English 83

We’ve briefly mentioned Wace, who ca. 1160 wrote Roman de Brut – a French (Romanz) translations of Geoffrey’s Latin Historia. Wace’s Brut is part translation, part expansion on Geoffrey intended for Breton-French audience who were curious about the Breton connections to the stories of Arthur of Britain. It’s important I think to remember that our written records of Arthuriana from the Middle Ages don’t tell the whole story: Geoffrey did not create out of nothing (his putative ancient book notwithstanding); there were certainly very active oral traditions of Arthurian and other tales of Britain which formed the basis of the Romances we have in writing today. Commerce and political connections between northern France and Southern England ensured the transmission and enduring popularity of the matter of Britain throughout the Continent (as witnessed by the visual arts – the Archivolt of Modena, an Italian representation of Arthur from the early 1100s).

A demand for both classical tales (such as the story of Troy), and Arthurian materials in the vernacular gave rise to the works of poets such as Wace, and Chretien de Troyes. In 12th C. France, there was a Roman d’Eneas, a Roman de Troie, for example. So the rise of Romance is not limited to the Arthurian matter. These poetic romances, probably unlike the Latin works of Geoffrey, would have been recited aloud, which is to be distinguished from the oral performance of the jongleurs, whom Chretien accuses of mangling the stories.

“This is the tale of Erec, son of Lac, which those who try to live by storytelling customarily mangle and corrupt [Depecier et corrompre] before kings and counts” (37).

So, Chretien clearly feels himself to be undertaking something important: oral traditions are untrustworthy – nevermind history; that is not what we are up to here. It’s fiction that is important, but there’s a right way to tell the story, and a wrong way, according to Chretien. What’s also important to Chretien here is that he is engaged in a grand project of translating the traditions of “chivalry” and “courtesy” from the classical world to France of his time; France (and its client kingdom, England) are the inheritors of classical power and its traditions. From the prologue to Cligés:

Through the books we have, we learn of the deeds of ancient peoples and of bygone days. Our books have taught us that chivalry and learning [clergie] first flourished in Greece, then to Rome came chivalry and the sum of knowledge, which now has come to France. May God grant that it be maintained here . . . God merely lent it to others: no one speaks any more of the Greeks and Romans; their fame has grown silent and their glowing ember has gone out (123).

Chretien is here referencing an idea known as ‘translatio et studii imperii’ – I commend you to Debora Schwartz’s very helpful webpage on this concept. What was meant by the word “chivalry” back then? Maurice Keen wrote the definitive study of chivalry: but it often boils down to prowess (on the battlefied, in the tournament); loyalty (to one’s lord, to a lover); and generosity (gifts and exchanges having a kind of symbolic power).
In any event, Chretien is claiming the mantle of both chivalry and learning for France, and significantly, for the vernacular – is he asserting the death of Latin and Greek and the rise of a new language (French)? Or perhaps bemoaning their decline?

Finally, to the marginalization of Arthur: it’s impossible to miss, after reading Geoffrey of Monmouth. What do you make of this? What functions does Arthur serve in Erec and Enide? Why move away from the story of a warlord with imperial ambitions to the stories of the noblemen who are connected to his court? And why the new emphasis on love?