Authors and Lovers:

Presenting Amorous Interaction in Middle English Romance

Thomas Honegger

(Published in Peter J. Lucas and Angela Lucas (eds.). 2002. Middle English from Tongue to
Text. Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Middle English: Language
and Text (Dublin, Ireland, 1-4 July 1999). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 137-152.)

Introduction
The presentation of dialogues between lovers (or lovers-to-be) in Middle
English romances is by no means a matter of course, and instances of sustained
amorous interaction going beyond the initial stage of establishing a love-
relationship are few and far between. The love-relationship between man and
woman, which has been of central importance in the early works of Continental
courtly literature, has lost its prominent position and the focus has often shifted
to the chivalric (and sometimes even religious) exploits of the hero. Yet the
theme of love has managed to survive by adapting to the new environment and
taking over new functions. In this paper, I will present a comparative analysis of
how (courtly) men and women are shown to interact in twelve Middle English
romances.1 Special attention will be paid to the role-distribution between men
and women in interactional sequences aiming at establishing a love-relationship.

Normative Background
Before embarking on the discussion of the literary-fictional evidence, however,
it is necessary that we first take a look at some of the norms according to which
courtly men and women were expected to interact with each other.
Five years ago, in 1995, a rather curious yet widely successful book came out. It
has the title The Rules: Time-tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right
(by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider). The two women-authors present it as a
“simple set of dos and don’ts that will lead you to a healthy, committed
relationship” (cover-text). The basic behaviour pattern advocated for women
looking for Mr. Right is: “do not pursue the man you are interested in, let him
do the work, play hard to get and trust in the natural order of things – namely,

1 These are Guy of Warwick, King Horn, Kyng Alisaunder, The Squire of Low Degree,
Sir Degrevant, Sir Eglamour, Amis and Amiloun, Sir Beues of Hamtoun, Sir Gawain
and the Green Knight, The Grene Knight, Sir Launfal, and William of Palerne.
2 Thomas Honegger

that man pursues woman” (Fein & Schneider 1995:26). This means that women
are not supposed to make the first move2 or, even worse, declare their love,
since by doing so they would “interfere with whatever was supposed to happen
or not happen” (Fein & Schneider 1995:27). The attitude of the two women
authors is very similar to the one we find in medieval treatises on love and
literary depictions of amorous interaction. These medieval texts leave no doubt
as to how courtly men and women should ideally handle the opening stages of
an amorous relationship. Thus, Jacques d’Amiens, in his Art d’Amors, refers to
the customary reserve of women:

La feme s’en set miex celer

et atent, c’on le proit d’amer;
mais c’est la coustume et li drois,
ke on les doit requerre ancois;
je quic, se nous nes requerriens,
que nous d’eles requis seriens.
(Körting 1868:11-12, ll. 362-367).3

Richard de Fournival, in his Consaus d’amours, is even more explicit: “Car a ce

ne m’acorderai je ja, que femme doive priier homme d’amours” (Speroni
1974:266).4 This attitude is also to be found in the romances. Melior, the
heroine of William of Palerne, prefers to suffer silently rather than tell William
about her feelings: “nay! sertes my-selue schal him neuer telle; / For πat were
swiche a wogh πa neuer wolde be mended. / For he might ful wel for a fol me
hold, / & do me loπe mi loue git haue y leuer deie!” (Skeat 1867:27, ll. 543-
546).5 Yet not all medieval authors are so strict as to condemn women to

2 Leroy (1997), most likely in reaction to Fein & Schneider (1995), criticizes the
traditional role-distribution and advocates a more emancipated approach.
3 This may be translated as: ‘The woman knows better how to hide her feelings and
expects to be asked for love; therefore it is the custom and correct behaviour if one asks
them immediately; I know that if we do not ask, we will not get anything from them.’
4 ‘For I shall never accept that a woman should ask a man for love.’
5 See also Soredamors, in Chrétien de Troyes’ Cligès, who renders this explicit:
“Comant? Proierai le je donques? / Nenil. Por coi? Ce n’avint onques / Que fame tel
forfet feïst / Que d’amors home requeïst, / Se plus d’autre ne fu desvee.” (‘What? Shall
I ask him? / No! Why not? It never happened / that a woman acted so wrongly / as to
propose love to a man, / unless she were strangely out of her mind.’) (Micha 1982:31,
ll. 989-993). Compare also the scruples Melior has to approach Partonope in Partonope
of Blois (Bödtker 1912:34, ll. 1261-1271).
For a discussion of woman as the wooer, see Weiss (1991).
 Authors and Lovers 3

complete passivity – dropping hints and making allusions are permissible.

Richard de Fournival, in his Consaus d’amours, gives the following advice:

Savés que la femme doit faire lors: ele doit atraire l’omme u en
maniere de parler a lui d’aucune besoigne, u en maniere de juer,
et lui moustrer semblant d’amours u par regardemens amoureus,
u par biau parler amiabliement, sans faire nuel priiere. Car a ce
ne m’acorderai je ja, que femme doive priier homme d’amours;
mais tous autres samblans puet ele bien moustrer, par coi ciex se
puist bien apercevoir de l’amour k’ele a a lui; et se ciex est si
malostrus k’il ne s’en sace apercevoir, s’en soit li damages siens.
(Speroni 1974:266)6

Lady Bertilak, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, would be a prime example
of a lady who woos ‘by the book’. The typical means she employs are
indirectness, conversational implicature, metaphorical language, the exploitation
of linguistic subtleties (pronominal and nominal forms of address)7 and playful
ambiguity.8 The complexity of the dialogues contrasts positively with the
relative simplicity of the structure of opening moves by passion-ruled or
otherwise impaired lovers in other Middle English romances. Lady Bertilak
carefully chooses approaches that pay attention to the participants’ face-needs
and refrains from surprising Gawain with a revelatory leap. She minimizes the
overall risk of an open rejection9 by keeping off-record for most of the time.
Furthermore, the course of the conversation is not predetermined, and its general

6 Shapiro (1997:116) gives the following translation: “Here is what she must do if such
be the case [i.e. if the gentleman of her dreams is a bit slow on the uptake]. She must
call his attention to herself in any number of ways: by speaking to him of some vague
concern; by feigning love in obvious jest; by long, affectionate glances; or by pleasant,
courteous speech. In short, by anything but a frank and open entreaty. For I shall never
deem it proper that woman be the pursuer and man the pursued. And yet, she may affect
all other artful guises to disclose her love. If the man is so dim-witted that he fails to
perceive it, so much the worse for him.”
7 See De Roo (1997).
8 See Burnley (1995).
9 An on-record declaration of love constitutes a serious face-threat to both participants.
The one who declares his/her love seriously imposes on the addressee, because s/he is
forced to react (the addressee’s negative face is threatened, since even a non-reaction
would be interpreted [correctly] as a rejection). Furthermore, in the case of having to
utter a rejection, the addressee sees her/his positive face threatened, since s/he finds
her/himself forced to inflict emotional pain on the other. On ‘face’, see Brown and
Levinson (1987:13-15).
4 Thomas Honegger

direction can be altered any time without substantial loss of face. Lady Bertilak
always awaits (albeit in vain) Gawain’s positive feedback before going one step
further in the direction proposed, and this allows Gawain to evade her advances.
Each move by Lady Bertilak in the direction of ‘amorous interaction’ can be
seen as a proposal for a joint project10 – here ‘making love’ – which the
addressee has to take up in his answer and the force of which is negotiable.11 It
is thus possible for the addressee to influence the course of the interaction at
each of these points by withdrawing from, declining, or altering the proposed
project.12 Unfortunately, from Lady Bertilak’s point of view, Gawain chooses
either to decline or to alter the proposed project(s), so that she has to renew her
attempts again and again.13
It looks very much as if Lady Bertilak, unlike her Anglo-Norman cousins,14 has
taken Richard de Fournival’s advice to heart.

Deviant Behaviour?
Yet Lady Bertilak seems to be the exception to the rule. Most women-
protagonists in Middle English romances prefer to either suffer in silence, or
they take the bull by the horns and declare their love rather directly.
The relatively high frequency of lady-wooers – more than half of my examples
feature women as the actively wooing partners (cf. appendix) – is a peculiarity
of insular romance. Weiss (1991:160) proposes the following explanation for
this phenomenon

The courtly lady, though admired and adored, tends to be a

passive object of desire. The uncourtly lady, who woos, usurps
the male role by trying to constrain or force, by becoming the
active partner. She is out of place in the new courtly romance.
Why did Anglo-Norman romance [and later ME romance]
initially absorb this uncourtly view of woman? In part it may
have been because the chanson de geste, in which wooing

10 Clark (1996:191-200) discusses the term ‘joint project’ in depth.

11 See Leech (1983:23-24).
12 See Clark (1996:204).
13 Cligès, when making his avowal of love to Fénice (Micha 1982:155-157, ll. 5097-
5174), uses the same approach, yet is altogether more successful. See Honegger
(2000a).
14 See Weiss (1991).
 Authors and Lovers 5

women are rather common, went on being popular in England

after it was out of fashion in France.

Yet the fact that a wooing woman ‘usurps’ the place of the man in the
interactional sequence is no compelling reason for her to conduct the wooing
like a man. This, as we have seen, is what some of the ‘theorists’ point out,
namely that a woman may woo by means of dropping hints and playfully
alluding to her desires without having recourse to the more direct approach
which seems to be the prerogative of men.15
In spite of this, the opening moves of the great majority of wooing ladies in ME
romances are almost identical with ‘male’ opening moves. Thus, both groups
make the declaration of love on-record, i.e. they use explicit words that leave no
interactional leeway for the addressee. Furthermore, almost all major elements
found in ‘male’ declarations of love (appeal to mercy, description of one’s love-
suffering and announcement of impending death if love remains unrequited)
likewise occur in ‘female’ declarations and only few gender-specific
modifications can be detected.
A comparison between two sequences of amorous interaction will illustrate my
point. The first passage contains Guy’s first attempt at wooing Felice (Guy of
Warwick; Zupitza 1966b),16 while the second passage shows Rymenhild’s
wooing of Horn (King Horn; McKnight 1901).
I have highlighted similar passages in bold type and underlined those that show
gender-specific modifications.

15 As a consequence, treatises on love provide only examples of ‘male’ declarations of

love.
16 Guy’s declaration of love is in many aspects a ‘model declaration of love’ and shows,
as I have discussed elsewhere (Honegger 1999 and Honegger 2000b), many a parallel
to the model declarations found in the treatises on love.
6 Thomas Honegger

1. Guye is to courte come, 1. Reymild up gan stonde

2. As man that is in sorowe nome. 2. And tok him bi πe honde.
3. On knees before Felice he hym didde, 3. Sette he him on palle;
4. And sorowfully seide in that stede, 4. Wyn hye dide fulle,
5. All with quakyng steuene; 5. Makede fayre chere,
6. Thus he seide, and spake full euene: 6. And tok him bi πe swere.
7. ‘Felice the faire, for goddis loue, mercy! 7. Often hye him kiste,
8. On me haue reuthe for our lady, 8. So wel hire luste.
9. That y ne fynde the my full foo, 9. ”Wel come, horn,” hye seyde,
10. For loue y you praye, herken me to. 10. “So fayr so god πe makede.
11. Hense forewarde y woll not hele 11. An heue and amorwe
12. The grete loue, that me doth fele: 12. For πe ich habbe sorwe.
13. Shewe y muste the peyne and sorowe 13. Haue ich none reste;
14. That y haue for you euyne and morowe. 14. Slepe me ne liste.
15. Ye bee that thynge for whom y mourne, 15. Leste me πis sorwe,
16. Fro you ne may my herte tourne: 16. Lyue hy nawt to morwe.
17. Ouere all thinge y muste you loue, 17. Horn, πou schalt wel swiπe
18. Whether it tourne benethe or aboue, 18. My longe sorwe liπe;
19. Bot that y shall loue you aye, 19. πou schalt, wit uten striue,
20. Whiles that y lyue maye. 20. Habben me to wiue.
21. Vnder heuen noo thinge is, 21. Horn, haue on me rewπe,
22. Were it good or yuel ywis, 22. And plyct πou me πi trewπe.”
23. That y for the doo it [ne] wolde, (McKnight 1901:18-19, Laud Misc. MS.
24. My lif to lese though y shulde. 108, lines 419-440)
25. Ye bee my lif and my deth y-wis:
26. Withoute you loste is all my blis.
27. Well more y loue you than me:
28. Deye y shall for loue of you pardee,
29. Bot thou haue mercy on me,
30. Myself y shall for sorowe slee.
31. Yf ye wiste the heuynesse,
32. The grete peyne, and the sorowfulnesse,
33. That y haue for you nyghte and daye
34. (With true loue y it saye)–
35. And you it might witterly see,
36. I trowe ye wolde haue mercy on me.’
(Zupitza 1966b:21-23, Caius MS, lines 341-376)
 Authors and Lovers 7

The elements that both declarations of love share are a) personal name as form
of address17 (Guy 7 and Horn 9), b) compliments (Guy 7 and Horn 10), c)
appeal to have pity (Guy 8, 29 & 36 and Horn 21), d) love-suffering (‘sorrow’)
night and day (Guy 13-14 & 32-33 and Horn 11-12).
Gender-specific elements are, for the man, his offer of service (Guy 21-24) and,
for the woman, her offer of trothplighting18 and marriage (Horn 20 & 22). The
gender-specificity of these two elements can be seen as resulting from the social
roles assigned to men and women. Men, in the context of feudal society, were
able to model their relationships with courtly women on the example of that of
liege-lord and retainer,19 offering the same services to both ‘dominus’ and
‘domna’. Women, however, could not very well invoke a similar pattern.20
They could offer their ‘favours’, but a self-respecting maiden would take care
not to compromise herself before having obtained some sort of security from her
knight, e.g. in form of a pledge. The one respectable and advantageous
relationship-pattern that women could offer – and especially heiresses of high
social standing – was that of marriage.21 Yet marriages were not that easily and
quickly concluded, not even in romances. Thus, trothplighting had to suffice till
the opportunity for a proper marriage arose.

17 The pronominal forms of address in Guy of Warwick (ye vs thou) vary from manuscript
to manuscript, so that it seems unwise to invest them with too much meaning.
18 See also Belisaunt’s offer to Amis in Amis and Amiloun: “Plight me πi trewπe πou
schalt be trewe / & chaunge me for no newe / πat in πis world is born, / & y plight πe mi
treuπe al-so, / Til god & deπ dele ous ato, / Y schal neuer be forsworn.” (Leach
1937:26, ll. 583-588). Candace, in Kyng Alisaunder, offers marriage in her letter
(Smithers 1952:354-357, Lincoln MS ll. 5408-5451, Laud MS ll. 6674-6717), though
she does not use the word ‘marriage’.
19 On the service-relationship in the context of love, see Haferland (1988:179-191).
20 Note, however, that the Queen Candace explicitly offers her service to Alexander (Kyng
Alisaunder, Smithers 1952:356-357, Lincoln MS ll. 5450-5451, Laud MS ll. 6716-
6717). She can do so in the feudal context since, as queen, she is in a position of power.
21 The male guardians would, of course, oppose any liaison they judged disadvantageous
for the family. On medieval marriage, see Duby (1981 & 1993), Stone (1979) and
Cartlidge (1997).
8 Thomas Honegger

Some Explanations
As we have seen, there is a general agreement between male and female
declarations of love with regard to the basic strategy (on-record, explicit
declaration of love) with few gender-specific modifications on the surface level
(offer of service vs offer of marriage). I see three reasons for this basic
agreement.
First, the author who finds himself confronted with the task of furnishing a
speech sequence for a female protagonist’s declaration may have recourse to the
one ‘text-type’ readily available: that of a man’s declaration of love.22 An
author may find ‘male’ model-confessions of love not only in other works of
fiction, but also in theoretical treatises on love such as Andreas Capellanus’s De
amore, Richard de Fournival’s Consaus d’amours and Jacques d’Amiens’ L’art
d’amours. I cannot go into a detailed discussion of the relationship between
these more theoretical treatises and the works of fiction,23 but the importance of
these treatises lies, among other things, in their contribution towards the
establishment of a ‘speech act’ of ‘declaration of love’.24 The interactional
sequence of declaring one’s love thus acquires a relative independence from
situational settings and, in a further step, becomes available for ‘typification’.25
Wittig (1978:158), then, considers the confession of love a type-episode, often
occurring together with two other elements in the three-episode linking pattern
‘love, betrayal, separation’. This type-episode provides the motivation for the
protagonist’s adventures and deeds of prowess26 in the overall structure of the
narrative. Structuralistically speaking, it does not make any difference whether

22 A similar process of adaptation can be seen in the development of the description of

personal beauty. School-book models for the ‘effictio’, describing a woman’s physical
perfection, were adopted for the depiction of male courtier-heroes (see Burnley
1998:37-52).
23 For an in-depth analysis of the relationship between the treatises on love and romances,
see Honegger (1999).
24 On this point, see also Schwarz (1981 & 1984).
25 Tables 1 and 2 of the appendix give an overview of the typical elements of a model
declaration of love.
26 See Spahn (1991:63) who defines ‘Motivation’ as follows: “In einer Ausgangssituation
[...] bricht in irgendeiner Form ein irritierendes Moment ein, das den Helden dazu
veranlasst, seine Heimat zu verlassen bzw. auf Abenteuer auszuziehen.” She (1991:64)
then discusses ‘Liebe’ (love) as one of the ‘motivating elements’ for adventure.
 Authors and Lovers 9

the type-episode in question is realized with a male or female protagonist as the

active part. There are some minor, gender-specific adjustments to be made but
the function of the declaration on the level of narrative structure remains the
same.
Secondly, the use of a clearly established (relatively simple) interactional
pattern does not tax the author’s (sometimes doubtful) literary powers, as would
the depiction of a more complex, individuated interactional sequence.27 Thus,
poets of lesser talent tend to simplify the sophisticated and complex interaction
of the original. The comparison of the bedroom-dialogues in Sir Gawain and the
Green Knight to their ‘analogue’ in the late 15th century The Grene Knight
provides a case in point. The superbly crafted dialogues between Lady Bertilak
and Gawain are reduced to a single, not very subtle exchange, and the
unambiguous, on-record and explicit approach taken by Lady Bredbeddle stands
in stark contrast to the artful indirectness and ambiguity of Lady Bertilak’s
advances.28
Thirdly and finally, although difficult to judge across the centuries, the depiction
of women making use of interactional patterns that were – at least initially –
typical of men, may a) excite, b) amuse, or, to some extent, c) shock an
audience.
It is necessary to elaborate further these points concerning the potential impact
on the audience. The insight that two people doing the same thing are not really
doing the same thing, is a commonplace. Yet in our case it is highly relevant.
Declarations of love by women do differ from ‘male’ ones if considered against
the background of normative expectations governing the male-female
interactions, namely that women are not supposed to make the first move in an
explicit manner.
The following examples illustrate the possible impact on the audience of the
manner in which women woo.

27 This is especially important for authors who merely use amorous interaction in order to
motivate the ensuing ‘chivalric’ action. Lengthy passages that foreground the dialogues
between the lovers may contribute to the ‘characterisation’ of the protagonists, but in
cases where motivation and typification are aimed at, this may prove undesirable.
28 Ywain and Gawain, the Middle English version of Chrétien de Troyes’ Yvain, furnishes
another example of this tendency. See Discherl (1991) and Honegger (2000b).
10 Thomas Honegger

a) Excitement:
Josian, the beautiful Saracen princess in Sir Beues of Hamtoun, is in love with
the young and rather hot-tempered hero who has grown up at her father’s court.
She rather ostentatiously shows her affection for him (embracing and kissing
him) and, shortly afterwards, declares her love. Beues impulsively rejects her
advances and pleads his relatively low status. In the end, they quarrel and the
impetuous and headstrong Josian tells him to leave the country. The focus in
this and the other interactional sequences between Josian and Beues is not so
much on the intricacies of ‘luf-talkyng’, but rather on the question of whether
she will, in the end, ‘get her man’ – and whether Beues will compromise his
Christian ideals or remain steadfast in his dealings with the beautiful princess.
The usual set-up is inverted and instead of asking ourselves whether the man is
going to get his beloved lady, and if so, how he will achieve it, we find
ourselves wondering how Josian will attain her objective.
b) Amusement:
Rymenhild, in King Horn, is a well-bred Christian princess. She is therefore a
more conventional figure than the exotic Josian. Less headstrong by nature, she
rather argues and coaxes her reluctant Horn into becoming her lover and fiancé.
Her false start – she mistakes Athulf for Horn and declares her love to him – and
the fact that the respective roles of Horn and Rymenhild seem to be an inversion
of the traditional roles-model (with the man eager to win the lady’s favour by
his deeds of prowess, and the lady ever raising the stakes and reluctant to yield
too soon)29 suggest that we take the depiction of their wooing with a pinch of
salt.
c) Shock:
The third example is from Amis and Amiloun. Belisaunt is, at least initially, the
least attractive of the three ladies discussed. She has fallen in love with Amis
and bullies him into a relationship that almost proves fatal for him and his sworn
friend Amiloun. She declares her love and then blackmails Amis into becoming
her lover. Belisaunt is thus the embodiment of a misogynist’s nightmare and
may rather shock and anger rather than amuse an audience. Yet on the structural
level, the theme remains a type-scene in spite of its variation. The relationship

29 Horn insists on first proving his valour as a knight abroad etc. and thus, in an ‘inverted’
way, mirrors almost exactly the pattern found in Guy of Warwick’s traditional ‘male’
wooing of Felice.
 Authors and Lovers 11

between Amis and Belisaunt motivates the ensuing action and thus fills the
narrative slot that might just as well have been given to a ‘standard male
opening move’.

Conclusions
To sum up, we may note the following points.
First, women who woo men in ME romances differ very little in their linguistic
strategies from their male models and counterparts.
Secondly, this ‘formal’ similarity affects the potential effect of the type-scene.
The narrator may use it to heighten the excitement, to make fun of the amorous
heroine, or to express his dissatisfaction with the aggressive lady.
Thirdly, on a syntagmatic-structural level, ‘female’ declarations of love fulfill
the same functions as their ‘male’ counterparts.

These findings accord with the overall characteristics of amorous interaction in

ME romances. There, the focus is no longer on love itself and the protagonists’
feelings, as was the case in the French roman courtois. Instead of providing the
central theme, love has become one element among others and only survived as
a structural element.
12 Thomas Honegger

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Texts
Anonymous. late 15th c. The Squire of Low Degree. In: French, Walter Hoyt and Charles
Brockway Hale (eds.). 1964. Middle English Metrical Romances. First edition 1930.
Reissued as two volumes bound as one. New York: Russell and Russell, 721-755.
Bödtker, A. Trampe (ed.). 1912. The Middle English Versions of Partonope of Blois.
Reprinted 1981 by Kraus Reprint, Millwood, N.Y. Early English Text Society Extra
Series 109. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.
Casson, L.F. (ed.). 1949. Sir Degrevant. Anonymous. c. 1400. Early English Text Society
Original Series 221. London: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, Albert B. and Norman T. Harrington (eds.). 1964. Ywain and Gawain. Early
English Text Society Original Series 254. London and New York: Oxford University
Press.
Furnivall, Frederick J. and John W. Hales (eds.). 1867-1868. Bishop Percy’s Folio
Manuscript: Ballads and Romances. 3 vols. London: Trübner.
Kölbing, Eugen (ed.). 1885, 1886, 1894. The Romance of Sir Beues of Hamtoun. Early
English Text Society Extra Series Nos. 46, 48, 65. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner & Co.
Körting, Gustav (ed.). 1868. L’art d’amors und Li remedes d’amors. Zwei altfranzösische
Lehrgedichte von Jacques d’Amiens. Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel.
Leach, MacEdward (ed.). 1937. Amis and Amiloun. Early English Text Society Original
Series 203. London: Oxford University Press.
McKnight, George H. (ed.). 1901. King Horn, Floriz and Blauncheflur, The Assumption of
our Lady. Second edition. First edition 1866. Early English Text Society Original
Series 14 London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.
Micha, Alexandre (ed.). 1982. Cligès. Les Romans de Chrétien de Troyes 2. Paris: Librairie
Honoré Champion.
Richardson, Frances E. (ed.). 1965. Sir Eglamour of Artois. Early English Text Society
Original Series 256. London: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, Norman R. (trans.). 1997. The Comedy of Eros: Medieval French Guides to the Art
of Love. First edition 1971. Second edition, with notes and commentary by James B.
Wadsworth and Betsy Bowden. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Skeat, Walter W. (ed.). 1867. The Romance of William of Palerne. Early English Text
Society Extra Series 1. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.
Smithers, G.V. (ed.). 1952. Kyng Alisaunder. Early English Text Society Original Series 227.
London: Oxford University Press.
Speroni, Gian Battista. 1974. «Il Consaus d’Amours di Richard de Fournival.» Medioevo
Romanzo 1:217-278.
Thomas Chester. c. 1350. Sir Launfal. In: French, Walter Hoyt and Charles Brockway Hale
(eds.). 1964. Middle English Metrical Romances. First edition 1930. Re-issued as two
volumes bound as one. New York: Russell and Russell, 345-380.
Tolkien, J.R.R. and E.V. Gordon (eds.). 1967. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Second
edition edited by Norman Davies. First edition 1925. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
 Authors and Lovers 13

Zink, Michel, J.M. Fritz, Ch. Méla, O. Collet, D.F. Hult, and M.-Cl. Zai (eds. and trans.).
1994. Chrétien de Troyes: Romans, suivis des Chansons, avec, en appendice,
Philomena. Paris: Le Livre de Poche.
Zupitza, Julius (ed.). 1966a. The Romance of Guy of Warwick. The second or 15th-century
version. Edited from the Cambridge University Library MS. Ff. 2.38. Early English
Text Society Extra Series 25 and 26. First published 1875-76. Reprinted as one volume
1966. London, New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Zupitza, Julius (ed.). 1966b. The Romance of Guy of Warwick. Early English Text Society
Extra Series 42, 49, and 59. First published 1883/1887/1891. Reprinted as one volume
1966. London: Oxford University Press.

Secondary Literature
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Use. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4. Second edition. First edition 1978.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burnley, David. 1995. «Style, Meaning and Communication in Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight.» Poetica (Tokyo) 42:23-37.
Burnley, David. 1998. Courtliness and Literature in Medieval England. Longman Medieval
and Renaissance Library. London and New York: Longman.
Cartlidge, Neil. 1997. Medieval Marriage: Literary Approaches, 1100-1300. Cambridge:
D.S. Brewer.
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Roo, Harvey. 1997. «What’s in a Name. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and forms of
address.» Chaucer Review 31 (no 3):232-255.
Discherl, Ulrike. 1991. Ritterliche Ideale in Chrétiens ‘Yvain’ und im ‘Ywain and Gawain’.
Regensburger Arbeiten zur Anglistik und Amerikanistik 33. Frankfurt and Berne: Peter
Lang.
Duby, Georges. 1981. Le Chevalier, la Femme et le Prêtre. Le Mariage dans la France
Féodale. Rpt. 1997. Hachette: Paris.
Duby, Georges. 1993. Die Frau ohne Stimme: Liebe und Ehe im Mittelalter. Translated from
French by Gabriele Ricke and Ronald Voullié. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer
Taschenbuch Verlag.
Fein, Ellen and Sherrie Schneider. 1995. The Rules: Time-tested Secrets for Capturing the
Heart of Mr. Right. New York: Warner Books.
Haferland, Harald. 1988. Höfische Interaktion. Interpretationen zur höfischen Epik und
Didaktik um 1200. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Honegger, Thomas. 1999. «‘De arte (dis-)honeste amandi’ – Amatory Theory vs Literary
‘Reality’.» Paper given at the Ersten Studientag zum Englischen Mittelalter at the
University Potsdam, 12 March 1999.
Honegger, Thomas. 2000a. «‘But-πat πou louye me, Sertes y dye fore loue of πe’ – Towards
a Typology of Opening Moves in Courtly Amorous Interaction.» Journal of Historical
Pragmatics 1:117-150.
Honegger, Thomas. 2000b. «‘luf-talkyng’ and Middle English Romance.» forthcoming in
Diller, Hans-Jürgen (ed.). The History of English as a History of Genres.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman
14 Thomas Honegger

Leroy, Margaret. 1997. Some Girls Do. Why Women Do – and Don’t – Make the First Move.
London: HarperCollins.
Putter, Ad. 1995. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and French Arthurian Romance. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Schwarz, Alexander. 1981. «Die Liebeserklärung: Ein Sprechakt in der deutschen Literatur
des 12. Jahrhunderts.» In: van Hoecke, Willy and Andries Welkenhuysen (eds.). 1981.
Love and Marriage in the Twelfth Century. Mediavalia Lovaniensia Series I, Studia 8.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 183-196.
Schwarz, Alexander. 1984. Sprechaktgeschichte. Studien zu den Liebeserklärungen in
mittelalterlichen und modernen Tristandichtungen. Göppinger Arbeiten zur
Germanistik Nr. 398. Göppingen: Kümmerle Verlag.
Spahn, Renate. 1991. Narrative Strukturen im ‘Guy of Warwick’: Zur Frage der
Überlieferung einer mittelenglischen Romanze. ScriptOralia 36. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr.
Stone, Lawrence. 1979. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. Second
edition. First edition 1977. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Weiss, Judith. 1991. «The Wooing Woman in Anglo-Norman Romance.» In: Mills,
Maldwyn, Jennifer Fellows and Carol M. Meale (eds.). 1991. Romance in Medieval
England. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 149-161.
Wittig, Susan. 1978. Stylistic and Narrative Structures in the Middle English Romances.
Austin and London:University of Texas Press.
 Authors and Lovers 15

Table 1: Three Model Declarations of Love in two 13th cent. Arts of Love

elements forms of address linguistic strategies

service relationship V-form (JdA 1 & 2 and on record declaration of

(JdA 1: 475f, 531-530, RdF throughout) love => do FTA (with
535-544, 554. JdA 2: x & dame (& x) (JdA 1: redressive actions)
637, 687-689. RdF: 11- 472-474, 510. JdA 2: 594,
13, 16-17) 616, 640, 662, 671. RdF:
praise (JdA 1: 479-482, 9, 13)
549-550. JdA 2: 624-629, x & amie (& x) (JdA 1:
635, 654-670. RdF: 9-11) 494, 512, 527, 550. JdA
heart (JdA 1: 477. JdA 2: 613, 649. RdF: -)
2: 650, 654, 673. RdF: biele (& x) (JdA 1: 482,
10, 16) 522)
force of love (JdA 1:
484-490, 497-504. JdA 2:
617-623, 630-633, 649-
653, 671-683. RdF: 14)
torments of love (JdA 1:
505-510. JdA 2: 630-633.
RdF: -)
mortal danger (JdA 1:
493, 514-518, 553, 566.
JdA 2: 634, 673. RdF:
18-19)
appeal to mercy (JdA 1:
483, 492, 567, 575. JdA
2: 621. RdF: -)
JdA = Jacques d’Amiens; RdF = Richard de Fournival
16 Thomas Honegger

Table 2: Declaration of Love in Guy of Warwick

elements forms of address linguistic strategies

service relationship predominantly V-form on record declaration of

(361-364) (in the Caius MS) love => do FTA (with
praise (347, 355-356, name & x (347) redressive actions)
371-373)
heart (356)
force of love (351-352,
357-360, 367)
torments of love (353-
354, 371-375)
mortal danger (368,
370)
appeal to mercy (347,
369, 376)