INTRODUCTION

The period between the mid-nineteenth century and the eve of the Second World War is often represented as one of transition for the British state: from small, laissez-faire government to embryonic modern government, that of the managed-mixed economy and welfare state which has endured – albeit much changed – to the present day. This transition necessarily entailed a transformation in terms of government’s scale, scope and impact upon the economy, which, in turn, was underpinned by a transformation in the accepted role of government in the economy. The proper role of government is a perennial of political and economic discourse, but from the classical economists onwards it has been understood in terms of the cardinal choice that all societies must make: that concerning ‘the degree to which markets or governments – each with their respective flaws – should determine the allocation, use and distribution of resources in the economy’ (Wolf 1993: 7). For the classical economists, as for mainstream economists today, this cardinal choice between government or market starts from the presumption that markets are instrumentally superior and then proceeds by way of politics and history to investigate how and why in practice there occurred shifting conceptions of markets’ and governments’ capabilities which justified disturbing the status quo and which resulted in this long-term trend towards big government.

In a telling phrase, Okun (1975: 119) noted that ‘the market needs a place, and the market needs to be kept in its place’. The primary purpose of this chapter is to establish how and why those boundaries were set, at what level of government and with what consequences for efficiency and equity, the twin benchmarks by which government’s economic role is routinely assessed.

Manuscripts of the Lancelot-Grail Cycle were widely available throughout Europe during the Middle Ages. They were produced in large numbers from the first half of the thirteenth century, when the individual texts were composed and the Cycle brought into being, until the first years of the sixteenth century, by which time they were being superseded by the succession of printed editions that had begun with the Lancelot of 1488. As one would expect, most of the manuscripts were written in northern France, but significant numbers were made on the fringes of French-speaking territory, in areas such as England, southern France and Italy, where part of the population had French as their native language and part did not. The manuscripts circulated freely within France itself (north and south) and frequently passed to neighbouring areas, including those that were not French-speaking. The movement of manuscripts in the opposite direction, from surrounding regions to northern France, was doubtless much less common, and there is virtually no evidence for it until the very end of the medieval period.

The manuscripts themselves were of various types, some relatively small, much the same size as modern books, others extremely large and in several volumes. Some were written in haste, others with great care. Many of the survivors are richly decorated with miniatures and other artwork, whilst others are entirely plain. The high proportion of extant manuscripts with miniatures is not likely to be an accurate reflection of the original state of affairs. Their status as luxury items, as well as any interest aroused by the paintings themselves, will have tended to preserve the illustrated books in greater numbers, whereas the copies containing nothing but text (in a language that was becoming increasingly difficult to understand) could be discarded with few qualms, or replaced by the more convenient printed editions.

There are approximately 220 surviving manuscripts and larger fragments of the various texts that make up the Lancelot-Grail Cycle. The majority are in France and have probably been there ever since they were written, but 42 (including 3 fragments) are now in England or Wales, 2 now in France were probably in England during the Middle Ages, and a further 25 were in England during the nineteenth century before returning to the Continent or moving on to the United States or Japan. Thus, nearly a third of the survivors have been in England or Wales at some time.

CHRETIEN'S WORKS AS A ‘SOURCE’ FOR LATER ARTHURIAN POETS

A continuation to Labouderie's version of the Chastoiement d'un père à son fils contains two substantial passages from older texts; the first derives from Partonopeus, whilst the second has been taken from the fragmentary Arthurian romance of Hunbaut (lines 2414–640). The author of the Chastoiement has incorporated the Arthurian poet's words into his own work with only minor changes and abbreviations. Similarly, extracts from Wace's Brut, the Lai de Narcissus, the Lai du conseil, Athis et Prophilias, Partonopeus, Erec, Yvain and Perceval reappear in Cristal et Clarie, a romance of adventure. Both these works exemplify a technique of composition which by modern standards one might justifiably call plagiarism, but without wishing thereby to vilify the procedure as objectionable and as both legally and morally reprehensible. There are after all certain qualitative distinctions to be observed in the type of such borrowings made by other authors and in their evaluation. It is well known that Jean de Meung incorporates various translations and reworkings of Latin poems into his Roman de la Rose. They could always be readily identified as such by his contemporaries, and they were used in pursuit of a more important goal. Jean de Meung makes no claim that the borrowed passages are the products of his own creativity, but this is precisely what the author of the Chastoiement does when he works 200 lines of an obscure poem, a largely unknown and moreover incomplete Arthurian romance, into his own text.