French Arthurian Literature, V: The Lay of Mantel ed. by Glynn S. Burgess and Leslie C. Brook (review)

Since decent editions of the Lai du mantel are readily available to scholars, the most significant contribution of this volume may well be its translation into modern English, which ensures access to the story for those with no Old French. Some parts of the Introduction acknowledge the difficulties of ‘defining’ the lai as a genre without getting to grips with the issue, although, arguably, an edition is not the place for such a discussion. On the other hand, it is central to the project described on p. 2 (note 3) to re-edit the fifteen ‘non-Marie de France lays’, of which this book is a part. The Introduction contains much of the kind of material considered indispensable to an edition, but there is very little information on the manuscripts in which the Mantel is preserved. A comparison of the text in each of the five manuscripts is inconclusive, whereas an analysis of the scribal substitutions in Paris, BnF, n. a. fr. 1104 (the base manuscript for the edition) is of great interest. It could be argued that the sections on characters, male and female, and themes, and images are excessively long, but they will be useful to those approaching the text for the first time. The section on sources and analogues is a good point of departure for a comparative study of the chastity test at the heart of the poem. The edition and translation of the Mantel are printed on facing pages. Spot checks of the translation reveal no errors. Although the text is treated conservatively, some of the rejected readings at the foot of the page seem to me not strictly necessary. The notes include variants from other editions rather than from other manuscripts. When another edition has been based on a different manuscript (say, ‘Le Lai du cor’ et ‘Le Manteau mal taillé’: les dessous de la Table Ronde, ed. by Nathalie Koble (Paris: Éditions rue d’Ulm, 2005)), the sense of a note is usually clear enough, but where n. a. fr. 1104 is also the base, the formulas ‘Bennett has’ or ‘For x Bennett has y’ do not make it clear whether the editors disagree with an intervention or believe that Bennett has made an error of transcription. Three appendices include an edition of Bern, Burgerbibliothek 354, the sixteenth-century text published in 1746 by the Comte de Caylus, and a translation of the Lai du cor. There is a substantial bibliography and indexes of proper names to both Mantel and Cor. Glyn Burgess and Leslie Brook are to be congratulated on putting together a volume that is likely henceforth to prove the first source consulted by those wishing to study the Lai du mantel.