1
From Stage to Page: In Celebration of Queen and Author
In November 1514 the city of Paris celebrated the coronation of Queen Mary Tudor by organizing an entry in her honor. Sister of King Henry VIII, Mary Tudor had been offered to the French king in marriage as a prize for his diplomatic achievements in negotiating a treaty with England. His third bride, Mary represented Louis XII’s last hope of producing a male heir. On November 6th, the day after her coronation, the new queen processed with her entourage down the rue Saint-Denis to Notre Dame and then the Palais Royal, where a banquet was held on her behalf. Along the entry route, Mary Tudor and her party halted at seven different sites to view living theaters that had been produced under the direction of Pierre Gringore[1] [SLIDE left]. These theaters were multi-media events par excellence, for they orchestrated visual, textual and oral performances simultaneously. As stagings of allegorical figures and symbols whose interrelationships were designed to convey a political or moralistic message associated with the queen or the royal couple, Gringore’s entry theaters were striking visual experiences. What dominated their visual landscape, at a time of growing uncertainty over the king’s future and anxiety about his foreign-born queen,[2] was the representation of the peace treaty and the royal union it had engendered. Many of the theaters, even those staged at the traditionally religious sites, presented political allegories that celebrated the alliance of France and England through the new European peace.[3]
Gringore’s tableaux vivants also transmitted information through texts, because Latin inscriptions that had inspired his entry theaters and French verses and translations that explained their meaning were displayed on many of the stages, or échafauds.[4] In addition, at nearly every site an actor, often called the expositeur, provided an oral elucidation of the meaning of the scene for his spectators.[5] Gringore’s multi-media events thus offered the public three levels of discourse - oral (in French) and textual (in French and in Latin) –, suggesting that the author was accommodating three different audiences simultaneously.
To commemorate the event, Gringore had produced an illuminated manuscript book of Mary Tudor’s entry, which he dedicated to the queen herself. It is housed today in the British Library under the call number Cottonian ms. Vespasian B. II.[6] Gringore’s account of Mary Tudor’s entry presented the urban ceremonial from an entirely different angle than previous entry books. Unlike earlier narratives that had depicted the ceremonies and rituals that figured the queen as protagonist, Gringore’s entry book reconstructed the perspective Mary Tudor would have shared with the Parisian populace as spectator of his entry tableaux. Thanks to his role as entry director, Gringore was able to reconstitute the visual, textual and oral dimensions of his theaters, albeit in slightly different configurations than the original performances. For the first time, the entry theaters themselves defined the raison d’être of a French entry book.
Other important differences distinguish Gringore’s rendition from conventional chronicles. From the outset of his account of Mary Tudor’s entry – as well as that of Claude de France three years later -, the author, who did not hold an official court position, took center stage on behalf of his own artistic creations. In a dedication to the queen, he explained that he had been commissioned by city officials to organize all of the entry theaters. This action alone set a new precedent in Paris, whose officials had never commissioned one person to orchestrate these events.[7] Moreover, what compelled Gringore to write his accounts was the publication of untruthful and unreliable versions of the 1514 entry. Placed in the unique position of redacting an account of a royal entry whose theaters he had organized, Gringore thus addressed the queen to set the record straight. In order to appreciate fully this self-promotional intervention, allow me to reconstruct briefly Gringore’s profile up to this point in time.
Pierre Gringore was one of the most self-consciously active French authors of the early sixteenth century. As the first vernacular writer to have his very first works printed, Gringore ensured recognition of nearly all of his writings with an acrostic signature at the end of his texts, beginning with his Chasteau de Labour in 1499 [SLIDES left and right]. The same publication team that had produced his first book, the printer Philippe Pigouchet and bookseller Simon Vostre, brought out his second work as well, the Chasteau d’Amours,in 1500 [SLIDE left, BLANK right]. Gringore again punctuated the publication with his acrostic signature [SLIDE right]. In addition, he included acrostics identifying the last name of his printer and first and last names of his bookseller. However, in two later editions of this same work, the printer Michel Le Noir appropriated Gringore’s acrostic signature, replacing it with his own [SLIDES left and right]. This unauthorized behavior likely explains Gringore’s subsequent defensive actions. The author’s name appeared paratextually for the first time in the October 1505 publication of his Complainte de Trop Tard Marié [SLIDES left and right]. Information provided in the colophon indicates not only that Gringore authored the work, but that it was printed for him as well. Gringore had thus taken up the role of publisher. A few months later, in December 1505, Gringore became the first known vernacular writer in France to obtain a privilege for the publication of his Folles Entreprises [SLIDE left, BLANK right]. As yet another sign of his increasing involvement in the reproduction of his own writings, the “ordonnance de justice” that the author had obtained granted him control over the printing and distribution of the Folles Entreprises for one year. The incorporation of this early version of a privilege into the colophon of his edition of the work publicly authenticated Gringore’s title to his own words and implicitly announced to book producers and purchasers alike his consciousness concerning issues of literary property and propriety. The use of a personalized woodcut on the title page of the Folles Entreprises [SLIDE right] and of other first editions of many of his other works [SLIDE left] likewise confirmed Gringore’s intent to ensure recognition of his authorship. This image depicts Gringore in his well-known dramatic role of Mère Sotte, or Mother Folly, a conventional character of the theatrical troupe called the Enfants sans souci. The appearance of the author’s address below the woodcut indicates that he also sold copies of the Folles Entreprises. Gringore’s alter ego reappeared time and again on the title page of many of his subsequent works, even those whose publication he did not control [SLIDES left and right].
As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Gringore’s association with the publishing industry, evidenced through these textual and paratextual signs and documents, firmly established his position at the forefront of an informal French movement that sought to preserve authorial rights over literary texts some thirty years after the advent of the printing press to France.[8] And yet, unlike his contemporaries André de la Vigne, who initiated a lawsuit against the printer Michel Le Noir,[9] and Jean Bouchet, who not only sued the publisher Antoine Vérard but also attacked printers in his published work,[10] Gringore’s critical challenge to printers and publishers during the first decade of the 16th century remained essentially implicit, embedded as it was in the paratext of his publications. The paratextual material he introduced into his printed books announced his “ownership” and control over his works without directly attacking the publishers of them.
Gringore’s campaign on behalf of his works finds explicit expression, however, in the offensive posture he adopts in his royal entry account of 1514. In his dedication to Mary Tudor, he openly attacks distorted printed accounts of the queen’s entry that had already appeared. Gringore claims to provide the accurate version of events, because as the official director of the entry theaters, he was not writing based on hearsay, like those he criticized [SLIDE left, BLANK right]:
Treshaulte, magnanime, vertueuse, illustrissime dame et princesse Marie d’Angleterre, royne de France. Pierre Gringore, vostre subgiect obedient, simple aprentiz des rethoriciens, eloquens orateurs, facteurs et compositeurs modernes en françoys, a consideré que aucuns expositeurs se sont ingerez publier en impression la reception que vous firent messeigneurs les prevost des marchans et eschevins de la ville de Paris, acompaignez des bourgoys, marchans, cytoiens et habitans d’icelle ville. Et ce voyant qu’ilz n’ont descript vostre triumphante et magnificque entree selon la verité, mais en ont parlé par ouyr dire, attendu que j’ay eu charge par messeigneurs les tresoriers de France et de mesditz seigneurs de la ville inventer et composer les misteres faictz a vostre dicte entree et reception, ay bien voulu descripre et rediger en hystoire ce qui a esté fait en icelle ville tant a l’honneur du roy du royaume que de vous. Obmettant et delaissant les triumphes des princes, ducz, contes, barons, chevaliers et escuyers tant de France que d’Angleterre et me taire de la vostre excellente (fol. 3v) gravité, honnesteté, gratieuseté qui attroyoit le populaire a vostre amour en desirant la prosperité du roy trescrestien, dont vous avez acquis le tiltre de trescrestienne, que de vous ne aussi du triumphe des nobles dames, princesses et damoiselles tant de France que d’Angleterre. Mais seullement des triumphes faictes en icelle ville le jour de vostre reception et entree, qui fut le sixiesme jour de novembre mil cinq cens quatorze.
Very noble, magnanimous, virtuous, very illustrious lady and princess Mary of England, Queen of France. Pierre Gringore, your obediant subject, simple apprentice of rhetoricians, eloquent orators, modern writers and composers in French, has considered the fact that several have taken it upon themselves to describe in print the reception given you by the eminent provost of merchants and officials of the city of Paris, along with this city’s burghers, merchants, citizens and inhabitants. And seeing that they have not described your triumphant and magnificent entry according to the truth, but have spoken of it through hearsay; [and] given the fact that I was charged by the eminent Treasurers of France and by my aforementioned lords of the city[11] to create and write the mystery plays performed at your entry and reception, I have decided to describe and write down an account of what transpired in this city in honor of the king of the kingdom as much as in your honor. Omitting and passing over the pomp and majesty associated with the princes, dukes, counts, barons, knights and squires of both France and England and omitting mention of your excellent solemnity, honesty, [and] graciousness, which draws the people to your love in desiring the prosperity of [our] Very Christian King, from whom you have acquired the title of “Very Christian” Queen, as well as any mention of the splendor associated with the noble ladies, princesses, and maidens of both France and England, [mention shall be made] only of the celebration made in this city the day of your reception and entry, which was November 6, 1514.
Stepping in to re-appropriate his work from the misrepresented versions of anonymous chroniclers, Gringore borrows strategies from his earlier challenge to printers and publishers but from a more overtly defiant stance. Still staging his attack in the paratextual space of his work, the author seeks this time to protect and control the reproduction of his performances, whose oral and visual dimensions made them significantly more susceptible to misrepresentation and misinterpretation than the printed texts of his own words. Moreover, for the first time Gringore embraces the manuscript culture in order to control his creations. It offered him a more personalized means of addressing the queen, whose sponsorship he was very likely seeking. For even though he had dedicated his printed works to prominent nobles, Gringore had been unsuccessful in obtaining patronage. In addition, the manuscript culture was more suited to Gringore’s efforts to control performances, because it allowed for a more faithful visual reproduction of them. [BLANK left]
Gringore’s careful reconstruction of his entry theaters in the queen’s dedication manuscript thus provides unique insight into his original performances and includes the first known miniatures of French entry theaters.[12] One striking aspect of these theaters that Gringore’s account exposes is the prominent role that texts played. The “textual performance” so integral to Gringore’s theaters was, however, inextricably associated with other aspects of his dramas. For in reconstructing the original “oral performance” associated with his allegorical tableaux, that ephemeral dimension of live theater, Gringore resorted to “written expression.” The textual and oral dimensions of his original stagings were further enhanced through the manuscript book’s illuminations, recreations of the original “visual performances.” Venturing into the sphere of manuscripts, as he so rarely did,[13] while simultaneously imbued with the culture of printed books, which he knew well by 1514, and the world of theater, with which the larger public most readily identified him,[14] Gringore inevitably brought a consciousness of texts and drama to the original performances of his entry theaters and to his reconfiguration of them in manuscript form.
Recognizing the “page” as both dramatic tableau and manuscript folio, I wish to argue that Gringore’s entry theaters, as defined through his account of them, were essentially decorated book folios which the queen “read” as she made her entry through Paris in 1514. By the same token, the illuminated manuscript account that Gringore dedicated to Queen Mary Tudor contained its own codicological dramas, including the painted reproductions of Gringore’s tableaux vivants and the artistic mises-en-scène of poetic texts that had originally been exhibited on stage or orally transmitted. In this sense, both the entry theaters and their manuscript reconstructions can be defined as “books in performance.” By controlling the performance on both stage and page, Gringore, as author and authority, threatened to upstage the original protagonist, Mary Tudor herself.
*****
Four descriptions of the 1514 entry theaters provide detailed evidence of Gringore’s use of texts on stage. These include the tableaux vivants erected at the Trinity, the Church of the Holy Innocents, the Châtelet and the Palais Royal. An examination of the display of French and Latin texts at these sites, their relationship with the oral and visual performances on the same stages and the interrelated reconstruction of these dramatic components into the queen’s entry book uncovers the mise-en-page of Gringore’s stagings and his mise-en-scène of the entry theaters in the illuminated manuscript account.
Written on stage at the Trinity site the day of the entry, for example, was the following rondeau, a description of the dramatic representation of the biblical story of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon created on stage in honor of Mary Tudor’s own journey from England to France. [SLIDES left and right]
Rondeau.[15]
Noble Sabba, dame de renommee,
Est venue veoir Salomon le tressaige,
Qui l’a receue d’ung amoureux couraige:
Par sur toutes l’a prisee et aymee. 4
C’est la royne de vertus enflamee,
Belle et bonne, vertueuse en langaige,
¶Noble Sabba.
Le trescrestien, sachant qu’elle est famee, 8
A prins plaisir veoir en son heritaige
Le beau present de paix; vray mariage
C’est ensuyvy, dont elle est estimee,
¶Noble Sab[b]a.12
While Gringore does not reveal exactly how the verses were displayed on stage,[16] they contributed significantly to the drama, not only because their very physical presence would have been difficult to ignore, but also because they clarified the meaning of the figures in the scene before spectators. Only the rondeau exhibited on stage clearly introduced the biblical scenario.[17] In addition, references in the poem to “la royne” (v. 5), “le trescrestien” (v. 8), a term associated only with the French monarch, “paix” and “vray mariage” (v. 10) would have signalled to the alert – and literate - spectator the implicit analogy being made between the queen of Sheba and Mary Tudor.[18]
The reconfiguration of this rondeau in the queen’s manuscript book (fols. 6v-7r) stands out visually in several ways [SLIDES left and right]. First, the distinction between the transcription of verse and prose on the manuscript folio immediately signals a change of discourse. This particular generic transition represents just one scene of the extraordinary visual drama that repeats itself throughout Mary Tudor’s manuscript entry book, for verse insertions interrupt the flow of Gringore’s prose narration fifteen times, an average of once per folio.[19] In every case, the shift from prose narration to versified text marks the movement back in time from the post-entry reconstruction of events – in prose -- to the real-time performances – in verse form. Gringore thereby enriched his historical account by adding a layer of prose discourse to his reconstituted performances to further explicate the meaning of his own entry theaters and to introduce himself as post-entry narrator or acteur into the “action.”[20]