RECREACIÓN Y DEPORTE

At the end of the previous chapter, the evidence provided by the textual variants was inconclusive. The correspondence between a number of readings in the translation with the readings of manuscripts other than Bes left open the possibility that Gerard Potter did not

use Bes or one of its hypothetical descendants but another, closely affiliated copy as an

exemplar. Although the evidence should be considered as inconclusive, the arguments provided by textual variation supporting the hypothesis that not Bes or a daughter was the

exemplar was rather weak. In most cases, it is plausible that the translator has corrected or adapted his exemplar, which consequently resulted in divergence between Bes and the

translation.

The analysis of the paratexts of the manuscripts produced by Pierre de Liffol has been highly informative and corroborates the hypothesis that Bes or a hypothetical

descendant was Gerard Potter’s exemplar. Indeed, notwithstanding the fact that the Liffol manuscripts were manufactured by the same group of scribes and illustrators and the production process was guided by the same libraire, the rubrics and illustration of no two

of these manuscripts are as similar as the paratexts of Bes and the translation. Although it

is not impossible that a now lost manuscript sibling resembled the translation more than

Bes, the differences in the paratexts of the manuscripts produced by Pierre de Liffol suggests that it is rather improbable that such a manuscript ever existed.

At this point, it seems reasonable to state that the combined study of textual variation and paratexts provides evidence to confirm the hypothesis that Bes (or a lost daughter manuscript) indeed has been the model of the translation. In this view, the study of variant readings and paratextual features is supplementary and an inquiry into the production process of the French manuscripts provides a way to overcome the limitations of textual criticism in translation studies.

Although it is impossible to exlude a (nearly) identical daughter manuscript, the observation that Gerard Potter’s exemplar probably either was Bes or a hypothetical

descendant, allows us to confidently state that the history of the translation’s model starts in the Paris workshop of Pierre de Liffol. In other words: it is safe to say that the exemplar was not a now lost fourteenth century copy that originated from the Blois family (through Guy of Blois) or the Bavarian counts of Holland and Hainault. The exemplar or its prototype (in both cases, i.e. Bes) was produced in Paris, probably between 1408 and 1417. In the case that Bes itsself was used as an exemplar for the translation, the manuscript

ended up in The Hague, where Gerard Potter translated it. In the last quarter of the sixteenth century, Bes resurfaced in the library of Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle. It is not

known how the manuscript came in the cardinal’s possession. In the event that Gerard Potter van der Loo did not use Bes, but one of the manuscript’s hypothetical descendants,

the Besançon manuscript served as the model of another copy, in Paris or elsewhere. Whatever the case may actually have been: the link we have established with Pierre de Liffol’s Parisian workshop provides us with some interesting clues towards how the exemplar finally ended up in Holland.

Assuming that Louis II of Anjou set in motion the distribution of the Chroniques by

Pierre de Liffol and that the former distributed a number of copies among influential members of his family, ‘such as his uncle the duke of Berry and his cousin the duke of Burgundy’,it is tempting to put forward some hypotheses.61 One possibility is that Louis II of Anjou did not only honour his uncle and cousin with manuscripts of the Chroniques, but

also (one of) the young dauphins of France. This would explain the illustration in at least

two manuscripts of Book Two (B52 and Bes) of subject matter related to the wedding of

Charles VI and Isabel of Bavaria, the princes’ parents. When in December 1415 Louis of Guyenne – the heir apparent – died, his younger brother John of Touraine became heir to the throne. At the time, the young crown prince was married to Jacqueline of Bavaria, countess of Holland and Hainault. However, very soon, Jacqueline would be left a widow. On 5 April 1417, her young husband died from an abscess in the neck. The possibility exists that Gerard Potter encountered the Parisian manuscripts among the books of his mistress, possibly after her death in 1436, when he was involved in the administering of her estate.62

61

Croenen, Rouse and Rouse 2002, 279. 62

Another possible explanation also leads to the Bavarian counts of Holland. As has been mentioned in § 1.1.3.1., in the first decades of the fifteenth century count William VI, who wasone of Froissart’s presumed

Another possible explanation presupposes a Burgundian origin for the manuscripts. In their 2002 article, Croenen, Rouse and Rouse refer to the ‘first-known owners’ of manuscripts of the Chroniques as ‘members of the lower to middling nobility, who stood

high in the esteem, and in the loyal service, of warring princes’.63 The scholars refer to John of Roubaix (probably the first owner of London, British Library, Add. 38658-38659) and Peter of Fontenay (the owner and presumed commissioner of New York, Pierpont Morgan, M.804), vehement supporters of the dukes of Burgundy.64 Other manuscripts that were illuminated by the Giac Master were produced for Charles of Savoisy (Paris, National Library, MS fr.2662) and Walram or Peter of Luxemburg (The Hague, Royal Library, MS 72 A 25).65 Several confidants of the Burgundian dukes held offices at the court of Holland. For instance: Hugh of Lannoy, stadtholder from 1433 to 1440, had been chamberlain of John the Fearless between 1406 and 1419 and William of Lalaing, stadtholder between 1440 and 1445, had practically spent his whole life at the Burgundian courts, first in the service of Philip the Good, later as chevalier d’honneur of Isabella of

Portugal.66 The possibility that one of these Burgundian officials brought the Chroniques

to Gerard Potter’s attention deserves serious consideration. The context in which the translation was produced may provide additional evidence for this hypothesis. The question of Gerard Potter’s audience is the focal point of Chapters Four and Five of this study.

patrons, maintained close relations with the French court (he was the father-in-law of John of Touraine, prince and later dauphin of France) and the dukes of Berry and Burgundy (John the Fearless was his brother- in-law). His involvement in French politics and frequent residence in Paris also fits the timeframe in which Pierre de Liffol was active.

63

Croenen, Rouse and Rouse 2002, 282.

64 _{In 1427, John of Roubaix was in Holland with Philip of Burgundy (Van Riemsdijk 1908, 442); in the same} year, Roland of Uutkerke and John of Roubaix received a reward from the city of Leyden because they had assisted in obtaining privileges from the duke (Damen 2000, 408).

65

Villela-Petit 2009, 26. 66 _{Damen 2000, 471.}

CHAPTER FOUR

T

C

(...) one of the main difficulties faced by the translator is again a pragmatic one: the fact that very often in translation there is a difference, not only of language but also of context. (…) The translator needs to be aware of it in order to judge the degree of its effects correctly and to look for appropriate solutions.

(Gutt 1998, 52)

As regards the British Isles, R. Ellis has drawn attention to the involvement of the aristocracy in late medieval translation. From the fourteenth century onwards, influential aristocrats commissioned translations in the English vernacular, but – not unlike Gerard Potter – also fulfilled the role of translator.1 Ellis shows how the translations manufactured by these noblemen bear witness to their translators’ aristocratic lifestyle (e.g. Edward, Duke of York). Furthermore, it is argued that the English translations provide a ‘narrowly focused view of what aristocratic readers might want or need’. Ellis further describes the preferred subjects of translated texts commissioned by royals and aristocrats as ‘chivalric manuals’ and texts discussing ‘the practicalities of warfare and peacemaking’ and texts conveying examples for those in government (the so-called specula principum).

The purpose of the present chapter is to contextualise Gerard Potter’s text by analysing his translation technique. An interesting question is whether the translator’s aristocratic social and professional context (cf. Chapter One) has influenced his translation along the lines suggested by Ellis for aristocratic translations in English. Recent insights into the nature of the translation process would indeed suggest that Froissart’s text was adapted to its new context. The ‘cultural turn’, which has been dominant in translation studies since the 1990s, has emphasized that translation is not limited to a linguistic transfer between languages, but also implies a dialogue between cultures.2 Groundbreaking research (e.g. in the area of postcolonial translation theory) has been done on the relation

1

Ellis 2008, 99-107.

between translation and power.3 These theoretical frameworks may prove to be valuable for further investigation as to the cultural dynamics of Burgundianisation and the role of translation in this process. Therefore, for the further development of this chapter, I do not turn to classical theories of translation based on rhetorics (Cicero) or early Christian translators (St. Jerome, Boethius), but rather start from a theoretical framework which highlights the differences and similarities between the source-language and target-language cultures (cf. § 4.1.).4

A number of in-depth studies on Middle Dutch translations and their French- language originals have shown that a profound analysis of the strategies employed by translators to adequately transfer the original text to its new cultural and linguistic context may lead to interesting observations as to the aesthetics and values of the translator and his intended audience. As regards the Middle Dutch translation of the Lancelot en prose

included in the so-called Lancelot compilation, B. Besamusca has noted that the translator

attempted to translate his French source-text as faithfully as possible, hindered only by the peremptory demands of the verse-form he employs.5 This observation consequently allowes the scholar to deliberately assign specific meaning to passages in which the Dutch version diverges from the French original text. Besamusca concludes that the departures in the Middle Dutch text reveal the translator’s literary aesthetics. Furthermore, the translation’s audience appears to have been rather well versed in Arthurian romance.6 In his study of the Lanceloet, Besamusca does not venture to conclusively identify the

translation’s primary audience. Conversely, a close comparison of the Middle Dutch version of the Partonopeu de Blois and its French original does not only allow A. Reynders

to identify the environment in which the translation probably circulated as the high aristocracy at the court of Brabant, but also suggests a possible stimulus for its creation, being the introduction of non-aristocratic newcomers at the centre of power.7 The translation strategies employed by Gerard Potter and their significance for the translator’s intended audience will be presented in § 4.2.

The research presented in § 4.3. links up with Ellis’ observation of aristocratic translations being influenced by the codes of conduct which govern the environments of the translator and his intended audience. This section focuses on a number of areas that

3

E.g Tymoczko and Gentzler 2002; Bassnett and Trivedi 1999.

4 _{The Churchfathers and rhetoricians have been suggested as the primary framework for medieval translation} by, amongst others, Copeland 1991, Besamusca and Sonnemans 1999.

5

Besamusca 1991, 72-73. 6

Besamusca 1991, 123. 7 _{Reynders 2002.}

probably were of interest to Gerard Potter and his aristocratic audience: the classification of chivalry, courtly patterns of behaviour and the conduct of war. The way in which the translator deals with the subtleties of these subjects may be revealing of his – and by extension his audience’s – attitude towards these characteristic features of aristocratic society.

In § 4.4., I try to further narrow down the audience for whom Froissart’s chronicle was translated into Middle Dutch. I will do so using two approaches. Firstly, in his text, Jean Froissart refers to highly placed relatives of people who also occur in Gerard Potter’s professional networks. The latter can be considered as belonging to the intended audience or may even have actively encouraged Potter’s translation effort. Any preferential treatment of their forebears could point towards patronage. Secondly, it has been observed that the illustration of a manuscript is often linked to the preferences of its commissioner.8 This observation is particularly interesting in the case of the Middle Dutch version of the

Chroniques, since it is possible to compare the translation’s pictorial programme with the

illustration of the exemplar or, in any event, a manuscript that was nearly identical to it. Differences in the programmes of illustration may indeed indicate a difference in focus and as such suggest a particular patron or purpose for the text.