November/December 1984 THE PATERNITY OF MORDRED IN THE ALLITERATIVE MORTE ARTHURE ONCE MORE In a note that appeared in print several years ago 1 wrote that, con- trary to the opinion of J.L.N. O’ Loughlin that the fall of Arthur in the Alliterative Morte Arthure is the effect of his Aamartia in begetting Mordred,’ there is no evidence in the poem that he is regarded there as the son of the king.? He is referred to as “me sybb, my syster sone,’’? “‘cosyne’’ (1, 648), “my neuewe”’ (2, 689), etc., by Arthur, but never by him, by other characters, or by the narrator as “‘sone,’’ or any equiva- lent of the word that would identify him as the offspring of Arthur. Since then Karl Lippe, somewhat obliquely, has disputed my position by stating that From other Arthurian literature we know that Mordred is Arthur’s natural son, the result of an incestuous relationship with his sister. In the AMA [Alliterative Morte Arthure] Mordred is called ‘the Malebranche’ (¢.g., 4062) which obvious- ly hints at his bastardy. . . . Another sign of Mordred’s doubtful birth can be seen in Gawain’s remark ‘of siche a engendure full littyll joye happyns’ (3743)... . Several lines later Gawain again touches upon Mordred’s illegitimacy: ‘Fals fosterde foode, the Fende haue thy bonys:’ (3776)... . As Arthur receives his mortal wounds from Mordred’s sword blows, we can rightly say that he is killed by the fruit of his own sinful deed. In a note to this passage Lippe observes ‘With these rather unam- biguous passages in mind, Ch. L. Regan’s view that there is no proof for Mordred’s illegitimate birth in the AMA has to be rejected... .’” 35 Mordred’s illegitimacy is one matter; his being begotten by Arthur is another. In my note I made no allegation concerning his legitimacy or lack of it. What I did write was that “Indeed, there is no evidence in the text of any connection between the parentage of Mordred and Ar- thur’s fail’’* in the Alliterative Morte Arthure and that ‘‘there is not so much as a hint from either the poet or a character’ that he is the son of Arthur.’ Mordred is presented as the incestuously begotten son of Arthur and his sister (Morgawse, wife of Lot of Orkney) in Arthurian literature of the romance tradition, ¢.g., the Vulgate Morte Artu, the Stanzaic Le Morte Arthur, and Malory’s writings, but not in that of the chronicle tradition, e.g., Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae, Wace’s Roman de Brut, and Layamon’s Brut. In the chronicles he is clearly identified as the king’s nephew, and however the Alliterative Morte Arthure may be viewed, ¢.g., as tragedy or chanson de geste, it is to the chronicle tradi- tion that its narrative material belongs. I maintain the position that I held in my note and would like to add to it additional evidence that I overlooked when I was writing it, evidence that has since been supplied to me by one of my students, Mr. Andrew Benz- miller. In the poem Arthur himself declares, addressing Cador during the Roman war: “ ‘There es no ischewe of vs on this erthe sprongen; / Thow arte apparant to be ayere, are one of thi childre...’” (il. 1943-44). Unless we are expected to36 add prevarication to other sins alleg- ed against the Arthur of the poem, i think we can regard this statement as conclusive evidence that Mordred is Not presented in it as his son. Charles Lionel Regan Boston College 1. “The English Alliterative Romances,” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History, ed. Roger Sherman Loomis (Oxford, 1959), p. 524. 2. “The Paternity of Mordred in the Alliterative Morte Arthure,”” BBSIA, 25 (1973), 153-54, esp. p. 154. 3. Citations of the poem in my text are to The Altiterative “Morte Arthure”’: A Critical Edition, with an Introduction, Notes, and Glossary, ed. Valerie Krishna, Pref. by Rossell Hope Robbins (New York, 1976), 1. 645, 4, “Armorial Bearings and their Meaning,” The Altiterative ‘Morte Arture”’: A Reassess- ment of the Poem, ed. Karl Heinz Goller (Cambridge, 1981), p. 102, 5. Ibid, p. 154, n. 18. 6. “The Paternity of Mordred. . .,”" p. 153. 7. Tbid., p. 154. GRACE NOTES IN RICHARD II] Almost thirty times the textual editor of Richard II} must choose be- tween ‘‘grace,”’ “gracious,” and the like and a virtual synonym in the Quarto or the Folio text. Since these two early texts are accorded almost equal authority today, the textual choice is a bit of a tossup.' On first AN&Q glance, the interpretive implications of such choices are also not all that different. ‘‘Your Grace” and ‘‘Your Majesty” mean about the same thing. Further, like most of the other two thousand substantive and semi- substantive cruxes in this fascinating play, there is no pattern of prefer- ence for ‘‘grace”’ in éither the Quarto or the Folio. The words are also fair- ly evenly scattered through the play, not condensed like some of the other cruxes in one crucial scene or another. However, thirty “graces” more or less in a play in which God’s providence is so often an issue might bear indirectly on the audience's response to that issue. When the choice between ‘‘grace’’ or “‘gracious’’ and “noble,” “‘person,”” “‘virtuous,’’ ‘tyour Lord,’’ “Madame,” “himself,” “loving,” “mighty’” occurs in particularly ironic places, the textual choice becomes more interesting still. A glance at usual understandings of ‘‘grace’’ should enhance our sense of its possible importance in the text. “Grace” can obviously be a title of honor (1 Grace 16 a, b). It can also have several theological meanings: “the free and unmerited favour of God” (1 Grace 11 a); ‘“‘the divine in- fluence which operates in men to regenerate and sanctify” (1 Grace 11 b); “a virtue or excellence divine in its origin’’ (1 Grece 11 e); ‘the con- dition of one who is under such divine influence” (1 Grace 11 d). The title “‘my Grace’? may thus suggest analogies between the grace of worldly lords and the grace of God, however casually it is used. Such lords have received this grace, andCopyright © 2002 EBSCO Publishing