the Roman de toute chevalerie (c. 1174–1200) and the Roman de Horn (1172) for signs of a specifically insular translatio of the Alexander matter. As other scholars have concluded, and Thomas of Kent himself notes, the Roman de toute chevalerie (RTC) draws mostly on Greek sources, the conclusion being that it remains ‘independent of continental Alexander versions’ (p. 152). Despite its faithful borrowings, the RTC idiosyncratically rejects Alexander as a speculum principis, whereas the Horn offers a ‘positive portrayal of decisive kingship’ (p. 180), reflecting Henry II’s consolidation of power over Irish and Anglo-Norman lords. In a study of Alexander narratives in late Middle English in Chapter Five, it becomes clear that romances such as Kyng Alisaunder (KA), Of Arthour and of Merlin (AM), and The Seege or Batayle of Troye (SBT), were all three composed around the same time (c. 1131–40) and were adapted for local audiences who were more interested in romance poetics than ‘instructive learning’ (p. 204). Although the first two draw upon Latin and French sources of the Trojan and Arthurian materials, they tend to simplify the lexical, stylistic, and historical content of the original sources. The SBT also condenses the history of Troy (abbreviato being here an effect of translatio). In pursuing intertextual links between the KA, RTC, AM, and SBT, this chapter shifts the focus away from the transnational dialogue between rewritings of the Alexander material towards a more insular examination of romance poetics. This transnational re-examination of the transmission of the Alexander material proves to be innovative and offers original insights into the aspects of translatio studii hitherto ignored. However, it is important to distinguish between a medieval literaryhistorical tradition, which classifies legendary themes according to cycles belonging to certain countries (as Jean Bodel specifies in his Chanson des Saisnes [c. 1200]), and a modern interpretive framework based on a ‘transnational’ comparative analysis. The application of the concept of translatio to advance such a modern view of medieval transmission of a certain corpus, without some literary-historical scaffolding, remains counter-intuitive to the devolution and exclusionary appropriation of power and culture that defines translatio studii et imperii. A more comprehensive engagement with the codicological context in which some of the Alexander manuscripts appear would have bridged the gaps this interpretive framework creates. As the manuscript and reception contexts of the last cluster of Alexander narratives suggest, the poetics of translatio of the story of the Macedonian king in late medieval England turns out to be more local than transnational.

中文翻译：

---

教授意大利文艺复兴时期的浪漫史诗版。通过乔安卡瓦洛

Roman de toute chevalerie (c. 1174–1200) 和 Roman de Horn (1172) 象征着对亚历山大物质的特别孤立的翻译。正如其他学者所得出的结论，以及肯特的托马斯本人所指出的，罗马骑士骑士 (RTC) 主要借鉴希腊文献，结论是它仍然“独立于大陆的亚历山大版本”（第 152 页）。尽管忠实地借用了它，但 RTC 特殊地拒绝了亚历山大作为窥镜原理，而号角提供了“决定性王权的正面写照”（第 180 页），反映了亨利二世对爱尔兰和盎格鲁-诺曼领主的权力的巩固。在第五章对中古英语晚期亚历山大叙事的研究中，很明显，诸如 Kyng Alisaunder (KA)、Of Arthour and of Merlin (AM) 和 The Seege or Batayle of Troye (SBT) 等浪漫故事变得清晰起来，这三部曲大约在同一时间（约 1131-40 年）创作，适用于对浪漫诗学比对“教育性学习”更感兴趣的当地观众（第 204 页）。虽然前两个借鉴了特洛伊和亚瑟王材料的拉丁语和法语来源，但它们倾向于简化原始资料的词汇、文体和历史内容。SBT 也浓缩了特洛伊的历史（这里的缩写是翻译的结果）。在追求 KA、RTC、AM 和 SBT 之间的互文联系时，本章将重点从亚历山大材料重写之间的跨国对话转移到对浪漫诗学的更加孤立的审查。这种对亚历山大材料传播的跨国重新审查证明是创新的，并提供了对迄今为止被忽视的翻译研究方面的独到见解。然而，重要的是要区分中世纪的文学历史传统，它根据属于某些国家的周期对传奇主题进行分类（正如让·博德尔在他的 Chanson des Saisnes [c. 1200] 中所指出的那样）和基于“跨国的比较分析。应用翻译的概念来推进某种语料库的中世纪传播的这种现代观点，没有一些文学历史支架，仍然与定义翻译研究和帝国的权力和文化的下放和排他性挪用背道而驰。更全面地参与一些亚历山大手稿出现的编纂学背景将弥合这一解释框架造成的差距。正如最后一组亚历山大叙事的手稿和接收背景所表明的那样，中世纪晚期英格兰马其顿国王故事的翻译诗学更具有地方性而不是跨国性。