1) Volume Two (as Bes 2)
Contents: the text of Book One Book Two (§ 1-82) Book Two (§ 83-499) Book Three
‘Book in Dutch’ Book I Book II Book III Book IV Contents: the translation of Book One (part 1) Book One (part 2) Book Two (§ 1-82) Book Two (§ 83-499) Book Three
- the two volume French exemplar vs. the ‘four books in Dutch’ of the translation -
12
It is possible that the use of the term volume in his exemplar (Bes or an other De Liffol manuscript) confused the translator.
13 According to J.W. Muller Muller 1888, (267-268) the ‘Fourth Book’ in the colophon of Book Three should be identified with the ‘second volume’ (= French Book Two and Three). Muller argued that the translator had divided the first volume (=French Book One) into three books. My analysis suggests, however, that it is more likely that Potter divided Book One (= first volume) into two Books, analogous to the textual division in the French text between Book Two and Book Three such as in the second Bes volume.
The Dutch division in two volumes thus reflect the content of two physical volumes in French (like the Bes codices), which have been divided in ‘four books in Dutch’. This
makes it plausible that the Dutch reference to the ‘eerste volumene’ (volume one) and ‘anderde volumene’ (volume two) should be interpreted as a textual reflection of the exemplar’s distribution of Froissart’s Chroniques (Book One to Three) over two separate
codices.
The above prompts the question as to why the translator chose to explicitly refer to the physical appearance of his exemplar? It seems fair to assume that Gerard Potter’s (intended) audience should be able to interpret the colophon. Possibly, the French exemplar used by the Middle Dutch translator was known and available to the intended readership. In this respect, the colophons may have functioned as a rough, first concordance of the Middle Dutch translation and the original French version for those who wanted to verify the information in the Middle Dutch text against its French-language original.14 Additionally, the table of contents, which was probably present in the French exemplar and in at least one of the manuscripts of the Dutch translation, may have provided a more refined instrument of swift data retrieval.
In conclusion it should be noted that the colophons give us another interesting indication as to the exemplar used by Gerard Potter. Bes is the only extant two-volume set
of manuscripts produced by Pierre De Liffol comprising the text of Books One to Three. The manuscripts P63 and Sto, with the text of Book One, have both been complemented
with volumes that only contain the text of Book Two (respectively P64 and probably B52).15 Although the B88 fragments once belonged to a set that comprised Books One to
Three, it is not entirely certain whether the text was divided over two or three codices.16 Nevertheless, the Brussels fragments provide further evidence that De Liffol produced other copies with the text of Books One to Three. Therefore, at this point, it would be careless to assume that no other two-volume De Liffol set of Books One to Three ever existed.
14 I thank R. Sleiderink and H. Braun for this very useful observation. 15
Croenen 2009a, 415. 16
Gaspar and Lyna conclude that the fragments can be divided into two distinct categories based on the writing, illustration and decoration. The folios of the first category belong to Book One and Book Two. The folios of the second category belong to Book Three (Gaspar and Lyna 1984, 13). These differences in writing and illumination/illustration may suggest that the fragments originally belonged to two separate codices, the second of which comprised only Book Three. However, given the size of a hypothetical combination of Book One and Two it is more likely that the B88 set was similar to Bes or consisted of three manuscripts.